I rise, Sir, to place on record certain facts and at the same time to give certain hon. members the privilege of proving their bona fides to me. If they fail to do that, they must accept that from now on they will be personae non gratae in all discussions with me in future.

On 9th March, three members of the Opposition requested an informal interview with me with the object of discussing the Port Elizabeth transport problem. I granted them this interview. At the discussion they informed me that they were in full agreement with the letter written to the member for Walmer. This letter reads as follows—

In terms of section 6 (1) (c) of the Motor Carrier Transportation Act. 1930, as amended, it is the function and duty of a local road transportation board to receive and consider applications for motor carrier certificates or for amendment of such certificates and, subject to the provisions of the Act, in its discretion to refuse such applications or to grant them in full or in part. Furthermore, in terms of section 7 (2) (b) of Act No. 39 of 1930, a local board is empowered to lay down the scale of charges upon the grant of a certificate and in its discretion on application by the holder of the certificate, to alter such charges.

The National Transport Commission will only deal with a matter if an appeal is noted against the local board’s decision.

A local board considers such applications on merit and gives judgment thereon with due regard to the provisions of Act 39 of 1930 and any representations that may have been submitted to it in support of or in opposition to such application.

The application for the increase of bus fares in Port Elizabeth was published in the Government Gazette, dated 22nd January, 1971. Any person interested in the proposed increase of fares could have gained access to such further information as may directly have affected him and which may have been furnished by the applicant in connection with the application. Any such person would also have been allowed to appear before the local Road Transportation Board. Port Elizabeth, and to make representations verbally at the meeting when the application was considered.

In conclusion I may add that local road transportation boards and the National Transport Commission are autonomous bodies and neither the Minister of Transport nor the Deputy Minister can interfere with their decisions.

Sir, I also want the hon. member for Green Point to note the relevant provisions of the Act. I also informed the three hon. members that since this letter had been written I had received certain information from the Secretary for Transport. I actually read this information out to them. It is as follows—

This letter is dated the 9th. It continues—

I therefore informed the hon. members that this case was sub judice. Let me now quote a report in the Sunday Times of 14th March, 1971. This report refers to the Coloured township of Gelvandale. Let me read only the following paragraph—

*Sir, if ever a lie was sent out into the world, then it was this one in which the Sunday Times told the world that an increase in bus fares had been granted over the heads of the Coloured people. This was actually done in a dishonest manner, as is insinuated in this article, without the people who have to pay those fares, being afforded any opportunity of expressing their objections. That is how I know the Sunday Times, Sir. It is no wonder that some people are calling it the “Sunday Liar” nowadays.

†I want to come back to the hon. members to whom I have already referred.

Who are they?

You will hear just now. To my amazement, Sir, notwithstanding the fact that I told the hon. members that the Port Elizabeth dispute was sub judice, the next morning, the 10th of March, the Cape Times published the lie as follows—

Let me state it clearly: “… in an attempt to end the Coloured bus dispute”.

That would be a statesmanlike thing to do.

The next morning I tried to contact the three members, but only the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central was still in Cape Town. He disputed the report and even went so far as to mention that he phoned the newspaper reporter and in no uncertain terms denied the correctness of the report. This was done by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central.

*I told the hon. member about my Press statement, and I think I should give it to this House so that hon. members may know in future what the functions of the National Transport Commission are. It reads as follows (translation)—

And you should note the dates, Sir—

The National Transport Commission, under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Transport, would hear and dispose of these appeals at any time. Furthermore …

And it is important for you to listen to this, Sir—

I want to say that hon. members were entitled to say that I was going to Port Elizabeth and that I would be prepared to have talks there with the Mayor or the City Council on the overall transport problems in Port Elizabeth, but not on this matter of bus transport. But after I had said this to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and he had shown me in writing what the thoughts were which hon. members had conveyed to the local newspapers, and with which I agreed, I nevertheless found the following report in the Rand Daily Mail the following day—

And that must include all three of these members of the House of Assembly—

I want to make this very clear.

Did they only refer to Mr. Van Zyl Cillié?

They only mentioned the name of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, but the heading referred to M.P.s, and the only M.P.s are the three M.P.s who had an interview with me. That is why I say that the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and his two colleagues still have the opportunity to put this matter straight in the course of this debate.

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether or not the Cape Times corrected that report which was wrong according to him.

On 10th March the Cape Times said the following—

The bus dispute is concerned with this particular increase and nothing else.

But surely you made another statement subsequent to that?

Subsequent to that I made a statement in order to put the matter straight.

In that case, what is your point?

The point is that after I had corrected this matter, the Rand Daily Mail, on the authority of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, queried the correction I had made and repeated that this article, which was published by the Cape Times and which was wrong, was in fact correct.

Shame!

No, it is not a case of “shame”; it is a fact. Hon. members of this House of Assembly should not put into the mouth of a Deputy Minister words which infringe and cast doubts upon the autonomy of the Road Transportation Board and the National Transport Commission, for then the Act does not mean a thing. At a later stage I shall come back to the functions of the Road Transportation Board and the National Transport Commission when I reply to the charge made by the hon. member for Green Point.

Sir, now I come to the hon. member for Salt River, who was the main speaker on the Opposition side at the start of this debate. The hon. member made three points: He said that the South African Airways had to take over the control over our airports; secondly, he requested that more navigational aids be made available by the Airways, and, thirdly, he made the charge that there was no planning at our airports. Sir, I have never heard a more unpatriotic speech being made in regard to our airports in South Africa. In connection with our airports the hon. member said. “It is a disgrace.”

Is it not?

Sir. I shall reply to that in detail. I want to deal first with the first aspect, i.e. the hon. member’s statement that the Railways and the South African Airways should take over and control the airports.

And now he does not listen.

No, now he allows the Whip to dictate to him: he does not listen. Sir, may I please have the attention of the hon. member for Salt River? The Railways, the Airways and the Post Office are run on a business footing. I want the hon. member to take cognisance of that. The Railways builds its own railway lines and stations. Unlike the Railways, which has a monopoly of railway transport, the Airways is but one of the many other airlines using the airports. It has no more say than has any of the others, except for the fact that we see to it that, where possible, our own Airways has preference. The Airways is out and out an airline. It has to build hangars for housing its aircraft and maintaining them. However, it would be wrong if the country’s airline also had control over the airports, whilst there are numerous other airlines which are also using the airports. Unlike the Airways an airport is not a business concern, but a national or international organization which, on an equitable basis, provides in the needs of all the other airlines which have acquired rights locally. That is the principal reason why the airports ought not to be linked with a specific airline, but why the State, i.e. the Department of Transport, should provide such airlines with these facilities. I want to say at once that there is no lack of the necessary and essential co-ordination between the South African Airways and the Department of Transport in regard to our airports.

Sir, before reacting specifically to the charge made by the hon. member, I want to refer very briefly to the navigational aids which the hon. member requested. I am going to mention only a few of them. I think that South Africa can be very proud of the navigational aids that have already been provided. South Africa compares well with all the other countries in the world. It is essential for this to be placed on record, for this matter concerns the safety of our entire airline in South Africa. I am only going to take three airports as examples.

In the first place, we have at Bloemfontein (at the J. B. M. Hertzog airport), a flight information centre. I want to explain the abbreviations now and merely refer to them later on, for these are international terms. NDB (main), with high power, is in service there. The abbreviation stands for non-directional beacon. Secondly, VOR/DME means very high frequency omnidirectional range and distance-measuring equipment. Then there is the abbreviation TACAN: tactical air navigation system. I just want to mention that all this equipment is already in service at those airports. VDF, very high frequency direction-finding equipment, is also in service there. SRE is the surveillance radar element. The order for that equipment has been placed and it will come into operation in 1971-’72. We are still dealing with Bloemfontein only. R/T means radio telephony, and that is connected with aerodrome control, route and long-distance BHF. At the moment we have both the low and the high power in service at all three of these airports. A teleprinter from that airport to Jan Smuts, Cape Town, Kimberley, Maseru, Port Elizabeth, Upington. Keetmanshoop, Windhoek and Welkom is already in service. A W/T (radio telegraphy) point-to point system with high power, is already available. Telephonic communication from this airport is already available to Bloem-spruit, Jan Smuts, Kimberley, Port Elizabeth and Welkom. This is already in service. Runway lights of low intensity are already in service at both runways. VASI (visual approach slope indicator) is already in service at runways 02 and 20. Those at runways 12 and 30 will be installed in 1971-72. I am not going to deal with the airport at Durban. I am only going to point out what we have at the D. F. Malan and Jan Smuts airports.

At Jan Smuts we have the following equipment. I have already furnished the relevant abbreviations. NDB, high power, in service. Localizer with low power is in service at Hartebeestpoortdam, Meyerton and at New Largo. VOR/DME, i.e. very high frequency non-directional beacon distance measuring equipment, is in service. VOR (Hartebeestpoortdam) will be installed in 1971-72. ILS, i.e. instrument landing system, is already in service. TACAN, which I have already mentioned, is already in service. VDF is already in service. SRE is already in service. SSR, i.e. a secondary radar element, is being planned for 1972-73. Furthermore, aerodrome control with low power and Route (with SELCAL) and long distance BHF, with high power, are also in service. SELCAL is the selective calling system. All of these are already in service. A teleprinter is in service from that airport to, for instance, Bloemfontein, Durban, Gabarones, Cape Town, Lourenço Marques, Matsapa, Phalaborwa, Pretoria ABL, Salisbury and Waterkloof. In addition a radio telephone to Kinshasa is already in service. Telephones to Bloemfontein, Dunnottar, Durban, Germiston,

Pretoria ABL, Pietersburg, Swartkop, Waterkloof and Wonderboom are already in service. The W/T, i.e. point-to-point radio telegraphy with high power, is already in service there. Two runways have high intensity runway lights in service, whereas one of them has low intensity runway lights in service. In this way the centre-line lights on the main runway will also be put into service in 1972. Approach lights (full Calvert in southern approach to main runway) will be installed in 1972. VASI is already in service at runways 21, 09, 27 and 33. It will be installed at runways 03 and 15 in 1971. Then there is also the light beacon service. I am only mentioning these two airports. If there are any questions on the D. F. Malan airport, I shall gladly deal with them. I am mentioning these safety navigational aids because the hon. member cast doubts on the navigational aids which we have in South Africa. I want to tell hon. members that the aids which we have in South Africa for navigational purposes, are not only on a par with the best, but also amongst the best in the world. That is Why we have this fine record of safety and safe landings in South Africa.

Now, the hon. member for Salt River also referred to planning, etc. I want to tell hon. members that I believe that in all the years during which I have been in this House, I have never listened to a debate which commenced on as low a level as the level on which the hon. member for Salt River introduced this debate. The hon. member started so low that he could not descend any lower, but could only go higher. However, he never went any higher. He started by launching an attack on the inefficiency of the airports and concentrated on the D. F. Malan and Jan Smuts airports. He said they were a disgrace. As hon. members are aware, major building operations are in progress at both of these airports. As a result one must expect to find some red dust, sheets of corrugated iron, etc., there. Such things are to be seen anywhere in the world where building operations are in progress. When the Jan Smuts airport was planned, and after that, experts of my department often went abroad in order to make a study of the airports of the world.

In fact, I myself had the opportunity to take a look at three of these airports.

Did you also get a chance?

I know that hon. member is very jealous because he is not up to much and cannot do anything. He goes through the world with his eyes closed.

It will interest hon. members to know that, for instance, at Geneva, while that airport was under construction, the building plans were altered on various occasions and that extensive alterations were made to the building under construction in order to adapt to the rapid development of aviation. Now the hon. member says—

The hon. member says that half of the building had to be demolished. Surely that is untrue, and the hon. member knows that it is untrue.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may the hon. the Deputy Minister say “it is untrue and he knows it is untrue”?

Order! Did the hon. the Deputy Minister say that the hon. member knew it was untrue?

Yes.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw it.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw it. Then I say it is untrue. The hon. member ought to know it is untrue.

Order! Once I have said that the hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw those words, then he must not repeat them.

In that case I say it is untrue. If the hon. member were as interested as all that, he had the opportunity of going to the Department of Public Works and asking for the plans so that he could see what was being done at the D. F. Malan airport. If he had done that, he could have come to this House with positive criticism. But he did not do that. He does not know what is being done there at all. He simply wants to level criticism here, without being able to substantiate it. It is a fact that certain parts of the building had to be altered so as to adapt to circumstances which nobody could have foreseen. That does not only happen here. As I have tried to explain, those things happen owing to the rapid development in the sphere of aviation, and they take place all over the world. What does the hon. member want us to do? Should we, having received a projection of the new developments, simply have ignored them and proceeded with the building, as it was at that stage, only to be saddled later on with the further increased costs entailed in building again, or should we have kept pace with these developments? After all. an airport is a living organism which grows along with the Airways. The costs incurred in respect of the alterations made to the building, were essential and are justifiable. If hon. members ask me for them, I can furnish them with the figures. It is not a question of “lack of planning”, as was said by the hon. member, but a question of constant adjustment in order to adapt the building operations, as they progress, to the requirements of circumstances, so that the building may not be obsolete by the time it has been completed. The hon. member also said, “I am ashamed of the D. F. Malan airport; it is a disgrace. I see the paltry bit of building that is going on there. It is a disgrace to think that they have to put up a prefabricated building to meet international standards.” These are the words which the hon. member used here. That merely goes to show up the hon. member’s ignorance. In the first place, the international hall is not a “prefabricated” building but, on the contrary, a very sophisticated pre-constructed building. [Laughter.] The hon. members are laughing, but that shows up their ignorance once again. This is a building which complies with the best standards. And then the hon. member refers to “a lack of facilities”, without specifying what “facilities”. All I have received so far was praise and appreciation for those parts of the building which are in service already.

I should like to put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

The hon. member should just give me a chance to finish and then he can put as many questions as he pleases. Then there will also be time for hon. members to make speeches. While the existing building is being converted so as to meet modern requirements for aviation, the international hall is being used, when there are no international flights, for letting through incoming, domestic passengers. This is being done very successfully and has greatly relieved the position at the existing building, where the building operations are still taking up certain parts of the building.

With considerable inconvenience to the passengers.

That is what the hon. member says, yes. The hon. member should rather listen. Incoming passengers, from both domestic and international flights, are processed through the airport, from the aircraft, within a minimum of time. It has never taken international passengers longer than 20 minutes to go through the airport. Can hon. members show me any other place in the world where this is being done within a shorter period of time? In this manner between 100 and 139 passengers are being taken through the airport procedure, and if one thinks of all the formalities, i.e. customs, visas, etc., that have to be finalized, this is indeed a feat. By way of interjection the hon. member said that those building alterations were being made with considerable inconvenience to the passengers. It takes domestic passengers between 12 and 15 minutes to dispose of all the formalities at the airport.

The hon. member for Salt River said that one could not meet one’s guests in the hall. That does not happen anywhere in the world. All over the world passengers have to go through all these procedures first; in other words, they must go through the customs and other departments before they can be met by their people. However, we are only using this procedure temporarily. Secondly, nowhere in the world are people allowed to meet passengers on the runway.

Who asked for that?

Order!

From a safety point of view this is not desirable, especially as a result of the hi-jacking of aircraft in recent times. Now I want to give hon. members an example. Last Friday 96 passengers were taken through that building within 13 minutes, with all the procedures that involves. I hope the hon. member will remember that. I think this is a feat of which other airports can be jealous. Now the hon. member says that the people are carrying their own suitcases. I want to tell hon. members that there are enough porters, and if at some moment or other one is not available, one can merely wait two to three minutes until one is available. But this also shows me how ease-loving people are. I do not mind carrying my own suitcases, and in the rest of the world everybody carries his own suitcases. It is only here in South Africa where we are so ease-loving and where we no longer want to carry our own suitcases.

As an international hall, the pre-constructed building has already proved itself most adequately, so much so that similar buildings are already being planned at the Louis Botha airport at Durban. I want hon. members to take cognizance of that. These will be similar buildings, and we are not ashamed of them. While I am speaking about the pre-constructed building, I want to point out to the hon. member for Salt River, who is apparently unfamiliar with the requirements for airports, that this is the type of building which will in future be built at airports to an increasing extent; not only in South Africa, but also all over the world. It has been found that as a result of the rapid development of aviation, adaptations are necessary all the time, and that an airport soon becomes obsolete. Airports which can be amortized after ten or 15 years, appear to be the answer. By that time they can make room for new ones which can fit in with modern requirements. Once the building operations at the D. F. Malan airport have been completed, it will be an airport which will be able to meet all the needs for the next eight or ten years. It will, if necessary, even be able to handle the Jumbo jets, which, according to the hon. member’s prediction, will come.

The Jan Smuts airport should be viewed in a different context, for this airport is the gateway to the Republic of South Africa. Care is being taken to ensure that this will be a prestige airport of which we as South Africans will be proud. Once the airport has been completed, it will undoubtedly be possible to compare it with the best airports in the world for its size. In a moment I shall quote statistics to indicate what is being done. It is obvious that when alterations are being made to buildings, one will find this dust about which the hon. member complained so much. It is very clear to me that the hon. member did not know what was happening. I cannot omit to point out to the hon. member that I think he obtained his prejudice to this airport from a press report which was coupled with the thesis written by a certain architectural student on this airport. I want to give the hon. member the same reply which was prepared by my department when this person, a certain Chalmers, wrote his thesis. It reads as follows—

I think that in regard to the hon. member’s charge about the D. F. Malan airport, I can say the same to him.

In order to indicate how my department is keeping abreast of the development of air services in South Africa, I should like to quote a few figures. I think it is proper for hon. members to take cognizance of these figures. I have made an analysis of the past ten years, i.e. of the aircraft on South African register from 1959-’60 to 1969-’70. I shall quote various figures in this regard. The first item is aeroplanes eligible for certificates of airworthiness—633 as against 1 922, a growth of 12 per cent per year; single-engined aeroplanes—551 as against 1 638, a growth of 11,5 per cent per year: twin-engined aeroplanes—33 as against 171, a growth of 18 per cent per year. Let us take a look at the staff for a moment. In this respect the figures for the same period are as follows: Valid air crew licences—student pilots; 179 as against 834, a growth of 16,15 per cent per year; private pilots: 939 as against 3 452, a growth of 14 per cent per year. The hon. member for Heilbron also expressed his gratitude for the subsidizing in respect of training, etc. However, these are not the only figures which are impressive. Let us take a look at these other very impressive figures: Total licences—1 530 as against 5 228, a growth of 13 per cent per year. The department has to provide many services in this regard, such as that of inspection, etc. Let us take a look now at airports and aerodromes (other than State-owned). First of all there are licensed civil aerodromes—144 as against 185. That represents a growth of 30 per year. In respect of civil licensed aerodromes, the figure is 171 as against 281, a growth of 65 per cent over this period of ten years. In respect of licensed civil aerodromes the figure is 315 as against 466—a growth of 50 per cent over these ten years.

