I may just say that I have now had an opportunity of investigating this matter further. I do not wish attorneys to be placed in this position that while on the one hand they are protected under the Criminal Procedure Act, they are obliged on the other hand to give evidence under this measure, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to add a few words to Clause 9, as a consequential amendment, so as to make the position quite clear and to ensure that an attorney will not be placed in the position where he will find himself between these two Acts. I move—

The “lawful excuse” will be the privileges which he enjoys under the Criminal Procedure Act, It may happen that an organization will be prepared to allow its attorney to give evidence and we want to make provision for him to be called to give evidence just as an auditor can be called.

Agreed to.

Bill as amended adopted.

I move—

More than two members having objected,

Bill to be read a third time on 8 June.

I move—

Hon. members will have observed that the estimates which have been tabled deal exclusively with Capital and Betterment Works and that no expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds during the current financial year is involved.

The main Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for the financial year ending 31 March 1963, provide for expenditure amounting to R82,768,000; in these additional estimates provision is made for a further amount of R3,080,400 which requires to be appropriated to meet additional expenditure under various heads, bringing the revised total expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works to R85,848,400.

Regarding the sources from which the additional cash requirement of R3,080,400 will be obtained, I want to inform hon. members that Treasury agreed to R70,000,000 in loan funds being earmarked for the Railways during 1962-3. Of this amount R69,340,000 was allocated in the main estimates, so that R660,000 remains to be appropriated. A review which has been undertaken of the Working Capital appropriation for stores stock revealed that the authorized appropriation is at present in excess of stocks held. A reduction of R2,000,000 can quite safely be made in the Working Capital appropriation for stores stock, and it is the intention that the loan funds thus rendered available be utilized to supplement the amount of R660,000 for the purpose of financing the works reflected in these additional estimates. Suitable provision is being made in the Bill for the additional appropriation.

The balance of R420,400 represents expenditure which requires to be met from the Betterment Fund.

Hon. members will recall that in my Budget speech I made mention of the fact that it would be necessary to undertake some major additional works, inter alia the electrification of the line from Witbank to Komatipoort and certain improvements on the line between Kimberley and Klerksdorp in order to handle successfully anticipated future traffic. At that stage the detailed plans and estimates for the various works now provided for had not yet advanced to such a stage where these items could be included in the main estimates.

Before dealing with the more important items in these additional estimates, I want to give hon. members the assurance that the works contemplated are of an urgent nature and require to be put in hand with the least possible delay. These works represent the natural continuation of the large programme of improvements carried out over the past number of years with a view to increasing the carrying capacity of the railways in order to convey all the traffic offering as well as to provide for anticipated future traffic increases.

The proposed improvements are in accordance with the policy of providing additional facilities in stages to meet traffic demands and at the same time bearing in mind the necessity for keeping capital expenditure and the resulting interest burden down to a minimum. In this connection I may mention, as an example, that the stage-by-stage development of the Iscor programme has been closely studied and that the various works connected therewith, which were included in the current year’s Brown Book, are aimed at providing the necessary improved facilities in the years up to 1965. Iscor has, however, subsequently furnished details of anticipated traffic increases beyond 1965 which reflect a substantial increase in 1970 over the figures for 1966.

During February of this year it also became known that Amcor had successfully negotiated a contract with Japanese interests for the supply of pig-iron to Japan which will entail an increase in iron ore and manganese traffic from the Postmasburg area to Newcastle from the present 560,000 tons to 1,670,000 tons per annum as from the middle of 1964.

These developments have necessitated an immediate review of line capacity to meet traffic demands. Coupled therewith, the unfor-seen Amcor traffic has precipitated the necessity to provide considerably enhanced facilities before 1965.

Reviewing the situation, consideration was given to the various forms of increasing line capacity, such as the installation of C.T.C. and electrification, as well as the adequacy of the other proposed facilities to cope with the known traffic increases by 1965 and also progressively to provide for the requirements anticipated by 1970. The proposed measures can be summarized as follows:

1. The electrification of the line from Waterworks to Lenz and the provision of C.T.C.;
2. the installation of C.T.C. between Klerks dorp and Waterworks with certain deviations to ease curvature;
3. the electrification of the section Beacons-field to Klerksdorp, which includes the provision of five new stations, nine additional inter loops with remote control and lengthening of loops, as well as deviations to ease curvatures;
4. doubling of the line between Warrenton and Fourteen Streams and new bridge over the Vaal River;
5. doubling of the line between Riverton and Content;
6. doubling of the line Macfarlane to Kam-fersdam;
7. extension of C.T.C. to the Fieldsview-Macfarlane link line and provision of intermediate bi-directional signalling;
8. installation of colour-light signalling at Kamfersdam and Kimberley with bidirectional working on the “up” avoiding line between Kamfersdam and Beaconsfield;
9. provision of colour-light signalling at Beaconsfield;
10. doubling of the line Uithoek to Danskraal and divide the section Glencoe-Uithoek.

Provision is being made for these proposals under Head No. 2 of the estimates now before the House.

A review has also been undertaken of the traffic position on the Eastern Transvaal system and I have come to the conclusion that the only permanent solution of the problems on the section from Witbank to Komatipoort will be to electrify that section of line. Provision has accordingly been made under item 33 of these estimates for that work and consequential improvements under items 16 and 17.

The additional facilities at Braamfontein—item 9—are required because of the increase in the number of suburban coach-sets and will not only eliminate loss of locomotive time, but will bring about more efficient yard organization and facilitate carriage and wagon repair activities.

In regard to item 10, I want to explain that the volume of traffic on the section Pretoria-Germiston necessitates the running of 146 trains daily and it has become necessary to take steps to avoid congestion. By running goods trains of 140 axles the number of trains can be reduced. The lengthening of loops is necessary to accommodate the longer goods trains.

The work under items 11 and 15 will assist in improving the carrying capacity of the Selati line.

In regard to item 18, I want to inform hon. members that there is a pressing need for increased cold storage capacity in the precooling stores in Table Bay harbour. Some of the existing stores were built in 1937 with secondhand material and have reached the end of their useful life. Heavy tonnages of export fruit require to be dealt with and it is necessary to convert 15 cool chambers to standard type precooling stores for use by January 1963.

Item 19 contemplates the provision of an office block at Deal Party to accommodate the staff of the Port Goods Superintendent, Port Elizabeth, and certain other staff employed at the goods sheds. The provision of this accommodation will improve staff efficiency.

The improvements provided for under item 20 are required to meet increased traffic demands resulting from the industrial expansion in the Elandsfontein-Isando area.

Regarding item 21, I want to mention that only half of the old platforms at Pretoria station are covered by roofs. The rebuilding of some of the platforms as part of the remodelling scheme has resulted in a large section of the concourse remaining uncovered. This proposal embodies the replacement of the existing roofing, which was provided in 1910, the covering of the concourse and the full length of the platforms.

Items 22, 23, 24 and 30 envisage the provision of improved mess and ablution facilities for the staff.

In regard to item 25 I want to inform hon. members that the existing locomotive depot at Lydenburg consists of wood and iron structures and the staff are working under difficult conditions. Engine washouts cannot be done there and the locomotives have to proceed to Witbank every fortnight for that purpose. The provision of a proper locomotive depot will be in the interests of efficient working.

The work under item 32 has been necessitated by the rapidly developing demand for additional tractive power in the Durban area. In practice it has been found that the Umbilo substation is being overloaded under certain circumstances resulting in train delays in the whole Durban area. The danger also exists that should a fault develop at Umbilo, serious dislocation of electric traction in the Durban area will result. The proposed additional substation at Went worth and additional feeders to Cato Ridge and Booth will overcome the difficulties referred to.

The 70 electric locomotives referred to under item 34—Head No. 3—are required in connection with the introduction of the electric train service in 1965 over the sections of line to be electrified and to which I have referred earlier.

In regard to Head No. 5—item 35—I want to inform hon. members that it is necessary to expand facilities at various points in the Durban area in order to keep pace with the continuing growth of traffic; the provision of staging roads at Fynnland for export traffic, mainly pig-iron and ores awaiting shipment, as well as the provision of track work, buildings and appliances for handling pig-iron at Wests, is essential.

In conclusion I would like to inform hon. members that it was the intention to include in these additional estimates an item for the provision of a grain elevator of 42,000-ton capacity at East London in connection with the maize export programme. Planning has, however, not yet reached the stage where reliable estimates can be placed before the House and the item has, therefore, been omitted. I am fully aware of the urgency of this matter and it is the intention to obtain the necessary financial authority by means of a special State President’s warrant.

I second.

We are grateful that the Minister has accepted the advice that we have given him in former years in discussing the Additional Estimates that in introducing his motion he should give some information with regard to the plans which form the basis of these new items of expenditure. The House will appreciate that all the items on the Additional Estimates are completely new items and represent, in a sense, a new development programme of the Railway Administration. As the hon. the Minister will know, we have on previous occasions referred to the practice of bringing in items such as these and asking the House not only to approve of the actual expenditure, which in many cases is merely a token amount, but also to approve in principle of new items of expenditure for former years as part and parcel of the capital development programme. The Minister has always said, “If you want to discuss these items you have plenty of opportunity to do so in Committee.” We have always taken the point of view that the inclusion of such new items must be part and parcel of some stage of planning or policy followed by the Railway Administration. We are extremely glad that the Minister has taken this opportunity to-day of giving the House some of the background in respect of the inclusion of these new items at this stage. But I still adhere to the point of view expressed by this side of the House on former occasions that a large number of these items appearing on the Additional Estimates now, could, in my submission, have appeared in the Brown Book. Let me illustrate that by way of examples. In the Brown Book of this year we were asked to approve of a new item, some 72 class 5El electric locomotives at an estimated total cost of some R8,750,000, of which we voted a token sum of R200 to indicate our approval in principle. The Minister now comes along in these Additional Estimates with a similar item and asks the House to approve of the acquisition of another 70 locomotives, also at a cost of R8,750,000, for a token expenditure of R200. In essence it means that the Railway Administration has something like 142 new class 5El electric locomotives on order. On this occasion the Minister has told us what the purpose is in acquiring these 70 locomotives, but we do not know for what purpose the other 72 are to be used. I had assumed from discussions in the Budget debate that the 72 class 5El locomotives on order were for the purpose of this big expansion of Iscor and to meet the demands of Iscor. That was how I understood the statement made by the Minister in his Budget speech. Now I find that in order to meet the demands of the new electrification programme another 70 class 5El locomotives have to be ordered, making a total on order, I take it, of 142 class 5El locomotives at a cost of some R16,000,000. Our difficulty is that we cannot understand why some of these items did not appear in the Brown Book. For example, the electrification of the line between Klerks-dorp and Be a consfield is surely not a matter that has been planned by the Administration over the past few months. Surely the electrification of that line must have been planned a considerable time ago, and surely that item should have been included in the Brown Book and the sanction of Parliament sought for that particular work on that occasion. But, Sir, there is another aspect of the matter which I think the House must consider in dealing with these Additional Estimates. What the House is being asked to approve of here is a new expenditure totalling some R53,000,000 for new capital works, of which no less than R43,750,000 is for new works on open lines. As far as new works on open lines are concerned, this represents over 50 per cent of the remaining estimated capital expenditure on new works on open lines at the end of the current financial year. Approximately R85,000,000 still stands on the Brown Book in respect of uncompleted works—in respect of items of new works which were approved by this House some R85,000,000 still stand on the Brown Book which the Minister has to find. In addition to this R85,000,000. Sir, the House is now being asked to approve a further new capital works programme of approximately 50 per cent of that amount. The R8,640,000 to be spent on rolling stock under Head No. 3 represents approximately 18 per cent of the remaining capital expenditure already approved by Parliament for rolling stock.

It is generally accepted that the development programme which was initiated by this hon. Minister is now nearing completion. As a matter of fact, he said so himself, i.e. that the capital works programme which he announced to the House some years ago was now nearing completion. The Minister said so himself in the course of the current year. That programme was based on certain general estimates of what traffic the Administration could expect, so as to have the necessary carrying capacity and the ability to meet traffic demands. The question I now want to ask when considering these additional estimates, is: “On what programme is the House being asked to approve this new vast expenditure—an expenditure representing 50 per cent as far as new works on open lines are concerned?” Previous estimates of capital expenditure were justified by the Minister on the basis of certain traffic expectations. He has admitted on previous occasions that the traffic upon which he estimated the existing capital programme was not available. Past expenditure of some R400,000,000 which was spent in the five-year programme, was based on certain estimates, but as recently as last year the Minister had to admit that the traffic expectations on which the programme was based were not realized. When listening to the speech of the hon. the Minister just now, I asked myself: “If there is still a gap in his traffic expectations on which the last capital expenditure was based, could that gap not be taken up by the traffic which will now be offered by the Iscor-Amcor programmes which the Minister enunciated?” Cannot the leeway which exists in respect of existing capital expenditure not be made up before embarking upon further capital expenditure programmes? At present the railways are not working at full capacity. Surely there is still a gap between the programme which the Minister developed against certain traffic expectations and the traffic shortfall which exists in relation to the present capital works programme. I ask myself these questions and I should like the hon. the Minister to clarify them for me.

There is yet another aspect to this spending of a further R53,000,000 which should be considered. In former years the Minister admitted—as a matter of fact I think last year—that there was an unfavourable ratio between interest on capital and depreciation on the one hand, and operating expenditure of the Railways on the other hand. The interest burden which the Administration has to meet at present, i.e. before it can even consider meeting its operating expenditure, is something in the region of 25 per cent. When the House is now asked to approve of a further expenditure on capital works of R53,000,000, one has to ask oneself whether it is really justified, because this will mean that by 1965 there will have been a considerable increase in the interest burden which the Railways have to meet before even considering meeting any other charges. It seems to me that there is an insatiable demand for capital on the part of the hon. the Minister. Since, six years ago, this hon. Minister resumed control over Railways and Harbours, he asked for R1,200,000,000. Now he asks for a further R53,000,000 without there being any estimates from him as to what traffic will be available. The Minister said that the programme was there but there is not exact estimates of what traffic is going to be. The Minister will admit that that is so.

We were told by the Minister that his capital works programme was nearing completion and the railways were able to meet all traffic demands but despite that there is still a shortfall of traffic. These additional estimates we are dealing with now virtually represents a new capital works programme and this will increase the interest burden still further. Notwithstanding the reason given by the hon. the Minister, I am still left with the impression that the Railways are to-day an economic Frankenstein sitting astride the economic structure of our country. The Minister comes every year and makes new demands and of these, this demand for capital expenditure which we are dealing with now, is by far the largest which we have had to deal with and that at the end of a Session. I emphasize these points so as to have them on record when in later years we come to assess what has happened as a result of application of this expenditure relative to Railway finances.

We will support these additional estimates; we have no other alternative, but we do not consider it satisfactory that the Minister should come at this stage of the Session and ask for such a large sum of additional expenditure, representing as it does virtually a new capital works programme of the Railways.

In regard to the additional expenditure under Head No. 2—New Works on Open Lines—to the tune of approximately R3,000,000, I should like to point out that this provision meets, to a certain extent, the request of the Select Committee on Railways and Harbours, i.e. that wherever possible details of anticipated expenditure should be placed before Parliament and authority obtained there for with a view to reducing the very heavy items of unauthorized expenditure with which that Committee has had to deal at times, due to such a procedure not having been followed in the past. To that extent it is an advance and should, as such, make for better financial control.

I agree, however, to a certain extent with the views expressed by the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), namely that many of the items included here are of such magnitude that they must have been in the planning stage for quite a long time. That must be so if the Minister has been able to arrive at such a stage where he can put them before the House in such details as he does here. They must have been on the board for some considerable time, and the decision there ament taken some considerable time ago. When looking at some of these items, it is difficult to understand why, in respect of some of the larger items, provision could not have been made, and the information placed before the House, at the time the Railway finances were dealt with. Welcome as this procedure therefore is in one sense, it might be made more valuable still if in future years that particular aspect could be taken account of.

The hon. member for Turffontein has dealt with the items in some detail, and I do not propose to traverse the same ground. The Minister made reference to the fact that, as stated in these estimates, R2,000,000 of the addition funds asked for is to be financed by the surrender of working capital in excess of requirements. The Minister, when explaining this, referred to the provision which was made some time ago, and quoted the figures in respect of expenditure. He also mentioned the amount which was surplus to requirements. There is, however, still a fairly large margin between the surplus mentioned by the hon. the Minister and the amount to be surrendered. There can be only two reasons for the surrender of funds, viz. that the funds, originally asked for, were in excess—very substantially in this case—of what was actually required, or alternatively, that work for which Parliament was asked to vote funds has since been cancelled. It is only two months ago that we considered the main estimates, and yet provision for this amount was included in those estimates. It does seem a little bit queer, therefore, that in such a short period an amount of R2,000,000 could have become surplus. Had this come from the capital expenditure which was approved of some years back and which the Minister quoted in his opening remarks, one could have understood it, because that work has been completed and the costs assessed. It does not, however, seem to come from that, and I wonder if the Minister could amplify his comments on this matter by saying where this surplus is actually coming from. Are there any specific jobs of which Parliament has approved, but which cannot be carried out?

I dealt with the matter fully in my opening remarks.

Yes, you did deal with a globular amount which was voted for capital works.

With stores stock in particular.

Yes, and also for stores stock, but even if you take R2,000,000 from stores stock, the position is not yet satisfactory. Two months ago, when we were considering the main estimates, and were looking for funds, R2,000,000 was a lot of money. R2,000,000 was a lot in relation to those estimates. It does seem strange that, within two months of that date, we suddenly find that we have R2,000,000 surplus of stores stock.

I should also like to touch on Head No. 5—Harbours. The Minister also dealt with this, i.e. the development of Durban harbour for handling shipments of pig-iron and manganese. The Minister dealt at length with the rail expansion in the harbour—rail expansion which will be necessary in order to cope with the development of our steel industry, i.e. the bringing of the raw materials to the foundries and the rail traffic which will develop as a result of a growth of this industry. Accordingly, he is now providing berthing and loading facilities to meet the growing export demand for pig-iron. This also is a new item, and is linked, to some extent, with item 8 under Head No. 2 for the provision of certain equipment and appliances in the yards concerned. In this connection, I should like to point out that we are here developing what is likely to be one of our major export industries, i.e. the export of steel products. As a matter of fact, this development, for which funds are being asked now, is a sign of the importance which is being attached to this. We are mainly concentrating on exporting the partly produced items. The loading and handling hereof is a job for specialists, and I hope the Minister has taken that into account. We are starting this development in Durban because the harbour there is the natural harbour for this export through its association, geographically, with the steel works on the Rand, and in Natal itself. Durban is automatically selected as the loading port on the strength of these considerations. I should like to urge upon the Minister that in developing facilities at that port for the export of pig-iron and other similar types of products, the very latest techniques should be adopted. This is not only a Railway job, and it is not only the expansion of a port to meet Railway requirements. It is a most important factor in the industrial life of the country, because there can be no question about it that what we have seen to-day can develop into a very extensive industry. The Minister has already indicated that he is feeling the strain of this development, although it is still in its early stages. In any event, this can develop into a large export trade, particularly as the main demand for these products comes from the East. Also on this score Durban is the most suitable port. Much of the spur which is needed to create that development, however, will come from the manner in which we are going to equip the port for handling the material. There must definitely not be the delays and trials here which we had in dealing with our coal exports when we had to make use of antiquated methods. The modern methods for the handling of steel and its associated products are magnetic methods which do away with manual handling to a very large extent. These methods ensure much faster handling and also greater safety for both the personnel and the ships involved. In addition, a much quicker turnabout of ships is made possible as a result. The total amount on the estimates for this work is R517,000, of which R4,500 is for the current year. Then there is still the expenditure under the other related items. In this connection, I should like to urge upon the Minister that he should ensure starting off on the right foot. We are starting something here which is relatively new. We have had the old manganese loading equipment at Durban for many years, but when it comes to the handling of large quantities of pig-iron, quantities which will increase in the years to come, then we should start off now on the right foot. Therefore, the money which is now being asked should be spent to the very best advantage.

Another factor to be taken into consideration is that the Railways will be safe with any investments in connection with the export of this type of cargo because there is no danger of there being competition from air transport. Pig-iron and its associated iron and steel products are not products which lend themselves to transport by air—their weight counts against them. The export of these products has to take place, therefore, essentially by sea. I should like to repeat that, with this development, we are starting something which fits into the pattern of industrial development in this country and into the economy of the country as a whole. The Railways Administration has the responsibility of seeing that shipping requirements necessitated by this development are met to the full. There should, for instance, be no delays in the turnabout of ships. This part of it links up with the general welfare of the nation, and we should, therefore, see to it that we provide the best we can in the way of facilities, etc.

I too should like to make some comment on the facilities which are being provided for the export of pig-iron from the Durban harbour. I want to do so because shippers of manganese, which is handled in a similar way, have in the past been faced with the difficult problem of loading. Facilities have been provided but I do not think proper planning was undertaken because the Minister will know that ships over a certain size loading manganese have had to load only partly at the Congella loading site and thereafter have had to complete their loading at Wests. On account of the fact that the loading plant at the latter-mentioned point is very old—it has been used for the coal export trade and has been adapted from time to time for the handling of manganese—additional facilities had to be provided at Congella. I should like to know from the Minister whether the improvements envisaged are going to be adequate for the handling of the requirements of the export of pig-iron industry.

I do not want to complain about the finance because when it comes to dealing with harbour equipment—in this case particularly the items for Durban harbour—the estimates are fairly accurate. As a matter of fact, the amount of money on these additional estimates is very small in relation to the total sum involved. I should like, however, to ask the Minister that whereas he intends extending the facilities for the loading of pig-iron, he should give consideration to those people who have been struggling under the difficulties I have mentioned, i.e. those who had to struggle along with manual handling. They have had no, or very little, consideration. Now, however, when we have all of a sudden developed this new pig-iron industry, every facility is being provided at the shortest possible notice. He should include in this set-up adequate facilities for loading the other types of ore which are also exported. Not only pig-iron is going to be of importance but the other minerals as well, although not of equal importance. They are obviously going to be of importance in the export industry of our country in the future.

Another item under Head No. 2 to which I should like to refer, is item 7, namely the provision for additional sidings and carriage and wagon depot at Fynnland. This is tied up with the head marshalling yards. We have been speaking to the Minister now for some time about a new station for Durban and the development of these yards is, I take it, tied up with that. Are the facilities at the bay head going to be adequate for future requirements? There is a move to lessen the yards at Congella, and there is a consensus of opinion that the marshalling yards at the bay head where this development is going to take place, are not as adequate as they might be. Are they meeting the Minister’s requirements as he hoped they would?

The Minister could take this opportunity of giving us an insight into the position, not only in regard to the loading of pig-iron and what arrangements he is making in this connection within the harbour area, but also in regard to the facilities he intends to provide, i.e. whether they are adequate. He should give us an assurance in this connection. The site he has chosen for the loading of pig-iron is at the other side of the harbour, at Wests. This means carting the raw material to that point and this is going to have the effect of congesting further the line which at present serves the petrol depot as well as the industries which will be going up on the sites which are at present being reclaimed at Island View. This narrow strip provides access to that part of the harbour and it is going to be strained more than it is now. As it is, traffic goes on day and night to cope with the requirements. If this extra burden, i.e. transport of pig-iron to the loading site, is going to add to the present burden, then I think the Minister should make sure that the present facilities will be able to meet the demand. If not, then I should like to know what other facilities he is going to provide to carry this additional ore traffic to the loading sites. It is quite easy to say that the plant will cope with loading the ships, but the pig-iron would first have to be got to the point of loading and I am aware of the bottleneck which already exists there. Unless additional facilities are provided, I do not, therefore, think that it will be able to handle the amount of ore which it is intended to load with this plant.

In addition, new sites are being developed and a huge reclamation scheme is in progress near Wests at the moment. That is going to strain the transport facilities even further. As far as the berthing facilities are concerned, I am sure the Minister has made sure that, with the new types of ships with their extra draughts which are being used for the conveyance of this type of ore, the depth of the harbour is going to present no difficulties. I will not enlarge on this, however, because I believe it has been provided for adequately in the work which is being done at No. 5 berth.

It is these questions which I should like the Minister to consider. We have the suspicion that Durban harbour is being developed piece by piece instead of to an overall plan as has been suggested to the Minister on numerous occasions. We should like to have the assurance, therefore, that when these expected developments take place, the proposed facilities are going to be able to stand up to the demands which will be made upon them.

One of the major items on these additional estimates is electrification. The Minister has already told the House on occasion that it was the intention to develop electrification in order to increase the carrying capacity of the railways. If that is the policy, then I think we have reached a stage where the Minister should come to this House with a detailed plan for the next, say, 10 to 15 years, showing what actually is intended and what is the cost going to be to the country. It is one thing to electrify a line, and another to run such a line economically. One must take into account redundant stock. If we are going to electrify the line between Klerksdorp and Beaconsfied and then between Witbank and Komatipoort, we are bound to find that a considerable amount of steam stock has become redundant, and must be written off against the use of the line. One would have thought that in view of the cost of coal and cost of conveyance to the Cape, the Minister would have thought about the electrification of the section between Kimberley and De Aar instead of giving priority to the line from Klerksdorp to Kimberley.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I only wanted to ask the Minister to give us a complete sketch of his intentions in this connection at some time or other.

I should also like to deal with item 27 of Head No. 2, namely the provision of coaling plant at Table Bay docks. The off-loading of coal in Cape Town docks has been antiquated over the years. Grabs are being used because, as the Minister said, this method is the most satisfactory under the circumstances. We have been loading ships, trawlers, tugs, etc., with baskets and we continue to do so notwithstanding the fact that a new coal loading plant has been put into operation at Cape Town docks, for the purpose of loading trawlers and tugs. The peculiar thing about this coal loading plant is that it becomes completely mechanical the moment the coal is put into the bunker, Manual labour, however, has still to be used for off-loading the truck into the bunker. There is very little saving here. One would have thought that when designing the new plant at the Cape Town docks, a tip arrangement would have been provided allowing the truck being tipped straight in to the bunker. The capacity of this particular plant is really too small and they still have to load by basket. I see that it is the intention to buy a pneumatic loader. I do not know what they are going to use it for. I cannot see how it can be used for the loading of ships.

Mr. Speaker, I am at a complete loss to understand the attitude of the Opposition. When the railways are unable to cope with all the traffic the Opposition complain and criticize: they complain that no foresight has been shown; no provision has been made for the future. When provision is made for the future they complain about the capital expenditure. What do they want? Do they think that the economy of the country is static and that there is no expansion? Do they really suggest that planning should take place at one stage and that there should not be any continual planning to meet the traffic requirements of the future? I cannot understand the attitude of the Opposition.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) complained about the capital expenditure and the interest burden. What does he suggest? Does he suggest that there be no further expansion and development on Railways? Is that what he wants? In spite of the economic development the Railways must remain static; there must be no further development—is that what he wants?

I did not say that.

But that was what the member implied, Sir. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. He cannot expect the Railways to keep pace with the economic development of the country without embarking upon any capital expenditure. You cannot have the one without the other. The hon. member complained about planning. But planning is not static; planning is continually taking place. Take the position of the increased requirements of Iscor. Does the hon. member expect me to indulge in mental telepathy and to have known five years ago that Iscor would embark upon an expansion plan which will increase the traffic requirements of Iscor by hundreds of thousands of tons? I can only wait until Iscor announces their expansion programme and then provide the railway facilities to meet their increased traffic requirements. Does the hon. member expect me to indulge in mental telepathy and that I should have known four or five years ago that a contract will be entered into with Japan to sell pig-iron? The hon. member does not think before he speaks, Sir.