Let us take a look at the runways. The total distance of runways of airports other than State-owned airports is 185 miles as against 273 miles, a growth of 47 per cent per year. Now I should like to take a look at our State-owned airports. The figure in respect of international aircraft movements —landings and take-offs, and I want hon. members to listen to these figures, is 6 000 as against 14 000, a growth of 9 per cent per year. As far as our domestic flights are concerned, the figure is 43 000 as against 191 000, a growth of 16 per cent per year over these ten years. The total is 49 000 as against 205 000, a growth of 15 per cent per year over the past ten years. I want to mention the last figures, because they are very important.

†Passengers handled (excluding transit) on international flights, amounted to 146 000 as against 674 000—a growth of 16,5 per cent per annum over the last ten years. This compares favourably with the rest of the world, which only shows a growth of 12.5 per cent per annum. As regards domestic flights, the figures are 580 000 as against 2 389 000—that is nearly 2 500 000—which constitutes an increase of 15,5 per cent per annum for the last ten years, which compares more than favourably with the rest of the world, which shows only an increase of 10 per cent per annum. If you look at the total, you find that the figure is i million passengers as against nearly 3 million, which is an annual increase of 15,5 per cent per annum.

*I can continue in this way and furnish the various other figures. I just want to furnish hon. members with the latest figures. Let us look at the projected service in the future.

†On the assumption that the domestic passenger traffic growth over the next ten years will be approximately 16 per cent per annum, that of international passenger traffic to 18 per cent per annum and that of freight traffic to 20 per cent per annum, you will have in 1979-’80 a figure for international passengers handled of 3 250 000 and for domestic passengers handled 12 500 000, a total of 15 750 000. The figure for freight handled, will be 300 000 000 kg.

*These figures indicate the growth.

The hon. member now says there is no planning. Let us look at an analysis of the position at Jan Smuts. Hon. members should listen to this. We are going to spend a total of R49 million at Jan Smuts until the terminal and other associated services have been completed. This applies only to this one airport. Time does not permit me to make an analysis in respect of each item, but this in itself is a good indication. At D. F. Malan this new development alone will cost a total of R4 600 000. Then the hon. member had the temerity to allege that there was no planning in South Africa as far as Airways were concerned.

The hon. member for Tygervallei made an appeal to our industries to see to it that their working hours are staggered in such a way that we will be able to handle these passengers with greater ease. It is essential that we should consider this criticism, because it was dealt with in the Press under the following heading, “Poor transport blamed for man-hour loss.” The hon. member has indicated what has been done in regard to bus transport. Let me say this to the House. In 1970 we had 4 143 suburban trains per week on our suburban train services and they were running on time to the extent of 94,3 per cent during the whole period. In 1971. up to March, they were running on time to the extent of 92 per cent throughout. In other words, over the last one and a half years our suburban trains in South Africa were running on time at an average of 94,9 per cent. No other country has a record nearly as good as this. We are proud of this service which is being rendered in such a way.

I now come to the final point. The hon. member for Green Point referred to the two local road transport matters and he tried to use this House as a platform for the consideration of applications for road transport certificates. I should like to point out that, without using this Committee as a court, I am in a position to furnish the hon. member with the details of the various matters raised by him, but I must make it clear to him that I am doing so simply to help him without interfering with these two autonomous bodies. In the first place, the hon. member referred to the application of a large brick-making concern for the purpose of transporting their own employers. This matter still has to be dealt with finally by the National Transport Commission.

How long is it still going to take? Will this also be sub judice for months?

The whole matter is consequently sub judice and I am therefore not in a position to discuss it any further in this Committee. But it has not been sub judice for 12 months. The hon. member knows, and he made that objection himself, that people who want to lodge objections are not given sufficient time to prepare their evidence. There is also the question of the legal provisions in regard to the advertisements, and so forth, and the period for lodging an appeal with the National Transport Commission.

The second matter concerns the increase of bus fares of the local company. In this case what the arguments of the hon. member have actually boiled down to is a rehearing of the application, and without interfering in or associating myself with this matter, I just want to tell the hon. member briefly what the whole procedure before the local board and the National Transport Commission is. In short, this is what happened. The application for an increase in tariffs was submitted to the local board on 1st July, 1970, and on 17th July, the application and the existing and proposed increased tariffs were published in the Government Gazette.

That is what I said.

Particulars of the expenditure and revenue, together with a balance sheet, were submitted to the local board on 20th July, 1970, and considered for approval on 31st July, 1970. In other words, the board had those nine days in which to analyse the balance sheets.

May I just ask whether that balance sheet was available to the petitioners against the application?

In the first instance, no, because it was submitted to the Road Transport Board in support of the application. I am coming to that. The local board acted strictly according to the provisions of the Motor Transport Act and the regulations. For example, in terms of the regulations a board is compelled, inter alia, to wait 10 days after the publication of the application before considering such application in order to afford the interested parties time to lodge an objection. This objection was, in fact, lodged and taken into account by the board. The hon. member also made the uncalled for accusation that the National Transport Commission was simply acting as a rubber stamp and that it based its decision on ex parte allegations. I want to tell the hon. member that all the documents before the local board were also before the National Transport Commission and that the balance sheets were carefully analysed by the cost accountant. We have an official cost accountant who analyses the balance sheets. The hon. member also alleged, basing his allegation on an extract from the balance sheets of Tollgate Holdings, that the company was making considerable profits. Sir, it is necessary for me to have these facts placed on record. The statements the hon. member has at his disposal, reflect the total profits of the group, for example, profits from its tourist service, its private charter service, its fuel service, its advertisements, its properties, its insurance and its passenger transport.

What was the contribution from the passenger transport services?

In other words, one cannot deduce from these statements that the board has granted this increase simply on ex parte allegations.

What was the contribution from the passenger transport services?

That has been analysed in a separate document.

Where?

The hon. member is therefore not in a position to make any deduction from this figure in regard to the profits or looses of the bus company in question, which is responsible for passenger services. If one looks at the balance sheets only, one is misleading oneself; if one merely takes the balance sheets into consideration without analysing each facet separately, one is misleading oneself and has no grounds at all for coming here with a complaint of that nature. The hon. member also said that the local board, in the reasons it had advanced, referred to the fact that an appeal had only been lodged in respect of the Cape Town-Bantry Bay route. I do not want to comment on this, because I would then have to go into the merits of the case and I am not competent to do so. I do not have the documents in front of me. Sir, on 2nd November, 1970. the hon. the Minister informed the hon. member that the local road transport board and the National Transport Commission were autonomous bodies and that their decisions were final. Neither I nor the hon. the Minister is able to dictate to those bodies as to what they should decide. The hon. member said that the Act was wrong. If the hon. member is convinced of the fact that the Act is wrong, he should come forward with suggestions as to how the Act should be amended. However, I am not prepared to consider that.

That is what I have asked for.

Order! The hon. member for Green Point must stop making these constant interjections.

Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister is obviously in a very touchy mood this afternoon. The touchy manner in which he answered the speech of the hon. member for Salt River makes me think that there must be a considerable amount of truth in what the hon. member had to say.

I want to come back to the hon. the Deputy Minister again. He raised the question of the bus fare increases in Port Elizabeth and accused me and the hon. members for Port Elizabeth Central and Newton Park of not acting in the best interests of the country in this particular matter. I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I am indeed surprised that he raised this particular matter in this Committee this afternoon. Sir, if the hon. the Deputy Minister had realized what an important problem we were dealing with and how much an amicable settlement of that problem is in the best interests of this country, then I do not think he would have raised these petty matters in this Committee this afternoon. Sir, it leads me to believe that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not fully aware of the difficult circumstances that appertained in Gelvandale. He is not aware of the hardships that the people in that particular area are suffering, and I simply cannot understand how he can allege that the three United Party Port Elizabeth members acted in a way that was not in the best interests of the country. I want to say to the Deputy Minister that on the 3rd March I wrote to the Secretary of Transport to get further information about the operations of the National Transport Commission and I received a clear-cut reply from the Secretary in which he set out what the position is. The hon. the Deputy Minister has read that letter out to the Committee. Sir, we were fully aware of the position, but we went to the Deputy Minister fully realizing what an urgent situation we were dealing with. I wrote that letter of the 3rd March because I knew something would happen. We saw what happened in Gelvandale. I believe steps could have been taken and if taken timeously could have prevented what transpired, leading to the Police having to be called in to deal with rioting. We went to the hon. the Deputy Minister to ask him to intervene in the matter because, after all, he is the Deputy Minister of Transport and the man whom we should approach. I must say that he was most reasonable at our first interview, but I simply cannot agree with the attitude that he adopted once the matter got to the Press. I want to tell this Committee that we asked the hon. the Deputy Minister to make a statement to the Press to the effect that he was going to Port Elizabeth, not to interfere in the ¡bus dispute but to have a look at the overall position of transport as it affected the Gelvandale complex in Port Elizabeth. He agreed to do this and this is what we told the Press. The fact that it was published in the Press in a slightly different manner certainly has nothing to do with us. So I hope that when in future the hon. the Deputy Minister has dealings with us on a matter just as serious as this, he will not allow it to become a petty affair, as he has obviously tried to do this afternoon.

My interest in the operation of the National Transport Commission springs directly from the recent increase allowed by the local Road Transportation Board in Port Elizabeth. I just cannot accept that this matter is sub judice. According to the rules of this hon. House, the only matters regarded as being sub judice are those dealt with by courts of law. Consequently I feel at liberty to speak on this bus fare dispute. Let me briefly relate the history of this case. An application for an increase in bus fares by the Port Elizabeth Passenger Transport Company was made on the 5th of January. The application was published in the Government Gazette of the 22nd of January and was considered by the board on the 31st. The application was agreed to by the local board and the new tariffs came into operation on the 1st of March. There was, in other words, no delay; in fact, the application was most expeditiously dealt with, without any delay. But now when an appeal has been lodged, we find a long delay. I do not believe that this is in the interests of this problem. Even at this stage, more than six weeks after the appeal was lodged, the National Transport Commission has not met. As a matter of fact, if an announcement I read in the Press is correct, it will only meet on the 10th or 11th of next month, i.e. about two months after the appeal was lodged. In view of the fact that the increased bus fares have caused so much unrest, justifiable unrest amongst the Coloured community there, the matter ought to have been tackled more expeditiously. The Coloured community have to use that bus service; the only alternative is to walk. In the circumstances the matter ought to have been dealt with as quickly as possible and the hon. the Deputy Minister ought to give us an explanation of why there has been all this dilly-dallying. There are also other aspects which make the hearing of this appeal even more urgent.

You see, Sir, the City Council was not consulted in the matter; they were completely by-passed. Previous boards did consult the Town Council. What is more, I consider that a local transportation board ought to have a nominee of the City Council on it. In this particular case, there is no nominee of the Council on it. There is a councillor on it, but he is a Government nominee. I say that the Council ought to have the right to nominate a representative on the board, especially in the case of a large City Council like Port Elizabeth. What makes the matter even worse is that, according to the letters I have received from the Department, this matter is sub judice. If it is, no one has the right to discuss it according to what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said. Therefore the whole situation is aggravated if the matter is sub judice and no one can discuss it. Then the Transportation Board takes the liberty of postponing the sitting to suit itself, without having regard for the urgency of the situation. Furthermore, not only is the matter sub judice, but the National Transportation Commission is an autonomous body. As the hon. the Minister himself admitted, not even he can intervene, even when the matter is as serious as it was at Gelvandale. With regard to these matters, I believe that we have every right to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to look into them and to make a statement.

Finally, I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister in future not to deal with responsible M.P.s as a bunch of school kids, when he gets a deputation from them to deal with a matter which is obviously serious. We knew the problem and were earnest in our deputation to him. We acted all the time in the best interests of the situation. I want to say to him that every statement that I have made to the Press, has been relevant and responsible. I am quite sure that my other colleagues will deal with the accusations which the hon. the Minister made with regard to the statements they have made.

I regret that the hon. member for Walmer tried to create the impression here that the Local Road Transportation Board does not know its job or supposedly did not act bona fide. The hon. member cast this aspersion on the Local Road Transportation Board to the effect that it is not constituted properly and that they decided there in favour of the bus company. I just want to say that before the increases in fares took effect in February-March of this year, the previous fares had been maintained since 1966. Since 1966 there were no increases. Anyone with sound common sense can understand that since then there have been considerable increases in wages and in the cost of motor vehicles and buses. The bus company expected a serious shortage in their current expenditure this year. That is why they wanted the increased fares to be introduced as soon as possible.

It may possibly be argued that the City Council and the Coloured Persons Advisory Committee should have taken note of the increased fares before they were put into effect. But I also know of the fact that since 1940 Port Elizabeth’s municipality has held an option to buy out that private bus company. They held that option until 28th January, 1971. Then they finally relinquished it. That is also proof to me that the profit made on those buses is not such a terribly large one. Today I also want to make the allegation here that the increase of bus fares was not in toto the cause of the dissatisfaction and rebelliousness that took place there. It was perhaps the argument that was used to launch these things. But there were also many other reasons. There were many other elements, organizations and individuals who prepared the Coloureds for such a confrontation with authority. I was informed that with the increase in the price of bread certain people had already tried to incite those Coloureds to revolt against authority. That is what the responsible Coloured leaders themselves told me. But no success was achieved in arousing such feelings. Then the people were systematically prepared for the announcement of the increase in the fares.

I now want to say in all honesty that if one followed the reports in the English Press from when the increase was announced to when this rebellion came out into the open, one comes to the conclusion that although they were not specifically intent on creating unrest, the manner in which the entire matter was handled definitely created a sense of grievance among these people. The Eastern Cape Post is actually the newspaper which is read in that area by the Coloureds. The day before the boycott began the following appeared in 11-inch letters in the newspaper: “Fares and shock bus boycott fears.” Then the idea of a boycott had already been aroused in them. The report continued: “P.E. commuters are expected to stage a bus boycott after the shock announcement that fares are going up, some by more than a third.” That was altogether wrong. The fares were increased by about one cent per trip.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member for Algoa realize that 50 per cent of the commuters live below the poverty datum line?

These bus fares were increased by one cent per trip. On 27th February the following heading appeared in the Evening Post: “Higher bus fares unjust.” It was also stated: “Government resettlement of Coloured blamed.” The Government is now blamed for that. On 1st March, in the Eastern Province Herald editorial it was stated: “Paying for their yoke.” The article continues:

All of this created the impression among these people that they were wronged and that they should do something about it.

But apart from this there was a great deal more incitement, which I know of, initiated by the Progressive Party and its kindred spirit, the Labour Party.

That is rubbish. You cannot prove that.

I should like to warn the hon. member for Houghton that they are playing a very dangerous game. They are leading the Coloured Labour Party in a savage campaign of hate.

That is absolutely untrue.

I know what I am talking about. Unlike hon. members on the United Party side I did not run to Port Elizabeth when these things were happening and statements were made in the newspapers. I went there after feelings had calmed down. I held two days of peaceful discussions with the Coloureds. I talked to all sections. There is no doubt in my mind that the Progressive Party is using the Coloured Labour Party to launch a hate campaign there among the Coloureds, not so much against the Whites, but specifically against the Afrikaner. That is regrettable. Hate breeds hate. It cannot be a good thing for the Coloureds there. If they have the interests of the Coloureds at heart they will stop this.

But I should also like to come to the hon. members of the United Party.

Yes, they also played their little role.

Yes, they played their role. They were altogether too eager to express their concern to the newspapers papers there. This Gelvandale area lies within the borders of my constituency. If action is to be taken, I should do so. And that is what I did. These hon. members entered that area and made statements to the newspapers. I think I should blame them for that. I must specifically reproach the hon. member for Walmer, who is usually a very responsible man. He also told the story that it is the Government’s fault and that it happened because the Government resettled them miles from their place of work. That is perhaps a real grievance that could have cropped up among the Coloureds. There are some of them who were resettled, and there is a large percentage of them now living far from their place of work.

I also want to lodge a plea here that the Government should consider subsidizing these people as they do in the case of the Bantu. This kind of problem cannot be overcome by agitation when feelings are running high. Neither can it be done by making statements in the newspapers and thereby adding more fuel to the fire. It must be done by proper representations and discussions. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central went even further and spoke of “drab housing conditions spilling into disreputable slums, where crime and violence are bred”. That is regrettable, because that is the language of the agitator. That is the language used by the agitators among the Coloureds. The hon. member and the English clergymen in Port Elizabeth speak of slums. Instead of helping with spiritual welfare and with the many social problems, the clergymen walk through the streets in their long apparel in order to draw attention and thereby they rouse the feelings of the Coloureds so that they smash more buses, with the result that the Police had to pick up two of these clergymen and take them away.

That was Van der Kemp and Read.

That was the same story that Van der Kemp and Read had. Now the hon. members of the United Party, who are good friends of mine, come along and make themselves a part of this. It is regrettable that they allow themselves to be used for that purpose. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, from what we have just heard from the hon. member for Algoa we get the whole clue as to what has been happening at Port Elizabeth. He tells us that Gelvandale is in his own constituency. I can very well imagine that the hon. member has not paid the slightest attention to conditions there and that he has done nothing whatever to alleviate the dismal situation of the Coloured people who live in Gelvandale.

Have you ever been there?

I have read a great deal about Gelvandale and I probably know more about it than the hon. member who does live there. That is the difference. It is becoming customary in this House to make accusations …

Order! The hon. member must speak more clearly. I cannot understand a word she is saying.

I am very surprised at that, because I am speaking very loudly.

The hon. member is addressing the hon. member for Algoa. She must address the Chair.

I say it is becoming customary in this House for hon. members on the other side, and I might add that I am not excluding Ministers, to make accusations which they do not substantiate and for which they bring no proof whatever. They do not even say exactly what the accusations consist of. It is a smear campaign and I take the strongest exception to this. The hon. member for Algoa has just done exactly the same. He has stated that he knows for a fact that it is the Progressive Party which is instigating Coloured people, the people of the Labour Party in particular, in Port Elizabeth to stir up disturbances. There is not a word of truth in this. Again, he is contemptuous, as hon. members on the other side always are when they think about non-White people and their ability to reach decisions by themselves. Let me tell the hon. member for Algoa that the Labour Party members for Port Elizabeth need no instigators: they need no advisers; they are educated and intelligent men who can think for themselves. Those people know exactly what they are doing. They do not need me or any members of the Progressive Party to tell them about the miserable conditions under which they are living. I wonder if the hon. member for Algoa has read the report that was recently submitted for the Municipal Council of Port Elizabeth by Mr. Cleary.

Here is the report. Do you want it?

I do not need it; I have read it. The hon. member should rather read it. This report depicts the conditions under which the Coloured people in Port Elizabeth are living. It states, inter alia, that more than 50 per cent of the male householders, the wage-earners, earn less than R67 per month. That is the figure. Let me tell the hon. member for Algoa that when you are trying to live on R67 per month, with which you have to pay your rent, with which you have to bring up your family, with which you have to feed them and with which you have to clothe them, this amount of R67 does not go very far.

They are not in the Government’s employ, my dear.

Order!

I am not your “dear” and I doubt very much whether I am on speaking terms with you at all. An increase of one cent either way on a bus fare is a very considerable amount when you are already trying to live above the poverty datum line, on R67 per month. I wonder if the hon. member will recollect reading in that report, if he has read it, that the Coloured families are living in over-crowded conditions, with several families to one house, and several people to one room. I wonder if he has taken cognizance of the fact that the Port Elizabeth Coloured population was moved from one end of the town to Gelvandale which is several miles outside of town. If it is the policy of apartheid to move people around like that, they deserve to have their transport subsidized and such a move should not be made until adequate provision has been made for subsidized transport. These people will then be able to get to and from their work without having to pay these extra fares. I wonder if the hon. member has also read the conclusion of that report, where Mr. Cleary says that he has no doubt whatsoever that unless conditions are improved for the Coloured people similar incidents will occur again and also elsewhere. I do not happen to know this, but no doubt the hon. member for Algoa knows whether or not Mr. Cleary is a member of the Progressive Party. I wonder whether the hon. member for Algoa can tell me this. Is Mr. Cleary a member of the Progressive Party?

Are you prepared to drag him in?

He submitted a report and I am not dragging him in. This is the official report on conditions in Port Elizabeth.

What has the report to do with Port Elizabeth?

It has everything to do with it. It ill behoves the Government to sit back and to say that there is nothing wrong in Port Elizabeth, nothing wrong in Soweto, or Langa or in any other area and that incidents are only due to agitators from the Progressive Party who tell the Coloured and African people that things are not right and that their conditions are miserable. If the Government had any brains which it clearly has not got. it would have instituted a proper judicial commission of inquiry to go into the matter of conditions at Port Elizabeth. It would have instituted a proper commission of inquiry into the riots that took place, because there are conflicting reports of what happened at that meeting which was assembled in order to protest against the rise in bus fares. There are conflicting reports from people who were present, from onlookers, from people who participated in the meeting and also from the Police who attended that meeting and who ultimately opened fire on those people. But the Government does not have any brains. It prefers to think that everything is all right, that Africans, Coloured people and Indians are accepting their policy of apartheid, that you can shift them around at will and that you do not need to provide transport. If they are provided with transport the Government does not care whether it is utterly inadequate and whether people have to get up at 4 o’clock in the morning in order to get to work. Unless the Government takes the blinkers off its eves and smarts worrying about the conditions in these urban townships for Coloured. African and Indian people and sees the way in which they are living, we are in for troublous times in South Africa. It will not be due to agitators, and I want this on record, but will be due to the primitive, unhygienic and thoroughly uncivilized conditions under which the vast majority of non-Whites in this country are living. It will most specifically be due to poverty. It is high time that the Government takes note of this.

It is very clear to me that we are now living through a period in which, as the hon. the Prime Minister warned the other day, we must be very careful that we do not incite Whites against non-Whites in this country. I am very sorry to have to say that I think the Progressive Party is playing this role in South Africa. These people are inciting the non-Whites against the Whites, and I wonder whether many of them would not prefer to employ their efforts in the country of their origin, telling of the injustices that are going on. I find it so strange that we now have to exploit what took place in Port Elizabeth to the extent that the hon. member for Houghton has done. Right enough, she may know everything about that, but she also knows about everything that takes place in Zambia and also about everything that takes place in the Bantu states. It is so strange that she knows everything about everything. [Interjections.] Why does the hon. member for Houghton not come along this afternoon and tell us what this Government has done for housing for the Coloureds in Port Elizabeth? In the past few years R12 900 000 was spent. More than 10 000 Coloured houses were built, but she does not tell us about those beautiful schools and the libraries that were built, and about the sports fields, the tennis courts and other facilities. She is now inciting non-Whites against Whites. It appears to me as if we are now again witnessing the old days in Port Elizabeth, and we are again back into Bethelsdorp history, the days of the Black Circuit, when we had the incitement of a Read and a Van der Kemp. But I want to tell the hon. member that we. the Whites of South Africa, are getting tired of the incitement, by the Progressive Party, of non-Whites against the Whites, and I find it a tragedy in this present day that this House is used as a place where they can continue with that propaganda.

We had the incident of the increased bus rates, but strangely enough, those three hon. colleagues of mine sitting there who today want to wash their hands in innocence and say they had no part in it, and who want to imply that they did not seize the opportunity for making some political capital out of it … [Interjections.] They did do so. They know that when there is a matter of common interest, it is a principle in Port Elizabeth that the mayor calls together our five representatives before the House of Assembly begins and that we then discuss the matters in a brotherly fashion. We make representations when it is in the interests of Port Elizabeth as a unit. This was also a matter of common interest, and what do they do? At the first opportunity they go to Port Elizabeth and issue statements. The hon. member for Walmer must not shake his head; I have his Hansard here. In the Railway debate he said that this was the result of the Government’s policy of resettlement. In my speech I reacted to that, and here it is.

But it is the truth, and you cannot deny it.

No, it is a half-truth. It is not as a result of the Government’s resettlement policy.

Order! The hon. member may not say that it is a half-truth.

Sir, there was no truth in it at all. It was also the result of the natural increase in the number of Coloureds. Just as we have a natural increase in the number of Whites, so too with the Coloureds, but one also had the influx as a result of the droughts. There was an unnatural influx of Coloureds to Port Elizabeth, and those people had to be accommodated. Those people had to be given accommodation, and that is why Mr. Cleary says that there are four to five families in one house, because one does not have influx control for the Coloureds in Port Elizabeth. That is what the position is, Mr. Chairman, and now those hon. members come along and blame the Government, as the hon. member for Algoa said, for the poor housing conditions. Sir, never has so much been done for Coloured housing as is being done at present in the city of Port Elizabeth. But I want to go further. Those same people come along today and complain about the salaries and wages of the Coloureds. They are the people who advocated cheap labour for the factories. They said that preference should not be given to Coloured labour; that we should throw open the labour market for the Bantu. They acted in the interests of the industrialists.

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

Hon. members on that side want more money for the Coloureds so that they can pay those bus fares, but they did not give the Coloureds that opportunity. They wanted to take the bread out of the Coloureds’ mouths, and now they blame the Government for those low wages. It is, after all, not this Government that determines the wages. Sir, in the Budget debate I pointed out that it was because of agitation, in which certain English-speaking clergymen took part, that that terrible rioting took place in Port Elizabeth. Hon. members on that side attacked me left, right and centre about that. I just want to quote what the Rand Daily Mail wrote in this connection—

After those disturbances they professed that two priests were innocently engaged in conversation with the innocent Coloureds. That is their story. But 13 of them went to the bus terminus in order to lead processions through the streets of Port Elizabeth. Here is a picture in the Eastern Province Herald of 26th March, 1971, and below it the caption—

And then the names of the two priests are mentioned. The heading of the article reads—

Buses stoned as priests “walk”.

The English-language Press is unashamedly and obviously deceiving the country by saying that those people did not take part in these marches. Here it is clearly stated that they “walked”. The report continues—

They were arrested in broad daylight, and then the Rand Daily Mail comes along and states that no such thing ever happened; that Potgieter was only referring to two innocent priests who stood talking to the Coloureds.

Sir, this is not a matter of bus fares. Three things took place; firstly, there were organized meetings in opposition to the bus fares; immediately after that the agitation, the walk-outs, followed when the Minister of Community Development opened a large housing scheme there. That day the Eastern Province Herald told of how the clergymen walked out while the Minister was speaking. But what happens now. I have here a heading from the Argus which reads: “Coloured Council walk-out”. They go along and meet the city council, and you must remember, Sir, that it is a United Party city council. They go along and meet the city council, and do you know, Sir, what happened there?: “Coloured Council walk-out”. The same report goes on to state—

He added …

That is the mayor now speaking—

For six years they fought about the conditions which, according to them, existed. Sir, this is not a matter of bus fares; it is incitement that is going on in Port Elizabeth on the part of certain English clergymen. and not only in Port Elizabeth, but throughout the entire country. Throughout the entire country they are inciting the non-Whites against the Whites.

They have climbed on to the Progressive wheelbarrow.

I want to say today that if it is a matter of bus fares, it is the simplest thing in the world. Why did those clerical leaders and the Coloured leaders not come to the hon. member for Algoa, in whose constituency the majority of those people are housed? They could also have come to me and asked us whether they could not perhaps negotiate.

Do you know why?

That hon. member must keep quiet—he knows nothing. He does not know the first thing about what I am discussing here. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman. I want to tell the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North that he should be ashamed of himself for having tried to drag the clergy into this debate once again. He was reprimanded once after having tried to do so, and today he tried to do so again. In the second place I want to tell him that I am one hundred per cent in agreement with what was said by my hon. friend the member for Walmer, and that I wish to underline it, namely that it is the circumstances of those Coloured people in Gelvandale, i.e. that they live a long way from their work, that the transport facilities are inadequate, and that, as a result of their low wages, almost 50 per cent of them live below the breadline, which caused the increase of one cent in bus fares to result in those serious disturbances.

†I would like, in passing, to refer to the opening remarks of my hon. friend the member for Tygervallei, when he made his speech on Friday. He made certain uncalled for remarks about my speech in the Budget debate. To him I would like to say, with apologies to Shakespeare:

Then I want to come to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport. I want to record my regret that he has chosen to perpetuate an inaccuracy. I want to recount the facts of this matter in a nutshell. The three United Party members of Port Elizabeth were granted an interview by the hon. the Deputy Minister. During the interview he made three points. Firstly, he said that the Transportation Board was an autonomous body, and he could not interfere with their decision, which we accepted. Secondly, he said that he was prepared to instruct his senior officials to investigate the problem of transport in the Port Elizabeth complex. Thirdly, he said that, since he was going to be in Port Elizabeth on the 19th April, he would be prepared to discuss the transport problem—not the bus tariff dispute—with interested persons if he were invited by the Mayor of Port Elizabeth. I actually kept notes of our interview. At the termination of our interview, we asked the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he would make a statement to the press. He said “No, you can make a statement”. We made that statement, and the next day my two colleagues, the hon. members for Newton Park and Walmer, departed. I stayed behind and he asked me to meet him in his office, which I did. I showed him my notes, and he could not find fault with them. But he issued a statement, denying firstly that he was prepared to go to Port Elizabeth. He then said that the Mayor had to come to him. Secondly, he denied that he would give instructions to his officials to investigate this problem. I deny those two inaccurate allegations, but I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must stop playing petty politics. This is an extremely dangerous situation which has developed in Port Elizabeth. In fact, the position in Port Elizabeth is only symtomatic of what the Coloureds throughout South Africa are suffering at the hands of Government policy. I want to make an appeal to this hon. Deputy Minister to try and influence the Cabinet to subsidize Coloured transport in the same manner as Bantu transport is subsidized, because these people simply cannot come out on the wages that are paid to them with the continual rise in the cost of living. This is an extremely serious affair.

The hon. Minister of Community Development, when he recently opened a Coloured housing complex in Port Elizabeth, said that he would be very receptive to any such plea and that the Government favourably considers the subsidization of Coloured transport. I want to make that plea very earnestly.

I shall react to your suggestion and bring this debate back to transport matters again. In the few minutes at my disposal I want to air a few thoughts about the alignment of the coast road and the problems it entails for my constituency. The road goes through my constituency for at least a 100 miles and you can therefore understand that the interests of my voters could suffer. When I raised the same matter last year I brought the position of the beach resort, Puntjie, to the attention of the Minister. Puntjie is one of the most natural and idyllic beach resorts we have in this country. It is situated where the Duivenhok River enters the sea and has architectonic characteristics that we find nowhere else. For example, we have the roof-truss houses there, a style we find nowhere else; in fact, this is regarded as being so exceptional that the area has been declared a national monument. The original alignment of this road would have entailed a portion of this beach falling victim to the operation. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister has given me the assurance that the road there will be diverted so that Puntjie can remain intact. On behalf of the Provincial Administration and those people who use Puntjie as a beach resort, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister how glad we are that this will be done. The change will mean extra expense for the Department because the road must swing in towards the land; the bridge they will have to build over the Duivenhok River will also probably cost more. But all of us who love nature are glad of this concession.

If we look at the alignment of the road further ahead we come to Still Bay, a small place that is developing into one of the biggest and most modern of beach resorts. There is continuous development, and this entails the creation of an infrastructure for the beach resort. The provisional alignment is such that the road goes straight through Still Bay, in other words, it more or less cuts Still Bay in two. The local authority of Still Bay is continuously asking me to obtain clarity from the Minister and the Department about the actual alignment of the road in the vicinity of Still Bay, i.e. whether it will go straight through Still Bay or whether it will go around it. I am not going to express myself now on the merits of the case, because if it goes around Still Bay, other bodies will again be affected. All I now want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is to clarify for us the alignment of the road through Still Bay so that development there need not be hampered unnecessarily. At present the municipality is developing a large Coloured beach there; then the Divisional Council has another Coloured area at Melkhoutfontein. All these areas must have access roads and they must develop further, aspects very closely connected with the alignment of the proposed coast route. I would therefore appreciate it very much if the hon. the Deputy Minister could clarify the matter for me so that I can convey the information to the bodies concerned. It would be very much appreciated by them.

When a road such as this is planned there are, of course, many aspects that must be taken into account. For example, efforts must be made to find the shortest possible road, or to make the road as safe as possible and to keep costs as low as possible. All these considerations must be taken into account in the planning of a road.

There is also the matter of soil erosion which has recently been brought to my attention very frequently in my constituency. When a broad road with at least two lanes is planned on an incline or gradient and a great deal of rain falls, such a road catches up a great deal of the water. That is one of the aspects we must bear in mind. Particularly with respect to the portion of the road from Gouritz River to Mossel Bay, the local controlling bodies, who have soil erosion and so on under their control, have called for me on various occasions to show me how, in their opinion, that road was not planned properly. I am not going to say anything more about that, because the people concerned are all my voters. I just want to ask that soil erosion should be given proper consideration when such a road is planned.

On a previous occasion I also raised the question of fencing that section of the road off against game. The Minister then told me that the matter was, in fact, being considered by them. I should just like to examine this point more closely. I want to point out that the portion between the Breede River at the White Sands beach resort and the Gouritz River is the portion of the road where small game breed very rapidly. One is almost inclined to say that it is a nature reserve for them there. We shall also have to give proper consideration to this game as far as the building of that road is concerned. When it rains, even if only a light rain falls, the water that falls on the road runs down the side and a green strip springs up there. Hon. members who know game and who know how sensitive to smell they are, will know that they can smell that green strip from very far off. I can imagine them coming to the road and walking beside it and on it in search of the green grass there, while at other spots it is dry. Hon. members will be able to understand what happens when the small buck stand beside the road grazing, with fast-moving traffic going to and fro. Not only will the small buck be killed, but serious accidents will take place as a result. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that when that portion is fenced off against game it should be done in such a way that it is effective. I cannot think of any more effective way than that the bottom portion should be enclosed with wire netting. Wire netting to a height of four feet would, in fact, be adequate. If only ordinary wire, as we know it, is used, the small buck will slip through and it would then have little or no effect. There must be another two foot of wire above the wire netting, and the fence must be provided with a small wire projection, facing away from the road, to prevent the small buck from jumping over the fence. In order to fence the road off efficiently against game would probably cost quite a bit more, but I believe that if it is done properly it would, in fact, be worth while, particularly for those of us who would like to conserve nature and who in particular have a very soft spot for our small buck and other animals of the veld.

If the matter which the hon. the Deputy Minister broached today was not of such a serious nature I would definitely have laughed in his face at the attitude he adopted here. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that if the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, the hon. member for Walmer and I do not put a certain matter right for him he would not in future argue or speak about any subject affecting Port Elizabeth, for example. And what are the facts of the matter? As the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central said, we asked that hon. gentleman himself to conduct the interview with the Press. After the report appeared the hon. the Minister corrected it. When I came back here the first time and after I had seen that report I went to the hon. the Minister to consult him. I told him personally that I was sorry that that impression had been created by the Press report. What is the hon. Minister now dissatisfied about? The hon. Minister is dissatisfied about the fact that the Press could say that he is prepared to go to Port Elizabeth in order that the relevant …

No.

Wait, listen now. The hon. the Minister was dissatisfied because the Press could say that he would go to Port Elizabeth to investigate this problem, i.e. the increase in the bus-fares. The Press actually flattered the hon. the Minister, and that in spite of the fact that they had made a mistake. This increase of bus fares in Port Elizabeth was undoubtedly, as Mr. Cleary stated in his report, the last drop in the bucket. The hon. gentleman ought not to regard it as criticism against himself. He should in fact regard it as a talent he has for ascertaining the facts of a problem. Now the hon. the Deputy Minister says that he is not satisfied that he ever said he would go to Port Elizabeth to investigate those increases in the busfares.

The hon. the Deputy Minister very clearly gave us the impression that he was prepared to go to Port Elizabeth to investigate the general transport problems of that area.

Yes.