I spoke about existing facilities.

But surely existing facilities are there to meet present requirements. But the hon. member knows that economic development is continually taking place.

You said in this House that they were more than sufficient to meet the requirements.

I did not say that. I said that we had a surplus capacity on certain lines; we still have. Because the policy is not only to make provision for the actual traffic demands of the present time but there is a surplus capacity to meet future demands, but that is only on certain lines and not throughout the Railway system.

The hon. member complained and said that no provision was made in the Brown Book for these items. What the hon. member must realize is this: The Railways is rather a big concern. We handle some 85,000,000 to 90,000,000 tons of traffic a year. New demands are continually made on the Railways. The Railways have to meet those demands. There is continual economic expansion in South Africa and the Railways have to keep pace with that economic expansion. In regard to these particular items, planning has, of course, been taking place for some time. I cannot come to the House until the estimates have been finally framed. Hon. members opposite will be the first to complain if I merely made a guess as to the amount required for any particular work. The estimates must be made, and it is only after the estimates have been made that the matter can be placed before the House.

There has been too much guessing in the past.

No, there was not too much guessing. The only trouble is that my engineers were overworked and the estimates were not as accurate as they should have been. But hon. members must realize that labour costs continually increase and the cost of materials increases. If you estimate to-day what a work will cost which will probably take three years to complete, you find that in those three years’ time, due to the increase in the labour and material costs, your estimates are out of date and the amount will have to be increased. The hon. member complained about the Brown Book. What happens in practice, Sir? The Brown Book comes before the House and if an hour is taken to discuss all those items it is a long time.

That is not our fault.

Of course it is your fault. It is for the Opposition to decide how much time they want to make available for discussion of the Brown Book. [Interjections.] Hon. members opposite can always come to an arrangement with this side. If they want half a day or four or five hours to discuss the Brown Book, this side of the House will be quite agreeable to do that. As I say, it usually takes no longer than an hour to discuss all the items in the Brown Book. The opportunity is here now for hon. members to discuss these matters as much as they want to. They have more opportunity of discussing these matters when they appear in the Additional Estimates than when they appear in the Brown Book. But what difference does it make as long as Parliament is asked to agree to the expenditure. Whether the items appear in the Brown Book or in the Additional Estimates what difference does it make? Hon. members have an opportunity of discussing and criticizing these matters.

The hon. member complained about 72 locomotives which appear in the Brown Book and he says I now say that I require an additional 70 locomotives. But surely the hon. member does not expect me to But the cart before the horse. First of all a decision has to be taken in regard to the electrification of a certain line and it is only after that decision has been taken that the requirements in respect of locomotives can be decided upon. The 70 locomotives are required for the line which is to be electrified between Beaconsfield and Klerksdorp. The 72 locomotives which appear in the Brown Book are required for the Union-Volksrust and Witbank-Komatipoort sections. You cannot provide for locomotives before you have decided to electrify a line.

The hon. member said that I told the House that the programme had been completed. Quite right. That was the programme to catch up on the backlog which we had in 1954. There was a five-year plan to catch up on the backlog and I told the House time and again that after the backlog had been caught up continual expansion would have to take place to keep pace with the economic development in South Africa. And that is what has been done.

You have never given us an estimate of what the future may hold.

Does the hon. member know what the future may hold? Does he know what the economic expansion of South Africa is going to be? Did the hon. member know three years ago that Iscor was going to embark upon this expansion programme? Did the hon. member know that Iscor would enter into a contract with Japan to buy hundreds of tons of pig-iron?

You used to estimate your future capital expenditure.

That is merely based on the normal increase in the traffic and planning is continually taking place to meet that. But when unexpected demands are made, such as a sudden decision of Iscor to expand which will mean thousands of tons of additional traffic …

May I ask a question? Your former capital works programme was based on traffic expectations. You set yourself a target of what the railways would be expected to carry in five years time. That is now completed and I want you to give us another expectation considering the natural development of the country.

That is continually taking place. The Planning Council bases its research and planning on the normal rate of increase in traffic. That appears annually in the Brown Book; we provide the facilities to meet the normal increase. But when you have abnormal increases, increases which nobody could foresee, then you have to make additional provision for those. The normal increase in traffic is 5 per cent to 7 per cent annually and planning is based on that. But when you have abnormal increases, if there is a sudden unforeseen demand on the railways, such as we are having now, additional facilities have to be provided.

It is a very large amount.

Yes, but you cannot build a railway line for sixpence.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) wanted to know about the R2,000,000. As I explained in my opening remarks the provision is in excess of the amount of stock held and it was found that that account could be reduced by R2,000,000 and that that R2,000,000 could be available for capital expenditure. That makes it unnecessary to ask Treasury for additional loan funds.

In regard to the handling of pig-iron, I can assure the hon. members that adequate facilities will be provided. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) also said that some consideration should be given to the manganese loaders at Durban. Well, it is my intention to divert all export manganese traffic from Durban to Port Elizabeth. That will give relief not only to Durban but it will also give relief to the Natal main line. We are providing a modern ore-handling plant at Port Elizabeth and Port Elizabeth should be our export port for all our ores and minerals.

In regard to the facilities at Fynnlands, the hon. member wanted to know whether those were adequate for future requirements. You can never say whether facilities will be sufficient for future requirements because you do not know what those future requirements are going to be. You might be able to say that they will be adequate for the next year or for the next two years. As I have already said, planning is continually taking place. Traffic is increasing; abnormal demands are made on the railways and when those abnormal demands are made then additional facilities must be provided.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) spoke about ten to 15 years—that a plan should be drawn up in regard to electrification for the next ten to 15 years. But you cannot do that. No member in this House can say what the economic position of South Africa is going to be in 15 years’ time.

I think it will be sound.

I think so too, but in my line I have to deal with facts, not with fancies. Those redundant locomotives will be absorbed and will be used on branch and other lines. We are not buying any more steam locomotives. Many steam locomotives must be withdrawn from service, they are becoming old and out-dated. If you find that electrification is more economical and more efficient, in spite of the fact that you will have redundant steam locomotives on your hands, you must still embark upon electrification.

The hon. member asked why we did not rather electrify the line between De Aar and Kimberley instead of the line between Klerks-dorp and Beaconsfield. Well, we are building a double line from Fourteen Streams as far as De Aar so electrification is not required at this stage. There is a single line from Fourteen Streams to Klerksdorp and that is why we are electrifying it to cope with the increased traffic.

Motion put and agreed to.

I wish to refer to items 20, 22, 24 and 30. Those items between them amount to approximately R100,000 and they are to provide certain staff facilities, such as staff messes and other general improvements in the various depots. I want to ask the Minister this, and I hope the answer will be in the affirmative: I take it that this is what one might call a portion of the development of the staff facilities which will be continued throughout the Service so as to modernize and bring up to date staff conveniences and facilities. As the hon. the Minister rightly said, improved working conditions not only produce an increase in output but they cater in general for the staff who after all do responsible work and need to work under the best conditions in order to carry out those responsibilities. It is pleasing to see these items here and I trust that they will be followed by fairly substantial other expenditures.

Item 18 reads “Convert 15 cool chambers to standard type precooling tunnels ‘A’ berth”. There the total expenditure is estimated at R138,000 of which R88,800 is to be spent immediately. I want to ask the Minister whether this improvement will assist in cutting down the difficulties which were experienced during the last deciduous fruit export season when producers had on many occasions to withhold sending fruit to Table Bay docks because the cooling chambers were fully stocked up and could not take any more fruit. I know there were shipping difficulties too, but will the work which is now to be undertaken put an end to the position which prevailed last season when the farmers could not send all the fruit they wanted to the docks? One can quite understand the difficulty which the grower experiences. He cannot stop his product from ripening. When the product is ripe it has to be picked and once it has been picked it has to be dealt with and preserved till he can get rid of it. As we know, the export trade is the life-blood of the Western Province—as it is in the case of other parts of the country—and I should like to know whether the Minister can give us the assurance that what they are going to do now will be sufficient to meet the position. Here again the traffic through the Table Bay docks is increasing and are we keeping sufficiently far ahead not to penalize the producer in the way he was penalized during the last season.

I have certain points which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister. Item 19 provides for an amount of R3,290,500 for a new goods layout, at Port Elizabeth. The Minister referred to this item as representing a new office block. The Minister said it was intended to build a new office block for the staff of the port goods superintendent. I think there must have been a slight mistake. I shall be glad if the Minister would give us some further information on this.

In regard to the roofing of the Pretoria station can the Minister give us an assurance that the facilities which will be provided at the Pretoria station will be comparable with those provided at the new Johannesburg station? Surely Pretoria is one of the capitals of our country and one can hardly say that the facilities provided at the Pretoria station compare favourably with those of Johannesburg or with those which will be provided when the new station is finished at Cape Town. This expenditure which is provided for here for roofing over the platforms, etc., could the Minister indicate whether the type of construction which will take place will be as modern as that of the new stations in the other major towns?

In regard to item 33, the Minister referred in his speech to the problems of that line between Witbank and Komatipoort. The Minister suggested that by electrification he would have a permanent solution to the problem.

I did not say a permanent solution. Don’t put words into my mouth.

“The only permanent solution of the problem …” The Minister was kind enough to make a copy of his speech available. The Minister says I must not put words into his mouth. I listened to the Minister and he did use the word.

I withdraw the word “permanent” it should not have been in there.

I do not think the Minister should accuse me of putting words into his mouth.

I apologize for that.

I want to ask the Minister whether the electrification of this line which carries traffic to Lourenço Marques will in any way affect the existing agreement between ourselves and the Portuguese in terms of which payments are made on a pro rata basis in respect of traffic consigned to the Rand. I do not want to discuss the whole agreement now, but could the Minister indicate whether the increased traffic which will result from electrification—because one of the reasons of electrifying this line, I take it, is to increase the carrying capacity of the line and to foster traffic—and the payments that will be made will affect the existing arrangement? If so, does the Minister contemplate reviewing that agreement? That agreement has been in operation for a number of years. Has he consulted the Portuguese authorities in regard to the electrification of that line? The entire capacity of that line will be altered. Does the Minister expect a greater flow of export traffic along this line, because of electrification, from Lourenço Marques? I think some clarity is needed in this respect because this line is not only important from the traffic point of view but it also has a certain amount of strategic value in regard to the use of the port of Lourenço Marques. The use of that line has also affected our negotiations and discussions in respect of further railway extensions with the Federation as such. I shall be glad if the Minister will give us some indication as to what is involved in the electrification of this line itself, in relation to the traffic and in relation to the agreement with the Portuguese authorities.

Then I think it is pertinent that I ask this question. As far as the work of the Chief Civil Engineer’s department is concerned, we are asked to vote a mere R700. In relation to the gross expenditure this is virtually a token amount. In respect of the Chief Electrical Engineer’s department we are asked to vote R452,000 which is a comparatively small amount in relation to the gross amount of R6¾ million which is the estimated cost of construction of this line. I want to ask the Minister whether he could give us an idea of when this work will be completed. Because other items such as items 11 and 16 are also involved in the construction of this line. I will be glad if the hon. the Minister could let us have that information.

During his reply the hon. the Minister indicated that it was the intention to move the manganese-loading plant from Durban to Port Elizabeth. I should just like to ask him a question or two in regard to item No. 8, which deals with loading appliances. The first question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is this: This new plant for the loading of pig-iron—is it based on the existing appliances situated at Wests?

No.

It is not?

No, you cannot load pig-iron with the ordinary ore-loading appliances.

You cannot use the same equipment? This will be entirely new? If the hon. the Minister is going to improve the loading facilities in this particular area where both of these plants are, could he not transfer, at a little extra expense, the whole of the manganese loading there instead of loading part at Congella and part at Wests?

We are moving all the manganese loading to Port Elizabeth.

Yes, I heard that. But it has been convenient in the past to load at Durban. If the Minister considers that is the best plan, I cannot argue against it, because I do not know the reasons underlying the removal of the loading of manganese to Port Elizabeth. I take it that the reasons are good, and I accept them. It was just a suggestion to probe if these new facilities might now be used for the loading of ores. You see no port likes to lose facilities which it enjoys at the moment.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the loading of pig-iron.

Yes, Sir, I appreciate that. But the two are so closely linked that I think even the Minister …

There is a big difference between manganese and pig-iron.

Yes, I know. My whole inquiry is based on the fact that they both need loading appliances, and if it is impossible to use the same appliances, which the Minister says is the position and I accept that, then I will withdraw my question.

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) wanted to know whether the improvements to be effected to the cooling chambers at Cane Town would obviate the delays which took place during the last season. But the delays were caused by ships not arriving on time. The capacity was adequate, but the ships did not arrive on time, consequently the cooling chambers became congested. Had the ships arrived on time there would not have been any congestion. Apart from that, the Deciduous Fruit Board and the farmers have to give an estimate of the amount of fruit that will be exported during a particular season. On the basis of those estimates ships are chartered. After the estimates have been given and the ships have been chartered and farmers send more fruit than originally contemplated, new ships have to be chartered. It is there where the delay comes in, and that was what happened last season. But this will alleviate the position. This item provides for the old cooling chambers to be converted into modern cooling chambers, and that will increase the storing capacity.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) referred to item 19. This is stage 2 of the goods layout. When you start on a big work such as that, you do it in different stages. Stage 2 includes the provision of the office block. Stage 1 provides for the lines and for the yards. There are different stages in regard to the completion of a work such as that. This is stage 2, and this is in regard to the office block for the port goods superintendent and his staff. They must, of course, be at the new marshalling yards.

In regard to the Pretoria station, this amount asked for is only to provide for roofing over certain platforms as I said in my opening remarks. The Pretoria station is not being rebuilt. Consequently there cannot be any comparison between the Pretoria station and the facilities provided at the Johannesburg station, which is a new station. Some additional platforms have been built at Pretoria for the Native traffic; a new station has been built some distance away from the Pretoria station. But this item is merely to provide for the roofing of the platform and the roofing of a further part of the concourse, not for other facilities.

Is that the roof of the concourse?

Yes.

What type of roof do you intend putting there?

Well, it must fit in with the original roofing.

The hon. member wanted to know whether the electrification of the Komatipoort-Witbank line will affect the Mozambique Convention. I do not know whether the hon. member knows that the Mozambique Convention provides that 47½ per cent of all the import traffic to the competitive area, i.e. the Witwatersrand area, must come through Lourenço Marques. If the amount drops below 47½ per cent, the Administration must, either by way of manipulation of rates, divert traffic to Lourenço Marques, or make a cash reimbursement to the Mozambique authorities. But export traffic is not included in the Convention. We cannot prevent exporters from using the port of Lourenço Marques, except by a manipulation of rates, or, in other words, by making it cheaper to export through Durban, for instance. The export traffic is continually increasing. The amount of import traffic is appreciably above 47½ per cent, and it with probably remain so for some time. The line is congested, but, apart from that, with the new line being built to meet the requirements of Foscor, a large additional amount of traffic will come from Foscor over the Selati line as well. The line for Foscor is being built at the present me, as the hon. member knows, and directly it is comnleted a large amount of Foscor traffic will have to be conveyed over that the between Komatipoort and Witbank. The line is congested, and the only way to meet that congestion, and to alleviate the position, is by way of electrification, which considerably increases the carrying capacity of a line. That is the reason why that line is being electrified. But it will not affect the Mozambique Convention.

Do you think the time has come to reconsider all these developments?

I can inform the hon. member that discussions will take place with the Portuguese authorities during August in regard to the matters provided for in the Mozambique Convention.

I appreciate that the Minister cannot go very much further in discussing the matter if negotiations are going to take place and it may not be politic to say much more. But there is one aspect to which I would like the Minister to give consideration, because I believe it will assist us in discussing these items in the Estimates, and I think this Vote is the right one under which to raise the point, because this is the largest amount we are asked to vote. We raised the point in the past, in considering these items, that we on these benches find ourselves in a very difficult position to make constructive criticism because we are not aware of the facts.

Order! The hon. member should have raised that point on the motion to go into Committee on the Estimates.

I am discussing it under a particular item, the electrification of the Komatipoort-Witbank line. We find ourselves in a difficult position because this comes to us completely out of the blue, the electrification of this line.

The whole Brown Book comes out of the blue.

Not entirely, because there we have plenty of other evidence before us. There are some items which have come down through the course of the years and there are ministerial statements and statements by the General Manager, and we have a full opportunity in the Budget debate to obtain information. But here we have this item, which is a completely new development programme. We had some idea of the Klerks-dorp-Beaconfield line, because the Minister has discussed it before. So it is not new, but this is completely new and we do not know the background of it. Therefore the Opposition is in the position that we have to rise to our feet and ask for information, and having got it, we have to judge of its merits and whether to approve the item or not. It is a difficult situation. What I want to suggest to the Minister is this. He said in the past that he was not prepared to make available to us the reports of his Planning Committee, because it is a departmental one. I take it that the Planning Council considered this development, too.

Yes, of course.

Then I put it to the Minister this way, that when we get items of this nature, items of major development, the Minister should adopt the practice he has in respect of other matters of giving an explanatory memorandum giving the reasons for it, so that we can have adequate opportunity of judging the merit of the programme involved. The Minister has refused to make the reports of the Planning Council available, and I therefore want to ask him that accompanying these Estimates, whenever there is a completely new major work, the Minister should give us a White Paper giving us the background and the reasons for it, and we can then argue the matter much more constructively than we would otherwise be able to do on the mere presentation of the brief facts given by the Minister in the House. The Minister will agree with me that for a member on these benches to raise the question of the Mozambique Convention, which is a matter of negotiation between our Government and another Government, is not a matter which should be raised across the floor of the House because it involves delicate negotiations of an international kind, and I do not think it is in the interest of the Railway Administration to discuss it in its broad aspect. But if we are told in a memorandum beforehand that this involves a possible review of the convention, we have the information and the matter need not be raised across the floor of the House at all. I would seriously plead with the Minister to give some consideration to my suggestion, that whenever we get these major developments we should get more information beforehand so that we can discuss the matter objectively and constructively.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 3.—“Rolling Stock”, R200,

There is only one issue that arises here, and that is the purchase of 70 electric locomotives mainly for the Witbank-Komatipoort section. In previous debates I asked the Minister whether his Statistical Department was in a position to determine the relative efficiency of electrification as against dieselization. Are we to assume, from this item, that his Statistical Department has now given the Minister the evidence to indicate clearly that electrification is far more economical than dieselization? I think that is the issue which arises here, and I would like the Minister to give us some information about it.

There are two points I would like to raise in order to get clarity in regard to these new electric locomotives. Firstly, I would like to know whether the Class 5El locomotives are designed by the Administration, and whether the construction or partial construction of these locomotives will take place in the Republic, and whether all the parts will be imported and assembled here, or whether the entire locomotive will be manufactured overseas according to our specifications.

Then on the Brown Book there presently stand 232 electric locomotives, of which 72 are on order, and of the other 160 there are some still to come forward, I take it, because the entire expenditure has not been met. So on order or partly delivered there will be something like 300 electric locomotives, which is a tremendous increase in our tractive power. What I want to ask the Minister is this. This increase in tractive power, will it be additional to the existing steam locomotives, or does it mean that there will be a commensurate decline in steam tractive power? Is it intended to replace the existing steam locomotives as they wear out, with diesels? I would be glad if the Minister would give us some picture of what is envisaged in regard to the tractive power.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) wants to know whether electrification is more economical than the use of diesel traction. Electrification, of course, entails the highest capital outlay. The overhead equipment is very expensive. Diesel traction requires no capital outlay, except for the cost of the locomotive itself. In the coastal areas diesel traction is more economical. In the inland areas electric traction is more economical. The maintenance cost of electric units is lower than that of diesel locomotives. The hon. member realizes that a diesel locomotive has both a diesel engine and an electric generator, and consequently you require two sets of artisans to work on a diesel locomotive, whereas you only require one set on an electric unit. So the maintenance costs of electric units are lower than those of diesels, but taken on the whole diesel traction is economical in the coastal areas and electrification is more economical in the inland areas. The reason for that is that in the coastal areas diesel oil does not require to be transported by rail, whereas in the inland areas it must be transported from the coast. But there is another important consideration. We are dependent on outside sources for our diesel oil and in time of war our supplies might be cut off. I have to take that into consideration, whereas electric power is generated from our very cheap coal, and consequently it can never be cut off in time of war. That is why I am not embarking on an extensive dieselization programme. I might still introduce diesel locomotives on certain sections where it is quite uneconomical to electrify due to the high capital outlay, and where we have water troubles with steam locomotives, such as we had in South West Africa, but I have no programme of extensive dieselization, although I have a programme of increasing electrification. I think that is the best policy to adopt.

The hon. member for Turffontein wanted to know whether the electric locomotives are designed by the Administration. Yes, they are. All locomotives are designed by us. The hon. member wanted to know whether the manufacture would take place in South Africa or overseas. In the usual way, tenders will be called for and one of the stipulations will be that the greater part of the locomotive must be manufactured in South Africa. When the lastender for electric locomotives was issued, tenders were received from overseas firms, as well as from South African firms. In that tender there was also a stipulation that at least 80 per cent of the locomotive must be manufactured in South Africa. There are certain proprietary parts that have to be imported, of course. In competition with overseas firms, a South African firm got that tender, the Union Carriage and Wagon Works at Nigel. They are busy manufacturing these locomotives now. It is the first time in the history of South Africa that 80 per cent of an electric unit will be manufactured here. Previously they have always been imported, and I confidently expect that when this tender is issued at least 90 per cent of the locomotive will be manufactured in South Africa, because the different firms and the sub-contractors are adapting themselves. If they know there will be continuity in regard to orders, they will import the necessary machinery and more and more of the work on those particular parts that have to be imported will be done in South Africa. So I confidently expect that within a year or two locomotives will, except for certain proprietary parts like ball-bearings, which cannot be made here, almost 100 per cent of the locomotive will be made here. We are to-day already manufacturing all our coaching stock and our goods stock in South Africa.

The hon. member wanted to know whether this electric traction would be additional to steam traction. My reply is that electric traction replaces steam traction on the sections which are being electrified, but of course you have additional power available. In other words, it increases the capacity of the line, because with electric traction more traffic can be hauled than with steam traction. If steam locomotives become redundant they will be withdrawn from service. Other steam locomotives will be utilized on branch lines or on less important lines. But this of course gives us additional tractive power, as the result of electrification.

Head put and agreed to.

On Head No. 5.—“Harbours”, R4,500,

I merely wanted to ask a question to get clarity on an explanation the Minister gave previously. Dealing with the loading of pig-iron and manganese, the Minister mentioned that Port Elizabeth was being developed as a port for the export of all ores and minerals. I want to get clarity on this. Did the Minister mean the raw material, the ore, and not the partly manufactured article?

Yes, the raw material.

Head put and agreed to.

May I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? Sir, let me say at the outset that for reasons which should be obvious to the meanest intelligence, I move a reduction in the salary of the hon. the Minister—

I believe that we are indeed being generous to the Minister in only recommending such a small reduction, because there have been, during the past year, particularly two factors which have contributed towards this decision to move this amendment to-day. Of these two factors one is internal and the other external. The internal one can be summarized as the seething, fully justified and growing discontent amongst members of the post office staff, and the external factor is the growing disgust amongst all sections of the public at the policy of the hon. the Minister in regard to the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation.

I would first like to say a few words about the staff problem. I believe the post office staff to be a loyal, capable and dedicated band of men, but it is a pity that they are not given the consideration they deserve by the hon. the Minister. We must remember that there are no fewer than 46,000 members of the post office staff, and they constitute no less than 35 per cent of the whole Public Service. It is indeed disgraceful how their interests have been ignored during the past year by the Minister. I think I can now reveal that if it had not been for the responsible leadership of the Postal and Telegraphs Association, there would have been a complete breakdown in postal services during the Christmas rush in December last. This has been confirmed by a letter which the Posts and Telegraphs Association sent to the Public Service Commission, dated 20 February, which reads as follows—

This is the voice, Sir, of 46,000 postal employees. They are scandalized at their conditions of service. They are justifiably annoyed at the fact that since the consolidation of the cost-of-living allowance in 1958, there has been an increase of 4.5 per cent, yet there has been no corresponding increase in their wages, salaries and allowances. 4.5 per cent, Sir, is £45 a year on £1,000. The employees went through all the proper and usual channels to approach the hon. the Minister, through the Postmaster-General, through the Public Service Commission, asking for better conditions of service, and every time they were delayed and snubbed by the Minister until in desperation they started holding meetings last year. Then a vague promise was made that something would be done. The budget came and postal employees were shocked to find that there was nothing in the budget whatever to alleviate their difficulties, except a small concession to regrade 320 posts. Things have become so bad that there have been meetings of protest of post office employees throughout the Republic during the last few months. We have heard of protest meetings against the Sabotage Bill, but do hon. members realize that there was a protest meeting of no fewer than 500 postal employees in Johannesburg a few weeks ago, protesting against what is happening in the postal services? Do we realize that the Chairman of the Posts and Telegraphs Association stated in August last year that no less than one out of every four postal employees had left the service during the previous 12 months?

Untrue.

That hon. member has no right to call the Chairman of this Association a liar. I have stated that there is a growing unrest amongst employees, and that protest meetings are being held throughout the country. I believe the time has come that greater autonomy for the post office should be investigated. This was proposed to the hon. the Minister, and he declared himself sympathetic to the idea, but he also stated that many people would have to be consulted in regard to it. I trust that he will tell us which people have to be consulted and what he has done to show his practical sympathy.

I believe I speak on behalf of the members of the post office staff and the public of South Africa when I say that we all share in the national disgust at the revelations during past weeks about the tapping of telephones. Whether it was done by the post office itself, or by the Department of Justice, tapping direct or tapping by proxy is equally deplorable and it is prostituting a great democrats service for undemocratic ends. Sir, this must end.

It will come as no surprise to the Minister that I intend saying a few words on the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. I believe there has been such chaos in the administration, such dissatisfaction in regard to staff matters, such nepotism and such dictatorship by the Chairman of the Board of Governors, such slanting of the news, such indefensible delays in regard to television, as to make the angels weep, the crooners groan and the people despair.

The fact is that the S.A.B.C. is to-day a little empire on its own and that it is deliberately ignoring the law of the land as laid down in the Broadcast Act. Section 26 of the Broadcast Act empowers the Minister to bring to the attention of the Board of Governors any case where that board is not complying with the Act itself, where it is flaunting and breaking the law. I want to ask the Minister whether he has done so during the past year, because there are instances which I have brought to his attention of this flouting of the law. He even has power under Section 3 of the Act to dismiss the whole Board of Governors, and the time might well come when we shall ask him to do so.

I refer to one section in particular. Section 24 of the Act. In terms of that section, the Minister must every year in Parliament, through the report of the S.A.B.C., give certain particulars. What are those particulars? Here they are, as laid down in the Act. He must give particulars of the extent and value of all classes of property owned by the Corporation. Now I challenge the Minister to look at the report of the S.A.B.C. and to show me where those particulars are given. All we are given in the balance sheet is “Buildings and Improvements—R3.8 million”. That is all.

The law demands that he give particulars of the expenses of management and administration. Where are these particulars of management and administration in the report of the S.A.B.C.? I found one item in which these particulars are lumped together with items such as rents and taxes and the maintenance of vehicles. One cannot say from this report how much is expended on salaries by the S.A.B.C., and how much on rent. These things are required to be furnished by law and the S.A.B.C. is flouting the law by not telling Parliament what it is doing with its money. Sir, there should be particulars about repairs to equipment. We read in the papers sometime ago that there had been a kink in the Hertzog Tower in Johannesburg; I am referring to the Tower, not the Minister. I asked the hon. the Minister particulars about that kink in the Hertzog Tower; why the Tower was leaning over to one side, and he refused to give me that information, in spite of the fact that the Broadcasting Act demands that information of that nature should be given in the report itself. There should be particulars with regard to the erection of equipment. I asked the hon. the Minister how many V.H.F. towers have to be erected; he refused to tell me, in spite of the fact—in terms of the Act—that these matters should be mentioned in the report.

Most serious of all, I want to refer the Minister to Section 24 (g) of the Broadcasting Act, which says that the name of every member of a political party of whom any political speech was broadcast, as well as the time allowed and the hour at which the broadcast took place must be given in the annual report of the S.A.B.C. Tabled in this House. I challenge the hon. the Minister to show me where any of these political speeches are mentioned in this report, as they should have been in terms of the Act. I know what the hon. the Minister’s reply will be. He will tell us that there have been no political speeches during the past 12 months, despite the fact that we had a general election last year. Sir, we who listened to the radio broadcasts during the general election last year have cause to know that there were political speeches. I remember one speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister before, I think, the Chamber of Commerce in Johannesburg. It was of such a political nature that the Nationalist newspapers even signed their report on that speech as a political article. Yet that political speech is not mentioned in this report, as it should be in terms of the law. Then there is another grave instance. We all remember that scandalous speech by the hon. the Prime Minister immediately after the election …

You are a public scandal.

… in which he said, amongst other things—

When I challenged the hon. the Minister to say whether this was a political speech or not, his reply was, “No, it was a statement by the Prime Minister”. Let me bring evidence to the hon. the Minister to prove that this was a political speech. Earlier this year the hon. the Prime Minister himself was challenged on this issue in Parliament by me personally and I accused him of having made a political speech over the radio. This was the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply; he said—

Those are the words of the Prime Minister himself, and the law requires that that speech of his should be mentioned in the report. Why has it not been mentioned? [Interjection.] Let the hon. member read Section 24 of the Act.

Read the election results. You are worse than Jack Basson.

I brought this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister and he assured me in reply to a question that he was taking legal advice on the matter. Here we have a very interesting little event. I asked the hon. the Minister on Friday, 13 April, about that legal advice that he was taking with regard to the S.A.B.C. and he said—

Sir, mark the date, 13 April, and mark the statement that legal advice was being taken from the Government’s legal adviser. Knowing the hon. the Minister I decided to check with the Government legal advisers. On 13 April they had not been approached for legal advice nor on the 14th, the 15th or the 16th; they were only approached four weeks later for legal advice, yet the hon. the Minister told me in reply to a question on 13 April that they had been approached!

Sir, the finances of the S.A.B.C. give cause for concern. Expenditure has swollen during the past three months with new services and new erections. The Broadcasting Corporation will have to find R2,000,000 to repay its V.H.F. Government loan. It may even face a deficit at the end of this year. Meanwhile we find tens of thousands of rand being lost, for instance, on an item such as the Radio Bulletin, about which we can get no information from this hon. Minister but about which we could get information under the United Party Government.

Meanwhile the Minister is acting as a taxing machine; he has increased licence fees, which are now R5.50 in the big cities. This increase has been made retrospective in the case of Cape Town, which will not have V.H.F. services until June or even later, and yet the Cape Town listeners have to pay these increased licence fees on account of this supposed V.H.F. services right from the beginning of the year. Our licence fees are amongst the highest in the world, higher than in Belgium, in Switzerland, in Holland and in Denmark. Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that if you buy a radio set for R40, in ten years you have to pay R55 in licence fees? Why tax people like that? In particular, let me ask the hon. the Minister why tax the poor pensioner who has to pay these full fees? Why cannot his licence fee be reduced?

Sir, we have been shocked by the resignations which have taken place during the past few months from the S.A.B.C. Staff members of the S.A.B.C. have been shocked to hear that the Special Branch is actually investigating them and other members of the staff, including new appointments. These resignations include the editor of Radio Bulletin, the sen or administrative assistant to the Director-General, a senior radio announcer with 27 years’ service, a publicity manager after 28 years’ service, and the Deputy-Chief of the news services. Look at the names: Gideon Roos. Even Dagbreek and the Burger have deplored the dismissal of Mr. Gideon Roos. Look at these names. Sir: James McClurg, Colin Neilson, Mike Meiring, Percy Patrick, Robert Gaynor, Paul Vernon, Mike Lovell, Richard Buncher, Frank Douglass, George Moore, Michael Fox, Alan Robinson, Clive Lawrence, Aubrey Reynier, Tony Collocott, Hugh Rouse: all these are men who offered fine services to the listeners on the S.A.B.C. I am not saying that all of them resigned on account of the state of affairs in the S.A.B.C., but a very large number of them certainly did. Sir, there is something rotten in the State of Denmark as far as the S.A.B.C. is concerned. Let me quote what Mr. Michael Fox said on his resignation—

Let me quote what Mr. Robin Whitehead said after his resignation: “I don’t like what I say, particularly the way in which news broadcasts are slanted”. But these are the things that we have been having since the appointment of the cultural adviser, Mr. Jannie Kruger, ex-editor of the Transvaler, since the appointment of an outspoken Nationalist as head of the News Services, and particularly since the appointment of Dr. Meyer as chairman of the Board of Governors. I cannot think of a worse appointment made by this Government than that particular one. I do not want to go into all the particulars of Dr. Meyer’s past, but we might well ask: What are his views? He is head of the English as well as the Afrikaans News Services of the S.A.B.C.—what are his views on the English people of South Africa? These are the words of Dr. Meyer on English-speaking South Africans; he said—

Those are the words of the chairman of the Board of Governors; those are his views about the English-speaking people of South Africa.

Does that include the Minister of Labour?

Yes, and I wonder if he includes the Minister of Information in that.

I put a question to you?

I am sorry, my time is limited. Mr. Chairman, we are particularly perturbed at the news policy over the radio. I do not deny that many of the programmes we are given are of a high standard and I wish to congratulate the people responsible for them. I think, for instance, of the bringing of that great musician Stravinski to South Africa. I think in this case the S.A.B.C. did a great and a good thing. But when it comes to news policy and news presentation, then you discover that these other things are only the sugar coating of a very, very bitter pill indeed. I think of the following points in regard to the presentation of news and facts. Firstly there is distortion of news; secondly, there is biased selection and thirdly, there is direct politics over the S.A.B.C. Sir, I leave out such stupidities as a Sunday programme being held up one day because a certain song contained the words, “Her lips were as red as wine”. It was held up because the S.A.B.C. regulations do not permit liquor to be mentioned on a Sunday!

Let me now give some examples of the way in which news is distorted. There was a speech broadcast by Mr. Menzies, the Prime Minister of Australia, saying that he did not agree with apartheid, but that sentence of his was distorted by leaving out the key sentence in which he said, “I do not think it will work”. Then there was a report from the United Nations over the S.A.B.C. saying that Ceylon had opposed a move to expel South Africa from the United Nations. That sounded good news, but the report failed to add that Ceylon had suggested that there should be military intervention in South Africa itself. Only the other day the morning news reported my Leader’s motion on the Criminal Laws Amendment Bill, and in the news service it was stated that the United Party was opposed to the Bill because it created a new crime. But it distorted those words by leaving out the key sentence, “A new crime which would endanger the lives of innocent people”. Only yesterday there was a report on a speech made by the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), and the report was to the effect that the hon. member had objected to the fact that an Act of Parliament should overrule a Provincial Ordinance. Sir, so I could mention dozens of instances of distortion. Why, even this morning there was an article in the Burger—

Then there is the biased selection of news. What is left out of the news is even more important than what is put into it. Sir, if you compare this morning’s Burger and Cape Times with the headlines of the S.A.B.C. news, you will find that 80 per cent of the main headline news was entirely left out of the S.A.B.C. news itself. We had the cancelling of the broadcast by Sir Julian Huxley on “Man’s New Horizon”; we had the cancelling of the series of lectures by English professors in Natal, paid for, even after those gentlemen had agreed to change the word “African” to “Bantu” in their broadcast.

Mr. Chairman, politics have played a part in the new service, so much so that even the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had to complain about distortions by the S.A.B.C. The S.A.B.C. made an entirely unwarranted attack on the United Nations News Service and the poor Minister of Foreign Affairs had to come out with a statement in which he said that the S.A.B.C. was placing him in “an embarrassing and a false position”. Sir, we had the notorious broadcast on the Prime Minister’s return from the Commonwealth Conference in which he was pictured as a hero with his silver-grey hair flashing in the sunshine. We think of the vicious attack made by Professor Boshoff on the Press over the radio, when he said: “Part of the Press should probably get the freedom of the Gadarene swine and throw themselves into the sea. Certain journalists should be treated as people with a contagious disease, as animals under quarantine.” That is the sort of talk that came over the S.A.B.C., Sir. Why? Mr. Brian Chilvers had to give up his feature “World Affairs” because he refused to slant the news. Does the hon. the Minister deny that? Does he deny that there have been biased reports on the development of Bantu stans? Does he deny that there is a political columnist of one of his papers, Professor van der Merwe, who also gives broadcasts on events in Africa? Does he deny that there was a speech made by the hon. the Minister of Labour over the radio last month in which he praised job reservation, saying that he had had no trouble with it? These are the political statements we get over the radio. Indeed the lid was lifted by a former S.A.B.C. reporter, Mr. Robin Whitehead, who pointed out first of all that all English news coming to the S.A.B.C. was first translated into Afrikaans, then vetted and then retranslated into English. He pointed out that even the Springbok Radio Service was now under the S.A.B.C. itself. He pointed out that the Director of Programmes told the reporters that the S.A.B.C. news service should replace SAPA, because the news policy of the South African Broadcasting Association differed from that of the South African Press Association.

Now we have these new Bantu programmes; a huge scheme is on foot to brainwash the Black people of South Africa.

Are you not ashamed of yourself?

Earlier this year, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee)—and I have the Hansard report of his speech here—stated that the other great medium the Minister has, or would soon have, was the radio. He was referring to the Minister of Information and he said that he would have the radio at his disposal. And what is more, the chief propagandist of the hon. the Minister of Native Affairs, Mr. C. W. Prinsloo has now been appointed a full member of the Bantu Programme Control Board. Obviously indoctrination is going on on an immense scale. I do not want to go into all the details, but the Minister should give us all the particulars in this regard.

I as someone living in Johannesburg have since the beginning been perturbed and annoyed at that structure on Brixton Hill, that combination, Sir, of totem pole, phallic symbol and dry-land Eddystone Lighthouse. What I particularly object to is the name “Hertzog Tower” which has been given to it.

I ask again why is there this silence about the development of television? The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. said that the decision rests with the Government. When are we going to get that decision? We are behind countries like Rhodesia, India, Nigeria, even Ghana—even the Bulgarians have television to-day. The Minister must realize that even if he were to take a decision now, it would still take three years before a service could be introduced. In fact he would have to train technicians, he would have to train production managers and directors, he would have to stockpile material. So if you want to introduce television, even within three or four years, you must start now. Why is no start being made? Is one of the reasons why Mr. Gideon Roos was dismissed not because he insisted that television should come to South Africa as a modern development? Will the Minister answer that? Instead of that, we find that T.V. receivers now require special import permits, and that these F.M. towers are not, except for the aerials, adaptable to T.V. Yet the Government is quite prepared to use television when it suits them. We have often seen an hon. Minister here in a powder-blue shirt which is a sign that he probably had had a television interview that very morning. We have also heard of thousands of pounds spent on television overseas—T.V. good enough for Government propaganda overseas, but not good enough for ordinary entertainment of people in South Africa, at home.

Sir, an immediate Commission of Inquiry is needed to look into the lopsided administration, the staff under it, the breaking of the law, the distortion of politics, the indoctrination of the Bantu, the delay in television—these are matters calling for attention, now!

Once again we have had a wonderful opportunity of seeing how the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) has to act as the scarecrow of the United Party. He has to sow suspicion and frighten the people into believing that the Broadcasting Corporation is really the machine of the National Party. I wish to warn the hon. member for Orange Grove. 1 as a farmer, have often seen what happens to scarecrows. I have already seen the birds sitting on top of its head and ultimately making their nests in certain parts of its body. I wish to warn the hon. member to be careful so that the birds do not also make their nests in him. It was not surprising that when I turned on my radio the other day, after the announcer had broadcast “To-day in Parliament” announced the next item to be “Today in the Kruger National Park”. The programme consisted of jackals, hyenas and polecats and all those raucous animals made a most terrific noise. I must admit that I really do not hold it against an announcer if, having heard what the hon. member for Orange Grove has said here to-day, he reacts in that way. I just wish to draw attention to the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove is committing a serious crime towards his country. He is sowing suspicion and distrust of the Broadcasting Corporation and he pleads that not only the public of South Africa, but the world and the United Nations and all the enemies of South Africa should accept it that, just as the Nazis did in Germany, this Gestapo Government is using the Broadcasting Corporation to propagate the abhorred National Party policy in South Africa. I say it is scandalous! We have been dealing with the Sabotage Bill and I wonder whether the time has not arrived for the Minister of Justice to give some attention to this kind of thing, because what will the position really be if the world and the public of South Africa were to believe and accept the stories of that hon. member.

Surely they are true, are they not?

Mr. Chairman, you have heard the irresponsible things which the hon. member has said. He made allegations which he could not prove. He makes wild allegations which he cannot support.

Mention them.

He attacked the Prime Minister and said that just after the election he had made a political speech over the radio. That is not true. It is customary in our country and customary in every country after an election for the Broadcasting Corporation to ask the Prime Minister of the party which had won the election to comment upon and to diagnose the election which had been held. That was what our Prime Minister did. He gave an analysis of the election. I also wish to point out to the hon. member that during the last election the Broadcasting Corporation was not asked to broadcast political speeches. It is not true to say that it was approached in that connection during the last election.

I have a copy of the reply of the S.A.B.C.

The hon. member went further and said that there should be an investigation at the highest level and that a commission of inquiry should be appointed to go into all matters affecting the Broadcasting Corporation. That too is merely an attempt to sow suspicion. I think the actions of the hon. member are scandalous. I wish to expose one untruth which he told in this House a short while ago. He said that the Board of Governors had spent hundreds of thousands of pounds (he is still living in the days of the pound) to convert a building in Parktown into a luxurious club. I hope he will not deny that he said that. I say that is not true and I will prove that it is not true. You find the following in the Annual Report for 1960 at page 6 “As a further step to curtail expenditure it has been decided to sell the Parktown property as a result of which there will be a decrease in expenditure in the form of taxes. Native labour, motor transport costs, etc.” And if the hon. member will look at the financial statements for that same year he will see an item on page 41 “Sale of immovable assets”. That was the only immovable asset which was sold. The amount is £148,000. That was the head office of the Broadcasting Corporation: the Corporation then purchased Broadcasting House in Commissioner Street in Johannesburg. Its head office is there to-day. But the hon. member for Orange Grove wants to create the impression that the Board of Governors consists of such irresponsible people that they spent hundreds of thousands of pounds to convert another building into a club for their own convenience. Mr. chairman, it is a lie; it is not true. You will not allow me to say it, but the people in the Free State would say: That is a blatant lie (hylieg).

Is the hon. member entitled to say that?

That is what it really amounts to, although I may not say it here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go further and point out …

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the position is not clear and I should like to have your ruling. Is the hon. member entitled to say that the hon. member for Orange Grove lied when he made that statement?

If the statement is untrue then it is a lie.

I only want clarity. The word “lie” has an additional meaning; it conveys immorality …

Order!

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I ask that you call in Mr. Speaker to give a ruling whether the word “lie” is parliamentary. We should be very pleased to have the Speaker’s ruling so that we may know whether the word “lie” can be used in this House in future.

Will the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) repeat exact.y what he said?

Mr. Chairman, I said this: It is an untruth; it is a lie. I went further and I said that you would not allow me to say it, but the people in the Free State would say he had told a blatant lie.

Order! To what did the hon. member refer when he said it was an untruth or a lie?

I said it in regard to a speech which the hon. member made on a previous occasion in this House when he said that the Board of Governors had converted a building in Parktown into a luxurious club for themselves. I proved that the buildings were sold towards the end of 1960 and the beginning of 1961 and that the amount for which it was sold appeared in the financial statements for 1960.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “lie” and confine himself to “untruth”

Very well, Mr. Chairman, in that case I say he told an untruth, and I hope he will be honourable enough to admit that it is not true. [Time limit.]

I intend to deal with the position of the Coloured pepole in the Post Office service. I hone that both the hon. Minister of Labour and the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs will listen to one or two of the months which I intend to raise because it affects their particular departments. I do not intend to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). But it would appear that not only is there unfortunate dissatisfaction amongst the Europeans in regard to their salary, but the information which I have received indicates that there has been no increase in the salaries of the Coloured employees since I raised this matter in this House in 1960. On the contrary it appears that there has been some deterioration in that respect.

The hon. the Minister indicated to me last time when I raised this matter that certain post offices would be manned by Coloured people. I believe in conformity with that policy there are some three or four post offices in the vicinity where there are Coloured postmasters. I want to refer to one where up to a little while ago there was a European postmaster. I am told that the salary scale which applied to that particular postmaster when he was in charge of this post office was R1,300 × 100—2,160. That post office has now been accepted as a Coloured post office which means that there is a Coloured staff and a Coloured postmaster. This Coloured postmaster has the same responsibility, the same work, there has been no reduction in hours or in work but his maximum salary is only R1,380, a difference of R780 per annum.

Do you realize that under the United Party he would never have been a postmaster?

Whether he would have been a postmaster or not makes no difference. He might even have been a Member of Parliament under the United Party. I do not intend to allow the hon. members to put me off the arguments which I intend using. I should like to tell hon. members that I have noticed that whenever I raise these matters with the Government they try to put me off my track; but they will not succeed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why it is that a Coloured man who is in charge of a post office with the same responsibilities as the European—in fact, he has taken over the post office—should receive a maximum salary over R700 per annum less than that of a European postmaster. Now, Sir, that is unfair. I want to ask the hon. Minister of Coloured Affairs whether it is his desire to uplift the Coloured man? I have drawn attention to this fact before, but this Government persists in paying a man not according to the service which he renders to the State but according to the colour of his skin. I object on behalf of the Coloured people to the fact that the outstanding service which they perform is not recognized on the merits of that service but purely on the fact that they have a coloured skin. I want to ask the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to tell me what justification there can be in putting a Coloured man on a basis of R1,380 maximum whereas his counter-part, the European, received R2,160 maximum in that same post office. There can be no justification for it and I say that the Minister ought to have steps taken to see that these peoples’ salaries are the same. They do the same work and carry the same responsibilities.

I am told that the salary of the present encumbent of that post is R1,260 with a non-pensionable allowance of R312. The Minister can check that to ascertain whether it is correct. I understand, Sir, that as far as the salaries of these people are concerned, whilst there has been a consolidation of the salaries of the Europeans employed in the Post Office, there has been only partial consolidation as far as the Coloured people are concerned. When this partial consolidation took place, far from their getting an increase they have been losing. They are most dissatisfied. I do believe, Sir, that it would be right for me once more to quote some of the figures which I gave to this House in 1960 because the parallel which I wish to draw still remains. I am quoting from the speech I made in 1960 (Hansard Vol. 105, col. 7587 onwards)—

Which is R2,160—xs

I am told, Sir, that there has been no improvement in the salary scales. There has been partial consolidation of their wages but there has been no improvement. Whereas the European’s basic salary has improved, the position of the Coloureds has remained static.

I spoke to some of them this morning, Mr. Chairman, and I said “What is the position in regard to your salary?” The reply was: “It is worse than when you raised it last time”. I want to stress this point that there has been complete consolidation in respect of the White people but only partial consolidation in the case of the Coloureds and the difference in their basic salary is much greater to-day than before. [Time limit.]

I hope the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) will be man enough to apologize to the Broadcasting Corporation for the wrong allegations he made in connection with the building at Parktown. The hon. member had the privilege of the half an hour but in the course of the debate we will cancel out every allegation and every accusation which he has made. When you look at the Board of Governors of the Broadcasting Corporation, Sir, which consists of nine governors of whom Dr. Piet Meyer is the chairman, you will be surprised at the hon. member for using such insulting language and casting such aspersions at Dr. Piet Meyer. I think South Africa can consider herself lucky in having such a capable son of the Republic as chairman of the Broadcasting Corporation. Let us deal with the other eight members. Four of them are English-speaking South Africans, namely Messrs. MacGuire, Williams, Elliott and Collins. I think the hon. member insulted those four English-speaking board members when he tried to allege that they, as English-speaking South Africans, have allowed the Broadcasting Corporation to be used as a propaganda machine of the National Party.

To return to the hon. member for Orange Grove: when he was making those wild allegations and statements here—he did not prove anything—he reminded me of the story of the student who sat on the steps of the hostel making movements as though he was catching something in the air. When asked what he was catching he said he was catching a baboon. When he was asked what the baboon looked like he said no he did not know because he had not caught one as yet. That hon. member has not caught a baboon as yet and I trust he will prove something later on.

To return to the note on which I ended when business was suspended, I wish to point out that the Broadcasting Corporation is an autonomous body with a policy and if the hon. member for Orange Grove does not know what that policy is I suggest he looks at the annual report for this year. He will find the policy very clearly and plainly explained on page 29. I really think that I, as well as all reasonable members of this House, can pay tribute to-day to the board of Governors of the Broadcasting Corporation and express our gratitude and appreciation particularly to the English-speaking members of that board for the fact that in spite of the attacks by the Opposition and the remarks of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) who said that they were also under the influence of the chairman, Dr. Meyer, they have made the sacrifices which they have made. I hope they will continue to render that wonderful service to our country.

The difficulty with the Opposition is that during the past two years we have experienced several important happenings in this country. It was the radio which announced the facts about those happenings, and the Opposition has found that a bitter pill to swallow because none of those happenings was in favour of the Opposition. I want to mention a few of those happenings. I want to mention the referendum which took place on 9 October 1960 and the result. Oh, that was a bitter pill, also for the hon. member for Kensington. I think he is still trying to swallow those results [Interjections.] The hon. member alleged that the English-speaking members of the Board were under the influence of the chairman just as the two English-speaking members in the Cabinet are also regarded as traitors to the English-speaking section. I want to mention another important incident, namely our withdrawal from the Commonwealth and the arrival of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs and how the Opposition, with their hats over their eyes had to face one disappointment after the other. I mention the induction of the State President at Pretoria. What a bitter experience that announcement must have been! How did they not wish, together with the overseas pressmen and photographers that all those threats and rumours which were current would be proved true and how bitterly disappointed they must have been when it was announced over the radio that everything went off peacefully and quietly and that nothing had happened. I can mention numerous other happenings. I want to mention the 1961 election. What a bitter announcement that must have been to the Opposition. There they sit, Sir, a mere handful. When you look at the face of the hon. member for Orange Grove, you can still see how bitter the pill was which he had to swallow. However, I wish to give the hon. member and the Opposition some sound advice. “Uilspieel” said “the people do not like me but I wish to assure them that it is their own fault”. The Broadcasting Corporation does not broadcast “slanted news” as the hon. member for Orange Grove called it. They broadcast factual news. They do not colour the news as the English-language Press does. I agree with them that it would have been much more pleasant and easier had the English Press announced those little incidents and given a bit of colour to those sombre reports. The Broadcasting Corporation did not, however, do so with any ulterior motives. They did their duty and it was not “slanted news” which they broadcast.

The hon. member made certain remarks about the number of persons who had resigned from the staff of the Broadcasting Corporation and he mentioned their names but he did not have the decency to deal with each one separately; because had he done so he would have seen that even the English-language Press in many instances gave the reasons why those people had resigned. In the course of this debate we on this side of the House will prove that the allegations made by him were incorrect.

I agree with him on one point and that is the only point on which I sympathize with him. We all feel sorry for the Post Office staff and we all appreciate the wonderful service which that staff has rendered over the years, particularly during the Christmas season when they have to handle thousands more postal packages than they do ordinarily during the year. I wish to point out to him, however, that the staff of the Post Office are Public servants. They come under the Public Service Commission and when other Public Services get increases the Post Office staff also get them. I wish to state that I think the time has arrived for the Government seriously to consider making the Post Office a Government Department on its own. I know the hon. Minister of Finance will perhaps feel somewhat fidgety about that, but the Post Office staff are specially trained specialists whom you cannot easily use in other Government Departments. It sometimes takes years to train a person properly and that is why I feel that where we have those people who perform that wonderful service, they should to some extent be treated on a different basis from the ordinary Public Servant. It will not avail the hon. member to try to raise a bogy about the 500 staff members who held a meeting. I can assure him that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is very sympathetically inclined towards them, will always lend them a willing ear and will do everything in his power to accede to their requests.

In the last sentence of the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel), he said that he was sure that the hon. the Minister would show the greatest sympathy for the members of the Post Office staff, particularly those who held the mass meeting in Johannesburg. The hon. the Minister had an opportunity for showing that sympathy, because after that mass meeting a deputation was sent to him. Let him tell this Committee what his reply was to that deputation.

The hon. member for Bethlehem mentioned certain other matters which I feel I cannot allow to go unchallenged. He alleged that I had mentioned the names of a large number of people who had resigned from the S.A.B.C. and that I had not given any details. The hon. member knows that this debate is subject to a time limit. But let us take one case only; let us take the resignation of the Director-General, Mr. Gideon Roos, and let me challenge the hon. the Minister to tell us why Mr. Gideon Roos resigned.

The hon. member challenged me to read out, from the S.A.B.C. report what the policy of the S.A.B.C. was. I did read the report. I now quote one little sentence dealing with its policy, in which the S.A.B.C. says—

If this is the policy, why is it not being carried out? The hon. member said that it was untrue that the Prime Minister had made a political speech over the radio last year. I thought he had listened to what I had said. I was quoting the Prime Minister’s own speech, which he will find in Hansard of 13 April 1962, in Col. 3922. There the Prime Minister said: “I certainly did talk politics.” My point was that the law says that every political speech must be mentioned in the report. [Interjection.] Sir, I cannot hear what the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) is saying, but I think back to the days when he tried to induce everyone in South Africa owning a wireless set to make his wireless set ineffective because broadcasts from the B.B.C. were no longer relayed over the S.A.B.C. Sir, the hon. member denied that any approaches had been made to the S.A.B.C. before the last general election with regard to the broadcasting of political speeches by political leaders. I happen to have the correspondence here, and I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that the following letters were written—

General Secretary of the United Party, wrote to the Director of Programmes of the S.A.B.C., Johannesburg, on 5 August of last year stating that the experiment to permit political broadcasts by party leaders during the 1953 election had proved a success and asking that similar opportunities should be given for the 1961 election. There was a reply by Mr. C. D. Fuchs dated 29 August, in which he said, “Dit spyt my dat ons beheerraad option vergadering wat op 28 Augustus in Johannesurg gehou is, afwysend beslis het oor die versoek dat die radio soos in die verlede aan die Regerings-party en die amptelike Opposisie-party die geleentheid moet bied om hul beleid aan die kieserspubliek te stel deur middel van verkiesingstoesprake. Ons beheerraad se besluit lui dat nóg regstreekse nóg verkiesingstoesprake nog verkiesingsoorsigte gedurende die huidige verkiesingsveldtog uitge-saai sal word. Dit spyt ons dat ons nie aan u versoek kan voldoen nie.”