The hon. the Deputy Minister says that he is quite satisfied with that. Why is he therefore so terribly dissatisfied about the question of the increase in the busfares, because they mentioned it. I cannot understand the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attitude at all. Surely the increase in the busfares has a great deal to do with the trouble in Port Elizabeth. Let me just quote what the hon. the Minister of Community Development said. A while ago he was in Port Elizabeth and the Oosterlig and other newspapers had the following to say about him [translation]—

And then the hon. the Minister makes the following important point—

If the hon. the Deputy Minister’s colleague in the Cabinet regards it as a serious problem, and regards it as having given rise to the difficulties in Port Elizabeth, what is the hon. the Deputy Minister then dissatisfied about? It seems to me as if the hon. the Deputy Minister tried to seek publicity, which was altogether unnecessary. He should rather have adopted the attitude of his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He was, it is true, prepared to investigate this matter. I do not need to do so, but I should like to quote to the House what Mr. Cleary said. I am not quoting from the report, although this also appears in the report. I am quoting from a summary of his report as it appeared in Die Burger. There it is stated very clearly [translation]—

I shall now skip a few paragraphs and quote further—

The increased expenditure …

That is in connection with the bus services—

One surely cannot argue this away.

Now the hon. members for Algoa and Port Elizabeth North think they have made a point by saying that the English clergymen, the Progressive Party the Labour Party and the three United Party M.P.’s of Port Elizabeth are the parties who incited the people. But here are the facts of the matter. Any Government that is worth its salt would, when such problems develop, come down to the actual cause of the problems and try to correct them. If that were done it would not create an opportunity for agitators to incite the people. No, a Government that is worth its salt would immediately try to correct the matter. What a responsible Minister of Transport ought to do when something like this develops, and if he is aware of the reason why it has developed, is to go to that place immediately and to institute an investigation. We told the hon. the Minister—and I hope he will bear this in mind—that before a local transportation board again makes such an almost fatal decision, I hope we shall have a chance to amend the Road Transportation Act so that the hon. the Minister can review such decisions. It is wrong to leave these decisions entirely to such a body that does not consider all the circumstances when it makes such a decision. These people must, after all, certainly have realized that with the fantastic increase in the cost of living during the past few years, together with the results of the resettlement programme, their decision would bring about great dissatisfaction among the Coloured population. They nevertheless made such a decision within a matter of 24 hours. Now they blame agitators and English clergymen, etc., for this situation. No, we must realize that we are faced with a difficult problem here.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Does the hon. member approve of this stone-throwing?

No, I do not. I am now dealing with the causes that gave rise to the bus boycott. I disapprove of a decision being taken without the circumstances and background being given proper consideration. I therefore say that I hope that in the course of time we shall be able to amend the Act. so that we will be able to go to the hon. the Minister, as was our intention, to ask him to review the decision of the National Transport Commission. But the hon. the Minister did not have the power to do so. It is wrong if someone else, in the name of the Government, can make a decision of this nature which could give rise to trouble at a later stage. That is why I say that it is wrong that hon. members on that side of the House want to look for the fault in someone else.

We seek the fault in the action.

No, I shall tell the hon. member where the real fault lies. Any local board that ought to have known the circumstances, ought to have realized at the very beginning that an increase in the bus rates would have upset those people because at present the background is not condusive to such increases. The Government has already been warned about this, not only by us, but also by its own newspapers. I remember that very recently Dawie wrote in Die Burger that as a result of present-day circumstances we must be careful when such price increases are considered.

He is an agitator!

Yes, he may then also be regarded as an agitator, because he warns the Government.

For hon. members on that side of the House to say that we are inciting the Coloureds is surely a complete mistake. The Coloureds themselves are aware of the conditions in their own area. [Time expired.]

I think we should view this matter in its proper perspective. Let me say in the first place that the Department of Transport is not responsible for the transportation of Coloured people, Bantu or Whites. The Department of Transport has absolutely nothing to do with the transportation of persons. The function of the Department of Transport, in terms of the Act, which has been on the Statute Book for 35 years, is to approve or reject applications for the increase of bus fares. Then provision is made for appeals from the Road Transportation Board to the National Transport Commission, and the decision of the National Transport Commission is final. This is what the Act provides, and it is an Act which was put through Parliament by those hon. members. This is the first time it has come to my notice that there are complaints about the Act all of a sudden. Now the hon. members all of a sudden want a right of appeal to the Minister. But it would be silly to do a thing like that. It would mean that all the political pressure could be brought to bear upon the Minister by any interested party, which is quite wrong. For that reason Parliament in its wisdom decided 35 years ago that the decision of the National Transport Commission would be final. That is as the matter stands.

Let me take Port Elizabeth now. It is not the responsibility of the National Transport Commission or the Department of Transport to go along and institute inquiries. The Department of Transport has absolutely nothing to do with the riots which broke out in Port Elizabeth. If inquiries are to be instituted, it must be done by the Department of Justice, which is responsible for it, and not by the Department of Transport. But now, is the crux of the matter not the fact that, as that hon. member said, the Coloured people of Port Elizabeth, the employees, are not being paid a decent wage? And who is responsible for that? The Government?

Yes.

No, most of the employers there are supporters of that hon. member’s party and of the United Party. [Interjections.] There is nothing to prevent those employers from paying their employees decent wages. The Coloured people of Port Elizabeth who are in the Public Service, or in my service, are a very small minority. The vast majority are employed by private employers, and those private employers can pay decent wages if they want to. The charges of the hon. members are against those employers and not against the Government. What the Government in fact does is to provide proper housing for those Coloured people and, to be able to provide that proper housing, it must necessarily be quite a long way from their places of employment. I think it is an entirely wrong principle that the transport costs of any employee should be subsidized. He should receive a proper wage so that he can afford to pay for his transport. My advice to those hon. members and to the hon. member for Houghton is to go and tell their friends, the employers of Port Elizabeth, to pay their Coloured workers decent wages; then there will be no complaints if the bus fares are increased.

The hon. the Leader of the House has replied very effectively to the charges made by that side of the House. I shall therefore not go into this matter any further, except to say that this is what the United Party looks like after the Leader of the House has spoken.

My real purpose in rising is to associate myself with what the hon. member for Bloemfontein West said in this debate last Friday in regard to a matter which I believe fills all hon. members on both this side and that side of the House with the greatest seriousness and concern. I also believe this to be a matter which not only fills those of us assembled in this House with great seriousness and concern, but also fills every responsible person outside of this House with great seriousness and concern. This matter is the increasing number of road accidents occurring on our roads in South Africa.

I am aware of the fact that there was a private motion earlier on in the present session of this House, on which occasion this matter was discussed very fruitfully, but I want to tell you, Sir, that I am offering no apology whatsoever for once again raising this matter during the discussion of this Vote, because it is definitely a matter which is causing great concern in South Africa.

A year or so before coming to Parliament, I attended an international congress on road safety and road engineering in London on behalf of the City Council of Welkom, in co-operation with the Provincial Council of the Orange Free State. Sir, let me tell you right at the start that at that congress I came to the realization that road accidents are not only a problem we are faced with in South Africa, but that road accidents are by their nature really a world phenomenon and that not only we in South Africa are trying to do everything in order to reduce road accidents to a minimum; we find that throughout the world every civilized country is trying to reduce accidents to a minimum. But, Sir, what fills me with grave concern is the fact that our road accident rate in South Africa is one of the highest in comparison with other countries of the world. Sir, if time would allow me, I could give you many examples in order to show that the road accident rate in South Africa is one of the highest in the world, but unfortunately time does not allow me to do so.

However, I want to content myself with a comparison between South Africa and America on this very serious and difficult problem. We find there were 90 million vehicles in the U.S.A. in 1968. America has a population of 195 million, in round figures, and the death toll was 55 000 in that year. In the Republic of South Africa we find that there were some 2 million vehicles in 1968 and in South Africa, with a population of approximately 20 million, the death toll was 5 300. Therefore, in America, ten times more people died on the roads than in South Africa, but we have to take into consideration that there are approximately 55 times more vehicles in America than in South Africa and that there are 13 times more inhabitants than we have here in the Republic of South Africa. Moreover, just to substantiate this argument of mine further, available figures show that in that year 5 fatal accidents occurred per 100 million road miles travelled in the State of Nebraska. In the Republic of South Africa there were 10,2 fatal accidents per 100 million road miles, almost twice as many in South Africa as we find in the State of Nebraska in America In this way, Sir, I can continue to give you other examples.

While talking about this subject, I want to state that this matter causes us grave concern. One sometimes gains the impression that our people in South Africa simply adopt the attitude that these road accidents occurring on our South African roads, just have to be accepted as part of our pattern of life; that they are simply part of the cross we have to bear in life. Sir, I wonder whether we are not fighting a losing battle. I wonder whether we are not throwing in the towel. Every day one reads in the newspapers of some serious road accident having occurred. The front page of Die Burger this morning again carried a report about road accidents which occurred over the last week-end in the Cape Peninsula. But these reports simply pass one by. When a road accident affects one personally, of course, one takes note of it, but for the very reason that there are so many road accidents these reports just pass one by. Sir, I wonder whether we are giving the necessary serious attention to this question of road accidents in South Africa. A few weeks ago we in this House were shocked when a serious accident occurred in which a good friend and colleague of ours, the hon. member for Brentwood, and his wife were involved. I just want to say I am glad to learn there is some improvement and I want to express the hope and I trust that the hon. member will be able to resume his place in this House shortly.

The question arises whether road accidents in South Africa can be prevented or not. I want to make it quite clear, Sir, that I realize that this problem, is a complex matter, that it is not the easiest problem on earth to solve, because one has to do here, in the first instance, with human factors and with a thousand and one factors which cause accidents. I think the hon. the Prime Minister put this very strikingly under his Vote. He said one can bring 6 economists together and each of them will give you a different explanation of how the financial problems of South Africa are to be solved. I now want to tell hon. members I am convinced that even if we were to get a thousand people together and ask each one how the problems in respect of road safety were to be solved, each one would suggest a different solution. Therefore I cannot but express my greatest appreciation and praise to the Road Safety Council. I wish to do the same in respect of all the voluntary bodies which are doing everything possible to combat this phenomenon. However, I wish to say—and I am not saying this to disparage the praiseworthy work being done and efforts being made by those numerous bodies—that I believe many of the bodies in South Africa are fumbling in the dark in trying to solve these problems. I am by no means speaking as an expert in this field, but I want to tell hon. members that I believe road accidents in South Africa can be combated if we approach this alarming problem in a more scientific way, backed up by an efficient and thorough policy of law enforcement.

It is obvious, and it is imperative, to have intimate knowledge of a problem before one can solve it. I may tell hon. members that the United States realized this early in the twentieth century. They established a traffic engineering department in 1925 for. inter alia, making traffic studies. In addition, they had to study surveys, planning, the design of roads, traffic regulations, traffic accidents and so forth. In this way they also had to study town planning. among other things. I may tell hon. members that in the traffic division of the City of Welkom there is a subdivision for scientific research, which determines scientifically how accidents occur in that city. Perhaps this has contributed towards the fact that Welkom received the President Trophy for the second consecutive year for the city in the Republic in which the least number of accidents occurred. I want to plead for the establishment of a central traffic bureau. I know the C.S.I.R. does a great deal of praiseworthy work in this regard, but I nevertheless hope and trust that a traffic bureau will be established which will make a proper analysis of every accident occurring in South Africa, I hope this information will be sent to such a traffic bureau and that this will also contribute towards reducing the number of road accidents in South Africa.

I should also like to touch upon another aspect of this whole matter. The penalties in respect of road accidents in South Africa leave much to be desired. The penalties we have in South Africa no longer serve as a deterrent to our people. I can substantiate this fact for hon. members by just mentioning a few examples of penalties for traffic offences in other countries of the world. In Austria, for example, the Austrian Government recently published a Bill which provides for maximum penalties. In the case of a serious traffic accident in respect of which a driver is found guilty as a result of negligent driving, or a driver was under the influence of liquor, the penalty is imprisonment for three years or a maximum fine of R10 000. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am most grateful for what the hon. member for Welkom has said about road safety. During my speech I hope to mention a few points in connection with what he has said. Several fatal civilian aeroplane accidents have taken place in the Province of Natal during the last few years. They usually take place during misty weather and in mountainous regions. The impression which had been gained according to the Press is that the accidents are the result of the lack of navigational aid installations at suitable points on the longer routes that these aeroplanes normally fly. I would like to know what the findings are of the boards which inquire into these accidents. I should also like to know whether they substantiate this. According to the Budget R24 million has been set aside to purchase and install navigational aid equipment. Will this include equipment for the civilian aeroplanes which fly in these areas? If, on the other hand, it does not provide for this, should provision not have been made for these aids for civilian aviation? I am not trying to find fault with the hon. Minister, but I am merely asking him for elucidation. If my lines have crossed with his high-tension wires, it is merely on account of lack of knowledge of electronics.

I notice that an amount of R1,5 million has been set aside for the elimination of level crossings. As the costs of eliminating a single level crossing must have increased considerably during the last year or so, I wonder if this amount is sufficient. I do think that we should do something drastic to eliminate these death-traps throughout the Republic. We have just read about the very nasty accident at Coligny where a heavy cement-carrying vehicle crashed into a train and actually knocked it off the lines. I believe these vehicles use this crossing regularly and it would be very interesting to know whether the Road Safety Council or any other body has made representations to eliminate this crossing, because here it was quite clearly a case of familiarity breeding contempt. I also noticed that the Road Safety Council grant has been increased from R300 000 to R380 000 this year.

At the outset I would like to find fault with this increase, because I would rather have expected a decrease following upon the debate that took place in this House during February this year. My very genuine appeal that road safety should be removed from the political arena seems to me to have fallen on deaf ears. May I ask when we can expect the report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Road Safety Council? Must we now wait for another year before we can criticize the findings of that committee?

I have always said that road safety is a provincial matter and not a national one. Here again it has been conclusively proved by the recent circular sent out by the Chairman of the Road Safety Council in connection with the Pedestrian Campaign for this year and which, I believe, commenced on the 19th of this month. I would like to read out a few extracts from this circular. Paragraph 5 on page 3 reads as follows:

On page 6, the following is stated:

The provincial traffic officers and the traffic officers of local authorities will have to distribute these pamphlets to all scholars of all races in schools throughout the Republic. I wonder whether the chairman of the Road Safety Council can imagine the colossal task he has given these officers. Can hon. members imagine going to all the schools in the Drakensberg, for instance, or those in the Bushveld, miles and miles away from a national road? I would like to know what the staff and the secretaries of the Road Safety Council, with its fleet of motor vehicles are going to do during this period. As far as I can see, they are going to act in an advisory and a supervisory capacity, and as liaison between themselves, the Press. the radio and the South African Police. This will be done weekly. What are they supposed to do during the rest of the week? Each Provincial Traffic Department could have carried it out in their respective provinces without an assistance from the Road Safety Council or the distribution of pamphlets.

It must be remembered that motor vehicles still play the most important part in the campaign. They are not mentioned. If a pedestrian is killed or injured, there is a motor vehicle responsible. If we can control the motor vehicle drivers, the pedestrian campaign will automatically be a success. The suspension of drivers’ licences of those implicated in serious accidents is the only solution, but it is avoided. May I know why? What has the Road Safety Council done as regards this important matter? It is an entirely provincial matter. Again I say it was conclusively proved during the Easter holidays when thousands of motor vehicles from all adjoining provinces converged on Natal, especially in Durban and the coastal areas. I must congratulate our Chief Traffic Officer and his staff on what they did during the Easter holidays to keep down accidents. They even had a doctor in a helicopter patrolling the main routes. I say that it could have been done without pamphlets. Showing the traffic officer’s uniform, the only authority that motor drivers understand, would have been sufficient. This applies to all provinces.

In conclusion it would be most informative if the hon. the Minister could tell us what he has finally decided about the Road Safety Council set-up as it is a very urgent matter.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow up the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City any further. He has put his questions to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I think he will get a reply to them.

The part played by transport in general and by certain aspects of transport in the rapid development of our country, cannot easily be over-emphasized. The transport links are the arteries of our industry and economic development. Transport links are the most important component of the infrastructure and form the most important communications network in the country and with the neighbouring states. In a rapidly developing country with unlimited possibilities, such as South Africa, vision and farsightedness are of the greatest importance. As the poet puts it—

It is actually a pity that this poet was not a member of the United Party at the time he wrote this poem. At that time, in the formative years, when the foundation for future development was laid, he might have been able to bring them some light in their darkness. became they are people who have no faith in the future. They did not even believe that South Africa could become an industrial country, nor even in the future of our own nation. To them this poet’s vision of “a thousand cities rising from the earth” was an illusion. That is why we are faced with this situation today. The foundations of our cities that were laid in those days, were not properly planned and as a result we have the problem of traffic bottlenecks in our cities. I want to plead that we should plan far ahead for the future.

Just in passing I want to associate myself with what has been said here about road safety, by just mentioning one aspect of it. We know our national roads are constructed with a view to road safety and the prevention of accidents. In the construction of national roads to airports, care has been taken to ensure that motorists may drive along those roads in safety, in that there are a limited number of entry points. Nevertheless pedestrians flock across the roads on certain occasions, something which most definitely can cause serious accidents. On Sundays some of the Coloured people play football there and they even plant their goal posts next to the clover-leaf intersections. This most definitely is highly dangerous. I wonder whether we cannot employ our traffic constables more usefully in putting a stop to such offences, offences which are highly dangerous, rather than to have them check parking meters to see whether a person has parked his car for too long.

Advance planning is the key to the matter. Particularly in view of the fact that the National Transport Commission is going to build all national roads, I should like to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider preparing a master-plan of the national roads they intend constructing. This can be made available to the provincial authorities, municipalities, and local authority bodies so that they may take this into consideration timeously in preparing their local road construction programmes.

In recent years cities have grown up, and the transport links have grown along with the cities. These transport links from the arteries of our economic development and industrial growth. As I have said, there was no planning because a United Party Government was in power at the time. These important roads cannot even provide properly for the increasing growth which has taken place in the meantime. Therefore it is essential for by-passes to be built at our larger towns. The road network actually forms the arteries of the national economy. Now these arteries are blocked on both sides of a town and taken past by means of a by-pass which is actually only a small tube to prevent the body from dying completely. These major roads form a very important part of the infrastructure. I now want to address a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

We know the policy has been changed recently, that these municipalities no longer receive assistance from the State in respect of national roads running through their areas. I want to mention an example here. I want to refer specifically to the circumstances at Bloemfontein, because I know them very well. I apologize for mentioning them here, but this is the easiest way of illustrating the position. Of the major roads reaching Bloemfontein, particularly the big main road from the south to the north forms a two-mile long bottleneck in the central city area, because the streets are too narrow to carry the traffic. A 16 mile long road bypassing Bloemfontein is now being planned. This will result in numerous flyovers having to be built. Land will have to be expropriated for this purpose. All these things will entail enormous costs. The main roads are beautifully constructed, but there is just this bottleneck. I want to plead that the cost of building and maintaining this 16 mile long ring road should be passed on to the municipality. I want to plead that the Municipality of Bloemfontein be directed to construct flyovers or subways through the city itself or to expropriate land in order to construct a road according to the standards of the National Transport Commission which will be able to accommodate the traffic properly. This will obviate the disruption which is caused when a road is diverted from its normal route, as it was planned, and which has come to form part of the city.