There was no consultation, I assure you, Mr. Chairman. There was only a friendly letter from the General Secretary of the United Party, and a curt refusal by the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C.

The hon. member also spoke about the house in Parktown and certain things that I have said in that regard. It is significant that he did not take a single point in my own speech to reply to, but he took a sentence out of a speech that I had made a couple of months before in this House. Sir, let us come to that house in Parktown. I pay hon. members opposite the compliment of saying that they are not half-witted. Everyone knows that that house in Parktown was the headquarters of the S.A.B.C., that it had been a millionaire’s home and that it was bought from a millionaire. I never denied that. Everyon knew that it had been sold in 1960; I never denied that. What accusation is the hon. member trying to make against me?

What about the club?

The hon. member asks, “What about the club?” Was the hon. member ever in that building during the period that it was the headquarters? Did he see the chandeliers; did he see the thick-piled carpets; did he see the paintings on the walls? I wonder if the hon. member knows that there was even a private bar; and he would like to know—and i would like to know—whether that private bar was put in at the expense of the S.A.B.C. after the house had been bought. I can give the hon. member many facts about that building. No wonder it became a sort of glorified club to members of the Board. If there is to be a dispute on this matter, I want to give the hon. member a chance to get at the facts. In 1946 the United Party appointed a Commission of Inquiry into the broadcasting services. I want the hon. member to listen to this. Investigations could have been made into the buying of that building and into what went into it. This is what was recommended by the Commission, and I challenge the hon. member now to agree to this recommendation. The Commission said—

What is the date of the Commission’s report?

1948.

What did you do about that report?

This Commission was appointed in 1946 and it reported in 1948 when calamity overtook this country in that the Nationalist Party came into power. The Commission then makes the very sensible recommendation that the books of the S.A.B.C. should be subject to scrutiny by the Auditor-General and by the Select Committee on Public Accounts of this House. Will the hon. member support me in this suggestion that we take the whole matter of the buying of this House in Parktown and what happened there and refer it to the Auditor-General? Let us then see what happened to these public moneys.

Who was the Director-General when that happened?

Who supplied the liquor there?

Mr. Chairman, I made 35 charges in my speech. The hon. member has only replied half-way to one of them. I trust that he will reply to the other 34. The hon. member did, however, reply in passing to one of my accusations. He praised Dr. Meyer, the chairman of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. He said that I was libelling him, that I was attacking him. What I was doing was simply to quote from the speeches of Dr. Meyer himself. Is that libelling him? Let me quote a few more sayings. It must be remembered that the chairman of the Board of Governors is at the head of a big organization which should serve all South Africans. Listen to what Dr. Meyer said about who should live in Africa. He said—

This was a strange speech!—

Not a single English-speaking should, according to Dr. Meyer, be allowed to live in Africa! No Portugese or French should be allowed to live in Africa! [Interjection.] That is what was said by the chairman of the Board of Governors. [Time limit.]

I drew the attention of the hon. the Minister to the disparity between the pay of Coloured postmasters and Coloured staff and their White counterparts, and I want to refer now to the explanation which the Minister gave in 1960 as to the reason for this disparity and I want to ask him whether that still applies to-day. This is what the Minister said (Hansard, Vol. 105, Col. 7592)—

I now stress that the people to whom I referred a moment ago have the same qualifications in that they are first-class servants in post offices previously run by White people. Let us look at this brilliant explanation of the hon. the Minister for this disparity—

This is the point I want to stress—

Which I most emphatically deny—

I want to deny that the needs of the Coloured people are fewer than those of the Whites, and I want to say that if this is the approach of the hon. the Minister in considering what remuneration should be given to Coloured people who give the same service as the Whites and who have the same responsibilities as the Whites, then the time has come for the hon. the Minister to try to get away from this type of thinking and to adopt a more modern outlook.

May I ask the hon. member whether he has a Coloured servant in his employ?

Yes.

And are you paying her the same wage that you would pay a European?

I pay my Coloured servant …

Fifty-pounds per month.

I pay my Coloured servant five times as much as the hon. member pays in the Transvaal, and I want to tell the hon. member who interrupted me that my Coloured servant …

You are a parasite.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to call the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) a parasite.

Order! What did the hon. member for Cradock say?

The question was put to the hon. member what he paid his Coloured servant …

Order: Did the hon. member use the word “parasite”?

I said to him, after the reply given by him, “Then you are a parasite”.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Sir, I have said before and I say again that we must allow the hon. member for crack-head, for Cradock, to have his little fun in the House, and I do not take the slightest notice of what he says.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to call the hon. member for Cradock a “crack-head”?

Order!

Sir, the hon. member for Cradock showed me a photograph of an animal he had bred on his farm; it was a most glorious animal; it was a bull, and I said to him, “Now I am not surprised that you talk so much bull in the House”.

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

I want to come back to this serious question of the remuneration paid to Coloured people employed in the post office. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give an assurance to the Coloured people that they will be paid, not according to the colour of their skin but according to the service which they render to the State.

Order! I have to point out to the hon. member that the question of salaries should be discussed under the Public Service Commission Vote.

Then I would ask the hon. the Minister to use his influence with the Public Service Commission to see that the Coloureds employed in the post office are decently remunerated.

I want to say to the Minister that in conformity with the Government’s policy that there should be separate unions, the Coloured postmen formed themselves into a separate Coloured union, and I am now told that when these Coloured men were members of the mixed union, they were entitled to representation at all meetings of the staff, but now that they are a separate union they have no representation at all, anywhere, except through the Postmaster, Cape Town. I want to say at once that I am against separate unions; I believe in mixed unions. But the fact is that having complied with the Government’s policy the Coloured people should not have fewer opportunities to discuss staff matters than they had when they were part of the mixed union. They have asked me specifically to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister the fact that they have no opportunity of making representations through any of the staff organizations, except through the Postmaster. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this matter. And while I am talking of the Postmaster, I would like to take this opportunity publicly to pay tribute to the Postmaster-General for the kind consideration which he as at all times shown to the Coloured Representatives when we have made representations to him from time to time, and I want to pay tribute to his expeditious handling of complaints. We highly value his services and I feel that it is only right and proper that we should pay tribute to him for his services. I will raise the question of salaries under the appropriate Vote.

I would like to use this opportunity to support the contention of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) with regard to ministerial influence and ministerial interference in the affairs of the S.A.B.C. In order to do so I think it is necessary to emphasize what has happened since the hon. the Minister assumed this portfolio. You will recall, Sir, that after the Minister was appointed to this important portfolio, where he is responsible for the S.A.B.C., the first thing that he did as far as personnel changes on the S.A.B.C. are concerned was to appoint Dr. Meyer to the Board of the S.A.B.C. and a few days later to the position of chairman of the Board of Governors. The only qualification that Dr. Meyer had for this post of responsiblity as the head of an organization which to a large extent controls, the thinking processes and the culture and art of our country, was that he was a member of the radio committee of the Federasie van Afrikaanse Kultuurverenigings. That was his only qualification for this post. That key position having been filled, the hon. the Minister took steps to give the Board of Governors certain executive responsibilities, as the result of which two further new appointments were made. A new post was created and Mr. Fuchs was appointed as Director of Programmes. Sir, there was an established management system in the S.A.B.C. under the previous Director-General, Mr. Gideon Roos, where these matters were controlled, but with Dr. Meyer as the new chairman, the Minister approved of the creation of this new post of Director of Programmes. Then, Sir, we had the next development in the situation. A few months later we had the appointment of Mr. Kruger, who resigned his editorship of the Transvaler and who was appointed to this new post, as cultural and public relations adviser to the S.A.B.C. Then there was one other appointment, a certain Mr. Fourie; I do not want to go into his history. But all these gentlemen who were appointed had one thing in common; they were all supporters of the Nationalist Party and members of the Nationalist Party.

How do you know that?

I do not want to know what their secret affiliations were, but I think it can be said—and I do not think even the Minister will deny it—that they were supporters of the Government party. The effect of all this manoeuvring in the S.A.B.C. as far as the top-level posts were concerned was that an insidious system was set afoot of undermining the position of senior officers who held responsible positions in the S.A.B.C. For confirmation of this one need only look at the record of certain gentlemen who resigned from the S.A.B.C. The hon. member for Orange has mentioned the names of the 18 persons who resigned. Of those 18, what percentage was Afrikaans speaking?

What about Gideon Roos?

I will come to Mr. Gideon Roos in a moment. With this insidious campaign of undermining the position of senior officials that was started by the new régime, we had men like Mr. Meiring, Deputy-Chief of News, a man with 12 years’ service resigning; Mr. Vernon with 15 years’ experience as a senior producer of commercial radio; Mr. Gaynor, a television expert of some 25 years’ standing in the S.A.B.C.; Mr. Patrick with 28 years’ service; Mr. Douglass with 15 years’ service. The total service of these gentlemen alone amounted to over 107 years. But what was the position of the Director-General, with the chairman of the Board of Governors holding executive responsibility and with the creation of these two new posts, Director of Programmes and Cultural and Public Relations Adviser? The position of the Director-General was undermined. His position on the S.A.B.C. was made untenable, and the result of all this manoeuvring was that the Director-General, Mr. Gideon Roos, resigned. [Interjection.] If hon. members doubt that the position of Mr. Gideon Roos as Director-General became untenable with the ministerial interference and interference by people who held specific political views and who wanted to see that those views prevail in the affairs of the S.A.B.C…. [Interjection.] I am very glad to hear my hon. friend say that Mr. Gideon Roos resigned, that he was not dismissed. Let me read to this Committee the statement made by Mr. Gideon Roos, and I hope the Minister will not admit that there has been ministerial interference, making it impossible for senior officials to retain their positions. This is what Mr. Roos said—

It is perfectly clear that the position of the Director-General was being undermined to such an extent by political interference that he had no option but to resign. When one bears Mr. Roos’ statement in mind, together with the fact that 18 other people resigned, 18 people who occupied senior positions, then it becomes perfectly clear. These people clearly resigned because of an insidious campaign of undermining their positions, because of political interference and the overruling of the administrative decisions of senior officials entirely devoted to their work. Sir, one must assume that this statement of the Director-General is a factual statement; that he resigned because his position had been made completely untenable under the régime of this hon. Minister, who said in public statements even before he became a Minister that he considered that the S.A.B.C. was undermining the Government. But I want to go one step further to test the bonafides of the hon. the Minister, because we have had the experience in this House, whenever we raised matters concerning the S.A.B.C., that he says, “I cannot answer your questions because the S.A.B.C. is a separate Corporation under the control of the Board of Governors; they are the people who must give the answer; I cannot speak for them.” But let me point out to this Committee how little reliance can be placed on any statement made by the hon. the Minister in this House when we deal with matters concerning the S.A.B.C. Sir, I had occasion to introduce a private members’ Bill which was designed to empower the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. to introduce a television service. When I raised this matter in the Hou>e last year, I pointed out what the financial implications were of establishing an F.M. (frequency modulation) service, upon which the Minister had embarked. The whole service is going to involve a capital expenditure of some R30,000,000 and certain capital advances have been made by the Government to enable the S.A.B.C. to make progress during the intermediate stages. During the course of that discussion I challenged the Minister to say whether there was any intention on the part of the Government to increase the licence fees payable by the radio listeners in order to meet the capital expenditure on this new V.H.F. programme upon which the S.A.B.C. had embarked. Let me tell the Committee what the Minister did say. I made it quite clear that unless there was some advance or subsidy from the Government or from other sources, the only alternative would be that the S.A.B.C. would be compelled to raise licence fees in order to meet the cost of supplying this new service to the listeners of South Africa. When I put this to the Minister he said this—

About three or four months later we had a summary notice that the Minister was increasing licence fees, after having given this assurance. And let me remind the Committee that the Minister briefed the hon. the Prime Minister in respect of this question of television, and let me remind the Committee that the expenditure in resepct of the V.H.F. service—this R30,000,000—was to be incurred, on the directive of the Board of Governors, with due regard to the introduction of a television service as such, and the Minister did not deny it at the time. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister categorically across the floor of the House: With the introduction of the V.H.F. service, is it the intention to retain the original directive of the Board of Governors to the engineers of the S.A.B.C. that it had to be done with a view to the eventual introduction of a television service in this country? [Time limit.]

A reduction in the Minister’s salary has been proposed, and the hon. members for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) are now the the leaders in the attack of the Opposition. To us it is the surest indication that the least criticism will be given with the greatest noise. To our side it is then probably the best sign that one has the least reason really to reply to what is said by the Opposition. Is it very clear from the conduct of both the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Turffontein that anything that could possibly be raised to throw suspicion upon the Broadcasting Corporation is actually raised in order to throw suspicion upon the radio news service. For having listened to the hon. member for Orange Grove, then save for the few financial and legal points he raised, the conclusions he drew after his lengthy tirade, were inferences in regard to the news service and the talks of the Broadcasting Corporation. They are occupying themselves with collecting all the complaints and objections they can find one way or another, and raising them to get eventually at the news service. Having listened to the hon. member for Orange Grove, there was one conspicuous feature of his whole argument, and that was the conspicuous lack of balance between the wildness of his utterances and the furnishing of proof. He referred to direct politics over the radio, and the only proof he could adduce was a talk by the Prime Minister.

Many others.

No, that was the only proof he brought of direct politics over the radio so far as I heard him. But last year he referred to the Broadcasting Corporation as a “political foghorn”, as the “Nationalist juke box parrot service”. To-day he is somewhat milder, but he still comes along with very strong utterances without any proof being adduced. Time and again he tries to stigmatize the radio news service as a news services in favour of the National Party. That is his whole intention. One probably cannot blame him as a member of the United Party for saying something like that, for that is the very thing for which the radio was used in the days when that party was in power. I should just like to remind the hon. member of what his own Minister said in this House in 1943, when the present Minister of Lands referred to it, that the Afrikaans programme was being used to broadcast the Afrikaans news, and immediately thereafter the English news too over the same programme. The then Minister said this:

It was not even strange to them. The Minister just glibly referred to the ordinary propaganda on the Afrikaans transmitter. It was in that same propaganda that the Director of Information at that time said to the then Prime Minister in a memorandum—

There he divulged it shamelessly. And for that hon. member to come forward now with his few feeble little attempts at proof of undisguised politics over the radio, and to couple that with his gross allegations, merely shows one intention and that is to defame the radio, to defame the whole radio service. And that is in fact his intention. What else? Look what he has said? He referred to “the growing disgust amongst all sections of the public”. There was a very splendid opportunity to test the growing disgust of the public, and I shall come to that just now. When the hon. member began to speak to the Vote, he said it reminded him of the protest meetings against the anticommunist legislation that is now under consideration. Let me tell the hon. member that that is precisely what he reminds me of also. If one looks at this campaign of vilification against the radio, then surely you see the whole procession against the anti-communistic legislation once again. The only difference is that this procession of protest against Radio South Africa is in slow motion. You do not see it at a glance. But all of them are there, from the Communist New Age and Contact throughout the liberal Press of the mining magnates, the Black Sash, the National Council of Women to the leaders of the United Party—not one is missing in that procession. And in the procession against Radio South Africa, it is the Black Sash and the Liberal mine owner’s Press who again are giving the lead and setting the pace, as in that other procession. The Black Sash is the first and the only body in South Africa thus far to have debated Radio South Africa from attending the congresses of the Black Sash. The Black Sash is the organization also that tried to test national opinion against Radio South Africa. Last year in December they came along and with great publicity they announced in the Press that they were going to have petitions signed, and were going to wage a street campaign in all the main centres of the Union to have petitions signed against Radio South Africa. I should just like to quote to you what they said. It is exactly the same language as that which the hon. member for Orange Grove is using. Here is part of the wording of the petitions—

That is exactly what the hon. member for Orange Grove says. Mr. Chairman, since the Black Sash announced that it was going to have petitions signed, six months have elapsed, but to this day the Minister has not yet received one signature. He has not received a single signature yet. Now I should like to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that I do not believe that those petitions have not yet reached the Minister because they are too heavy and bulky to be transported.

They reached me.

The result of the whole attempt of the Black Sash was too attenuated and too humiliating to present to the Minister. Here they have had an opportunity to test the scandalous defamation of the Radio. They had the opportunity to test th’ criticism against Radio South Africa and to show us in this House and the Board of the South African Broadcasting Corporation that the people outside agree with what the hon. member for Orange Grove says and with what the Black Sash says. They had six months and they had the assistance of the whole liberal mining owners’ Press. Where are those petitions?

The rats devoured them.

I shall tell you. Sir, the public takes no more notice of this noise and malicious incitement against the Radio news service than they do of the agitations against the anti-communistic legislation. There is only one reason why it is being continued: This liberal mine owners’ Press considers itself menaced by the radio, and that is why the United Party has to help wage that campaign, and that is why the Black Sash must help the United Party. That is the true reason. They know that the radio enters the homes of our English-speaking fellow-countrymen after them, and they know that the English language Press is being exposed by the Radio in respect of its motives and methods. The Daily Mail, that old friend of the United Party, very unexpectedly came to light with the whole truth, when on 6 November last year, it wrote as follows in a leader:

[Time limit.]

The hon. member for Innesdale (Mr. J. A. Marais) seems to have addressed himself exclusively to the Black Sash, and since I am not a member of the Black Sash, I do not think it is necessary to react to his speech. Mr. Chairman, the tragedy of the South African Broadcasting Corporation is found in the tremendous chasm that exists between its original promise and its present-day fulfilment. You must remember, Mr. Chairman that the S.A.B.C. started off endowed with every natural advantage. It had the blessing of the Government, it had the support of the Government, it was given autonomy, it had at its disposal a very competent staff, and through the years, and up to the present day, it has fortunately retained many of these endowments and advantages it has much of its original substance still intact. Then one asks oneself: What has happened in the last two or three years that has given this utility corporation, a public body and a monopoly at that, such a very unfortunate appearance or image before the public of South Africa? It is no use the hon. member for Innesdale trying to argue that such an image does not exist.

It does not, except in your imagination.

I hope the hon. member for Vereeniging, who up to now has merely heckled, will make his contribution to this debate and show that there is not that image. The fact of the matter is that even the Minister will not deny that there is criticism of the S.A.B.C. I want to give an example of how this situation has developed in the last 15 or 16 months. On 28 March 1961 a question was put to the hon. the Minister and answered by him, and for the sake of convenience, I am going to give the answers to this three-part question not in the usual form, but coupling the answer with the question—

1. (1) Of sy aandag gevestig is op persberigte, en veral op ’n berig in die Cape Times van 23 Maart 1961, oor proteste teen die aard van onlangse nuusuitsendings deur die S.A. Uitsaaikorporasie.

   Antwoord: Ja

   Second question—

Third question—

If that is the position to-day, then I hope the hon. the Minister will say when he replies to this debate, that till this day he knows of no more that two people in this entire Republic of South Africa who have made any complaint whatsoever about the news services of the S.A.B.C. I want to give you an example. Sir, of the way another question was dealt with more recently, a question that I put to the hon. the Minister on 16 February of this year I asked—

The answer was—

Then I asked—

1. (3) Whether any standing arrangements exist for the correction of bona fide errors in broadcasts and whether any steps are taken by the Broadcasting Corporation to ensure the correctness of news items included in its news service; if so, what steps.

(3) and (4) Being answered together, the reply was—

Now I want to tell you, Sir, that this particular example subsequently proved conclusively that no correction was made of an incorrect broadcast, and I would like the hon. the Minister to deny that this afternoon.

This image, starting off in a small way—one or two complaints, and an incorrect piece of information given here and there in the news service—has grown very considerably during the past year, and the Minister must be aware of that.

Sap ideas!

It is no use saying that it is a “Sap-gedagte”, merely because it appeared in a newspaper which does not support the Nationalist Party. The hon. member for Innesdale must be a bit more realistic. We are trying to discuss something which is public property, not the property of the Nationalist Party, as he seems to think. Here is a newspaper which devotes a lot of valuable space—because we must remember that space costs money especially in papers with a vast circulation—to the affairs of the S.A.B.C., gives this space to someone who is a recognized expert in this particular field. I refer, of course, to the Sunday Times which already has been mentioned by the hon. member. But the sequel is very interesting. There is a report here, first of all, on 29 April 1962—

It then becomes the “so-called” racial policy of the Government.

What is wrong with that?

I will tell you what is wrong with it. The S.A.B.C., through its Board of Governors, makes this statement in its annual report—

So, the moment you say “so called”, it is no longer objective. Otherwise the hon. member must find a new definition for the word “objective”. Surely the hon. member for Vereeniging will agree that the insertion of the word “so-called”, whether objective or otherwise, constitutes comment. It is comment by somebody. Then the statement of the Board goes on—

Not inserted by someone who happens to draw up the news bulletin, not even by the Chairman of the Board of Governors. Now here is a further example—

The message never came through with any statement about “Dictator” Kruschey.

What is so holy about a Sapa message?

Nothing is holy except the truth in this context; and the hon. member for Orange Grove quoted from another part of the same brochure. This document says categorically that news broadcasts are given exactly as they originate. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member for Hospital underestimates our ability to judge probably as much as we underestimate his naïveté. I have this very article from which he has quoted, and now I do not know whether he has done so deliberately, but he did not indicate to the House that the first quotation he read, viz. “leading British M.P.’s have protested against the South African policy of racial discrimination” was not an actual report that came over the radio. He indicated that it was a factual report. But it is written very clearly in this report: “A news item from Sapa may say …” Now the hon. member comes along and tells us that it is a report broadcast by the radio and which has been altered. I challenge the hon. member to say that this is actually the report which was broadcast. The same thing applies in the case of the Kruschev report. This is also just an example quoted by this writer of the Sunday Times of a possibility. Indeed, I could give the hon. member numerous instances where reference is made over the radio to “Mr. Kruschey” to “Prime Minister Kruschey Personally I have never yet heard them refer to dictator Kruschey over the Afrikaans programme. But it should be obvious that the Press agency does not want to waste money. Why should they cable a report from America or from London and use the prefix “Mr.” before the name? They simply cable “Kruschey.”.

That is what I said.

But what is the difficulty then? The worst of all is still this, that the hon. member also read that article in connection with eight people who are now alleged to be listening to the radio to ascertain how the Radio South Africa distorts news. Did you listen to what the hon. member has said, as to what the newspaper is supposed to have written? He said that a three months’ test has already been made and that one month of it was completed. And then he says: “The interim report is revealing. The final report will be conclusive evidence of slanting of news.” Can one now get a stronger example of slanting? The man says that there is a small team making a survey. One of the three months has elapsed and there is a preliminary report. And then they say without a tittle of proof: The final report will be conclusive evidence of slanting by the S.A.B.C. Before half the time has expired they already draw conclusions. I should like to say that I shall be surprised if a factual report will ever emerge from this investigation. I think this whole report on this campaign of listening in is only the fiction of a guilty conscience. We know the Sunday Times. That hon. member can teach me nothing about the Sunday Times.

This whole campaign of the United Party against Radio South Africa is being waged because the English language Press feels it is menaced by the Radio, as appears from the quotation I have made from the Daily Mail. Now I say that if the English Press considers itself menaced by Radio South Africa, then there is a very easy way in which that competition from the radio may be shaken off, and that is not to be so niggardly with the truth, and to become South African newspapers with a South African approach and viewpoint on matters. That is all. If the policy of the English Press was to do that, they would not experience competition from Radio South Africa, any more than the Afrikaans language Press experiences it, or no more than the British newspapers, from the Daily Herald to the Daily Express, see no competition from the B.B.C. Let them not be so niggardly with the truth, and let them become South African. Then their complaints will be over.

Mr. Chairman, I have referred to the Sunday Times with reference to what that hon. member has said, and I should like to revert to that because the Sunday Times is the one newspaper that time and time again prints the most screaming and scandalous headlines and reports against the Broadcasting Corporation. I should like to mention only a few examples: “A debased S.A.B.C.”, “Brainwashing by S.A.B.C. alleged”, “For News of South Africa Tune in to B.B.C.”, “M.P. Demands Inquiry: Accuses S.A.B.C. of Secrecy and Telling Lies”, “Listeners Shun Slanted Newscasts”, “Inquiry into S.A.B.C. News Slanting”. That is how the Sunday Times carries on. It is an absolute disgrace, but the hon. member for Hospital relies on the Sunday Times to try and prove that the slanderous inaccuracies spread by that newspaper are well founded. To me this best of all typifies how the United Party feels itself called upon to encourage that Press in its evil, and to do Radio South Africa as much harm as possible.

This Sunday Times is the newspaper that takes the lead in this campaign, but now we have known this paper for a long time. It is a paper that virtually walks about from day to day with a testimonial in its pocket as to its reliability and its sense of responsibility. It is barely two years ago, Mr. Chairman, that it was said of the reliability and sense of responsibility of the Sunday Times—

That is what was said about the Sunday Times.

By whom?

By Judge Diemont in a judgment in April 1960. That now is the newspaper that takes it upon itself to slander an institution such as Radio South Africa, which is the pride of every South African whose sentiments towards this land of ours are right. And now I know that the United Party will have to close its eyes in order to retain the friendship of the Sunday Times, even if it were to agree that the Judge described the Sunday Times exactly, for it is the United Party’s staunchest support in its suburban feuds with the Progressive Party. The Sunday Times was at one time its only ray of light in its struggle against the Progressive Party in Johannesburg. Now I should like to give you another instance of what the Sunday Times is like. The same columnist on Radio South Africa wrote on 22 April—

I myself read the Sunday Times and the five leading English dailies for three weeks after the announcement in regard to Hugh Rouse was made. There were not hundreds of letters, not even one hundred, there were not tens of letters; there were not even ten. There were two letters, one in the Sunday Times and one in the Daily Mail. For the Sunday Times it is hundreds of letters. That is how it deals with the truth, particularly where Radio South Africa is concerned!

The debate on this Vote so far has been mainly concerned with the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. My hon. friend, the member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) made certain accusations and certain criticisms of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. It is noticeable that hon. members opposite have so far been unable to answer the charges which he has made against that Corporation. Hon. members on that side have remained silent on the question of the justification of the mass resignations from the Corporation; they have remained silent on the question of the increase in the licence fees. Here I should like first of all to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to use his influence in regard to concessions in radio licences to the old-age pensioners. I know that he has been approached by certain organizations, by women’s institutions. The Women’s institute of Durban representing over 1,500 members also made an appeal to the Minister to intervene in the matter. I personal’y have written to the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation and put forward certain proposals to the Board of Governors. Unfortunately they have not acceeded to that request. If the old-age pensioners who are in homes for the aged and infirm can receive a concession in licence fees of R1 per annum, I feel sure that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility for the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation to make similar concessions to other old-age pensioners.