There is another danger which I want to emphasize in this regard. We have witnessed the development of honeypot urban complexes where ring roads are built in America. At the moment such development is prohibited. But at the junctions with the ring road, service stations, motels, restaurants and so forth will be erected. We must bear in mind that America, for example, places ten million new vehicles on its roads annually. We must plan for at least one million new vehicles on our roads. As the number of vehicles on our roads increases, the facilities at junctions will have to be doubled and quadrupled, with the result that these facilities in themselves will constitute small towns at such junctions. These are called honey-pot towns. Such towns develop at the expense of the existing urban development. Therefore I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister to consider, allocating, not additional funds, but at least the amount which has to be spent on providing those facilities, to the municipality for building that through road. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just sat down must forgive me if I do not follow the particular point he raised. I would like to deal with another matter. Before I do that, I would like to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that I found his remarks at the beginning of the debate this afternoon very strange. They were strange from the point of view that members, such as the member for Port Elizabeth Central, would be persona non grata to him in future, because of a certain matter which occurred. I want to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is a servant of the State. As a servant of the State, it is his duty to answer the questions which any member on this side of the House or that side, for that matter, puts to him. If the hon. the Deputy Minister takes exception or believes that remarks published are not quite accurate, he is at full liberty and entitled to deny those remarks and to point out where, according to him, they were inaccurate. But for the hon. the Deputy Minister, or any Minister, as far as I am concerned, to say that any member on this side will in future be persona non grata with him, is absolute rubbish! And if he does not want to deal with a member of this side of the House on that basis, then it is about time that he made way for another Minister who is prepared to do it. We are sick and tired of this sort of thing. It has happened in the past. I have had letters from Ministers on that side of the House saying the same thing. I should like them to know that when they do so I am at liberty to tell the public just what I think of those particular Ministers. I will certainly do so in the future.

I should like to deal with the question of third party insurance. In the past I have said that the Third Party Insurance Fund was making excessive profits. I should like to repeat that allegation this afternoon. I have obtained certain figures over a period of five years by way of questions in this House. One sees very little published about this particular fund. The time has come I am sure that the public is entitled to statements by the fund of its figures and how it is working. Be that as it may, the answers to questions I have had across the floor of the House indicate that in the five-year period the fund has collected no less than R95 676 000. In that period it paid claims of R45 million odd while the allowance for claims that have been notified but are still unpaid, amounted to R46 million. I realize that one has to make provision for claims notified but as yet unpaid. But looking back over the figures which have been supplied to me I come to the conclusion that the estimates for these claims are very accurate. In this respect the fund is to be congratulated in that they are not unduly overestimating unpaid claims. In the period 1966-’67 premiums paid as against claims estimated and paid almost balanced. In fact, there was a slight improvement of R400 000. This was followed up in 1967-’68 by very accurate figures again. As I have said the fund is certainly keeping estimates within reason. The interesting feature is that within this five-year period premium income as opposed to claims paid and claims notified but unpaid shows that the fund has made a profit of R3d million. This is during a five-year period. In addition to this, they have at present invested a total of no less than R54 million. If one were to take the interest earned on this money, calculated at a reasonable interest rate, this gives at least another R2½ million interest earned. So in a period of five years this fund has accumulated profits of R6 million. And when I say therefore that this fund is running up excessive profits I think I am quite justified in saying so. Surely the time has come then for the fund to reduce its premiums. There is no reason on earth for the fund to continue to operate at the present premium because one now has the experience of the claims received and the claims paid. This leaves us still with a tremendous balance of R6 million profit over a period of five years. It must be borne in mind that these are public funds and the public are therefore entitled to whatever benefits are received.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister something rather pertinent in regard to this. In answer to a question earlier in the Session the hon. the Minister showed how the investment of the fund is taking place. This showed that a figure of R21 million odd was invested as at 31st December, 1969, in banking institutions. At the end of December. 1970, the figure had risen to R31 million. I hope the hon. the Minister is listening to what I have to say otherwise he will be persona non grata as far as I am concerned.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain to this Committee why there was a change in investment with these banking institutions. The Bank of the Orange Free State had at the end of 1969 an amount of R2 050 000 invested. At the end of 1970 that figure had dropped to R510 000. The Rand Bank at the end of 1969 had R3 475 000, and at the end of December, 1970, it had R10 million. Sir, there must be some explanation for this, because surely the amount of interest is the same for either bank, or very nearly the same, and surely it does not warrant a switch from R3,5 million to roughly R10 million to that bank’s advantage. But the most extraordinary thing is that the Trust Bank had at the end of 1969 R3,5 million, but by the end of 1970 that investment had dropped to R550 000, a reduction in one year of no less than R3 million to an old established institution. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister in all seriousness this question: Has this change in the investment patterns—because one would assume that the rates of interest are very much the same-—-been brought about because the Chairman of the Board of the Trust Bank is making certain noises which are not favourable to the governing party? [Interjections.] I can come to no other conclusion but that this is the reason, because it shows further down as well that the Western Bank had R3.2 million at the end of 1969, and at the end of 1970 it had R7,5 million. There is some pattern going on in regard to these investments. I say again that this is public money. Therefore the public is entitled to know why this fund suddenly loses confidence in one institution and places its confidence in another institution. particularly in the case where it is moving from an old-established and highly reputable banking organization like the Trust Bank, where you find that R3 550 000 in 1969 had dropped to R550 000 in 1970.

When it comes to the building societies, the same pattern does not occur and the investments appear to be fairly consistent. Therefore I say to the hon. the Minister that he owes this Committee an explanation as to why this has taken place. All I can suggest to him, failing a reasonable explanation. is that this change in investment patterns is being brought about for political reasons. I would also say to the hon. the Minister that the 16 very favourably placed companies made last year a gross profit of R1 316 817. The only thing here is that there is no business in South Africa whose profits are guaranteed to this extent, because from these profits is only taken the agent’s commission of 5 per cent, and there are no risks in so far as claims are concerned.

The hon. the Deputy Minister will probably deal with the aspects which the hon. member has just touched upon. All that surprised me was that he should look for a political issue in this matter which has nothing to do with politics, and I wonder whether he is not displaying the same tendency as the hon. member for Simonstown with his stories about the fishing industry. But I do want to concede this to the hon. member, that if he was able, with his speech, to bring it to the attention of the public that the new third party discs must be on their motorcars as from Saturday, then he succeeded. [Interjections.] If the hon. member would stop prattling, I shall proceed with my speech.

I want to broach a matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister, which is perhaps of limited scope, but which can nevertheless become very important. I am referring to the introduction about a week ago in my constituency of what is now known as the “wine route”. This is a series of roads which bypass approximately 18 farms on which estate wines are being produced, and which have now been organized under the Cape Estate Wine Producers’ Association. From a tourist point of view this route is of particular importance. If one took into account the interest and the number of persons who were present at the inauguration of that route, then one can picture to oneself what it could mean for us in future from the point of view of tourism. Sir, my point is that the association in question, in order to advertise this route, in order to enable tourists to visit these separate farms, has designed an emblem and has also drawn up a route map which has been very tastefully prepared. The emblem, with the permission of the local authority, the divisional council, appears alongside the roads which give access to these farms in question. But now it so happens that at the two national road routes, which pass on both sides of the area, there is restricted access by means of traffic intersections to the wine route in question which is situated between the two national roads. I know that it is the policy of the National Transport Commission not to allow advertisements along national roads, nor at points where there are traffic intersections. But I nevertheless want to make a plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister and ask him whether consideration cannot be given to displaying the emblem of this association, which is associated with the wine route, at the traffic intersections in question. I think there are only three of them along the route between Cape Town and Paarl, and one or at most two along the route between Cape Town and Somerset West. Sir, I want to suggest that this emblem, which I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has already seen where it appears on the farms, cannot in any way be associated with an advertisement as provided in the Act, because it does not advertise the products of any specific person. It can only be associated with a particular route and a particular region. I would be very grateful, not only on behalf of the wine industry but also on behalf of the tourist industry, if the hon. the Deputy Minister could take this matter under consideration.

Sir, I do not wish to follow the hon. member for Stellenbosch, but I hope one day he will take the opportunity of taking members of Parliament on a conducted tour along the wine route to which he referred here.

To taste it?

Strictly to taste it, Sir.

Sir, I wish to raise a matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister which arose out of a tragic occurrence which took place in my constituency on the 11th November, 1969, when the aircraft piloted by Mr. Denis Pharazyn, of Pacair crashed. I want to say that as far as we in Pietermaritzburg are concerned, Pacair was beginning to develop into the sort of charter and civil aviation company for which we had been looking for a very long time. In fact, I had hoped to be able to approach Parliament for members to be able to use this as an easy means of getting to Johannesburg. Today, if you want to travel to Johannesburg you have to travel from your farm for an hour and a half in order to be at the airport half an hour before the flight takes off: which mean two hours of travelling and 40 minutes of flying to get to Johanneburg. Sir, this would have meant a saving of an hour and a half for us in travelling time, but as a result of the crash, I think this matter has been put off for some time. I would like to have a chance later on to approach the hon. the Deputy Minister in this regard. But the point that I wish to make is the delay which took place between the appointment of the commission of inquiry, the submission of the report to the Minister and the Minister’s approval of it and the settling of the claim by the insurance company, which enabled this company to resume or to have some prospects of resuming the service which they were offering to Johannesburg.

Sir, I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, in view of the increasing importance of civil aviation in South Africa, whether it is not possible to have, somewhere within the department, a permanent board which will go into the causes of accidents. In this particular case the accident took place on the 11th November. The board of inquiry was appointed on 19th December. Its first meeting was held on the 22nd April. Its next meeting was held on the 16th June. Between the 22nd April and the 16th June the test flight was carried out which attempted to find out the reasons for the crash taking place. The report was submitted to the hon. the Minister on the 15th September. I must say that once it was submitted to the hon. the Minister, the process of approval took place very rapidly indeed. However, even after having been accepted by the hon. the Minister, the pay-out of the insurance moneys to the company concerned was delayed. It seems to me that there is no reason why some permanent body consisting of members of the department, could not exist which could start the investigation immediately and could expedite the inquiry which has to take place after such an aeroplane accident.

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain one point to me which arose out of the inquiry. At this inquiry there was present counsel that represented the insurance company. During the course of the proceedings, counsel for the insurance company cross-questioned witnesses. I do not know the procedure and I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will explain to me on what basis such a counsel representing an insurance company which might later be involved in legal proceedings takes part in the cross-questioning of witnesses and in the actual workings of the commission of inquiry appointed by the hon. the Minister. I do not quite see how this can happen with fairness to all parties. I believe something should be done in this regard. I believe this is something which puts the insurance company itself, to my mind, in a false position should litigation arise from the results of the inquiry as approved by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, the question of facilities at this Pietermaritzburg aerodrome, the Oribi airport, was touched upon by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City. With the growing importance of Pietermaritzburg, I believe, that the department should consider the siting of at least two additional beacons to aid aircraft coming in from Johannesburg. The problem is that these aircraft have to descend virtually all the way when coming in to this airport. The practice is for them to fly over New Hanover where there is a beacon. From New Hanover they have to turn to get down to Pietermaritzburg. This allows pilots to fly from high ground down to low ground coming in to Pietermaritzburg. There is a non-directional beacon on the aerodrome at Oribi. If pilots fly over the F.M. beacon at Hilton Road, they then fly towards high ground and then have to drop down to land at the airport at Pietermaritzburg. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate the siting of the beacons at the Oribi aerodrome. It is, as anybody knows, a very difficult section of the country. Mist prevails there. Without these navigational aids, civil aviation in the Pietermaritzburg area will be hindered very severely indeed.

Therefore, my plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister is that steps should be taken to expedite the appointment of a commission of inquiry. The submission of the report and the approval to allow insurance payments and so forth, should take place with the utmost rapidity.

Mr. Chairman, to end the debate on this side of the House, I want to return to where we started this afternoon with the hon. the Deputy Minister’s hour-plus address to this House.

The hon. the Deputy Minister spent a great deal of time and went to a great deal of trouble to tell this House that there has been an increase in air traffic in South Africa. Rip van Winkel waking up! We all know that. Everybody knows that there has been an increase in air traffic. Even the Airways knows there has been an increase in air traffic. But the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport tells us this afternoon that there has been an increase in air traffic and are we not all clever boys. Our argument is that the Department of Transport has not kept up with that increase and not that there has not been an increase. Of course there has been in increase. In fact, there has been a terrific increase and it is only recently that the Airways themselves have caught up with demand. Before they had been lagging behind the demand, so that there were long wait lists. However, they have not caught up with the delay on the ground. Let me take the question of navigational aids. The hon. the Deputy Minister quoted at great length today to show how well served we were with navigational aids, but he chose the three international airports. He chose Jan Smuts Airport, Bloemfontein, which is the over-fly for international flights which have to over-fly Jan Smuts, and Cape Town. Why did he not talk about East London, Port Elizabeth and Durban? Why did he not tell us that time after time one or other of those navigational aids is out of order and that pilots complain continuously of the risks which they have to take? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport, however, comes with long lists of aids at three international airports, where, of course, we know there are aids. Some of them are not yet satisfactory. Take Durban today. Does he know how far his radar control covers from Durban? With modern jet aircraft it is a matter of a few seconds flying. With modern aircraft and the speed at which they travel, we cannot have radar with a 20 to 30 mile radius and say that we are equipped with radar. We have to have more and more modern equipment. Last year I queried the fact that only R1 million had been voted for navigational aids. Then we were told that we have all the aids we want, and that everything is under control. This year the Deputy Minister comes back and he puts on R3 million, whereas last year we were told that the position was perfectly satisfactory. Suddenly they found it was not so satisfactory, and therefore R3 million has to be voted this year.

Now I want to refer to the buildings themselves. I do not want to embarrass the hon. the Minister too much in this regard. However, we remember his gaffe with terminals and which terminal he happened to be on at a particular time last year. But I would like to ask him to look up in a dictionary so that he can see the difference between “prefabricated” and “montasiebou”. I think he will find that they are not so far apart. At least, if he is correct, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, who has been talking about “montasie” housing for a long time, does not know what he is talking about.

Let us look at the situation. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister assure this House that when the jumbo jets start flying at the end of this year, Jan Smuts Airport is going to be ready to receive them? I say this because we are only voting R8 million this year for this purpose. An amount of R20 million still remains to be spent before the Jan Smuts programme is completed. I want to make a prediction that when the jumbo jets start flying, Jan Smuts will not be ready to handle them with all the planned advances and buildings which are required. That is why we say that the department on the ground is not keeping up.

Let us take Durban. The situation in Durban is impossible. I looked at the timetable for today. Today, Monday, 28 flights will arrive at and leave Durban. That is just for today. The situation is already chaotic. The South African Airways staff and the staff of the Department of Transport are working under impossible conditions. The way they handle people going through that building is incredible. The facilities they have are insufficient, the equipment is insufficient, and they do not have the space to work. What is the position these? We have a staff which is working itself to death, whereas only R300 000 is voted for additions to Durban. An amount of R4 million is unspecified and I hope that the hon. the Minister will tell us what the amount of R4 million under Loan Vote “L” is for and what the details of that expenditure are. I have looked at the plans for Durban and even if those plans are put into effect, it will still be unsatisfactory. At the moment the situation is chaotic and I want to plead with the hon. the Deputy Minister not to let Durban suffer any longer under a situation of having to handle too many passengers with unsatisfactory facilities. I hope that the situation will be reviewed and that Durban will also become an international airport as the other airports like Cape Town and Jan Smuts are. I do not have the time to take this matter further, because I want to deal very briefly with the arrival of passengers at D. F. Malan Airport.

What I want to say is not hearsay. At the outset I want to pay tribute to the courtesy of the South African Airways ground hostess whom I went to see. My children, and the children of many other members on this side of the House, and I assume also on that side, arrive by air at D. F. Malan. I asked permission to go in and to receive their luggage. I was told that not even for an invalid, a cripple or an old lady are you allowed in. She said that she would have liked me to go but that there was the ruling of the Department of Transport against it. She said that the ground hostess would see the children through. Of course she did not, because there was no ground hostess to see them through. I then asked for a porter to be sent in to carry their luggage because they could not carry their own luggage. They said that they would see about that, but there was no porter and nobody was sent in to help them. The ground hostess then said that there was nothing she could do about the matter. What sort of attitude is this where parents are not allowed, for the sake of stupid red tape, to meet their children. Because it is an international terminal, and because there is an international arrivals notice up nobody may go in and meet their own children, with the result that they have to find their own way through? I want to say again that the Airways hostess was very courteous but she said that there was nothing she could do about it.

Finally I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will explain to this House what it is about Cabinet Ministers which makes it impossible for them to drive in motor-cars with a GG number-plate. I raised the question of 17 motorcars which had their number-plates changed for three days, from the 10th November to the 13th November, to convey Nationalist Party Cabinet Ministers from their hotels to a Nationalist Party Congress. There are only 24 Ministers, 18 Ministers and six Deputy-Ministers, and they were not all at the Congress, but of the 17 of them who were there each had to have his own motor-car. They could not take three Cabinet Ministers from one hotel to the conference room in one motor-car. They had to have three motor-cars each conveying a Minister. They could not take them in an ordinary Government Garage car. Since we picked them out last year about expenses running into hundreds and hundreds of rand for bringing cars from Bloemfontein, Durban and East London to Port Elizabeth, they decided this time not to bring motor-cars from all over South Africa, but to use local Government Garage cars. They could not use them, however, because they had GG number-plates. Mr. Chairman, have you ever heard anything so idiotic and ridiculous? Members of the Public Service then had to go and license and register motor-cars for three days only, take out a new registration and then had to go to Messrs. Motor and General Supplies and buy 17 pairs of number-plates. These number-plates had to be fitted, then taken off again. They also had to change the discs for three days! They had to do all this in order that Ministers would not be insulted by having to be driven in a motorcar with GG number-plates. It was the same motor-car and the same driver. At the end of the three-day conference it all had to be undone. They say it only cost R2-10 per motor-car … [Time expired.]

We know the hon. member for Durban Point to be the jester in this House. Let me first say something about the GG motor-cars he had such a lot to say about. The hon. member is aware that there was an article about this in the Daily Dispatch. The Daily Dispatch was subsequently invited by the Department of Transport to substantiate the allegations in that article. The newspaper explained that the information, i.e. the information the hon. member for Durban Point used across the floor of this House, was obtained from officials and that if those officials could be granted indemnity against any steps which might be taken against them as a result of the fact that they had made the information available, the newspaper would produce the evidence. Well, written indemnity was granted on the understanding that the newspaper would produce the evidence supporting the allegations of the hon. member for Durban Point. But we are still waiting for it. In other words, the hon. member’s allegations have never been proved.

What about this question? Here it undoubtedly stands in Hansard.

Yes, I know that, but the information with which the hon. member for Durban Point wanted to make the public believe all kinds of things, the Daily Dispatch did not want to substantiate.

The regulation that Ministers may not use GG motor-cars, was introduced by the Smuts Government. We have already had the case of a judge refusing to ride in a GG motor-car. It is simply not the policy of Ministers and Deputy Ministers to ride in GG motor-cars, for a host of reasons.

Mention one to me.

In addition the hon. member has already received the assurance in a previous debate that the use of these motor-cars, and the changing— not disguising—of their number plates resulted in a saving, for if that had not been done, motor-cars would have had to be brought from elsewhere. Therefore the hon. member’s allegations do not hold water.

But what are the reasons why Ministers and Deputy Ministers may not use GG motor-cars?

In the first place because, as I have said, it is the policy that Ministers and Deputy Ministers do not ride in GG motor-cars.

Let me mention another matter to show how erroneous the hon. member’s data is. He took it amiss of me because I allegedly used international airports as an example to show how many kinds of navigational aids there are, and did not mention Durban. But let me give him the position at Durban. NDB with high capacity is in service and localizer with low capacity is in use at New Hanover, Eshowe and Margate. VOR/DME, the very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range, and the Distance-measuring Apparatus is also in service, as well as the instrument landing system …

On what date?

It is already in service. An order has been placed for the Surveillance Radar Element, and will be installed in 1972-’73.

For what distance?

For the Durban area. Radio-telephony for aerodrome control, routes and long-distance VHF are all in service. The same applies to the teleprinter. The W/T point-to-point, high capacity, is available; the telephone to Jan Smuts, Virginia and Port Elizabeth is in service; the same applies to the main runway lights as well as the approach lights. Danger beacons are already in service at two places, etc. I am proud of the navigational aid services we are already providing. For example, we have the best calibration aircraft in the entire world, an aircraft which we bought for R1 million while other countries have to purchase it for R2 million today. This aircraft is used for the continual testing and synchronizing of these navigational aids. For the hon. member for Durban Point to say here that these services are not there, is not correct.

What about the motor-cars?

I have already said what the policy is and that the number plates were not disguised. I also said that their Press publishes articles and then runs away from the facts. I come now to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth and the hon. member for Walmer. I have no quarrel with the hon. member for Newton Park. He rectified the matter; he came and told me that this was wrong. The hon. member for Walmer said: “It is a pity that it was published in a slightly different manner”. But when something is published in a slightly different manner, a completely different impression can be created, a different connotation can be attached to it. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central admitted this, but the hon. member still ran to the Press and said that the statement made by the hon. the Deputy Minister was incorrect. I do not accept his explanation, and I want the Committee to know this. I received a letter from the hon. member for Walmer in which he apologized for the incorrect newspaper report. That gives me all the more right to call this newspaper to order. The hon. member for Algoa, and I think the hon. member for Newton Park as well, advocated that we subsidize Coloured transport, in the same way as in the case of the Bantu Transport Services Act, (Act No. 53 of 1957), as amended. The hon. member for Newton Park referred to the fact that the Minister of Community Development is already investigating the matter. To accomplish this, however, would entail passing legislation in order to have those employers making use of Coloured labour pay the same levy and in order to work out from time to time to what extent the scheme would have to be subsidized. But, as has been said, the matter is being investigated and when this has been done, the Government will give consideration to it.

Those hon. members who put up such a fight here, alleged one after the other that these increased bus fares were simply the last straw which broke the camel’s back. But, as the hon. the Minister correctly said, why do hon. members not go to their supporters there, to the employers, and ask them to pay their employees a worthwhile wage? No, they come and attack the Government and shift the responsibility for the unfortunate state of affairs which developed there onto the shoulders of the Government instead of where it belongs.

What about inflation?

On the one hand hon. members opposite are advocating that the Government should spend more, that it should subsidize bus services, but on the other hand they try to defend their supporters, the employers, because they do not want to pay their employees a worthwhile wage. They do this by trying to hide behind inflation. That is a very poor show.

As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, I am not prepared to reply to her. In any case, she did not discuss transport, but merely tried to be an intercessor for incitement; we know that to be typical of her.

So you want me just to remain quiet? You have not got a hope. When I am provoked, I always retaliate.

To the hon. member for Walmer I want to say that they cannot discuss a matter here which has still to be heard. Should they try to do so, they would be prejudicing the case. If the information which hon. members have at their disposal, information in favour of a decrease in the fares, is true, they must plead the matter when the appeal is heard.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay had a lot to say about the coastal road. Arising out of representations we have received from various sources against the alignment of the proposed coastal route, and an inspection in loco, the National Transport Commission has decided to investigate alternative alignments between Somerset West and Mossel Bay first, before arriving at a final decision. Sufficient information in regard to possible alternative routes is expected to be collected in 1971-’72 to enable the Commission to decide on the final alignment of the route between the Strand and Bot River. Between Bot River and Mossel Bay various alternative proposals are at present being surveyed in order to determine the best route between Bot River and Bredasdorp, and at Puntjie, De Hoop Valley and Still Bay. We shall give thorough consideration to the representations he has made. I think that we are as anxious to preserve that beautiful natural scenery there.

The hon. member has also admonished us in regard to soil washaways. I should like to inform him that under the new Act we are making provision for every possible step to be taken to prevent soil washaways and to see to it that with the alignment and the construction of the road, that flow of water can be regulated in such a way that there will be the least possible, or no soil washaways. We are all aware of this problem.

The hon. member also spoke about fencing and measures to keep the game off the road. I think the hon. member presented a very strong case, not only for the protection of that game which we would all like to see being protected, but also for the sake of road safety. National roads are, in particular constructed with a view to road safety, and it is necessary that we have effective fencing-off of the road there, for if one is driving at night, or at any other time, and game wanders onto the road, one automatically swerves away and this could cause accidents. That is why we want to fence this road off so that we will not have that problem with game on those roads. This will consequently be done.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Newton Park. I just want to add the following. I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister that we cannot have an Act which would saddle the Minister with the responsibility of repealing or changing the resolutions of the road transport councils, for if one were to do that, one would be depriving the National Road Transport Commission entirely of its autonomy, and then one could just as well dissolve it. [Interjections.] He cannot even suspend it. The act does not make provision for that.

The hon. members for Welkom, Bloemfontein West and Pietermaritzburg City all made a very strong plea in regard to road safety. I agree with all three of them, but you know that there is a commission of inquiry. Its report would possibly have been available for perusal at the end of April, but I have now learnt that they hope to submit it in June or July, because they are making a very thorough investigation. For that reason I do not want to anticipate their report in regard to the suggestions the hon. members put forward here. I think this commission of inquiry and we, too, are well aware that this is a problem which must be investigated very thoroughly and which must be tackled with great thoroughness in order to put an end to this problem. I can only say this. This morning I presented one of our motorcar drivers with a badge for road safety after 32 years of accident-free driving, which is a fine example. I said on that occasion that one drives as one lives. In other words, the driving ability of the individual and the way in which he drives, are linked to his personality. If one is considerate of others and willing to help, and if one’s inter-personal relationships are satisfactory, etc., it is reflected in one’s driving. Then we will have far fewer accidents in South Africa, and I hope we will all try to emulate this fine example. We in South Africa are not sufficiently road conscious, and consequently we make many of these mistakes.

I hope you do not drive, Herman.

No, I do drive, and I am proud of my driving. You need not be concerned about that. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City spoke about railway crossings. I shall come in a moment to the aircraft accidents which other members also mentioned. I just want to mention the following very briefly. The present amount for the elimination of railway crossings is R4,5 million, viz. R1,5 million from the Railways, R1,5 million from the Central Government, and R1,5 million from the Roads Fund. I can tell you briefly that since this Act was introduced, we have earmarked 430 railway crossings for elimination. Between 1960 and the end of 1969 127 of this total had already been eliminated by means of 90 bridges, 17 subways, four link roads, one road detour, two pedestrian subways, one pedestrian bridge and one work reconstruction scheme at an estimated cost of more than R13 634 000. This was done out of the elimination of railway crossings fund. During 1970 14 crossings were eliminated by means of 13 bridges, and one subway, at an estimated cost of R2 842 000. You will see, Sir, that at present 30 bridges, one subway and a deviation of line is at present under the construction or will shortly be tackled, by which means a further 35 scheduled railway crossings will be eliminated at a cost of approximately R5½ million. I am simply mentioning this so that you can see, Sir, that we are really hard at work eliminating railway crossings.

Sir, I shall return in a moment to the problem of aircraft, touched upon here by the hon. member for Mooi River.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein District said a very important thing here, and I hope the Cape Provincial Administration will take note of it. It is a fact that there is a daily stream of pedestrians back and forth across the road between the city and the D. F. Malan building, which is a limited access road. These pedestrians stream across the road through holes which have been cut in the fence. In addition, open spaces in the road reserves are being used as football fields, and my only fear is that when we disallow this and decide to fence in the road, we shall have another new agitation on the part of the hon. member for Houghton who will say that non-Whites are once again being deprived of their rights. Sir, the sooner we put an end to this kind of thing and see to it that the Coloureds are able to enjoy the necessary recreational facilities in their own areas instead of within our road reserves, the better. I hope that cognizance will be taken of what I have said.

In addition the hon. member asked me whether we had a master plan in regard to national roads for the next 10 years. Unfortunately I cannot, owing to the limited time at my disposal, furnish him with the full particulars. I can only inform him that during the next 10 years the following amounts will be spent on national roads by the provinces alone: The Cape R210 850 000; Natal R276 600 000; The Orange Free State R170 500 000 and the Transvaal R271 200 00. Sir, you will see that the amounts which will be spent on roads during the next 10 years are extremely large amounts. These roads are expensive. Let me just mention one example: The Somerset West-Botriver-Bredas-dorp-Mossel Bay road alone costs R69 million. I am mentioning this, Sir, to show you that we are working according to a national plan. Time does not allow me to mention all the roads; I should have liked to have done so. If hon. members are interested, I could furnish them with the figures.

In addition the hon. member asked whether we could not give consideration, when we build a national road right up to a city, to giving those funds to the local authority to plan a road for us running through that city instead of building a ring-road around it. I want to inform that hon. member that this is impracticable. We analysed what it would cost to do what Bloemfontein wanted to do. If Bloemfontein had built this national road through the city, it would have cost approximately R190 million, while the ring-roads passing on either side of Bloemfontein cost R47 million. But apart from that a national road is a road which links up from point to point throughout the country. You have limited access only, and we are arranging, by way of ring-roads, that all roads running to Bloemfontein from other places link up with the national road by means of fly-overs, subways or traffic intersections. In this way the city is then supplied with roads from all sides. It is essential to do this, particularly if one considers the Witwatersrand complex, with the East Rand on the one side and the West Rand on the other. In addition, the policy now is no longer to give the local authorities the amounts we previously gave them.

Sir, while I am dealing with roads, I just want to reply briefly to the hon. member for Stellenbosch. I have already given an undertaking to grant the hon. member and this association which wants to establish the wine route there an interview. Our Act provides that one cannot have advertisements adjoining roads. But I think that, in the same way as we indicate at our traffic intersections that this road goes to Mayfair or that road to Muizenberg, we will have to give some thought to allowing an indication there that this is the wine route road. We shall look into this matter, because I think this is a very fine undertaking. For example on one wine route I noticed that even a piece of history was presented of how Adam Tas fell off his horse one evening when he was drunk, and had made political propaganda, and had then slept on a farm which is on the wine route. We shall give consideration to this request. It will have a fine attraction for tourists.

Surely it then becomes a dangerous road.

One wonders sometimes whether one should take notice of the hon. member for Port Natal. Till Eulenspiegel has a saying for it, “The people hate me, but I am always asking for it.” Every time he rises to his feet, he creates that impression. That is why he must not take it amiss of me when I say that I wonder whether one should take much notice of him. Let us look at the questions he asked. In the first instance he said, in regard to the investments, that when he analyses the investments, it seems to him, because the managing director of the Trust Bank attacked and reprimanded the Government, that it is not getting the investment capital it should be getting. The hon. member for Port Natal asked us to explain this. Let me inform the hon. member that the hon. the Minister receives a submission of the available investments which have to be made. There is no political interference. For example, in the submission I received last year, the amount available was R28 million. Of that he gave Iscor R10 million; he gave an amount to Volkskas, because they are helping to finance Putco which is a transport service. We also give amounts to building societies. It is not determined politically by the Minister to which building societies these amounts should be given. Whether it is a United Party or a National Party building society, does not matter. We are at present approving a further amount of R4 million for building societies, because building societies are making their contribution to help solve the housing problem in South Africa. The Department makes the arrangements as the requests come in from the building societies. We come then to the banking institutions. These are short- and long-term investments. We therefore see a variation here, because money must be available there in order to make payments. To banking institutions, on a short-term basis, an amount of R9,5 million was given. Neither the Minister nor I determine that the Western Bank should receive so much and the Trust Bank so much, and that another bank should receive another amount. The manager of the fund analyses and sees to it that he makes his investments where he can get the highest interest. Sir, to make that accusation which the hon. member made here, is so much rubbish, if I may put it like that.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I am replying to the hon. member now. But go ahead and ask.

Does the fund receive a higher rate of interest from the Rand Bank than it does from the Trust Bank?

No, the same.

The hon. member tried to show that this fund had supposedly made so much profit. He could not analyse it, because he did not know what the outstanding claims were. The outstanding claims on the 1965-’66 premiums were 28 in the rural areas and 66 in the cities. For 1966-’67 there were 180 in the rural areas and 580 in the cities. For 1967-’68 there were 620 in the rural areas and 1 892 in the cities. In 1968-’69 there were 3 702 in the rural areas and 11 560 in the cities. In 1969-’70 the number of outstanding claims numbered 4 369 in the rural areas …

Are those figures in rands?

I am enumerating the outstanding claims. These are not the totals in rands, but I shall come to that in a moment. In 1969-’70 the number of outstanding claims in the cities was 15 980. This is therefore the number of claims outstanding. In other words, there is a total of 20 349 claims which are outstanding for the premiums which have been paid from 1965-’66 up to the present. It is unknown what the amount per claim is. However, we do have a premium committee which analyses the matter. I now want to issue a warning, so that hon. members can know what the actual state of affairs is. I want to mention a few figures. If claims as against premiums in respect of the rural areas are analysed, and the existing premiums for 1965-’66 are taken as an example, then the premium on motor cycles was R6 for example and the claims experience R12-20 per motor cycle. In other words, the claims exceeded the premiums. What is also interesting is the case of hearses. Here the premiums are R6 and the claims R6-38. On motor dealers—these are the motor cars with the red number plates—the premiums are R50 and claims R50-45. But let us look at other cases which are much more important. On public vehicles (taxis) in cities the premium is R57 and the claims R60-83. On goods vehicles the premium is R48 and the claims R53-64.

Are these average figures?

Yes, the claims exceed the premiums in quite a number of these categories.

What is the position of the private motorist?

The premium in respect of the private motorist amounts to R70 and the claims experience is R18-24 in the city. Here, too, the premium is less than the claims experience. We are still able to pay these claims because we earned R11 million in interest by means of our investments. That is the reason why we are able to pay these claims. That is why I am also able to say that the premium committee, which has to submit an annual analysis to the Minister, proposed that the premiums should not be increased at present. They proposed that we should continue as at present. I think that is an achievement.

In this connection I want in conclusion to refer to a Press report on the insolvency of one of the biggest British insurance companies, which entailed that millions of people were without third party insurance. South Africa is, under our scheme, in the fortunate position that we will not again have the problems we were faced with in the past and which the British are now faced with.

Now I want to deal with the matters raised by the hon. member for Mooi River.

†The hon. member referred to the question of delay in proceedings relating to fatal aircraft accidents. I can inform the hon. member that all present investigations are up to date. Nothing is lagging behind. What is the procedure? The department’s inspector of accidents or in his absence, some other suitable official of the Division of Civil Aviation, is sent with the least possible delay to the scene of the accident and investigations in situ are commenced immediately. These investigations include taking a series of photographs and measurements from which a locality plan can be drawn up. They also include a detailed examination of the wreckage for possible faults and where necessary the removal of certain parts for subsequent detailed investigation. Arrangements are also made for special post mortem examinations and evidence of eye witnesses is obtained. Investigations usually extend to the home station of the aircraft and the responsible maintenance organization. That is the first step. A full investigation is also carried out into the qualifications and experience of the crew, with particular reference to their experience on the aircraft-type involved in the accident. The maintenance history of the aircraft is also carefully scrutinized. Information is also obtained regarding the history of the particular flight, the weather pertaining before and at the time of the accident and, where necessary, the functioning of navigational aids.

This comprehensive investigation, especially where tests and research work has to be conducted, may, depending on the complexity of the investigation, take many months. Hon. members realize that. In the meantime the department gives consideration to the question of the appointment of a board of inquiry. The nature of the accident, the aircraft type and the type of operation dictates the qualifications and the experience of the persons who can be considered for recommendation for appointment to such boards. These things are taken into consideration by the department when making its recommendations. The board is appointed by the Minister in terms of section 12 (1) of the Aviation Act, 1962. When the department’s investigation into the accident is completed, the inspector of accidents prepares his report for submission to the board of inquiry. A date and venue for the sitting of the board is then fixed, witnesses are subpoenaed and other arrangements for holding the public inquiries are made. In some cases, after the first sitting, the board may require additional evidence to be submitted for the further tests to be carried out. In these cases, a further sitting or even two sittings, have to be convened before the board is satisfied that every aspect of the investigation has been covered and all possible evidence obtained. The preparation of the report of the board may also take several weeks, depending on the complexity of the accident and the evidence submitted to it, which must be carefully analysed.