However, Sir, I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister another very important factor which does not concern the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation but which concerns the telephone services. This is the question of telephone tapping. I think the time is well overdue for the hon. the Minister to make a statement in this House clarifying the position in regard to telephone tapping. During the past session and during the present Sitting of Parliament he has refuted certain statements; he has denied certain points which have been put to him by means of questions. I have here irrefutable evidence that telephone tapping does exist: that it is used as a means of obtaining certain information.

Produce that evidence.

I will. The hon. member must just be patient. This means of obtaining certain information could be excused in certain circumstances. It can be excused in times of war and at times of emergency. In those events there might be some case to be made out for that means of obtaining information. But in times of peace—and we are assured by the Minister of Justice that all is peaceful in South Africa—I fail to see why such methods should be resorted to. It is an inroad on the privacy of the individual. I want to give the reasons why we say that we believe that telephone tapping is being carried out on a wide scale. During the state of emergency in 1960 an approach was made to the Durban Corporation for the tapping of telephones. The Durban Corporation is perhaps the only telephone service which is municipally owned. It was therefore necessary for the police to obtain their permission. If that permission was required in order to obtain certain information during that state of emergency surely we can draw our own conclusions that similar facilities must have existed in other parts of the country to obtain information because Durban was not the only centre where a state of emergency existed. Here I have the minutes of a meeting which took place concerning telephone tapping. The meeting took place in the mayor’s office on 22 February 1960. An officer of the Special Branch of the S.A. Police was present at that meeting and another Government official was also present. Subsequent to that there was a Press statement by the acting mayor which appeared in the Daily News of 13 February 1961 when the whole question of the permission which was granted for the tapping of telephones was brought into public light and a great deal of public concern was expressed by the people of Durban that such means had been resorted to to obtain information. It was then stated in the Daily News of 13 February 1961 that the officer in charge of the Special Branch of the S.A. Police at Durban was present at this meeting. The other Government official who was present was a member of the Government postal services. It gives the name of the particular official concerned. I was hoping last year to obtain some clarification from the hon. the Minister in regard to the part played by this Government postal official at that meeting. I put a question on the Order Paper to try to ascertain information from the hon. the Minister. I asked the hon. the Minister—

The Minister’s reply was a most evasive one. It was merely “yes”. “Questions 2 3 4 and 5: I have no knowledge of the alleged happenings. I can but repeat that the tapping of telephone calls is not permitted in the Post Office” Now, Sir, I believe that that reply was a most evasive reply. I believe that in view of the seriousness and the public concern of such methods being adopted, it is the duty of the hon. the Minister—after all, he is the servant of the people—to make statements in this House clarifying the position in regard to-telephone tapping. Because, Sir, this is a most serious matter. I do not believe it is the Minister’s duty to try to be evasive in this matter and to try to conceal certain information, information which the public is entitled to know. It deals with an official of the Department I mentioned earlier that in certain circumstances perhaps telephone tapping could be agreed to. For instance, the City Council officials state here in the minutes that after the representative of the South African Police had referred to certain subversive activities in the City of Durban, permission was granted subject to two important provisions. Those two important provisions were as follows—

1. (a) Only the telephones of non-European organizations believed to be subversive and the persons connected with that organization should be tapped;
2. (b) tapping of such telephones should not be continued longer than was absolutely necessary.

Under those circumstances it was permitted. We have heard of the experience of the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) and it is highly probable that telephone tapping occurred in regard to the circumstances appertaining to the case which he raised in this House at question time with the hon. Minister of Justice. Why I believe that it could be carried out on a wider scale is because they state lat.r on in these minutes that—

Then it goes on to say—

So you can see, Sir, that it is the intention of the police to use that method of obtaining certain information even at times when a state of emergency does not exist. At the present time we are told that all is peaceful in South Africa. At the same time we have experience such as that of the hon. member of Wynberg. There are many other people who have grave suspicions that their telephones are being tapped. My charge against the Government, Sir, is that this is a serious inroad on the privacy of the individual. What is more, other questions have been put to the hon. the Minister in regard to apparatus that might be required for the tapping of telephones. Questions were also put on the Order Paper last year asking the Department of Justice whether they had any apparatus for the tapping of telephones. They said in reply that they had no such apparatus. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said that his Department had no such apparatus. Yet it is very strange that in a report of the General Manager of the Telephone Section of the Durban Corporation he states—

But he states—

So you see, Sir, that this particular apparatus is required. We know that it is being used as a means to obtain information. Therefore, I believe we are justified in having the gravest suspicions in respect of telephone tapping and Government telephones. Surely if this permission had to be sought in the case of a municipality owned telephone system, we can draw our own conclusions that similar facilities were sought by the Department of Justice from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, we have now had the example here of the Opposition, who, through the loudspeaker of Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), rose and made a tremendous noise about the S.A.B.C. and, after one or two of our speakers had answered, they ran away like a dog with its tail between its legs, to flee from the facts they could not refute. It was one false accusation after another they made, without any substance-and the moment it is disproved, they dropped it like a warm potato, and they proceeded to another subject which the Minister has on numerous occasions denied that something like that exists. But that is only a refuge they have from their own problems. However. I feel there are still some little matters in regard to the Broadcasting Corooration to which I should reply. I am sorry that the hon. members have retreated so rapidly from that subject, for we are ready for them on that, and now they have dropped it.

The first is the question of the resignation of Mr. Gideon Roos. I should like to refer to the arguments of the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) and give the facts, and then he can try to deny them.

Are you denying Mr. Gideon Roos’s words?

I am not denying his words, but I should like to give the facts of the background. The position really is that there has been a tremendous expansion of the Broadcasting Corporation during the past few years. It was a tremendous development which I shall illustrate just now with a number of other facts. With this development, the organization became tremendously complicated and massive, so massive that one person could no longer control it. In addition there was a tremendously expanded news service, to which I shall revert just now; the Bantu services were added; V.H.F. was added; there were various developments in various fields. As a result of that, it was decided by the Board of Governors that there should be a sub-division. The whole Broadcasting Corporation has been divided into five sub-divisions, namely, Finance, Administration, Bantu Services. Planning and Development, Overseas and Commercial Service. As a result of the fact that it had expanded so much, it was decided to give Mr. Roos the choice. One man is not capable of handling this organization all at once, whoever he may be. He was given the choice to say of which of the five he wanted to retain control. He would not suffer any loss of salary, and no other prejudice. The four other divisions would be controlled by other people, thereby increasing the efficiency of the Broadcasting Corporation. Mr. Roos consequently accepted control of one of the five, namely to be head of Overseas and Commercial Service. He had the first choice. Four other persons were appointed in the four other divisions. In that capacity Mr. Roos continued with his work. If now he comes along subsequently and says that he could not stay on any longer, and that he had become frustrated, or whatever the reason may have been, then his resignation is not due to the fact that they made it intolerable for him; then it is due to the fact that he was not prepared to be a small frog in a large pool. He preferred to be the big frog in the big pool. I say that matter was arranged purely for organizational reasons, and if Mr. Roos got out as a result of that, then it is not a matter that affects the Broadcasting Corporation. On the contrary, it is impossible for any person to be an expert in the field of finance and administration and Bantu services and planning and development as well as overseas and commercial services. It is practically impossible.

Is that not what Mr.Piet Meiring is now doing ?

Mr. Chairman, I want to go further. This is the first matter I wish to dispose of. The second matter is the resignations from the service of the S.A.B.C.—the so-called enormous number of resignations that have been inflated by the notorious inflator of Orange Grove. Mr. Chairman, what is the true position regarding the resignations? In 1958 4 per cent of the male staff of the Corporation resigned; in 1959 it was 2.3 per cent; for 1960 it was 2.1 per cent, and for 1961 it was 1.8 per cent.

It is becoming less and less.

*Dr. MULDER: It is becoming progressively less, and there is progressively more contentment in the S.A.B.C. as a result of better control. But hon. members have now immediately kicked up a tremendous fuss here. Why? Because the English Press made a great fuss about it. And why did they make a fuss about it? Because they are at war with the Broadcasting Corporation in fact. That I shall prove from excerpts. I shall read from this well-known booklet of Mr. Lindsay Smith, “Behind the Press in South Africa”. Mr. Smith’s background is that he has been in South Africa in fact, that he was employed by the English Press, that after this book was published he was dismissed, and that he had to get out because he exposed things that the Press did not like, and that he subsequently returned to South Africa. I do not know where he is at the present moment. But in his little book there are a few facts and data that are very interesting and very instructive. The first thing is that he says that the position in South Africa is such that the Broadcasting Corporation hon. in those days—the little book was written in 1946, in the days of the United Party government—was servile and dependent on Sana for all its news, and Sana, as he proves here, is under the control of the Argus group of newspapers.

What does the Burger say about that?

I want to prove it to you, whether the Burger agrees or not. The fact is that shares of Sapa are divided as follows: There is a total number of 50 000 shares, of which only 23,000 have been issued, and the Argus Printing and Publishing Company according to this Book, holds 8.440 of the 23,000 shares. Any resolution adopted in respect of policy, such as expansion of the Press, admission of the new papers that are to be supplied with news by the agency, has to be confirmed by a three-quarters majority of votes. As the Argus group holds 8,440 shares of the 23,000, it controls more than one-third and how can there ever be a three-quarters majority, in whatever direction it may be, if the Argus group does not approve of the matter? I admit the Afrikaans newspapers also have a say and hold shares. The Voortrekkerpers holds 900 and Nasionale Pers 3,100 shares. They are shareholders, but they are such a small number that they have no say in major affairs. I want to go further, Mr. Chairman. Lindsay Smith puts it very clearly, and I am not surprised that he has been dismissed as a result of that—

Mr. Chairman, I wish to go further. I say that it is not only so. During all the years the U.P. was in power, Sapa was the only source of news for the Broadcasting Corporation, and Sapa was controlled by these newspapers. At that time the newspapers did not take the field against the Broadcasting Corporation. No, I want to read again the extracts from Lindsay Smith’s book—

That was the position in 1946—

That is the United Party Government of 1946.

Now the Broadcasting Corporation has perpetrated the foolishness to organize its own news service, to harness four international news services to provide news for it, and that with all that news at its disposal, it is no longer dependent upon Sapa only but can give a broad basis; that with its news service it obtains 300,000 words of news daily provided by four international news agencies plus its own news agencies, so that now it can sift those 300 000 words to 40,000 words in its daily bulletins. As a result of this, the Press immediately attacked, as fast as it possibly could, for now the pure news service also reaches the English-speaking people in their homes, and they can no longer give the distorted news as they have done all these years. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the speech of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) on the question of the tapping of telephones I thought especially in view of my recent experiences, I might delay this Committee for just a few minutes to say something on that subject. I have made recent allegations, which I believe to be absolutely true, that telephone tapping is taking place widely and regularly. I believe that I have irrefutable proof in my own particular case that certain information—incorrectly conveyed to the Minister of Justice—could only have come to his knowledge through a tapped telephone conversation. He was wise enough not to try to refute my accusation. His information could only have reached him in that way. I have been subsequently and reliably informed that the message which was intercepted by the Minister’s minions had not been entrusted to the post. My son’s letter and cheque were sent in a sealed envelop, by special messenger. Had the letter been opened the Minister’s informer would have been able to get the name of the sender of the cheque correctly. I know that my facts are reliable. The recipient of the cheque, whose ’phone was being tapped, rang up one person only and told him. Within hours the Minister quoted the information here. As a result I put questions to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I asked him this—

The Minister’s reply to the first question was “No” and to the second “It falls away”. I say with respect, Sir, that that answer is just not true. Facilities for tapping do exist and are granted to the police by the Minister’s Department …

Order! The hon. member must accept the Minister’s word.

Mr. RUSSELL: The Minister interjects and says “prove it then”. I have proved it. I say further that I believe the Minister is not telling the truth when he says that telephone tapping is not permitted. It is not un-parlia-mentary to say that …

Order! The hon. member cannot say that.

Must I then say that I believe he is telling the truth. Sir, how can I do that …

The hon. Minister has replied and the hon. member must accept his word.

Surely it is possible for other Departments except the Department of Justice to tap telephones without the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs knowing about it.

I am in a difficult position, Sir. Why should I accept the Minister’s word? I will, if I must, withdraw most reluctantly, and seek to prove my disbelief by quoting from Hansard certain passages which indicate that, if he did not know, he should have known that telephone tapping is a regular feature of his Government’s activities. When this was raised in 1961 by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo), the Minister of Justice was involved. When questioned, the Minister of Justice said, or as good as said, “Well, this exists, but it is not my policy to tell you.” He said: “This question about telephone tapping is never answered by any Minister of Justice.” … “This practice has been going on since 1910 but Ministers of Justice just do not give the correct answer.” He said what amounts to this: “I admire the young member for trying his best to elicit from me the correct reply, but I tell him now not to waste his time, not to go on, because I will not give him a straight answer.” I then interjected and said—

Do you approve?

To that final question of mine the Minister refused to answer. Mr. Oldfield then got up and said—

In other words, Sir, they were using the “privilege of tapping” but said they did not abuse it. I have no doubt that when the Special Branch of the Police started off tapping telephones they were acting in what they thought to be the interests of the security and the safety of the State. But the temptation to pass on political information to Ministers probably proved too strong. I do not think I can be expected to produce further proof. Here we have an admission, Sir, by the Minister of Justice, that tapping actually takes place….

What year was that?

20 April 1961. Hansard, col. 4972.

Who was the Minister of Justice?

Mr. Erasmus. Try to get in touch with him by telephone and verify it, if you like. The Post Office will “listen in” to your conversation as a matter of course. The point is this, Sir, that if telephone tapping takes place without the knowledge of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, surely he is amazingly remiss in the performance of his duty. Did the lengthy interviews take place with the Durban Municipality, when the Special Branch definitely asked permission to tap (they had to get permission from the Municipality because they own the central telephone system) without the knowledge of the Minister? Did he not then know that the police had applied to tap Durban telephones? …

No.

Must I say that I believe him? Does he know now? Does he know now that a monitoring system exists and is part of regular Post Office procedure? Does he know now that operators listen in regularly to the conversations of selected people? [Interjections.] Why did the Minister of Justice apply for tapping the services? Does the Minister not acknowledge that, if a subscriber complains about the excess number of telephone calls booked to him, Post Office officials listen in to check upon the number of calls? So facilities for intercepting private calls do exist. I ask again, has he not got a monitoring system? Does the Minister still deny that officials listen in to private calls regularly? The Minister will not answer with the truth. I say unequivocally, this minute, that the telephone system is tapped and if the Minister does not know it the Minister of Justice does; and if the Minister of Justice does, and the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs does not, then there is something seriously wrong with his organization. I shrewdly suspect that it is merely policy on the part of this Minister to pretend not to know …

The Minister of Justice does not know what is happening in the Postal Department.

Neither do you. And may I ask does the Postal Department know what is happening in the Department of Justice? The Minister says: “If they tap my telephones (as they do) I do not know of it. Was this place in Durban, this tapping centre, not wired by the Post Office officials for the special branch?

You must ask the Durban City Council.

They have given a straight answer. They say “Yes”! The hon. member for Umbilo read out the minutes of the meeting where a representative of the Post Office, an agent of this Minister, a representative of the police, an agent of the Department of Justice and representatives of the Municipality of Durban all met and arranged that installations should be arranged so that the Special Branch of the police could listen in to private telephone calls …

Why don’t you ask the Durban Municipality?

Is the Minister not interested in the fact that a member of his Department, whose name can be given although we do not want to mention names, actually attended such a meeting? He actually helped to make the arrangement for tapping telephones. He is a member of the Minister’s own Department. Does the hon. the Minister persist in saying that he does not know his name and does not know the circumstances of this case and does not know when it happened?

I know nothing about it.

But his name was mentioned in the Natal Press. The hon. member for Umbilo has told him the exact date. I will have a copy of the minutes of the meeting at which he was present made available to the Minister with the permission of the hon. member for Umbilo. The Minister can have a copy of the minutes and then he will know what is happening inside his own Department, if he does not know already. Then he will not be able to plead pretended ignorance. This document is being sent across to the hon. the Minister now. Will he take time to read it and tell us what he expects us to think of his denials? He must tell us whether he believes that this telephone snooping should be done in times of piping peace, when everything is said to be restful and secure? Will he tell us whether he does not think it is an unwarrantable invasion of the privacy of individuals? Whose telephones do the snoopers listen to? Members of the Liberal Party? Members of the Civil Rights League? Do they tap the phone of ex-Chief Justice Centlivres who is the head of a Committee for the Defence Civil Rights? Do they tap the telephones of members of the Black Sash? It is common knowledge in South Africa that telephones are tapped. How can I say that I believe the Minister’s denial? If the Minister himself does not know of this telephone tapping he is grievously ignorant of what goes on in his own Department. I think he should make it his business to find out what is happening. He ought to make a statement to this House as soon as he can on this pressing subject …

Order! In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell), I must point out that inasmuch as the facts in this instance are in dispute, the hon. member is perfectly in order to dispute the correctness of the reply given.

In other words, I can say that I do not think the Minister gave me the correct reply—gave me a truthful answer?

The hon.

member can dispute the correctness of the reply but he cannot impute knowledge on the part of the Minister.

Mr. RUSSELL: I dispute the correctness of the Minister’s reply. I do not believe his answer.

Having listened to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) I am fully convinced that the hon. member has spoilt what was a poor case already.

But you do seem to be very worried.

Let me recall the facts. The hon. the Minister of Justice accused him of having contributed to a certain fund, the Civil Rights Defence Committee. At first he denied it by means of an interjection and when the Minister told him that he did say so, he retorted: “Then you tapped my telephone.”

I did not say my telephone.

Subsequently he made a statement to the Press that not he, but his son had contributed to the fund. Sir, I may believe him, but there are thousands who will not believe him. The public do not believe him. Now the hon. member comes along and he feels very guilty, and because he feels guilty, they try to inflate this question of tapping. It is all part of the United Party propaganda to suggest that we are moving to a Police State, and the hon. member for Wynberg said so a few days ago by way of an interjection. It is all part of the campaign to suggest that we now have a Police State here. The hon. member knows it is not so, but now somehow or other he has to give the people outside the idea that a Police State is coming in fact, and the only alternative is to say: Your telephone conversations are being tapped. They want to stampede the voters with that. I think the hon. member has spoilt his case sufficiently, but I really want to reply to a couple of other statements that have been made with reference to the Press.

I want to say at once that I was a newspaperman for a long time, and I have a good deal of experience of the Press. As regards the Press, in general, it frequently happens in the course of your reporting, that some mistake slips in and you just cannot help it. You obtain information as announced over the S.A.B.C. of an amount of R120,000, and that is not correct; it is only R120, but it is not something that happens intentionally; it is a slip.

But a good newspaper rectifies its mistakes.

Then many of the English papers are not good for they do not correct their mistakes regularly. Every paper tries to make its reports as carefully as possible, but that kind of slip takes place and if your attention is drawn upon it, you try to put it right, and very often it is a minor mistake, that the initials or age of somebody is given incorrectly. In regard to what the hon. member for Randfontein said about Sapa, I should like to say that if the English papers in South Africa get their news from Sapa only …

Order! What is under discussion here is the reporting of the S.A.B.C. and not of the newspapers.

I merely want to indicate that the source of news of the newspapers and of the S.A.B.C. is largely the same, and the treatment of news takes the same line. If the English papers get their news from Sapa, I am quite satisfied. Then I think there will be very few mistakes and wrong reporting. But that is something that does not take place. It is in those very reports emanating from elsewhere that you find enormous mistakes. I have no objection when a newspaper makes a slip and publishes an incorrect report, but I object strongly when inaccurate reports are published intentionally. In that respect you cannot compare the S.A.B.C. with the newspapers in any respect. I want to quote only two reports to illustrate that. I want to quote from a newspaper that is reasonably moderate, the Cape Argus. In its issue of 29 March, the Argus writes a report with reference to the judgment in the high treason trial and says—

You could almost say it is intentionally not the truth, for what the judgment said is exactly the opposite. The words of the Judges were as follows—

It is exactly the opposite of what the report said, and I object to that. I wish to refer to another one. One of the newspapers—I cannot remember which one—made an allegation against one of the S.A.B.C. men, Mr. Theo Greyling, that he was permitted to do organization work for the National Party in the time of the S.A.B.C.

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss that. He can only test the accuracy of the reporting of the S.A.B.C.

Then I should like to say in general that the S.A.B.C. reports compare favourably with that of any newspaper in South Atr.ca. As a newspaperman of long standing, I can say that the S.A.B.C. reports are perhaps the most correct of any source of news that can be compared with it

But I really rose to say a few words about the V.H.F. system. I want to congratulate the Minister with the introduction of that We are aware that this system has already been introduced in Europe and that it has given great satisfaction. I should like to just quote from a report that appeared in the Star of 8 December 1960, and it is a good reflection to me of how the V.H.F. system has been received in South Africa. The report compares the position in England, and then it says—

I say that is a good testimonial of the enthusiasm with which this system has been received in South Africa. I have not seen that he has made an announcement on the introduction of this system in South West. I wish to ask him whether he intends to extend this system to South West, and when he intends doing so. I concede that in view of the peculiar circumstances we have there, there may be quite a number of problems, as a result of the tremendous distances, and one must appreciate that it will involve great expense, but I should like to know from the Minister what he contemplates in regard to South West.

I would like to leave the questions of the S.A.B.C. and telephone tapping and refer to a few items of major importance in the Minister’s portfolio. If any Department of the Government Service should be run as a business, one would expect it to be the Post Office. It is in fact a business. It offers certain facilities to the public which the public buys. Unfortunately it is a monopoly, so it can charge what it likes for those services, and it makes a very substantial profit every year from those services. But if you look at the report of the Postmaster-General for 1960-1, the Postmaster-General says in the foreword—

What are the effects? If you look at page 1 on this report, you find the Postmaster-General reports that the accounts of the Post Office showed a profit of R11,000,000, as compared with R13,000,000 for 1959-60. At the same time the total revenue for the year showed an I increase, and he says this is mainly attributable i to the increased revenue derived from the telephone service. Sir, in a normal business the normal thing to do is to develop that portion of your business which shows a profit and an increased turnover, but what is the position here? In the same report it is said that there were, on 31 March 1961, 14,615 applicants waiting for telephone services. And that is a minimum figure, because there are hundreds of people who do not even bother to apply for telephones because they know they cannot get them. There are dozens of business firms which have one, two or three telephones, and want more, but they cannot get them because they are not available. If you run a business you have to satisfy your customers. When I was in America three years ago, they were advertising, “Don’t let your teen-age daughter spoil your social life. Have a second telephone for yourself”. That is the way to run a telephone department. If you are running a successful business, you satisfy the consumer demand, and of all the sections of the Post Office which earn revenue, the telephone service earns most.

There are two other features. To-day if you put a trunk call through from Johannesburg to Cape Town, or vice-versa, it may take 20 minutes, or two hours, or three hours, and those of us in business have found that on many occasions we just cannot put through trunk calls from Johannesburg to Cape Town because we are tied to our offices for an indefinite period waiting for the calls to Come through. The Post Office is selling a commodity. I put a call through to Johannesburg this morning. I was told I could only have six minutes if I want to buy from the Post Office 12 or 15 minutes’ worth of telephone time, surely it is bad business to say I can only have six minutes. Let us go a little further. If you look at the figures for telegrams, you will find that there was very little improvement in 1960-1 over 1959-60. Why is this so? If you refer to page eight of the report, you will see that there were 280,914 less telegrams handled in that year than during the previous year, and the reason is easy to understand. It is the inordinate time it takes for a telegram to be sent from one place to another. I and practically every business man who wants to send a telegram which has to arrive on the same day send it double rate. That is the only way to ensure that it arrives.

Or you send a messenger on foot.

That happened to me two weeks ago. I had to leave Johannesburg to come back to the House on Monday morning. My wife took me to the airport, and after the plane had taken off she found there was something she wanted to tell me, so she went to the Alberton post office and sent me a telegram. I had been in this House for two hours, having flown from Johannesburg to Cape Town, when the telegram arrived.

That shows you have good transport.

The other thing is this. Just try and use the phonogram service. I had to use it last Sunday. I rang for nine minutes and there was no reply at all, so I left it until Sunday afternoon and then after three and three-quarter minutes I managed to get a reply. That is the reason why the telegraph income is dropping every year and why fewer telegrams are being sent. Then there are the postal deliveries. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Orange Grove, it was said that in the city areas of the main cities there were two deliveries a day. I would like to ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that the urban delivery of letters to-day is worse than it was 20 years ago? In the suburbs of Cape Town, e.g., right up to Simonstown, 15 or 20 years ago there were two deliveries a day, whereas to-day there is only one. Does the Minister know that in London people use the post to do their ordering, because you post a letter in the morning, it is received by noon, and the goods are delivered the same afternoon? When will we have something similar? It is no good saying we haven’t got the population, or there is a shortage of employees. The hon. member for Orange Grove has told us what the trouble is in regard to postal employees, and one of the hon. members opposite also dealt with the question of a separate entity for the Post Office, so that it may be run on business lines.

In another item in this report the Postmaster-General says that the Department is being seriously hampered in the execution of its functions by the lack of suitable and sufficient accommodation, and the rate at which the requirements are being met remains so slow that no immediate improvement in the position can be expected. The one problem in our economy to-day is building; the building trade is worse than in the doldrums. Here is an opportunity for the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to have a chat with the Minister of Transport and to ask him not to over-budget for his capital requirements, but to take some of that money and provide buildings, and help the building industry and look after the essential requirements of commerce and industry and the individual, in regard to the services the post office should be providing.

I regret I cannot follow up the hon. member for Parktown. The Minister will reply to him. I should however like to draw the Minister’s attention to a small matter. It concerns the broadcasting service in South West Africa. As you know, Sir, in South West we are living in a widespread country. The people live far away from one another, and as a result of that they feel isolated. We have a very keen desire to have more knowledge of world affairs. In the circumstances in which we are living it is very difficult for the farmers to visit the nearest town more than once or twice per month to get the newspapers. Consequently, when the newspapers are read, the news is old and old news is no news. We feel that in this way we get a very limited insight into affairs. We South Westers feel to-day that the attention of the whole world is focused upon us and on South Africa, and that is why we wish to be well informed. In saying that I do not say that South West is panic-stricken. Far from it. I think some of our friends in the Republic are much more panicky than we are. If we have to get out there, it will not be as a result of the international situation, but as a result of the presently prevailing economic conditions there. Our only reliable source of information is the broadcasting service from the Republic. It is our only effective link with the Republic and with the outside world. We feel that the S.A.B.C. frames all the news and programmes with great care, and we have no complaint, but the extremely difficult circumstances under which we are living, and as a result of the unheard of drought afflicting the country—I wonder if hon. members have any idea of the conditions there at the present time. We are also afflicted with foot and mouth disease, and in consequence of the drastic control measures the South Westers feel they are yearning for news. We also sometimes yearn to listen in to the preaching of the Gospel on Sundays and even on other days, to the broadcast of programmes, to football matches or to speeches or to the recordings of plays, musical programmes, etc. However, it is a great pity that I have to inform the House that the present broadcasting service to South West is inadequate and leaves much to be desired. We have a poor reception, especially in the north and in the central areas, so much so that it is virtually useless in these parts to tune in to any one of the radio stations in the Republic in the morning or in the afternoon. In saying this, I do not wish to indicate that I am blaming the officials of the S.A.B.C. for it. I know there are many difficulties involved. Apart from the broadcasting service we get there, we have the special broadcast for South West that is relayed to us over the radio every morning, and we are thankful to the Minister for that service. It gives us a thorough insight into world affairs, particularly as regards South West. At the present time there are quite a few wavelengths to South West. There are i.a. the 90, 60, 49, 41 and 31 meter bands. Throughout the day those particular bands are used that produce the best service within 100 miles of the Paradise broadcasting station. Two simultaneous transmissions are broadcast on the various wavelengths. That means that the service in the south and in the north and in the northeastern parts of S.W.A. are reasonably good, but it becomes very weak in the north and the central parts. However, I understand that the Planning and Development Division of the S.A.B.C. has been engaged for some time in working out a suitable scheme for South West Africa on the instructions of the Minister. It is very encouraging to us. We realize that the Minister feels that South West Africa has reason to complain to a certain extent. I shall appreciate it very much if the Minister will inform me what progress has been made in this regard. I should also like to congratulate the Minister with the new V.H.F. transmissions and the Hertzog tower that has been erected in record time in Johannesburg. Let us in future regard this tower as a monument to the person who gave the rural districts and particularly South West Africa an effective radio service. You know, Sir, the cities have had a good reception for years, but we in the rural districts cannot say that, and I hope the existing service will be expanded and improved to such an extent that the disturbances to which the rural service are subject at the present time, will be eliminated.