*So I can continue to indicate to hon. members that this is a matter which cannot simply be disposed of.

The hon. member also said that the legal representatives of the insurers were present. I have no knowledge of this, but I shall have this matter investigated and let the hon. member know what the correct procedure is.

The hon. member went on to say that many of these air accidents are possibly due to inadequate navigational aids. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I have perused all reports of investigations and that I have not yet, in any of these reports, seen a lack of navigational aids being advanced as a reason for an accident. I think that with these words I have replied to the questions put to me.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will reply to the question put to him in respect of the meeting of children at D. F. Malan and also about the Durban airports?

Mr. Chairman, of course no people are allowed on the loading zone, for reasons of safety. Previously all passengers entered via the old building, and because it was not built according to international standards, there was no partition. Thus parents were able to go to meet their children at the gate and accompany them on their way to get their baggage. The new building through which people now have to pass, is built according to the international pattern. Nowhere, at international reception, is there sufficient room allowed for the convergence of a large number of people. It is built in such a way that there is only room enough to allow the passengers who have to be handled to move through. Hon. members in this House can testify, as I can, that when there are small children there are always air hostesses who can come to their assistance and help them until they reach their parents. I have never yet seen little children being left to themselves.

But they do not do it.

The hon. member must mention to me the specific case, and we shall have it investigated. There are no airports where passengers receive more courteous treatment than that which passengers receive from ground staff and air hostesses at our airports.

That is what I said.

If the hon. member could furnish me with the day and date of the incident he has in mind, we shall have it investigated. In regard to the carrying of baggage, I can only say that there are at all times enough porters for this purpose.

That is absolute nonsense.

If there are specific cases, hon. members can mention them to me and I shall have them investigated as well.

Mr. Chairman, there is some gossip going about that number plates were changed on motor-cars in which Ministers are supposed to have driven. I think the matter should be rectified. I have been Minister of Transport for more than 16 years now. During those 16 years I have never given such an instruction to my Department. My predecessor never gave such instructions, and I personally will have no objection to driving in a GG motor-car. This instruction was given by Gen. Smuts and his Government years ago. In other words, it happened in the years when certain of those hon. young members on the other side, who are having such a good laugh about this matter, were still wearing nappies. The instructions were given at that time, and there were probably good reasons for doing so. As far as I can understand, the good reason was that …

Security measures.

Security measures were in those days one of the good reasons advanced. Another reason was that a Minister has free use of his motor-car, but that an official driving in a GG motor-car does not have free use of that motor-car. It is the duty of the public when they see a person in a GG motor-car at a place where he ought not to be, to report that person to the Department. The Minister does not keep a logbook in his motor-car, while officials do in fact have to keep a logbook. There we consequently have the difference between the two. I just want to say to the hon. member and the newspaper which made such a fuss about it, that this is not an instruction which I or my predecessor gave, but an instruction given by Gen. Smuts in the days when they were in power.

You want to retain it?

Yes, I am going to retain it. Why not? I retain the good measures of the United Party Government, but not the bad ones.

Mr. Chairman, I asked the hon. the Minister whether there are sufficient navigational aids to cover the Natal province for private aeroplane flights.

Yes.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 38.—“Information”, R6 700 000:

Mr. Chairman, the Government is asking for R6 700 000 this year for information services and this is R1 million more than last year. It is up to the Minister to justify this amount this afternoon. The hon. the Minister will be going on a trip abroad very soon and we wish him a pleasant and a fruitful voyage. He will be visiting the United States, Canada and Europe. I am a bit sorry that he could not touch at Buenos Aires either on his way to or from the United States with our New South African Airways service. It would not have meant more than an additional day or two, or maybe three days. I am also a bit disappointed that he is not going to visit our information offices in Brussels and in Vienna. Today Brussels is, even more than Geneva, an international city especially as it is the capital, so to speak of the Common Market. Vienna is for many countries of the West one of the major listening posts on this side of the Iron Curtain. He will have a task to perform abroad as the Minister of Information. However, he is also the Minister of Immigration and in all these cities there are immigration offices. I would like to know from him whether he will also make a point of visiting, instead of making a double trip, the information offices and at the same time the immigration offices in his capacity as Minister of Immigration. Perhaps he could also find out something about other offices which deal with information about South Africa in the cities which he will be visiting. There are the South African Tourist Corporation offices and the offices of our Foreign Trade Advisers under the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. Above all, I trust that he will have quiet and confidential chats with our ambassadors in all these major cities, whereby he can really find out from them how the information offices can help to a greater extent than they may be doing at the present moment. It is one of the most important tasks of the hon. the Minister to see that there is proper co-ordination between our foreign service and between our information offices. The hon. the Minister’s whole trip will be costing R20 000. This will mean that an amount of close on R350 per day is granted for him and his party, but if he can do as I have suggested, and if he can improve the information services, and we can see that they are acting as they should, that money will be well-spent.

*However, he has many other difficulties. He is being handicapped in his policy and he is being handicapped in his task, firstly, by the Government’s policy, and, secondly, by his own declared policy of the past. One must not forget that the hon. the Minister is a person who will have to defend, for example, a Coloured policy through his Department of Information …

Order! I think the hon. member is digressing a little too far now. He must come back to the Vote.

I should like to point out that the Department has 70 or 80 information officers and that there are amongst them in Cape Town alone seven for the Coloureds. In this regard I have a reply here from the hon. the Minister. Does the hon. the Minister have officers for the Coloureds?

Order! I am not going to allow the Coloured, Bantu and other policies to be discussed here. No reference must be made to these policies either.

I just want to point out that in his reply, the hon. the Minister said that the Department also had Coloureds in its service who had to explain the Government’s policy to the Coloured people. All I am saying is that the hon. the Minister is going to have trouble with this, as it is a policy, no matter how officially he accepts it, in which he himself does not believe. I want to mention a second point as well. The major task of the hon. the Minister is to be able to supply information concerning South Africa. However, he is a Minister who has committed himself as being a person who believes in indoctrination. The hon. the Minister will recall saying this before he became a Minister. He said at the time that he stood for and believed in indoctrination.

That is untrue.

In regard to education, he himself said that he had indoctrinated children. Is that correct?

No. Take the trouble to read my Hansard. Then I should very much like to reply to this.

Very well. However, the hon. the Minister did use the word “indoctrination” with reference to himself, and he can let us have his exact words. The hon. the Minister will have the task of explaining through his information service the other strange aspects of Government policy. I wish he would produce a pamphlet dealing with the sports policy as soon as possible, because I must honestly say that I do not fully understand it. I hope the hon. the Minister will soon explain through his 67 Bantu officers in the Bantu areas what exactly is going to happen now when requests are made for further independence for certain of the future independent states.

The hon. the Minister’s biggest problem is and will always remain giving an explanation of things which are partly inherent in our so-called traditional policy in South Africa, but which are partly unnecessary. Here I am referring to a matter which was mentioned to me by persons who had been invited to visit South Africa, who had travelled through the country and who are favourably disposed to South Africa. These are the complaints we have to hear time after time about that matter which is called petty apartheid in South Africa. One of the biggest tasks of the hon. the Minister is contained in this. He must explain to the rest of the world, if it is possible for him to do so, why things so often take place which are not what the hon. the Prime Minister called them, namely rudeness, but which are part of the policy of this Government and which it is his and his department’s task to explain.

Ask Japie Basson.

In my opinion these are things which are impossible to explain at times, and I am sure the hon. the Chief Whip cannot explain them either, no matter how hard he tries.

†There are four divisions in the hon. the Minister’s Department. There is the Interior Division, the Foreign Division, the Audio-Visual Services and Publications Division, and finally the Press Liaison Division. I would like, in this ten-minute speech, and possibly in the next, to say something about each of these different divisions of his department. Firstly I would like to say something about his Press Liaison Division. The hon. the Minister has taken steps to improve Press liaison and has appointed persons to see that there is better contact between the Cabinet and policymakers in the Government and the public outside. I agree with that. He has taken a further step, namely in regard to holding Press conferences at which the hon. the Prime Minister is the main figure and at which representatives of newspapers are permitted to question the Prime Minister. I believe that this is basically a good idea. I do believe that the hon. the Minister did, within his powers, organize it as well as he could. But now, having said that, I frankly want to say that I was extremely disappointed with that Press conference and its results. I believe that the major actor at that Press conference, the hon. the Prime Minister, certainly did not do as well as he could do. I looked at the questions he replied to. Of the 39 questions he replied to. I think he gave a vague reply, or a reply equivalent to not knowing, to at least 9 of them. Perhaps one can understand it, but the hon. the Prime Minister was certainly not as informative as one could wish, and I trust that when there is a Press conference again, the hon. the Prime Minister will be better prepared. This, I must say, also goes for one or two of the questions put to the hon. the Prime Minister by the questioners. Some of the questions were good, but some were utterly stupid as far as I am concerned. I do not wish to go into the details, but I think of some of the questions which were put. There was a question about the S.A. Foundation in which the questioner, a journalist or an assistant editor of a Johannesburg paper, certainly did not come off best, and he did not know his facts before he put the question. There was an almost inane question put by the representative of a financial paper from Johannesburg, a question which was utterly meaningless. How on earth the hon. the Prime Minister could have replied to that, I do not know, but at least he did give a coherent reply to an incoherent question. [Time expired.]

In comparison with what we heard here last year, the tenor of the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove has actually come as a surprise. One part of the surprise is the tenor of his speech. I do think one should not despair. The hon. member is learning, and that is a fact. What has also been surprising, is that the hon. member today accepts the things which he condemned in the sharpest terms last year. Listen to what the hon. member had to say last year about the newest division of this Department, the Press Liaison Division. In this debate last year he said the following as recorded in column 4763 of Hansard—

Then he went on to say—

The hon. member continued in this vein, but I want to say at once that it is evident that the hon. member has been learning in the course of the year, and to my surprise. he said this afternoon that now he was in agreement with this system of press liaison.

But you are carrying it into effect very badly.

At the moment I am first discussing the principle of the matter. The hon. member has learned now. Today he will concede to me that he has abandoned the extravagant language in which he condemned this aspect and other activities of the department last year. At present and he accepts that he was wrong. But the hon. member is out of step once again. This new system and this new dispensation of liaison with the Press has proved itself. A brilliant first major conference was held, apart from the other services this division performs by arranging background conferences and discussions with other Ministers for journalists and others. I maintain that the system has proved itself, but the hon. member could not stop himself from saying that he was deeply disappointed with that conference. Sir, I want to be so presumptuous as to say that there is only one person in South Africa who is of that opinion, and that is the hon. member for Orange Grove. For that reason I do not think this Committee can take any notice of the opinion expressed here by him. Sir, the most wonderful expressions of praise have come from all sides, not just for the idea of holding such conferences, but after the conference had taken place, journalists of all political convictions and the representatives of newspapers from all countries, said that the way in which this conference had been arranged and managed, was outstanding and comparable to the best elsewhere in the world. A newspaper which is not very generous in its praise for this side of the House, the Cape Times, commented favourably and the editor of that newspaper, Mr. Norton, said the following at a dinner held the evening immediately after the Press conference—

Except the hon. member for Orange Gove—

… that it was most successful …

The hon. member must listen now—

… and valuable and that its success and usefulness will increase in the future.

So you see, Sir, that that high praise came from all quarters, but the hon. member said he was extremely disappointed with the way in which this conference came off. The hon. member said the hon. the Prime Minister had not done so well at that conference. This is one of the reasons for his dissatisfaction. Sir, I think one must put it differently. The very reason for the hon. member’s dissatisfaction is that the hon. the Prime Minister did do well at that conference, because would he have been dissatisfied if the hon. the Prime Minister had not done well? Surely we had the perfect example in this House last week when the hon. the Prime Minister gave a brilliant performance on matters of policy, so much so that in the past weekend the main mouthpiece of that side of this House disparaged their performance. Surely the hon. member for Orange Grove would not have been grateful had the Prime Minister done well, and that is why he is complaining now. He is cross because things went so well, in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of the Prime Minister and his Government. For that reason he is dissatisfied with this idea.

The hon. member went on to refer to the questions put at this conference and he expressed his disappointment about them. He spoke of “plain utterly stupid questions” …

Some of them. Others were very good, however.

Sir, this reminds me of what I read in a certain Sunday newspaper about a fortnight ago in regard to whom actually gives that party lessons about their actions here. Did those questions not come from the very people who are giving that party those lessons? I may be mistaken, but it seems to me as though the teachers and the pupils are not seeing eye to eye?

They are quarrelling at the moment.

They are quarrelling amongst themselves now. Is the hon. member claiming that his teachers, who boast of being the teachers of the United Party, asked “plain stupid questions” at that Press conference? No, Mr. Chairman, on the basis of the comments made on this conference from all sides, I do not think this Committee can take serious notice of what the hon. member said about this specific matter, especially if it is compared to the attitude he adopted last year. From my side I want to convey my deepest appreciation to the hon. the Minister, to his Press Liaison Division and to his entire Department for what they did at this conference and on other lesser known occasions. I think they are serving South Africa in a way such as we have not known before, and which deserves the thanks and praise of every loyal South African, irrespective of his political convictions. Sir, I think this Press Liaison Division, as well as the conference which was held, achieved the success it did because it enabled the Press, and especially the foreign Press as well, to come into closer contact with the officials in charge, with the Minister in charge and especially with the hon. the Prime Minister at this Press conference. Sir, the idiom is “Unknown, unloved”, and if one must depend for one’s reporting at all times on what one reads and on what is written by others about people and their policies, things cannot go well with that rendering. A start has now been made to create an opportunity of coming into closer contact with the people concerned and with the policy which forms the subject of the writings. In my opinion this only bodes well for our country in general, as was evident, too, from the presentation of reports, which was direct this time, did not follow devious routes and were published all over the world.

The hon. member also spoke about the hon. the Minister’s coming visit overseas. I am pleased he conveyed his good wishes to the Minister with regard to that visit and the task awaiting him, and that he did not follow the same course as last year when he tried to write off the Minister here and moved a reduction of R5 000 in his salary. I think he came a cropper last year and realizes at present what exactly is taking place. Even the Cape Times expressed the idea that the good wishes of everybody, including the Press, in South Africa were going with the Minister as he was going to carry out an important task abroad, namely to visit our foreign information offices, the people manning the outer defences. I cannot but express praise once again for the dedicated and idealistic work those people are doing for us. Last year the hon. member for Orange Grove wrote off and humiliated those people as well by saying that they were earning too much money there and that they were not really necessary there; the diplomats could do their work. Each of us who has come into contact with the staff, especially overseas, knows that the job they have to do there is not child’s play, that it is difficult work and that it has to be performed under difficult circumstances. I believe that by visiting them the hon. the Minister will be able to learn exactly what problems they are experiencing, so that South Africa may be made to understand these problems and so that the Department, by assimilating this, may be able to devote itself so much the better to the task over there which is becoming increasingly difficult.

While I am discussing the staff of the Department, I also want to express the hope that our foreign information staff might be enabled to return to this country more often to serve here from time to time. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do wish the hon. member for Stellenbosch had paid attention while I was speaking. Must I repeat myself? Firstly, the idea of that Press conference and the way in which it had been arranged by the Department of Information, met with my approval; I am not blaming the hon. the Minister this afternoon for the way in which it was arranged—it was arranged well—but what flowed from it, was by no means as successful as one could have expected. Secondly, I said that a large number of questions were good but that there were also a large number of questions that were absurd. I have here with me the official verbatim report of the Prime Minister’s Press conference. I think it was published by the Department of Information itself. It was forwarded to me. What was meant by the following question which was put to the hon. the Prime Minister?

Order! I think the hon. member emphasized this in the first place. It should really have been dealt with last week under the Prime Minister’s Vote. I do not want the contents of that report to be dealt with here.

Mr. Chairman, with due respect, all I want to do is reply to the accusation the hon. member levelled against me, an accusation which was an unfair one.

Order! The hon. member has my ruling.

May I not reply to it? Very well. The other objection I made, was that the hon. the Minister had said that the Prime Minister had made such a success of his replies. May I just read out a few of the replies, Sir, simply to illustrate what I meant when I said that he had not replied to most questions?

The hon. member is evading my ruling now.

I shall never do that, Mr. Chairman. I shall abide by your ruling. I was just on the point of replying to the criticism levelled at me by the hon. member for Stellenbosch.

Very well, let us now learn lessons from this first Press conference of the hon. the Prime Minister. Let us realize that these Press conferences of the hon. the Prime Minister should not become a substitute for the normal contact any journalist in South Africa has with the Government and with the Ministers. You know, Sir, a Press conference can take on the form of those arranged by President De Gaulle, which were really meant to keep the Press away from him. We do not want to see something of that nature here. But this is all I want to say about that.

†I come to the Foreign Division of the Department of Information. There again I pointed out some of the problems which the hon. the Minister and his officials will have. There is the problem of the correct approach to be made by them when they try to impart and propagate information about South Africa overseas. In this connection I trust that the hon. the Minister has read what I regard as a brilliant article, although he may not agree with it. I refer to the article written by my hon. friend, the member for Von Brandis, Mr. De Villiers in the New Nation, February, 1971, under the title: “ ‘Cow-catcher’ of Diplomacy.” It is an excellent article, although the hon. the Minister may not agree with everything in it. I hope that that article can be distributed abroad amongst our information offices.

We have to be careful with regard to the material we distribute abroad. It is entirely wrong to give it a party-political slant or a colour which is associated only with the Government. The more the propaganda can appear to be entirely neutral and separated from opinion, the better that propaganda will be. I wish to quote what the hon. the Minister said himself, when he addressed a dinner for the Press, some time ago. He quoted when he said:

So please, let us, in our propaganda, keep news factual and keep opinion, if opinion must be there, entirely separated from the rest.

Will you not use the word “information” rather than “propaganda”?

Yes, information is a much better word. I believe in information, but information is based on facts while propaganda is one-sided information. Good information gives the point of view of both sides. May I, in this respect, suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should also, when speaking about South Africa and the policies of the different parties, tell the rest of the world of the policies of the United Party, the official Opposition. He will be surprised what greater acceptance South Africa will receive once a country knows that there is a responsible Opposition in South Africa with the views, which we have, of a more outward nature than the Government or the hon. the Minister actually have.

I looked at the names and the posts of the senior information officials. I am sure that the majority of his officials abroad are capable people with experience. However, there is one little thing which is worrying me. I would like to have a reply from the hon. the Minister in this regard. I asked him in a question with which newspapers many of the officials in the senior posts had been associated. In the reply I was told that the newspapers concerned were the Transvaler, Patrys, Die Vaderland, Die Burger, Die Vaderland once more. Die Volksblad, Die Brandwag, Die Vaderland again, Die Transvaler, Die Noord-Transvaler and Die Transvaler again. There was also one gentleman from The Star, another from The Natal Mercury and another from Die Burger. Do good journalists come only from one set of newspapers? Do they only come from newspapers which are officially associated with the governing party?

*No, there are much better journalists in South Africa than only those from one group, especially if it is the group of newspapers which is attached to the Government. While they worked for these newspapers, they were actually branded to a large extent as being official propagandists of the publications of the Government and of Government policy. I think the hon. the Minister should cast his net slightly wider when he appoints persons to important posts in his Department in future.

No, not at all.

The hon. member says the Minister should not do so on a wider basis. In that case, must he appoint only Nationalists who have worked for Nationalist Party newspapers? Is the only criterion for a good worker in the Department the fact that he has worked for Die Vaderland or for Die Volksblad? [Interjections.] Never.

Order! The hon. member must continue his speech. He need not reply to all questions put to him. The Minister will do that.

Sir, this is what I wanted to say in respect of the Foreign Division. I should now like to dwell briefly on the Interior Division. As hon. members know, a large percentage of the work done by the Information Service, is done locally. There are 25 regional offices and 17 sub-offices, and more than R2½ million is being requested for them.

Where did you work before?

I have already worked on both sides, for Die Suiderstem, Kruithoring—just what you want! In any event, if I were to go overseas, I would at least be able to enunciate the policies of both sides. There are internal offices at places such as Giyana, Jozini, Oshakati, Rundu, Bizana, Cofimvaba, Libode, Mquanduli and Nquamakwe. Whether all these offices are necessary, I do not know. According to the report of the Department, those offices are being used to convey the policy of the Government to the Bantu. At the same time, the staff of these offices must convey the feelings of the Bantu to the Government. Incidentally, I am pleased to see that a large number of Bantu and Coloureds are working in these offices. The report says the following of them:

It worries me, Sir, to see that these people not only have to explain and propagate the Government’s policy, but that they must also tell the Government what the Bantu’s desires are. Do we not, as it is, have sufficient information services and organizations of another nature which are trying to determine what people are thinking and what they want? When I look at the actions of the Minister of Bantu Administration here in this House, it does not seem to me as though that information is being conveyed very well, but you will not allow me to go into that, Sir. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before replying to the hon. member for Orange Grove, I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department most heartily on their annual report. Very few members on the opposite side seem to realize that this report covers the period up to 31st March, 1971, in other words, that it is up to date. I think this is an outstanding achievement. We have the report here like a warm loaf of bread fresh from the oven.

It is evident from this report that although this Department’s Budget of R6 700 000 is one of the smallest to be voted for any Department, the officials of this Department are in the front lines of fire in this country and particularly abroad. These officials do not do their work in the spirit of clock watchers, but with real love for their fatherland. Their work radiates, as one can also see from all their publications and films, and for that we want to convey our heartiest thanks to the officials of this Department.

The hon. member for Orange Grove again mentioned the question of petty apartheid. He actually called it “kleinlike” apartheid. He also used the term “indoctrination”. I want to tell him today that this side of the House and the country outside are sick and tired of these two terms which are used in this debate year after year. Where do we find the breeding ground of these two expressions? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the father of the expression “petty apartheid” and the hon. member for Orange Grove is its mother-in-law. Sir, this Department spends large amounts on bringing foreign visitors to this country to show them our country and our people without hiding a thing. These visitors are treated very courteously, and the officials place everything at their disposal. What they wish to see, they do see. Nevertheless, we have found that a visiting newspaper editor from France still asked on Saturday evening, “But where are the police? Where is this ‘petty apartheid’? We see nothing.”

What do they find in this country? They find peace and quiet and stability here. The hon. member for Orange Grove knows what I am talking about. Those newspaper editors find Bantu workers in the pink of health who serve them together with those hon. members when they are received by the officials of this Department. They find all their answers in an objective way.

The hon. member for Orange Grove levelled charges of indoctrination here. I want to challenge that hon. member to show me one example of information which is not positive, objective and factual in the publications of this Department of which many thousands appear each year. Can the hon. member quote one sentence to me from a radio programme, which is not objective, positive and factual? Can the hon. member give me the name of one film of the Department of Information, which was exhibited abroad and which was not objective and based on fact? Where do hon. members of that side get these things from? The hon. member for Kensington, who is sitting over there, is not an Afrikaner. He cannot understand the soul of the Afrikaner as these two hon. members ought to be able to do. We cannot take it amiss of him if he talks about indoctrination, because he does not understand the soul of the Afrikaner. But these, two hon. members …

But I have not even spoken yet.

… who come from Afrikaner homes and who undo the work of the Department of Information in this way and who embarrass our officials all over the world to a very large extent, ought to be ashamed of themselves.

What are you talking about now?

That hon. member knows what I am talking about. I should like to mention here the example of Dr. Morris of the Mercy Medical Centre of Chicago who paid a visit to South Africa as a guest of the Department. What did he say in America after his return? He said:—

Instead of those hon. members on the opposite side of the House extending their hands to the hon. the Minister of Information and helping him in his task, they are disparaging his work. We can give examples of this ad nauseam. The hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Kensington are the leaders in this whole game.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to return to the films released by the Department of Information. I just want to refer in passing to the film “For the Love of an Eagle”, mentioned on page 14 of the report of the Department. This film is the work of an amateur photographer and is being exhibited throughout the world with great success. We know that numerous amateur photographers, cine photographers as well as still photographers, do excellent work in this direction. I should very much like to suggest to the hon. the Minister for his consideration the introduction of an annual or biennial competition for these people. Amateur photographers as well as small-time professional cine camera men and still camera men can take part in this. They can then enter their best works for this competition. It does not matter to what section of the population they belong. There are some of these people who do excellent work, as this work, “For the Love of an Eagle”, has indeed shown. The foreign visitor also visits this country to have a look at, inter alia, our beautiful scenery. A film on our beautiful scenery, or even series of colour slides of our scenery, shown abroad, draw visitors. I should like the hon. the Minister to afford our good cine photographers and still photographers an opportunity of coming forward with ideas for which they can be awarded a prize annually or biennially. An inducement of this nature will mean a great deal, particularly to our amateur cine industry.

I now want to return to the hon. member for Orange Grove and his reference to the article by the hon. member for Von Brandis, i.e. “The cowcatcher of diplomacy”. The hon. member for Orange Grove is of the opinion that this article ought to be distributed abroad. What do we read in this article “Cowcatcher of diplomacy” which appeared in the February edition of New Nation? What the article by this hon. colleague of that hon. member says, is indeed what is being done abroad and here in this country by our officials. One cannot say that those two members belong to the same party. The hon. member who has just sat down ought to have made the hon. member for Von Brandis the first speaker in this debate. There are points in this highly praised article of his, however, with which one cannot agree, because they also have that fine sting of subtle propaganda against the Whites of South Africa. He says here, and I quote—

Now I want to ask the hon. member for Von Brandis, on the basis of this article of his with which he is going into the outside world, to tell us in this House where there is an “unwillingness to respect opposition views and the rights of minorities”. It is fine subtle pin-pricks of this kind which make for the fact that people who come from abroad ask us after they have toured in this country for two weeks: “But where is this Gestapo? We have not seen a policeman”. This matter is a serious one, and quite rightly the overseas staff of the Department of Information, along with our diplomatic staff, are manning the outer defences. This kind of article is not aimed at strengthening the hand of our overseas officials and the Minister. With the kind of example I and hon. members have mentioned, the hon. members are not playing for the fatherland. The Minister need not take any notice whatsoever of their tirades here.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria District became a bit too involved in his arguments and he tended to lose his way at times. I just want to tell him that the hon. member for Von Brandis will be coming into the debate and that he will answer those questions he has put to him. In one thing he mentioned he was very complimentary. This was as far as the timeous publication of the department’s annual report was concerned. He said the report was for the year ended the 31st March, 1971. He complimented the department on producing it so speedily. I am afraid I cannot be quite so complimentary, because this report is not for the year ended the 31st March, 1971, but for two years ended the 31st March, 1971. We have waited all this time for the report covering the period 1969 to 1970, and therefore it is long overdue. We should have had it a long time ago and not only at the end of last week.

When the Information Vote was debated in Committee last year, the hon. the Minister was attacked by the Opposition about his declared intention of using the Department of Information and its full resources to educate the White people of South Africa in the ideal of what he called absolute total segregation. He said it would be the main task of the department to explain this ideal of the Nationalist Party and all its consequences. We of the Opposition were naturally deeply perturbed at the prospect of having a Department of State which is being paid for by the taxpayers, being used for these purposes. This was one of the reasons why we moved a reduction in his salary. We still hold the view most emphatically that it is wrong in principle to use public money for party-political ends. In the intervening months it seemed as if some reason has prevailed, because upon the domestic front there seems to be very little activity in this connection. We trust indeed that wiser counsel will continue to prevail and that the hon. the Minister will leave the propagation of Nationalist ideologies to the agencies of his party. While dealing with the activities of the hon. the Minister, I want to commend him for one thing, and here I agree with what was said by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. I want to commend him for having achieved a fairly close and generally pleasant working liaison with the Press of South Africa and with foreign correspondents who operate in our country. His approachability and his co-operation have gone a long way towards improving contact between the Government and the Press.

Also during the debate on the Information Vote last year the hon. the Minister indicated that he proposed to devote a great deal of his attention to the projection of South Africa in the outside world, and as we now know, he has announced that he will be visiting information offices in America, Canada, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, France and Britain, accompanied by the Secretary for Information. An on-the-spot examination of our efforts abroad could be both informative and rewarding and we trust that the hon. the Minister will return with a clear perspective of what needs to be done, in what fields it can be done most fruitfully, and how this should be tackled.

In this context I should like to make what I feel are a few constructive suggestions to him about the examination of the type of effort we feel should be made in projecting the best possible image of South Africa abroad of our country. A great deal of money is being spent in the field of foreign liaison services, audio-visual services and publications. The amount being budgeted for this year totals R4 170 000 in this respect. Taking just two of the publications, we find that the printing and distribution of the S.A. Panorama alone will account for R656 800 this year, and this figure will not take into account the editorial and administrative costs involved. The editorial and printing costs of the S.A. Digest and the S.A. Oorsig are now running at about R200 000 a year. These two publications represent our main efforts in the field of publications aimed at consumption abroad. S.A. Panorama has the specific object of presenting in a well turned out glossy form the physical, industrial, cultural and other aspects of the Republic, while the S.A. Digest presents a week-by-week culling of newspaper and other articles with the object of giving a running account of everyday life in South Africa. S.A. Panorama is generally of a high standard, but on the other hand we have some doubts about whether the S.A. Digest in its present form is very effective.

What does concern us is that neither of the two gives an adequate picture of the realities of South Africa to interested audiences outside the country. It is accepted that a Department of Information can be used to explain and project the policies of the Government it serves to the outside world. That is already being done in various ways by the hon. the Minister’s department. We feel, however, that the department could play a very useful role for South Africa if it were to tell the world more about the dialogue that is taking place in the Republic on important matters of policy and government generally. One of our main problems is that of briefing our friends, and perhaps even our critics, abroad in such a way that they will appreciate fully that there is a healthy, active Opposition in our country and that the electorate is not committed purely to one point of view. My colleague, the hon. member for Orange Grove, mentioned that the hon. the Minister might have the task of explaining the Government’s sport policy abroad. I am quite sure that he will do his very best to try to present the sports policy of the Government in the best possible way and to try to convince the outside world that this is our very best effort in the field of international sport. In fairness to himself, he should also, as my colleague suggested, see that his department presents fairly the sports policy of this side of the House. I think it is quite essential that this sort of thing should be done as much as possible. We have seen it done by Governments such as the German Government, with its very excellent information service. The German Government takes pains to show the world that there is a dialogue in Germany and that there are differences of opinion. It does it very well indeed. This approach would stamp an information service as a genuine service aimed at informing the world about the country concerned, not as a mere propaganda agency of a government. Sir, I want to go a little further into this, because I believe that this Government could do very much more than it is doing to cause our information service to be better believed in other countries. Let me mention something that caused considerable grief to all of us. I refer to the arrest some time ago of Bishop Zulu, which did a lot of damage to our image abroad. We all know that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Umlazi, expressed regret at this arrest, and I think that if this point had been conveyed through our information offices to people in as many countries as possible, it would have done our image a tremendous lot of good. [Time expired.]

Sir, if one sat in this House last year and listened to these two hon. members and again listened to them this evening, one wonders what has come over them. Last year both of them used excessively abusive language here; they levelled all sorts of accusations; they waved their arms about wildly and it was difficult to restrain them. But this evening butter will not melt in their mouths. One wonders whether this is due to their not having been able to recover after the knock-out blow they received last week, and one wonders what Messrs. Uys and Serfontein are going to say about them next Sunday. Nevertheless, Sir, I want to congratulate and thank them on behalf of South Africa for having adopted this responsible attitude this evening, particularly in regard to this important Vote we are discussing. We are busy projecting the image of South Africa, and the task of this department is to put the image of South Africa across, and every wrong word spoken here by hon. members on that side complicates the extremely difficult work of the department and its officials abroad. When the hon. member for Orange Grove speaks here of propaganda or of the misrepresentation of facts, even that can have a bad effect on the task of our officials abroad.

But I thought you had said I had made a good speech.

The two hon. gentlemen both advanced the argument that the Department of Information should not put across Government’s policy alone. This is, of course, not being done. But, Sir, information also has to be given on the subjects in which there is interest abroad. On what do people question hon. members on the opposite side when they travel abroad? On what are the people in the outside world misinformed?

On petty apartheid.

On all aspects of our policy of each national group developing along its own lines. That is what the people are interested in; that is what they are misinformed about, and it is because of that that the facts are distorted. Therein, therefore, lies the enormous task of the department, i.e. to put the facts straight. That is not propaganda. If Government policy is being presented correctly because wrong impressions exist or because there is a natural interest in it, it surely is not propaganda. This is the task of this Government and this department, and it is a task which they are carrying out. The hon. member must not ask the department also to expound the policy of the United Party abroad. Who is interested in that? It would mean a knock-out blow to us if we say there is an Opposition Party here which stands for “White rule over the whole of South Africa”. Surely this is a policy of the previous century; people are not interested in it. How can the department do such a thing now? The hon. the Minister said here last year too that the department has a task within the country itself as well to inform the people of South Africa about the policy of of each national group developing along its own lives. The hon. member for Kensington apparently misunderstood the Minister in this regard. The Minister did not mean party propaganda. History has placed us in South Africa in a position where we have to co-exist with a whole number of peoples in this southern corner of Africa. Mutual relations between these peoples, as the hon. the Prime Minister also emphasized last week, is of the utmost importance to us. If the hon. the Minister of Information and his department see a task for them in this and see to it that these peoples get to know one another better so that they may respect one another better, I support them wholeheartedly. In this way they will also contribute their share in promoting mutual relations and the disposition among the national groups. This is an enormous task and if they regard this as their task, we must only wish them the best and we must not regard it as party-political propaganda.

The Department is this year celebrating its tenth anniversary as an independent department. I think this House must congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department very sincerely on the enormous progress which has been made over the past ten years. One need only look at the wide range of the activities of the department and at the large number of publications, such as pamphlets and brochures, to realize how big their task is. I think approximately 20 publications are produced by the department. One also notes the absolute neatness, tidiness and high standard maintained in these publications. The department deserves only the highest praise for this work and I should like to convey this to them. There are so many of these good publications that it is difficult to single out any of them, but I particularly want to mention a publication I like very much, i.e. the publication Bantu, which already has a readership of 74 000, both in this country and abroad. This publication really does a great deal to tell the Whites more about the Bantu and their way of life. I also believe that it stimulates more self-respect and national pride among the Bantu. I think it is very tastefully compiled, with interesting news articles, and I should like to congratulate the department on it. I should also like to draw attention to a publication appearing in London since last year, i.e. Report from South Africa. This publication has been issued because there has been enormous interest in South Africa on the part of London newspapers, particularly of late. According to an article which appeared in Die Burger on 13th November, 1970, no fewer than 50 editorials on South Africa had appeared in the London Times and the Daily Telegraph over the preceding five months of 1970. It goes without saying that these newspaper articles were not always favourable, but they were not always hostile either. They have contributed to the fact that a greater interest in South Africa has emerged and that the curiosity of people about South Africa has been stimulated. The result has been that the information offices have been inundated with requests for more information. The publication New Era of Bantu Progress in South Africa with Profiles of Leaders was then issued. It contains various articles, written more from a personal angle. The first article, “The Bantu takes up Reins of Government”, contains descriptions of the leaders, the Chief Minister of the Transkei, the Opposition leaders and other personalities. Thus the publication is very interesting and neatly compiled and supplies information on the opportunities existing for the Bantu in South Africa under the new dispensation. It was distributed to Members of Parliament, newspapers, etc. The demand was so great, particularly from students, that a special edition had to be prepared for them. The publication has now also been translated into French. I have the French translation here. In France, too, it is being distributed with great success.

Read a bit from the French edition.

I do not have the time to do so now. [Laughter.] This is just a single example as far as publications are concerned. Hon. members will find this publication very interesting. It is really very neat and informative.

Because people are sometimes too lazy to read, the department has realized that films are today really the medium for disseminating information. The department has also done a great deal in this respect. In spite of the somewhat negative criticism which has come from local film critics, for example from Terry Herbst of the Cape Times and the critic of Die Burger, these films have met with great success when competing with other films at international film festivals. Last year, for example, two of the five films produced and exhibited here, received the highest awards at the Chicago Film Festival. “Radio Bantu” received first prize, as well as a “Gold Camera” Award, and a gold medal in Atlanta. The film “Katlanong” achieved the same distinction in Chicago, and received awards in Columbia and New York as well. The films of this year, which we have been privileged to see here, have also done very well. It has just been learnt that some of them also received the highest awards at the Chicago International Festival. The department must therefore be congratulated on its excellent work in this field as well.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.