Another important aspect of the broadcasting service is the following. It concerns the Natives in South West Africa. More and more Natives there to-day possess shortwave radio sets. They are using those sets to listen in to broadcasting services from elsewhere because the broadcasting service to South West is poor. The Natives mainly tune in to transmissions from the Africa states, America and Moscow. I do not know whether it is a good thing for the future that we should give our Natives a much more powerful broadcasting service. I think that special attempts should be made to establish strong transmitters for the Ovambos, the Hereros and the other Bantu in South West Africa. I regard this as a matter of national interest. These Natives must be given the opportunity to listen in to suitable programmes specially designed for them. I feel that it is our duty to provide them with this. [Time limit.]

I would like to deal this afternoon with Union Loan Certificates which are now called national savings certificates. I am very interested to see that they are advertised as giving the highest interest rate in the world, and if that is correct, I submit that there must be something seriously wrong, because in my opinion there has been a serious decline in the investment in national savings certificates. According to the report of the Postmaster-General for 1960-1, in 1958-9 there was invested in Union Loan Certificates, as they were then called R20,320,526. In 1959-60 the figure dropped to R19,095,344, and in 1960-1 the figure dropped further to R13,708,262, which is a drop of something like one-third, and I submit that any building society that suffered a loss to that extent would be extremely worried and would do whatever they could to try and rectify the matter. If this is the case, Sir, then there is either something wrong with the advertising or the manner in which these certificates are offered. I know that years ago the schools offered a very useful service in not only teaching the children to save but teaching them how to save in a practical way. They were encouraged to buy Union Loan Certificates whenever possible. I think this is a very commendable way of teaching children not only to save for themselves but to save for the nation as well. This is something that affects the whole of our nation. Thrift is, of course, a very important matter and we have to look to the future. I would ask the Minister to exercise his mind and to try and satisfy us that there is nothing really wrong or to make it possible for people to take a greater interest in this type of saving.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) this afternoon again raised the question of telephone tapping which he raised last year also. Of course, it was to aid the hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) in his predicament. We know that the hon. member for Wynberg received a painful blow from the Minister of Justice the other day because he was so foolish as to contribute to the funds of the Civil Rights Defence League …

That is an absolute untruth. It is a lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “lie”.

I am sorry; I withdraw but it is an absolute untruth. I apologize for using the word.

The hon. member then told us that his son was the one who contributed to that fund. But the hon. member protests much too much; one wonders why he protests so vehemently.

I must object when you tell an untruth.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Wynberg says he must object when the hon. member tells an untruth. Should he not withdraw that?

The hon. member for Geduld (Dr. Jurgens) ought to accept the word of the hon. member for Wynberg and leave it at that.

The hon. member for Wynberg has now run to the Press and tried to assail the honour of our two Ministers by indicating that they are telling an untruth and that South Africa is a police State. We know that on 3 March, 1961 certain questions were asked here by the hon. member for Umbilo; he asked the hon. the Minister of Justice whether he was aware of what was happening at Durban. The Minister replied to him, and then the hon. member for Umbilo again asked the Minister of Justice whether the Police Force possess apparatus for tapping telephones lines, and if so, what apparatus? The Minister’s reply was that they do not possess such apparatus and that they do not do so. The hon. member then again asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether his attention had been drawn to this Durban matter. The Minister replied that his attention had been drawn to it, but that he had no knowledge of tapping of telephone conversations. Thereafter the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) asked the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs whether his Department had taken steps to ensure that telephone conversations were not tapped; if so, what steps, and if not, why not? The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs replied—

There the answers were given expressly. I personally asked the Postmaster-General whether telephone tapping occurred, and he expressly said no. The assurance was given this year and last year expressly to the Opposition by our Minister that that kind of thing is not done, but the Opposition are not prepared to accept that assurance. I wonder whether the hon. member for Wynberg has something else to hide and whether he is afraid that there will be tapping of his telephone conversations.

Now you have hit the nail on the head.

I now wish to ask the Opposition whether South Africa will be a police State if there is tapping of telephones. I wish to ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the “Report of the Committee of Privy Councillors appointed to inquire into the interception of communications, presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister, by command of Her Majesty, in October 1957.” This report, addressed to “the Right Honourable Harold Macmillan, M.P.” read as follows—

I am going to quote only a few excerpts from this report—

Then in paragraph 5—

Order! I think the hon. member is now covering too wide a field. What is under discussion here, is whether telephone tapping is taking place in the Republic of South Africa.

With due respect, Mr. i Chairman, I merely want to point out that this is a practice that is applied not only in South i Africa, if it is applied here, but in other countries too, and I should like to know from the hon. members whether they would describe these other countries as Police States, for here it is admitted that it is done in Britain. I, should like to ask the hon. member for Wynberg now whether he regards Britain as a I Police State, and whether he regards America; as a Police State and whether he regards other Commonwealth countries, where the practice is adopted, as Police States. I am not referring to the Black ones now.

The question is whether it occurs here.

The reply has been given here, that so far as the hon. the Minister knows, it is not done here. It is said that we are a Police State, but here in this Report it is admitted that it is in fact done in Britain. Now I ask hon. members opposite: Is Britain a Police State?

When did I say that in this debate?

Not in this debate, but in previous debates.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the question whether or not telephone tapping occurs in the Republic.

Then I merely want to say that so far as the Minister of Posts an Telegraphs and the Postmaster-General are concerned, there is no tapping of private telephone calls. I am prepared to accept their word. In other countries telephone tapping does take place where the security of the State is at stake, and I feel that it should also be done here, if it is not done.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) Just now made a great fuss here about the Nationalists that have been appointed in the service of the Broadcasting Corporation. Let us go back and see what happened when they were in power. If you look at the Annual Report of the S.A.B.C. for 1961, you will see a picture there of people who were appointed in 1936. Reference is made to people with 25 years of service. Of the 22 persons on the photo, appointed in 1936 only 3 were Afrikaans-speaking. I do not know whether they also were U.P. supporters. They might have been U.P. supporters, in the same way as the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) who has an Afrikaans surname but is a supporter of the U.P. One can never call the hon. member an Afrikaner. [Time limit.]

I would like to bring this debate back again to the matter that was raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and that is the question of the establishment of television in South Africa. Over the past years the hon. the Minister has been very definite in his views about television. He gave a variety of reasons last year in this Committee Vote and recently, in reply to questions as to why television cannot be introduced in South Africa, he said that the benefits of television had been very greatly exaggerated. Sir, television was established 25 years ago, and nearly all the countries of the civilized world to-day have television services. It has proved a very great boom in these countries, and it has been proved too that it has been very good indeed for those elderly people who cannot go out for their entertainment any longer, and for the millions of families who like their entertainment at home. These families are able to view rugby matches and tennis and swimming and the Olympic Games in their own homes over television, which is also of very great advantage in education. That is one of the most important arguments in favour of television to-day, because to-day education does not stop in schools or at the universities. Television to-day is a very powerful means of disseminating knowledge and education, and it costs the viewer no more to buy a television set than to buy a radio set. Many people overseas, if they cannot afford to buy a television set, hire one, or they go and look at television in the various clubs or social centres to which they belong. In the United States of America and Britain they have systematic courses of a very high standard in education on their television sets. Television is being used to-day to a very large extent in every branch of education, in industrial and technical education, and in Great Britain they are establishing a special Institute for Television Education. I agree that radio and television can never replace the teacher, but they can do a very great deal in the schools to assist the teacher in his or her work. It seems to me that on this issue of television, the Government is again sacrificing the national interest. The general public outside may not fully realize the background of the television ban and what they are missing in South Africa. We are one of the only civilized communities in the world to-day that do not have television. Television is established in 80 countries in the world today. I know that one of the main difficulties that has been put forward by the Minister in the past is the question of bilingualism. Surely this difficulty could be very easily overcome if we wished to have television in South Africa. In the United States of America television films cover education, they cover science and they cover information, and they have sound tracks in a variety of languages. Surely we could also arrange that. Canned programmes have different sound-tracks all over the world, and in Canada, where they have much the same problem that we have, they have two programmes, one for each of the language groups. I feel that one of the ways in which we could solve this problem of bilingualism on television is to operate a fully bilingual service, which could be evolved by stipulating that at least 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the material used on television must be South African material. One of the other difficulties that the Minister has also raised over the years is the difficulty of distance, but I do not see why this should deprive the people who live in cities such as Cape Town, Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, East London, Durban and in Bloemfontein, of the opportunity of viewing television, because in the out-back of Australia, as they call it, they have television in spite of the large distances. They have it in the towns and it is received to quite a large extent in the outside areas, in the out-back. The Central African Federation has television to-day in Salisbury and in Bulawayo and they are going to have it installed shortly in Kitwe Another objection that has been raised to television in the past is the very high cost. This problem can be solved by having a commercial television. In the Central African Federation they have a commercial television to encourage private enterprise, but the control of the television remains in the hands of the Federal Broadcasting Company. I feel that we should do the same here in South Africa. As I have said, 80 countries in the world enjoy television to-day. In the United States, the leaders in the television world, 7 different channels are operated. They operate 20 hours a day. It is put out non-stop from 600 stations all over the United States of America. The United Kingdom has two programmes, one of which is commercial, and this commercial programme has stimulated and improved the other service considerably. In the United Kingdom they have 12,000,000 television sets and 60,000,000 in the United States of America. In practically every civilized country in the world there is television to-day. These countries that have television were able to view Col. Glenn’s space-flight, but not we in South Africa. Sir, in the first few months of this year we saw many conflicting statements about television in the Press. Early this year, on 25 April we saw a report which read: “Television here in 18 months rumour”. On the 26th we see: “Television decision is for Government to decide, says Dr. Meyer, chairman of the S.A.B.C.”, and later on, “Television: S.A.B.C. is not thinking of it, says Dr. Meyer.” Then on 19 May we see, “South African Broadcasting Corporation is making television tests. Transmission next year(?)” Finally we see that a S.A. Broadcasting Corporation man was-to study radio and television overseas. This report is dated 10 May of this year. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would make a full report to this House regarding the establishment of television in South Africa and regarding the setting up of a Commission of Enquiry, as advocated by the hon. member for Orange Grove, to study the establishment of television in South Africa and all the problems, including the training of technicians—the fact that they have to train for five to 10 years in a studio beforehand. I should like the Minister to give a full reply in this regard on this Committee Vote.

This debate started with a great beating of drums and tins, and it really looked like a minor thunder storm in the Kalahari, but the only result was a few drops; the rest was mainly just dust. I want to show you, Mr. Chairman, why this was so. I want to start with the hon. member who was the drummer, the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan).

The beater of tins (blik-slaner).

Perhaps he was beating on a tin. The hon. member commenced his attack on the S.A.B.C. and on myself as Minister by alleging that the Minister had certain duties which he must comply with in terms of Section 26. These are that if the S.A.B.C. does anything which is not correct, the Minister must intervene. The hon. member will remember that Section 26 reads as follows—

Only then can the Ministed require the Board in writing to make good such default. In other words, the powers to which he has referred, are the powers as defined in Section 26 and also in Section 24.

And in terms of Section 26 (2) you can take them to court.

Quite correct. The hon. member then referred to a number of provisions with which he considers the S.A.B.C. has not complied. In the first place he criticized me and asked whether the S.A.B.C. had failed to comply with the provisions regarding its annual report; in other words, whether the annual report of the S.A.B.C. complied with the requirements of the Act. At that time I informed the hon. member that I had obtained two legal opinions. The hon. member referred to that aspect but he only quoted half my reply, and I can only assume that he did so deliberately.

As usual.

My reply to the hon. member when he asked me whether I had obtained a legal opinion was that legal opinion was being obtained from the Government law advisers as well as the S.A.B.C.’s law advisers. He then deliberately omitted the second portion, namely, “as well as the S.A.B.C. law advisers”. I shall now tell the House what a distorted impression has resulted. The facts are as follows: When the hon. member gave notice of this report, doubt was cast on the annual report for the first time in the history of the S.A.B.C. because this report is in the same form as it was during all the years of the United Party’s régime. The United Party approved of this form; and now the hon. member suddenly says that the report does not contain all the information which the Act requires. This seemed very strange to me. I immediately, before answering the question in the House, gave instructions that a legal opinion should be obtained from the Government law advisers as well as the S.A.B.C.’s law advisers, but that the opinion of the S.A.B.C.’s law advisers should first be obtained because the Government law advisers are so extremely busy. I instructed that the opinion of the S.A.B.C.’s law advisers should be handed over to the Government law advisers. Is this not a reasonable and proper attitude? The hon. member has now come this afternoon and said in the first place that my reply was that a legal opinion was “at present” being obtained from the Government law advisers and he then said that the Government law advisers were only asked for their opinion four weeks later. Can hon. members see the deplorable distortion (gruwelike verdraaiing)?

Order! The hon. Minister must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them. Can the House see the deplorable insinuation?

It is a filthy distortion (vieslike verdraaiing).

On a point of order, an hon. member opposite has said that this is a “vieslike verdraaiing”. Must he not withdraw those words?

Which hon. member made that remark?

I did, Sir, and I withdraw it.

The insinuation is, in other words, that I rose here in Parliament and said “that legal advice was at present being obtained”. Those were my words, and when I said that an instruction had already been given that legal advice should be obtained. But the hon. member has now omitted part of my reply; he claims that I said that legal opinion was being obtained at present from the Government law advisers but that an instruction was only given four weeks later to the Government law advisers. Can hon. members see the insinuation? The way in which the hon. member started his speech is so typical of his whole attitude.

May I just ask the Minister whether he does in fact have the reply of the Minister of Justice which he gave me, and in which he said that legal advice was only requested on 7 May, while on 13 April, four weeks previously, the hon. the Minister told me: “Legal advice is at present being obtained from the Government legal advisers.”

He still does not understand it.

My reply to the hon. member’s question was—

“As well as.”

Yes, “as well as”. That is the whole point, but this “as well as” the hon. member omitted. In the nature of things the Government law advisers could only receive the instruction some weeks later, and now the hon. member is trying to create the impression that I never gave the instruction.

Let us now go further. The hon. member has referred to Section 24 and has said that the S.A.B.C. for the first time in its history, after doing exactly the same thing for all these years, and giving the same information and in the same form, is now suddenly contravening the Act. He then referred to certain sub-sections of Section 24. He says the S.A.B.C. should indicate the extent and the value of all the types of property which it owns. If the hon. member will examine the balance sheet, under the heading “Capital Expenditure”, he will find all the assets of the S.A.B.C. set out—the transmitters, the buildings and improvements. He will see that everything is set out there. But he has now submitted the argument that each of these items should be mentioned separately. I now ask hon. members: Must the S.A.B.C. indicate every item separately? How many rolls of wire, how many transmitters and poles it has? That is surely ridiculous!

Just as many details as the Post Office gives.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has made his speech and the hon. the Minister did not interrupt him. He must show the Minister the same courtesy.

This just shows how absolutely ridiculous the hon. member is. That could never have been the intention of the Act. That would after all be an Act which could not be implemented. The Act requires of the S.A.B.C. what is required of every company, and the accounts of the S.A.B.C. to-day are exactly the same of those of any other big company. The hon. member with a great show has now used arguments which are quite different to those used by all his colleagues in the past and all legal advisers in the past; he now speaks of a deplorable contravention of the Act, because the S.A.B.C. has not shown in detail every minor asset it has. It seems to me the hon. member does not understand a balance sheet. Then the hon. member referred to paragraph (d) and said that in terms of that provision the S.A.B.C. should indicate the managerial and administrative costs and all the other expenses of the Corporation. Of course it must do so, as every good company does. But that does not mean that details of every item should be given. That would after all be ridiculous. Does it mean that if the S.A.B.C. incurs expenditure for example in order to give Mr. Stravinski a reception, the amount must be shown? Or if Mrs. Stravinski is given a bouquet, must that be mentioned? It would be ridiculous, and the hon. member’s whole analysis is so ridiculous. This is why I have also said that the legal advice which I have obtained indicates that the S.A.B.C. has submitted a correct report, but that the second legal opinion which we have obtained differs in certain less important respects from the original advice. I then asked that a third leading lawyer’s opinion should be obtained on this minor difference.

What is his opinion?

I have not yet received it.

The hon. member then launched his next attack. With great clashing of cymbals the hon. member submitted that S.A.B.C. should give the name of every member of a political party who broadcasts a political speech, the name of the party he represented, the time allotted for the broadcast and the time at which the broadcast took place. And then his attack was concentrated on two speeches by the Prime Minister. His criticism was that the Prime Minister made a speech in the first place before the Chamber of Commerce, I think, and because it was the Prime Minister who made the speech, it was a political speech. Mr. Chairman, what is the actual intention of the Act in this regard when the Act refers to a political speech? When a worker discusses job reservation, is it politics? Or if a member of Parliament discusses job reservation is it politics? When is something political? I think the intention of the Act is the sensible intention that when a speech is made in favour of a political party during an election, it is political. It can after all be nothing else, because otherwise everything is political. When one discusses the increase in the price of oranges or the fall in the price of eggs it is politics, because it may influence the voters. But that surely cannot be the intention of the Act. The other example used by the hon. member was that the Prime Minister after the general election made a speech over the air. Remember “after the election”. And because he made a speech as Prime Minister of the country after the election and gave a summary of the position, “the state of the nation”, that is politics. I now want to ask the hon. member: In all the years when General Smuts issued a statement and made a speech after every election, did he ever ask at that time whether that was politics? It has always been customary for a summary of the position of the country to be given after an election. But of course, because this is a Nationalist Prime Minister, it is politics.

Thus I could continue to deal with each of the items mentioned by the hon. member, but I do not think that I should waste the time of the House in this way. The hon. member has however dealt with a second point. He has criticized the S.A.B.C. and the Government in respect of radio licence fees. He has alleged that this is simply another attempt to exploit the public. But what is the actual position? Allow me to make this quite clear. The S.A.B.C. licence fees were originally fixed in 1924. That was when Mr. Schlesinger established his African Broadcasting Company. At that time licence fees were fixed in accordance with the distance from the transmitters. If one was within 100 miles of a transmitter, one paid £1 15s.; if one was between 100 and 250 miles away, one paid £1 10s., and if one was further away, one only paid £1. But now hon. members must not forget that the £ of 1924 is not the £ of to-day; the purchasing power of that £ is no longer the same. In the report of the I.D.C. in which it was recommended that the S.A.B.C.’s licence fees should be increased, the I.D.C. also pointed out that fees throughout the world had risen. It must now be remembered that most of the equipment of the S.A.B.C. was bought before the great fall in the value of money, because in the main the value of money began to fall only after the last World War. All these supplies, equipment land other assets of the S.A.B.C. have to be replaced. But how can they be replaced while the prices may have risen four or five times when compared with the original prices and when we have to meet that expenditure from the same fees? It is an absolute impossibility. This shows that it would have been absolutely impossible for the S.A.B.C. to continue because the S.A.B.C. must continually replace its equipment and buy new equipment at very high prices. If it must continue with the same licence fees as it did in the year 1924, then it should after all be clear to any sensible person that the S.A.B.C. can simply not carry on. In the report of the I.D.C. which was published in 1957, the I.D.C. points out specifically that this is the position and that for this reason it is essential for the S.A.B.C. to introduce an increase in licence fees. But that is not all. Since 1924 everything has risen, not only the cost of equipment, but also the cost of electricity, of which the S.A.B.C. is a big consumer, taxes, the salaries of staff—everything has risen tremendously. Do hon. members perhaps remember what the amount was which a member of Parliament received in 1924? It was £400. To-day the income of a member of Parliament is £3,300; in other words, nearly eight times as much. But it is these same members of Parliament who saw to it that their position was corrected who refuse to allow the position of the S.A.B.C. to be improved on a reasonable basis. That is how reasonable hon. members opposite are. As far as they are concerned they put their position right, but when it comes to the other man outside, they simply refuse to allow reasonable steps to be taken. But that is not all. Hon. members must remember that in the past the S.A.B.C. did not provide a first class service. It was a service which consisted mainly of the playing of gramophone records and which practically only broadcast the B.B.C.’s news service. But to-day we are no longer satisfied with such a service. We are only satisfied with the best. We are only satisfied with our own orchestra and we are only satisfied when we continually have artists of a type who will only appear before the microphone for high salaries. We are only satisfied when we can have the best for South Africa. But hon. members do not grant South Africa that. They begrudge the S.A.B.C. the ability to provide South Africa with such services. Last year the S.A.B.C. tried to manage without a general increase in licence fees by only imposing additional charges in respect of the second and third sets owned by listeners. But the total amount derived from this source eventually only totalled R350,000, an insignificant amount, when the expenditure of the S.A.B.C. is taken into account. Consequently the Government was obliged to review the whole position and permit the licence fees to be increased. Licence fees have now been increased from £1 15s. to £2 15s. The hon. member is now so clever as to explain to us that Denmark, Finland and Holland, these small countries, have lower licence fees. But can one compare the expenses of the South African Broadcasting Corporation with those of Finland, Holland or even England? Those are small, level countries. Do hon. members know that the whole of England is not even as big as the Free State?

But they have television.

It is a level country and with a few transmitters one can serve the whole population. South Africa, however, is a vast country, and a mountainous country; it is a country where we have electrical disturbances. Not only that, but it is a country where we do not only have to provide services in one language, but where we have to duplicate everything because we have to provide those services in two languages. And from now on services will have to be provided in seven languages.

What about Switzerland?

Is it reasonable to say that South Africa is the most expensive country in the world because one is comparing it with another country which is only faced with a very minute proportion of the expenses which the S.A.B.C. has to bear in South Africa? But let me compare our country with another country, for example with Australia. Australia is mainly a level country and has only one language. But do hon. members know that for years past the licence fee has been £2 15s.

In Australian money.

The cost of living in Australia is higher than in our country. Our licence fees compare very well with those of Australia, and if we take into account the vast variety of services which we provide as well as the quality of our service, then I must say that the S.A.B.C.’s service to South Africa compares excellently and relatively it is the cheapest in the world.

May I ask the hon. the Minister why in April of last year he stated that it would not be necessary to increase licence fees and a short while afterwards, four months later, licence fees were increased?

I have already said that we were under the impression that we might be able to get through with the additional fees for second and third sets, but that experience taught us that it was not possible.

Then do not all your other arguments fall away?

The hon. member for Orange Grove has made another attack. I must say that his attacks to me looked just like the attempts of the Sunday Times. We have had the same hackneyed and false arguments in the Sunday Times and these are the arguments the hon. member has now dished up. Allow me just to mention one or two. The hon. member has argued that the S.A.B.C. is now in such a position that it has to find R2,00,000 this year “to pay its debts to the Government”. I really thought the hon. member would not fall back upon these sickly untruths of the Sunday Times. Allow me just to read the words of the Sunday Times. It said—

Now the hon. member has actually revealed himself as nothing but an imitator of the Sunday Times But what are the facts? I was not so foolish as to make such an allegation. One can after all calculate for oneself that interest at the present rate will total R2,000,000 eventually when R34,000,000 has been borrowed from the Government. That is what I said; but the Sunday Times merely in order to criticize the S.A.B.C. unjustifiably, has distorted the position, and claimed that I supposedly said that the S.A.B.C. would have to pay that amount this year. The hon. member has run after Garry Allighan to such an extent that he has become ensnared in the foolish arguments of Garry Allighan.

But the hon. member has gone still further, and I just want to say that when I examine the statements reported in the Sunday Times, I am not certain whether they emanate from the mind of the hon. member, or whether they emanate from the fertile mind of Garry Allighan, but the standard is exactly the same. Allow me just to deal with one of the other criticisms of the S.A.B.C. The hon. member has referred to the tremendous dissatisfaction amongst the staff of the S.A.B.C. There is so much seething dissatisfaction that a whole series of people have supposedly resigned. The list of names he has given is the list mentioned by Garry Allighan in the Sunday Times. But the hon. member for Orange Grove, just like the Sunday Times, speaks of 12 resignations in 12 months, and the hon. member for Orange Grove has referred to “12 major officials”. They are by no means all “major officials”, but to lay it on as thick as possible he has spoken of “major officials”. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, what that figure would represent if the hon. member had been correct and there had in fact been that number of resignations, namely twelve in twelve months? The staff of the S.A.B.C. numbers 1,200 and if therefore 12 were to resign in one year, it represents one per cent. But one per cent is nothing.

How many have resigned from the United Party?

The percentage that have resigned from the poor “Union Party” is really high. But I do not want to discuss the figures any further. One member has already indicated how resignations have fallen from year to year. In other words, we now have people in the S.A.B.C. who are happy in their work. Do hon. members know what the reason is? Because they are not always being bothered by Ministers and by questions which have to be answered, and they are not continually being reprimanded, as was the position under the United Party’s régime. That is the reason. The reason for the resignations is the usual “wear and tear” of a business. But now the hon. member has come forward with the banner headlines in the Sunday Times and said: “We are not prepared to accept that it is the ordinary wear and tear.” I of course do not think that they are prepared to believe anything sensible, but the fact of the matter is after all that any business, no matter how good it may be, experiences “wear and tear”. Only to have one per cent in the case of the S.A.B.C. is a tremendous achievement. Hon. members must in addition remember that the S.A.B.C. to a very large extent is also a news service organization and the press men who have joined in order to run the news services of the S.A.B.C. belong to a group of people who change their jobs from time to time. If one has a staff loss of one per cent in an undertaking like the S.A.B.C. which is largely dependent on newsmen, it is an achievement which testifies to good management.

But the hon. member for Orange Grove and his friend Garry Allighan have mentioned certain names. The Sunday Times have said that Mr. W. J. Lamb has resigned. The impression has been created that Mr. Lamb was a member of the staff of the S.A.B.C. But Mr. Lamb was a former member of the Board of Governors. The hon. member and the Sunday Times have, however, mentioned Mr. Lamb in order to supplement somewhat the number of people who have resigned. But he was a member of the Board and after many years of good service with the S.A.B.C., as happens after a certain period with all members, he was not re-appointed. Then the hon. member, if I remember correctly, mentioned Peter Broomfield. But Peter Broomfield is still broadcasting to-day.

On a point of order, I have the names here and his name is not amongst them.

I am referring to the names which the Sunday Times and the hon. member have mentioned together. But, very well, I now come to another person. The hon. member has mentioned Ralph Buncher. But what is the position as regards Mr. Buncher. I am now not quoting what the S.A.B.C. has said, but what the Cape Times itself has said. That paper quoted Mr. Buncher’s words and said—

Then the Cape Times said: “He had to resign through force of circumstances; Mrs. Buncher and his six children are at present in England.” He was therefore a person who had to resign because of domestic circumstances and this hon. member together with the Sunday Times are telling the whole world that the position is so terrible in the S.A.B.C. that people have to resign. Another person whom the hon. member has mentioned is Frank Douglass. Frank Douglass has never given the reason why he has resigned. In no newspaper has he given the reason, and we must remember that the staff of the S.A.B.C. receive a thorough training and excellent experience so that they can often obtain higher salaries elsewhere. But let me now deal with the case of Mr. P. G. Haasbroek. He is a B.A. LLb. and was registrar to a judge before coming to the S.A.B.C. A man who becomes the registrar to a judge usually does so because he intends becoming an advocate. But often such a person first wants to acquire a little experience of life, and he then enters one or other business. When he feels that he can stand on his own feet, he enters his profession. But allow me once again to read what the Cape Times has said about this case about the reasons given for the resignation of Mr. Haasbroek—

This is surely quite logical. He can after all not earn in the S.A.B.C. what he can earn as a good advocate. It is after all obvious that a man will follow the career for which he has been trained. That is surely obvious, is it not? But now the hon. member and the Sunday Times are creating the impression that the staff of the S.A.B.C. are so dissatisfied that they are resigning on a large scale. Is that not deplorable? Is this the type of argument which we can expect from a responsible person?

He has gone politically a ???

Allow me now to deal with the next person he has mentioned, namely Mr. Mike Meiring. Let me now give the reason why Mr. Meiring resigned. The Cape Times says—

Mr. Mike Meiring was not satisfied with the section in which he was. He wanted to be in another section, and he went there as well.

Let us now proceed to another person who has resigned. The hon. member has mentioned a certain Mr. Clive Lawrence. Allow me just to quote what the newspapers have said about Mr. Lawrence’s resignation—

He therefore did not resign because he was dissatisfied. He resigned rather because, as I have said, the S.A.B.C. gave him so much experience and training that he could obtain a better position. That is the reason. The S.A.B.C. is an outstanding organization.

Then the hon. member has put forward another story. The House will remember that one of the last names he mentioned was that of Mr. Hugh Rouse. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Hillbrow never learns because I think he never listens. Because if he had listened to the hon. member for Randfontein, he would have heard the reply regarding Mr. Gideon Roos. A word to the wise is enough, and there was more than a word. Do hon. members know what the Rand Daily Mail has said was the reason why Mr. Rouse’s services were curtailed?—

This is a person who works independently of the S.A.B.C. and who from time to time comes and broadcasts—

That is the reason. Does the hon. member want us to make use at all times of the services of outsiders who are not in our employ while our own people can do the work? And then the hon. member complains that the S.A.B.C. is not run efficiently If Mr. Rouse wants to work in the service of the S.A.B.C., he must join it on a full-time basis; then there is place for him.

I just want to show what hon. members are doing. They are so busy trying by means of all sorts of distorted and incorrect arguments to bring the S.A.B.C. into discredit…

Order! The hon. the Minister may not say that hon. members are using distorted arguments.

May I then say that they are using incorrect (krom) arguments? Unfortunately as a decent person I do not want to mention names. I do not want to harm anyone. But do hon. members know that one of the officials who have left, came to us and said that he was most upset because these people are blackening his name to such an extent by all the stories they are telling outside, and he says that there is not a grain of truth in these stories. He says that their propaganda has placed him under suspicion everywhere. That is what they are doing. They are vilifying and doing an injustice to all these people merely because they want to further their own interests by so doing. They think they can further their own interests by harming the S.A.B.C.

Allow me just to read once again what the hon. member for Orange Grove is so fond of saying. I could not make a note once again of all his fine-sounding words to-day. What he said sounded like Hyde Park. I have written down what he himself has written in the newspapers. This is what he said—

He has insinuated that something terrible is going on—

I now want to tell the Leader of the United Party or their acting leader this. The hon. member for Orange Grove is the best person they could find in their ranks to discuss the S.A.B.C. We expect decency from such a person; we expect responsibility from such a person; we do not expect such people to vilify and to do an injustice to their fellow beings. One does not expect him to try to harm a great undertaking which is part of our country. But I now want to put certain demands to the hon. member and he must submit proof. Where is the “favouritism”? Because “favouritism” means favouring one man over the other, even if he is inferior. He must submit this proof and if he cannot do so then I say it is scandalous of a person and scandalous of a party to appoint as their spokesman a person who reveals such irresponsibility. He has said there is nepotism. Nepotism means that one appoints members of one’s family over the heads of other persons who are more competent. I want to ask him to submit proof of nepotism to me; if he cannot do so, then I say that this represents the utmost irresponsibility on his part; if the United Party continue to retain him as their speaker on the S.A.B.C. then I think the United Party is associating itself with the tendency and the quality of the attacks made by that hon. member. The hon. member has referred to “seething discontent.” This does not mean that one man is dissatisfied. It means that a mass of persons are dissatisfied. I want to tell him that he must submit proof of this “seething discontent”. It is pointless his saying that Mr. Gideon Roos was dissatisfied. It is pointless saying that Mr. Roos outside is dissatisfied with the reasons given by the hon. member for Randfontein. He must prove a number of cases of dissatisfaction to us; he must prove that there are many cases—that there is “seething discontent”. And if he cannot do so, then it is typical of his irresponsibility.

Furthermore, he has referred to “Gestapo methods”. I demand of him that he should submit proof that Gestapo methods are being used. I repeat if the United Party continue to tolerate the hon. member for Orange Grove as their spokesman in Parliament on such matters relating to the S.A.B.C., then the United Party is associating itself with the deplorable behaviour of the hon. member.

Let us now turn to another point. The hon. member tried to escape once again this afternoon when the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) referred to Albu House. May I just remind the House of what the hon. member for Orange Grove actually said, not only now and not only to-day, but what he has already said on several occasions in the past. These are his words. The newspapers have reported that he has said during this session that hundreds of thousands of pounds have been spent on a luxurious building in Parktown which has become a sort of club for the members of the Board of Governors. When the hon. member for Bethlehem pointed out that this building no longer existed and that it had been sold a year or two ago to the Provincial Administration, he made the allegation during this session in the House of Assembly that the Board of Governors lived in that luxurious club. He has done so although this Board under the leadership of Dr. Meyer disposed of that building as soon as possible. When the hon. member for Bethlehem pointed out that he had still made these allegations during this session, he suddenly denied it. [Interjections.] I find it so typical that the hon. member has gone out of his way to criticize the S.A.B.C. to-day, and he has done so for the very reasons the hon. member for Randfontein has mentioned here, namely because the S.A.B.C. to-day is a thorn in the flesh of the United Party, because it has become the organization which tells the truth in South Africa [Interjections.] I find it very noticeable that the attacks are being made on the S.A.B.C. which is just as independent as the Argus group. But have hon. members ever heard of the hon. member criticizing the Argus group or S.A. Associated Newspapers? Have they ever heard of his telling of the untruths and falsehoods spread by those organizations? Has the hon. member ever quoted from or even looked at the report of the Press Commission regarding these same organizations—this same Press which is continually criticizing the S.A.B.C.? To-day the hon. member is not only criticizing the S.A.B.C. on behalf of the United Party. He is criticizing the S.A.B.C. in emulation of the entire mining Press of South Africa. And, Mr. Chairman, allow me to show how unreliable that Press is. When that Press reports an event, and the S.A.B.C. reports it, then one cannot believe that Press when it differs from the S.A.B.C. because what does the Press Commission say? The Press Commission says that when different reports are received from the mining Press and the S.A.B.C. then one simply cannot believe the mining Press. These are the words of the Press Commission—

Then the Press Commission says that no newspaper can report the truth in South Africa if its staff cannot speak both languages. The Commission then went on to say—

Order! The hon. the Minister cannot continue along those lines. The reliability of the Press is not under discussion now.

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, the hon. member for Hospital has continually quoted from the Press …

The hon. the Minister may also quote from the Press, but not discuss the Press’s reporting.

The Press reports differ from those of the S.A.B.C. and therefore hon. members opposite say that the reports of the S.A.B.C. are distorted. I say that where there is a difference …

I said nothing of the sort …

The hon. member can rise on a point of personal explanation.

I want to do so, Mr. Chairman. The Minister should know that I said nothing of the sort. I said that I was reading from the Sunday Times. I quoted from one newspaper and I did not discuss the Press at all. He must therefore not attribute that to me.

When we read his Hansard report we shall find that he read from the Sunday Times and said that the Sunday Times was correct.

Must the hon. the Minister not accept the word of the hon. member?

Hansard will show what the hon. member said. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove and various other hon. members opposite have complained about the fact that the Minister refuses to answer their questions. The questions which they have repeatedly put to the Minister are questions such as the following: From what country is F.M. equipment being imported? What is the cost of the Brixton tower? What changes have been made in the news announcers? What is the circulation and cost of the Radio Bulletin? Which political leaders have been consulted? What about the kink in the V.H.F. tower? Allow me once and for all to make the position quite clear to hon. members. The S.A.B.C. is a completely independent body. But it is not a body which has only to provide entertainment, music and drama; it is not only a cultural organization which wants to reach every part of the population with its own culture; it is not only an educational organization, but it is also a source of information. This organization was taken over in 1936 from the African Broadcasting Corporation and on that occasion the Government called in the assistance of Sir John Reith. At that time he was the Chairman of the B.B.C. [Interjections.] The hon. member will still hear a great deal that he did not hear last year. Sir John Reith was the Chairman of the B.B.C. and as Chairman with his wide experience he came to South Africa to advise the Government at that time on the new broadcasting corporation. The report of Sir John Reith was adopted practically in its entirety. The principles which he set out in that report were as follows: (1) The S.A.B.C. must be independent and have full control over its own activities; (2) there must be no interference by the State in the running of the S.A.B.C., except as regards the determination of national policy; (3) the powers of the Central Government must be very definitely defined in the Act. Sir John Reith also said the following: Neither the Minister nor Parliament, except through legislation, should have any power over the S.A. B.C., except as prescribed by law. He said—

And the reasons for this attitude were that the integrity and the reliability of the S.A.B.C. should not be placed under suspicion. Now, Mr. Chairman, this is so important that no Government in the world can ever overestimate it—the importance of the reputation of the Broadcasting Corporation being left unsullied and untouched by any Government. Recently the Director of the B.B.C., Hugh Carlton Green, set out the position as regards the B.B.C. in England. He said—

He then said that every British Government appreciated the great importance of this—

This is the reason why it was established; the reason for the S.A.B.C. being a completely independent organization, and the Minister and the Government being left with only very limited powers.

And now, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister has limited powers, it means that as a result of legislation Parliament also has limited powers. The Minister is in the hands of Parliament; he is the agent of Parliament. But Parliament has no greater powers than the Minister.

May I ask the Minister a question?

No, not now. Allow me to quote in this regard from Sir Erskine May’s “Parliamentary Practice” and I hope hon. members opposite will pay careful attention to his words. He says—

He then goes on to say—

That relates to nationalized industries.

He is referring, to bodies established by law.

May I now ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, the hon. the Minister has indicated that he is not prepared to answer questions.

Mr. Chairman, May then goes on to say that even questions “on administrative matters contained in the annual reports of the industry” are not admissible. When the S.A.B.C. in its annual report deals with matters relating to its domestic affairs, questions may not be asked here in Parliament in that regard. In the past we on this side of the House have always been very quick with our answers. But strictly speaking these questions are not admissible in this House. Allow me to give hon. members examples of questions which May says may not be asked—

These questions which the hon. member for Orange Grove is asking all the time about what law advisers have said and what their advice has been, are inadmissible. Further—

That is inadmissible. The hon. member cannot come along and say that this, that or the other is stated in some newspaper and then ask for the Minister’s comments on it. He is not entitled to do so. May goes on to say—

That is not permissible—

That is not permissible. All these things only go to show how very limited the Minister’s powers are, but they also show how what a limited scope members on the other side have to ask questions with regard to bodies such as the S.A.B.C.

Does the Minister deny that 400 questions are asked in the British House of Commons every week?

Then I want to refer to the book by Chester & Bowring, “Questions in Parliament”. This is how they describe the question—

I hope that hon. members will remember that in the future. If an administrative obligation has been imposed on the S.A.B.C. to do certain things, then the Minister is not in a position to furnish information in that regard, and he cannot be asked for information.

Mr. Butler stated the reason very clearly recently in the British Parliament when he said—

Nationalized industries.

The hon. member does not know what the difference is between a nationalized industry and the B.B.C. Any body which is constituted by law and of which the Government appoints the board of control is a “nationalized industry”, but the hon. member does not know the difference. Erskine May talks about the position as it is to-day. But the reason why hon. members are so concerned about this position is that during their term of office they continually interfered with the S.A.B.C. and tried to dictate to it.

Have you any evidence to support that?

Yes. Just wait a moment. The position became so bad and the Minister obstructed the S.A.B.C. to such an extent that the S.A.B.C. obtained legal opinion from a prominent lawyer, a member of the United Party. Let me quote this legal opinion. He says—

In other words, this advocate goes so far as to say that these continual questions about the S.A.B.C. are out of order. Questions can only be put to the S.A.B.C. once a year, and the replies are then published in their report. But let me go on quoting what this advocate said—

This advocate clearly states that the only information to which the Minister is entitled, is that defined in Section 24 (1); that he cannot ask for information or furnish information about domestic matters, and that this information can only be given once a year in the annual report. Mr. Chairman, guess who that advocate is. It is Mr. J. G. N. Strauss, former Leader of the United Party. [Interjection.] But that is not all. There was so much interference with the S.A.B.C. that the S.A.B.C. asked him for advice as to what it should do, and this is what Adv. Strauss said—

What he says there is precisely what my attitude has always been in this House. But the S.A.B.C. was still not satisfied. They asked him what they should do if the Minister persisted, and this is what Adv. Strauss said. He was sitting on the same side of the House but he was not Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He said—

He said this because he was sitting on the same side of the House, and here he was being asked to give advice against his own Minister. That is why it was a matter of “delicacy”. But then he goes on to say what the S.A.B.C. should do—

Then he goes on to say—

Here Mr. Strauss clearly outlined the powers of the Government, and he stated that the Minister could not reply to these questions that were continually being put to him.

In what year did he give that opinion?

This opinion by Adv. Strauss shows to what depths that Party descended in an attempt to misuse the S.A.B.C. for their party propaganda.

I want to reply to a few other points as well. The hon. member for Orange Grove has again repeated his old accusation to-day and that is that on 27 October of last year the S.A.B.C. broadcast a report in which it failed to say that Ceylon’s representative at UNO had allegedly stated that South Africa’s expulsion from UNO should be seriously considered. That was the hon. member’s accusation. He comes along with the wild allegation that the S.A.B.C. did not broadcast this, but I have had the report checked, and this is the report that was broadcast that evening—

He says that UNO should consider this. But the hon. member says that the S.A.B.C. never mentioned this.

He said that military action should be taken.

No. The hon. member also mentioned the case of Belgium and stated that the S.A.B.C., in its news broadcast on 27 October 1961 had omitted all reference to the fact that the Belgian representative had expressed his disapproval of apartheid.

I never mentioned that report.

The hon. member did not mention it here but he mentioned it in the Sunday Times. But the actual report was this—

Surely it is clear from this that he expressed his disapproval of apartheid. Why these continual allegations against the S.A.B.C. then? One can only come to one conclusion and that is that however wrong or untrue it may be, hon. members opposite think that any allegation against the S.A.B.C. is permissible, but they hope that the public will never discover the truth. Their tactics are to besmirch the S.A.B.C., and then they hope that the public will read this slander in the Press.

It is not my intention to prolong the debate but on a point of personal explanation I should like to bring the following to the notice of the House. In the course of his speech the Minister accused me of having referred to certain persons who had resigned from the service of the S.A.B.C. because they were dissatisfied and he said that I had advanced that fact as an argument to prove that there was seething discontent amongst the staff of the S.A.B.C. Fortunately I have my Hansard copy of my speech with me. In his speech the Minister specifically referred to three persons whose names I am alleged to have mentioned, Mr. Peter Bloomfield, Mr. Haasbroek and Mr. Lamb. I want to state unequivocally that not a single word of that accusation is true. Here I have my Hansard giving the names which I mentioned and nowhere is there any reference to show that I spoke about Mr. Lamb or that I spoke about Mr. Haasbroek or that I spoke about Mr. Peter Bloomfield. The statement which the Minister has made is completely untrue. I am quite prepared to show my Hansard to him and I think the hon. the Minister owes me an apology.

The question that I raised with the Minister is one of paramount importance and I hope that before the vote is taken the Minister will see fit to reply to the questions we have asked him in regard to this important matter of the privacy of the individual. We have produced evidence to substantiate our charge against the Minister and I hope that the Minister will reply to it.

Various members on this side of the House have raised a very important matter which affects 46,000 members of the Post Office staff, namely the seething dissatisfaction and disappointment which has existed amongst their families during the past year. We did not have one word about the matter from the hon. the Minister in his reply. We demand that he says something in that respect immediately. [Interjections.]

I hope it is simply momentary fatigue that caused the hon. the Minister to sit down so suddenly. Will he indicate whether he intends, eventually to answer our allegations about the tapping of telephones. If he wants a little rest before completing his marathon reply, I understand the position. If he is temporarily tired we will keep the debate going until after dinner so that he can reply later…

On a point of explanation, I have lost my voice for a moment.

I suggest that some of his colleagues should go to his assistance and talk out time until dinner…

We again had the position to-day where the United Party through the hon. member for Orange Grove, showed us exactly where they stood. Once again they have shown us that they only talk to satisfy world opinion. The hon. member for Orange Grove has shown that it does not matter to him whether or not he harms South Africa. I want to quote what he has said in the past—

Those are the same henchmen who have set in motion those plans which have been formulated. He also said that the United Party supporters were Quislings. He is the person who makes important revelations and who spreads poison in this House. I think if ever he has shown himself in his true colours in this House he did so to-day. The hon. member must still make one further revelation after his admission last week when he said that he only had a conscience when he belonged to the National Party but that he no longer had a conscience. All that remains is for him to say that he no longer has any self-respect.

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

I want to return to the finances.

On a point of order, the hon. member said that the hon. member for Orange Grove has a conscience when he belonged to the National Party but that he did not have one now.

On a point of personal explanation, the words which I used in another debate were to the effect that I may have a guilty conscience to-day in respect of things which I had written in the distant past but that I did not have a guilty conscience in respect of the things which I was writing to-day.

You have no conscience.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Sir. The hon. member spoke about the finances of the S.A.B.C. but he did not refer to anything in the annual report to show that the financial position of the S.A.B.C. was not sound. On the contrary, the S.A.B.C. is so efficiently controlled by its board under Dr. Meyer, and is on such a sound basis that it can compete with the best in the world. Talking about this Albu building, why did the hon. member not tell us that the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. had sold that property and that they had purchased three other properties which were being put to proper use to-day? The property which they acquired is situated at the rear of the present property of the S.A.B.C. and another portion is that on which the Hertzog tower stands and the site adjacent to the new hospital in Auckland Park. That is also the Board which has acquired assets in a very judicious way, unlike the old Board appointed by the United Party.

I just wish to mention a few points in connection with the staff who has resigned. He also mentioned the name of Mr. Ralph Buncher, an English-speaking announcer who resigned last year but why did he not add that that announcer returned last week and is once again in the employ of the S.A.B.C.? He remained silent on that. If the people were so dissatisfied with the S.A.B.C. would that person again have applied for an appointment? That is the attitude which we get from that hon. member, the shadow Minister of the United Party; all he does is to do harm; he never refers to the good points. As far as the resignations are concerned, we find that in 1961 fewer people had resigned than in 1960, but they do not mention that. In 1960 three senior officials resigned and 218 junior officials out of a total of 1,535 employees. The juniors who resigned were unmarried women, or people who had taken up other employment. Does the hon. member want a woman, when she gets married, to remain there or must they remain there if they can get better employment? In 1961 only three senior officials and only 197 juniors resigned and during that year there were 1,667 employees. But that is not mentioned. The percentage of resignations from the S.A.B.C. constitutes approximately 1.7 per cent—I speak subject to correction—and that percentage is much higher in the case of other businesses. Nor did he say a word about the fact that of the 162 employees with which the S.A.B.C. started in 1936 about one-third is still in its employ. Is that because they are so dissatisfied or is it because they are absolutely happy in their work? The United Party, through the hon. member for Orange Grove never has a good word to say for the S.A.B.C. for the simple reason that the S.A.B.C. cannot be misused by them, because it is independent and impartial and renders good service to South Africa. Had the S.A.B.C. acted like the English Press, they would have been happy. The reason why they attack the S.A.B.C. so vehemently is because i.t has a character of which every right-minded person will be proud. Just as proud as we are of the S.A.B.C. just as little do we think of the actions of the United Party.

We wish to express our regret that the Minister is not able to reply to the debate this moment. We do not want to cause him any grief in the misfortune which has befallen him and we will keep the debate going so that he can reply after the adjournment. But I think you will allow us, Sir, to point out that what has happened today is the unfortunate result of the practice on the part of the Minister unnecessarily to delay replying to the representations of the Opposition and of making a very long speech after a number of hours, something which will make undue demands on anybody’s throat, instead of replying to questions from time to time. I am sorry that the Minister had to lose his voice because of nothing else than a political tirade and not in reply to the points raised by this side of the House. He as replied to the hon. member for Orange Grove in regard to the resignations of persons to whom he never referred. It is a pity that the Minister should waste his voice on such matters and not on matters to which he should really reply, matters such as the civil right of Afrikaners to enjoy the private use of their telephones. We should very much like to have a reply to that and also in regard to the representations made on behalf of the 46,000 employees of the Post Office. The Minister ought first to have replied to those important matters before he indulged to his heart’s content in a political tirade. We sincerely hope he will be able to reply to those points after the dinner adjournment.

Somebody said a moment ago that not a good word was said about the S.A.B.C. by this side of the House. As far as the matters raised by us are concerned the S.A.B.C. does not deserve a good word but I have a good word to say in connection with the news service of the S.A.B.C. I think that the staff which handles the daily bulletins about what is happening in Parliament do a good job of work generally—I will not say an impartial job of work. I do believe that they give greater publicity to speakers on the Government side than they deserve but I feel that if you consider the value of the speeches, it assists the Opposition, because even short summaries of Opposition speeches make a better impression than the long tedious speeches from the Government side. We greatly appreciate the fact that the S.A.B.C. is giving the country an opportunity of realizing how active the Opposition is in this House, although they are only very short summaries of the speeches. While I am expressing my appreciation, I only hope that you will allow me, Sir, to say that it does happen occasionally that the high standard of “To-day in Parliament” is not maintained. I can give many examples, but I only have two minutes and so I only wish to refer to the weekly summary of the happenings in Parliament which was broadcast last week, on 2 June. It was stated over the radio that as far as a very important Bill, the Pneumoconiosis Bill, was concerned, the Minister discussed the Bill and the debate was summed up as follows—

Many members had spoken, but publicity was only given to two members who really did not deserve it, the member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) and the member for Prieska (Mr. Stander). Many members opposite made valuable contributions as well as members on this side, like the hon. members for Springs and Germiston (District) but no publicity was given to them. The hon. member for Brakpan who did a very wise thing in supporting the attitude of the United Party, got no publicity whatsoever.

The hon. member for Orange Grove launched an attack inter alia on Dr. Meyer also. The kind of argument he used against Dr. Meyer was the following. He will correct me if I am wrong. According to him, Dr. Meyer is supposed to have written in some book or article that the English-speaking people have certain qualities “which mankind shares with the animals”. That now is his complaint against the head of a great organization. Because he, as a philosopher, said somewhere in a work that there are many qualities shared by mankind and the animals, he is now attacked by the hon. member for Orange Grove. Surely that is true, Sir. It is elementary. If the hon. member had said that the proposition was so elementary that Dr. Meyer should not have said so, I could have understood it. But to introduce it as a terrible complaint against Dr. Meyer, as proof of his distorted mentality, is quite incomprehensible to me. He went still further. His second attack on Dr. Meyer was that Dr. Meyer had said: Africa is the land of the people of Africa, and not the land of the Europeans. Surely that is obvious. Germany is the country of the Germans; France is the country of the Frenchmen. When we are there, we are their guests, are we not? The Europeans who come here to South Africa, are our guests here. But Africa belongs to the people who live here. It is so far-fetched in my view, Mr. Speaker.

Are you an “African”?

Of course; I am a White African.

Are you an “African”?

It depends on what you mean by “African”. If by “African” you mean a son of Africa, then I am an “African”. I am merely mentioning this to remind the House that this was the petty manner in which the hon. member and other hon. members opposite launched their attack against the S.A.B.C.

Unfortunately the hon. member for Turffontein is not here. He apologized to me for being absent. The hon. member for Turffon-tein attacked Dr. Meyer, because as he said, Dr. Mever had introduced a system of “the undermining of senior officials”. According to him those senior officials were compelled to resign as a result of this system. But what has Dr. Meyer done? You must remember, Mr. Chairman, that all Dr. Meyer did was to prepare the S.A.B.C. for the development from a small organization with a capital of between R6,000,000 and R8,000,000 to an organization that will probably have a capital of R40,000,00 within a few years. That is not a small change; it is a great change. It is a small undertaking that you have to develop and expand until it is a great and splendid undertaking. The manner in which you organize a small organization is entirely different from the manner in which you organize a great organization. I think it was the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) who pointed out that all Dr. Meyer did was to divide the organization of the S.A.B.C. into four different divisions. He has made a different person responsible for every division. There was finance, administration, programmes and overseas services. He made Mr. Roos the head of not only one of the divisions, but of the lot. He was the senior director. It is humanly understandable that as a result of that Mr. Roos began to feel out of place. The organization had to be changed to fit in with the greater organization. Mr. Roos did not feel at home there and eventually resigned. There was no other reason. Everyone who has seen the development in the S.A.B.C. must agree that the organization Dr. Meyer established has been a splendid organization.

May Mr. Roos reply in public? He was placed under an obligation.

I have never imposed any obligation upon Mr. Roos. Mr. Chairman, permit me to remind you how fortunate we were to get such an outstanding person as Dr. Meyer as the chief of the S.A.B.C. Let me remind you once again of what I have already said before: The S.A.B.C. is in the first place a cultural organization. In addition it is also a supplier of news and in addition an organization responsible for enormously great financial expenditure. It is an organization requiring a tremendous administration. The head of such an organization must be an important person. He must not only be a man with knowledge of culture, but he also has to have a thorough knowledge of financial administration. You do not always find those two qualities in one man. Dr. Meyer happens to be one of those people who possess both qualities. Dr. Meyer had a very thorough training. He was a teacher for years: he was a brilliant student and an outstanding teacher and subsequently he obtained his doctors degree in philosophy. For seven years he was the secretary of a great cultural organization, the F.A.K., with branches throughout South Africa and he made a great success of it. It is an attribute of a man of culture too that if he is imbued with love and appreciation for his own culture, he at the same time has an appreciation of the culture of other nations. Any true person of culture grants to others what he claims for himself. And that is Dr. Meyer. The fact that he possesses this quality to appreciate his own things, he also grants to the English-speaking people in South Africa, and to the other section of the population, to appreciate their own culture. I do not wish to burden you with all the qualities of Dr. Meyer, Mr. Chairman, but he was a very active person in the community. But not only that, Dr. Meyer also possesses that quality that he has a fundamental knowledge of finance and administration. You need test this proposition by one test only. I think all of us know Dr. Anton Rupert, the head of the Rembrandt group. We know he is a genius who at a comparatively early age has developed a gigantic organization throughout the whole world—not only in South Africa, but throughout the whole world. Dr. Rupert to-day is a financier of world format. The secret of such a genius is always that he knows how to choose his people. That is the greatest secret of a successful business man. And who did Dr. Rupert choose? Dr. Piet Meyer. He chose him as his right-hand man. Dr. Piet Meyer was the right-hand man of Dr. Anton Rupert in the entire expansion of the Rembrandt organization. The fact that for a’l the years he was with Dr. Rupert until eventually he agreed to take over the leadership of the S.A.B.C. shows you what qualities he has and what Dr. Rupert thinks of him. That now, Mr. Chairman, is the person whom hon. members opposite wish to belittle with all kinds of petty remarks.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) and the hon. member for Turffontein raised the arguments that the public are very dissatisfied with the S.A.B.C. It does not help us to make allegations. Let us test the allegations with the true position. Let us test them with the facts. Permit me to return to last year. The Press last year started a campaign to move the public to send in complaints against the S.A.B.C. Before they began to organize I as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs received only two letters of complaint. Immediately afterwards the Press began to organize complaints. The Press appealed to the public to write to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and to say: “I am also an unlucky listener.” Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that in spite of all the propaganda, in spite of all the appeals, until that moment I received only 45 letters and postcards. Because the response of the public was so poor, the Argus through its leaders made a further appeal and said “The public must have recourse to complaining to the newspapers”. They wanted to ensure that all the people would write to them. They probably had people on their staff who had to send in complaints. I went through the newspapers of the southern Cape and the Rand, and know that altogether they wrote 98 letters. Do you know how many listeners there are in the two areas? There were more than 500,000 listeners in these two areas. Of these 500,000 listeners only 98 wrote letters after the Press had urged them to do so. I am not sure, but I suspect that a large number of those 98 letters were written in the offices of the newspapers themselves. When that failed, the Press began with a new scheme towards the end of last year. The United Party, the mining newspapers and the Black Sash then did their best to once again create the impression that the public was dissatisfied with the S.A.B.C. The Black Sash then organized a campaign. They placed tables all over in the streets. That was done in all the cities and large towns. Everywhere they made available petitions with attacks on the S.A.B.C. to be signed by people. As they themselves said, they sent “thousands of copies” over the whole of South Africa. But that was not all. The newspapers placed appeals in their leaders and said: “Please sign.” Pictures of the ladies with their little tables on the sidewalks appeared on the front pages of the newspapers, and the public were exhorted with the headlines to sign the petitions. This campaign commenced on 1 December 1961. Now it is six months later. To this day not a single petition has reached the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Nor have I heard of a single petition that has been sent to anybody. Is that not proof that there is no dissatisfaction amongst the public? Is it not rather proof that there is satisfaction among the public? But let me go further. Every year literally thousands of people write letters to the S.A.B.C. Permit me now to give you a comparison between the number of letters written to the S.A.B.C. and the number of letters of criticism they have received. 188,000 letters in Afrikaans were posted to the S.A.B.C. 642 of them were unfavourable. The S.A.B.C. received 234,000 letters from English-speaking people. In other words, many more than in Afrikaans. Of the letters in English only 194 contained criticism of the S. A B.C. That shows that the English-speaking listeners had shown very much more interest than the Afrikaans-speaking listeners, and instead of saying that the public are dissatisfied with the services offered by the S.A.B.C. I may say that the response to the petitions of the Black Sash is proof of the tremendous satisfaction on the part of the public of South Africa with the S.A.B.C.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also attacked the S.A.B.C. because the S.A.B.C. according to him has discontinued the radio broadcasts from UNO and that Mr. Louw was dissatisfied about that.

Yes, I said Mr. Louw was very dissatisfied.

He adduced that as proof of how bad and unreliable the S.A.B.C. is. Here we are now concerned with a peculiar case. We are dealing with that kind of case you always find in life, where both the parties are right. Let me tell you what the position is, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Louw was dissatisfied because he said that the Secretariat of the UNO transmits fair reflections of what happens at UNO. And Mr. Louw was quite correct. Nobody doubted it.

Why was there an attack on the UNO radio service?

No, there was no attack. What the S.A.B.C. did was to discontinue the UNO transmissions. They admitted that the UNO transmissions gave a correct reflection of what happened at UNO but all of it was propaganda against South Africa and the S.A.B.C. is not there to spread propaganda against South Africa. I shall quote to hon. members what was said. You constantly get attacks against South Africa at UNO. Every Dick, Tom and Harry who rises there attacks South Africa. If the persons attacking South Africa express their opinion on South Africa, is that any reason why those opinions should be broadcast in South Africa? Surely it has no news value. Now let me quote the kind of thing that came from UNO. It is true that they are reflections of what happened there, but it is not the kind of thing that should be broadcast here in South Africa. Listen to this: The representative of Saudi Arabia said:

Is that news that one can justifiably broadcast here in South Africa? It is not only the views of a man from Saudi Arabia who knows nothing about South Africa. Or does the hon. member for Orange Grove agree with him? Just imagine that that kind of propaganda that is being disseminated overseas, should be broadcast here in South Africa by the S.A.B.C.?

Our criticism also is news.

Is that what you would like to have disseminated here in South Africa? In other words, you are saying that this is the kind of news the S.A.B.C. should broadcast here in South Africa. Let me read the next one:

Does the hon. member for Orange Grove want the S.A.B.C. to waste its valuable time on this kind of news?

Ask Louw.

I want to read only one more. I have many others—

Is that the kind of thing the hon. member wants the S.A.B.C. to broadcast? Hereby I merely wish to show how unwarranted these attacks on the S.A.B.C. are. The S.A.B.C. has done merely what any wise news editor would do, namely that he will not disseminate propaganda that has no value, propaganda that is only the opinion of people who are of no significance to South Africa.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) asked me whether the S.A.B.C. corrects mistakes in the news. My reply to him was “Yes”, they correct it at the very first opportunity. It has always been done but now the hon. member is doubting it. I am afraid that in that case I can do or say nothing more. If he can prove to me that mistakes have been made that have not been corrected, I shall be surprised. Now I should like to deal with a final point in regard to the S.A.B.C., and that is the point raised by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield).

The hon. member for Umbilo asked whether concessions could not be made to old-age pensioners. He said that concessions had been extended to pensioners residing in certain approved homes. The hon. member knows that there are approximately 86,000 of these old-age pensioners. Many of them live with their own families, either with their children or with other relations. One could hardly justify it that the S.A.B.C. should grant a free licence to every old-age pensioner. I know that the hon. member will also concede that this matter really falls under the Department of Social Welfare. If the income of anyone is such that he can hardly make a living, you will not find that business people will sell their produce more cheaply to him. It is the task of the Department of Social Welfare to assist those old-age pensioners. Notwithstanding what I have just said, the South African Broadcasting Corporation is considering all these cases on their merits. If the Corporation thinks that a case is really a deserving one it does make allowances.

May I ask a question: If an old-age pensioner lived alone and provided proof that he was living alone—being an old-age pensioner he is obviously somebody with very limited means—would a concessionary licence then be granted or not?

That is a matter entirely for the S.A.B.C. to decide. I cannot make any promise.

May I ask a question? Why was a representative of the Post Office present at the discussions and why did he apparently agree? Or do you know nothing about that?

I know nothing about it. Hon. members are merely saying so. Up to now they have not even given me the name of the person.

His name appears in the minutes.

Mr. Chairman, that now is the proof of the hon. member for Umbilo. There is no weaker evidence. No, there is still a weaker proof, and that is the evidence of the hon. member for Wynberg. Do you know what his proof is, Sir? He sent a donation to a communistically inclined organization …

Surely you know that is not true. I have not sent any donation to anybody in regard to anything as alleged here.

He says his son sent it.

I did not say that. I said I did not [Interjections.]

On a point of order, may the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) say it is a typical proof of slanted news?

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

If he says it was his son, then I accept that it was his son. He or his son sent to a communist or a very leftist organization

No, no. The “Committee for the Defence of Civil Rights” and that is not communistically disposed at all.

Let us now get the facts. The hon. member say’s he or his son …

I did not. I said I did not.

Order! The hon. member for Wynberg either has to ask a question or …

The Minister said we could discuss it at the Committee Stage …

Order! The hon. member must either put a question in the customary manner or wait for his next turn to speak …

This is the Committee Stage and the Minister gives me a turn to speak …

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Order! Does the hon. member wish to ask a question?

Yes, I shall put it in the form of a question: Does the Minister not know what the facts of the matter are? I denied that I myself had given any donation to this organization which I say is not communistically disposed. I did not do so. My son stated in the newspapers that he had done so and that the only manner in which it could have come to the knowledge of the Minister, could have been by means of telephone tapping. Will the hon. the Minister now please reply with the truth to the questions I have asked him in this House?

I am pleased to get the facts now. The hon. member admits now that his son sent a contribution to a certain organization. Will I be wrong then if I call it a Leftist organization? But the Minister of Justice became aware of it by some means or other. And what does the hon. member do now? Now he infers from that that the Minister of Justice eavesdropped. How can one make such an inference?

How do you know?

Possibly the son’s friends gave him away, and now because his friends gave him away, the Post Office is being besmirched.

Not the Post Office, you yourself.

So far as I know there is one thing that does not occur in South Africa, save possibly in the Durban Municipality, and that is the tapping of telephone conversations. I can only speak about things I know of. I have told the hon. member so repeatedly. The last time when I denied it the hon. member ran to the papers and said: “I say this is so, for the Minister has not denied it”. Now I want to ask him: If I deny it now again, will he then believe it?

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Will you solemnly declare that you know nothing about tapping of telephones, that you know nothing about any form of tapping?

The hon. member now wants me to make an affidavit. The custom in this House is that a member accepts the word of another member. I repeat that so far as I know no tapping of telephones takes place.

I hope the hon. the Minister will permit me to put two questions: The first is whether his contention is that the Durban municipal telephone system is the only system in South Africa which was subject to tapping of telephone conversations at the request of the Special Division, and that no such request has been made to his Department in respect of government telephone lines? Secondly, I should like to ask whether telephone conversations can be tapped without the knowledge of the Minister or his Department?

The hon. member will recall that there was a period of years when we suffered under the Government of the United Party. During those years, tapping was a general practice. Not only telephone conversations were tapped, but in the General Post Office in Pretoria the United Party had a large room with shelves on which were stacked up the conversations of all the people whose conversations had been tapped. In other words, there was such a time in South Africa. It may be happening in Durban. I know nothing about Durban. I am merely talking about things of which I know. The Post Office, in so far as we have control of it, knows nothing about it. But now the hon. member comes along with another question, namely whether it is possible to listen in (tap) without my knowledge, Of course. The hon. member will recall that Mr. Cope, the then member for Parktown, a few years ago explained here that in America instruments are being manufactured with which private people constantly listen in to telephone conversations without the knowledge of anybody. Of course such things are possible. But you cannot for that reason come along and accuse the Department. Let me tell hon. members this once again: The fact that they are so concerned about the tapping of telephone conversations proves to me that there are many guilty consciences amongst them. Every year the same allegations are made. Why? They are scared of their deeds. Let us forget South Africa for a moment, and permit me to take you to England, and let us see what happens there. Tell me, do you call England a police state? Surely not. Since the inception of telephones in England, there has been tapping of telephone conversations. It has always been there. The Secretary of State there has always had the power to permit it. He gives a letter of authority to the Police, or he gives a letter of authority to the Board of Customs and Excise to listen in, and then they tap. That is the system existing in England. The English Government some time ago appointed a commission of inquiry which called for evidence very carefully, and they came to the conclusion that it is so necessary to combat crime and the prevention of spying in England, that they dare not touch it.

Are you trying to justify it?

In our country, where it does not exist, you get these constant attacks. I have never yet heard of a British Member of Parliament attacking the British Government about something they regard as a right over there. They have never said it is a police state. But with us we are called a police state for the smallest thing, and the reason why hon. members are so anxious to find some fictitious proof to contend that tapping occurs in South Africa, is that they want to go out into the world and further besmirch South Africa and say it is a police state.

Is that your full answer now?

What further reply can I give the hon. member? let me come to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). The hon. member referred to the positron of the Coloureds, but the hon. member went a little beyond his limits for the difference in salaries between Whites and Coloureds in the Post Office is not the fault of the Post Office. The Post Office does not fix the salaries, but the Public Service Commission does. All Post Office officials are members of the Public Service and they fall under the Public Service Commission. The hon. member should have raised that matter under the vote of the Minister of the Interior. Nevertheless, I wish to mention certain points to the hon. member in order to remove certain misunderstandings. The hon. member has said that the position of the Coloureds in the postal service has not been improved. Actually the position has been considerably improved in many instances. A Coloured Postal Assistant Grade I formerly received a maximum salary of R1,080 and now he receives R1,380, a considerable improvement. A Postal Assistant Grade II received R1,020, and now it is R1,080.

With allowances.

I am not suggesting that the differences between the old and the new salaries is so great in all cases. But I am pointing out to the hon. member that there are such cases in fact, and the people I have mentioned constitute a large proportion of the Coloureds in the Post Office service. I think the hon. member may be assured that the position of the Coloureds is better than he himself has thought.

Now there is only one more hon. member I have to reply to, namely the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss). She again came forward as champion of the introduction of television. Let me remind the hon. member that as fervently as she is pleading for the introduction of television in South Africa, so deeply concerned great organizations and many governments in Europe and America are about the effects of television. Let me firstly come to the Conservative Party in England. They are so concerned about the future of England as a result of television that an impartial commission of inquiry has been appointed which has submitted a voluminous report. I am mentioning only one finding they have made—

The commission mentioned various cases, many cases, where a crime shown on television in the afternoon, has been committed the same night or the next day by children, exactly emulated. They mentioned a whole series of such cases. The teachers’ organizations in England were also so concerned that they moved the British Government to appoint a special commission of inquiry also. The investigation of this commission had not yet been properly known, before the British Government considered the appointment of a second commission of inquiry. Let me just quote the following to the hon. member—

In other words, the British Government is concerned about the effects of television on young people. Now it is interesting to note that the same day the British Government announced the appointment of this commission, there occurred a few cases in England where young children hanged themselves or other children, in the same way in which it was shown on television. One sometimes forgets that in the European countries, but particularly in England, television is shown at those times of the day that are most suitable for children in particular, and now one of the American newspapers says this—

Now every parent will admit, and everyone who knows the child, that the example has a great effect on any child. When a child is in bad company and sees what other children are doing who have bad habits, those children are inclined to emulate those bad habits. So it is obvious that children must be influenced by crime on television. It is as the Times Literary Supplement recently said—

Can it be otherwise? Let me mention an example from one of the books on television “In the Lives of our Children”. Let me ask hon. members to listen for a moment to this case, a case that actually occurred—

a school report—

That is the effect of the example. If you exhibit that kind of conduct to children in the bioscope or on television, you must expect the children to try to emulate it. In other words, if you have television as in England and America, you have to expect the consequences those governments have to cope with to-day. And we in South Africa have to be extremely careful. Let me come to another problem of television, and that is that it is tremendously expensive amusement. I think we must accept it as a fact that when South Africa has to introduce television, it should entail at least the same expense as in England. I say this because England is a small country, that requires few stations in comparison with South Africa. For instance, only one station, the Crystal Palace station can service the whole of South-East England, but here in South Africa with its hills and valleys such a thing is not possible Not only that, but in South Africa you will require a bilingual service, and surely it is obvious that it will be more expensive. But let us assume for a moment that the service here will be equally expensive as in England. In England the cost runs to R8,552 per hour. That money must come from somewhere. You cannot expect the licence-holders to meet it from licence fees only. That is impossible. There is only one other way, and that is by way of advertisements. If we estimate that in the course of a year five hours of television is shown every day (I do not want to deal with the reasons why it cannot be less now), for say 300 days in the year (you exclude Sundays) the cost will run to about R12,000,000 per annum.

How can Rhodesia do it?

You cannot derive that R12,000,000 from licence fees only; but from advertisements also.

And if a private company wants to do it?

We should also remember that in South Africa the cost of television will never be less than in Canada for instance. In Canada television costs R75,000,000 per annum only for the C.B.C. and the C.B.C. has only 13 stations. In Canada there are 73 television stations in all, but only the 13 cost that amount per annum. In other words, you may say with safety that in South Africa television will cost not less than R12,000,000 per annum to introduce. In other words, that is the financial burden that will be imposed on the public. Adverstisers do not advertise for nothing. They advertise in order to sell their products. They recover their costs of advertisement on television by increasing the prices of the products. It has been proved that where certain articles are advertised on television, the prices of those products are increased by 10 per cent to 25 per cent. Let us take the matter a little further. Who foots the bill eventually? The masses, the workers and the poor people. The poor people who will acquire a television set as a symbol of status. That is the experience all over. The less wealthy people are the people who acquire these things in order to raise their status in that way. In other words, the R12,000,000 that has to be paid to introduce television in South Africa is going to come out of the pockets of the poor people mainly. You may take it from me that it will cost every man at least R5 per month. Now R5 per month is a tremendous sum of money for the poor man. Now the poor man effects savings on food, on his bread, he cuts down on milk for his children, on clothing for his children. He has to effect savings on necessaries, for he must raise it somewhere.

Now I want to ask whether a single argument has been advanced this evening from the other side, justifying the imposition of this burden on the ordinary man? Has a single argument been adduced to convince us that television is so good then? The hon. member of Johannesburg (North) has raised two arguments. One argument is that other countries have it, that Ghana has it, and because Ghana has it, we should also have it. Surely that is no argument. Because England has to cope with these problems, must we also have those problems? Surely that is no argument. The other argument she used was that it is a good medium of education. But it is exactly the opposite. Let me explain to you why. It is no good you simply holding a television show for the children in the class. You have to explain it and every child understands it in accordance with the extent to which he has advanced, according to the advance of his class. You cannot just teach a child a certain algebraic sum if he has not been taught what to do beforehand. Every child has reached a different stage, and you cannot use one lesson for all of them at all times. The result is that it has been found all over in the world that this story that television is such a good medium of education is fictitious. In fact, the situation is so serious that in France a rule has been laid down that television may only be used for the education of children if they cannot be educated in any other manner. So the French are appreciating the shortcomings of television as a medium of education. But let me mention another example to you. The students at the universities even find that they cannot learn through it. At the Compton College in America hundreds of students went on strike a few years ago and demanded that television as an aid to education should be discontinued in their college.

But if you have to impose a burden of R5 per month on the ordinary man to introduce television, are there any advantages in having television, is there any reason why we should have television? Thus far it has been the policy of the Government not to introduce television, and according to present indications, I can give you the assurance that it will not be introduced in the next 18 months either.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

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

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. Chairman, before you put the Vote I should like to make a statement in regard to the question of salaries of Coloureds. With your permission, I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that at the time I made the statement in the House, I did not know, nor is it generally known by the Coloureds themselves, that the increased wages, or increased salaries, which the hon. the Minister mentioned, would be effected …

Order! The hon. member is out of order.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the first half hour. I should like to call attention to the particularly grave state of affairs which has been allowed to develop to the health of this country, starting some two or three years back and progressing steadily to the present time. That is, Sir, the grave epidemic disease of rabies. Rabies is a very grave disease and exists throughout the world except in Australia and England. It was imported into England in 1918 when a dog was taken into that country by means of an aeroplane. It took that country three years to eradicate the disease which was started in that way. That has happened in a country where there are very few wild animals, is highly civilized and with a population inclined to obey the laws and in consequence under a good deal of control.

In South Africa we have had rabies present with us from as far back as most people can remember. It had never been a grave problem however. Neither had it ever been of a very serious type until a few years ago when things altered. On 9 December 1961 the South African Medical Journal drew attention to the fact that it was writing an article on rabies for the first time since 1949—after 12 years. It pointed out that for the preceding 10 years, there had been extremely few cases of rabies. But in 1961 there occurred, however, an outbreak for the first time in Piquetberg whilst there had until that time never been a case of rabies in Natal. In regard to the occurrence of rabies, there is a table available according to which there were 97 notified human cases in 1959 and it is interesting to note that of this 97, 26 acquired it from cattle and not from dogs. I say that for the benefit of the farmers on the other side. In 1960 there were 61 cases and during 1961 up to 1 October there were 71 cases. Between 1960 and June 1961 there were 103 positive cases—they were steadily increasing therefore. These were cases amongst animals—33 per cent amongst cattle, 27 per cent amongst the small carnivora, such as cats, etc., and 22 per cent amongst dogs. Rabies appeared during this period for the first time in the Albany district.

But let us look at the facts for a period further back. Previously the rabies which existed in this country was of a comparatively mild type; but in the early 1950’s a young girl died in the North of Africa. Her name was Flury and the new strain of virus which was diagnosed was called the Flury strain. From 1952 the Department of Agricultural Technical Services had known that this strain was coming down along the east coast of Africa. They have known about it; but what did they do? They did extremely little. This was a very serious strain. One case appeared in Southern Rhodesia in 1960; canine cases appeared in Swaziland during 1958. And what did the authorities there do? They conducted a campaign and the last case reported was in August 1961. I am told by the medical officer of health for that area that they experienced great difficulty in this connection with the Native population. In April 1961 a Bantu child died at Maputa—a remote part of the Ingwa-vuma region. It was only after the dog that had bitten it, had died, that suspicion was raised and that in an area where there was the danger of rabies ever since 1952! After prolonged investigation it was finally proved that this was a case of rabies. Since then—that is from about December last year—there had been nine deaths presumed to have been from rabies of which at least four have been confirmed as such. 135 people have been bitten by dogs in Natal whose behaviour was suspicious. As at 31 October 1961, 43 dog brains had been examined and of these 24 were found to be positive for rabies. On 27 October the infection appeared in Pietermaritzburg and by the end of October there were a further five positive cases there. On 27 October a dog died in Vryheid and this was later proved to have been from rabies. Finally, on 12 November a dog died in Durban and this was also diagnosed as a case of rabies. I refer to these cases in order to show that although there was a great deal of time and a great deal of warning, this disease, the gravity of which I cannot exaggerate, was allowed to cross the border, to enter the country and was allowed to spread through a large and thickly populated area.

Was it “allowed” to spread?

Of course. I say it was allowed to do that because there are methods of preventing it. That hon. member ought to know that. So it went on until the whole of East Griqualand and Natal was declared a rabies infected area.

One of the most important factors in the prevention of rabies is publicity. The public should be kept informed of what is happening. The first intimation received by local authorities—I am not referring to the central Department of Health—was in the form of a small Press item some time in August 1961. This was to the effect that there was a small outbreak of rabies in Zululand. On 27 August—and remember that the first proved case occurred in April—the State Health Department in Durban sent a circular to all magistrates, district surgeons and local authorities giving certain information. This was followed up on 30 October. It is obvious that during the seriousness of the situation in Zululand from April to August, the State Health Department maintained a deadly silence in regard to the outbreak. None of the large local authorities, like Durban. Pietermaritzburg, Vryheid, Eshowe, and others were notified.

Before I come to the next point. I should like to mention that I requested the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services to send someone from his Department here so that they could hear what I had to say. I did so because they are involved in this. The question to be considered is how rabies has to be countered? The best method of dealing with an out break of rabies, and particularly of an outbreak of which you know the direction it is travelling, is to create a barrier of dogs which have been inoculated against the disease, by destroying stray dogs and by reducing the number of carnivorous animals which are vectors—not necessarily destroying them but an effort should be made to reduce their number. But what do we find? I went into the matter myself and had an interview with the Department of Health in Pretoria at which someone from the veterinary services was also present. We found that five to six months after the outbreak, the best the department of veterinary services could do was to produce 3,000 doses of dog prophylactic vaccine per week. As against that, the estimate was that they would have to inoculate 450,000 dogs. There is a worse aspect to it however. In the last 10 years or so, a vaccine has been developed to prevent human beings from contracting the disease. When I saw officials of the Department of Health on 30 November 1961 the first of these vaccines were available—they were delivered in Durban at 4 o’clock that afternoon. And they could have been imported six months earlier!

I want to impress upon the House that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services as well as the Department of Health knew about the existence of this vaccine for a very long time, but nevertheless the Department of Agricultural Technical Services allowed its own workers to inject dogs without having themselves been vaccinated and that for as long a period as from April to November! It might be regarded as a tribute to their training that none of them contracted the disease, but to me it was also due to the grace of God. It was only after I had spoken to the Department of Health and proved to them by means of a cable from America that the vaccine was available, that it was decided to import it.

This is the state of affairs which has been allowed to develop in this country and it was not until I had made strong representations that sufficient vaccine for dogs was made available. At the beginning of November the available vaccine for dogs stood at 3,000 doses per week. This was stepped up, however; and it speaks to the credit of Orderstepoort and the Polio Foundation which also made a contribution, that the production of this vaccine was stepped up to from 50,000 to 60,000 doses per month. That enabled four teams to be put into the field shortly afterwards in Durban. The situation is coming under control, but it does not reflect much credit on the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services. I want to stress that this country was caught completely unprepared to deal with a grave epidemic. What is more, it was an epidemic which was foreseen. There appears to be no doubt that the Department of Health with its staff shortage will not be able to face a major epidemic. What really happened was that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services was faced with an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in South West Africa. This Department, therefore, also did not have the staff available to cope with the outbreak in Zululand. I regret to say—and I say it with great diffidence—that I believe that the Department of Agricultural Technical Services failed to bring to the notice of the Department of Health what was happening in that area. I cannot believe that the Department of Health, which has an epidemologist on its staff who receives bulletins from the World Health Organization, was unaware of what modern progress has made available in the way of anti bodies for the treatment of rabies, or that it was unaware of the necessity to take fast and strong measures to prevent this from happening.

I should like, at this stage, to give the House an account of what was done in regard to rabies in three other countries. Firstly, Israel. This is a small country which cannot have much wild life because its size is about equal to that of Yorkshire. In 1949, they had 194 human cases of rabies. In 1950 a campaign was started—a similar one should have been started in South Africa—and the result was that in 1953 there were only three cases of rabies! Secondly, Malaya. This is a country which in some respects is worse than we are—it has thick bushy parts which is heavily wooded, a population which is largely uncivilized, and a fairly large wild animal population. Rabies entered that country in 1924. By 1952 it became serious and during August 1951, i.e. during only one month, 41 cases were reported. It was at that point that its Government, guided by the World Health Organization, started a campaign. The result is that from June, 1953, up to the present time, no further cases of rabies have been reported. A similar stale of affairs existed in Hungary.

I do not want to weary the House with what means can be adopted because this is a technical matter although not very difficult. The first lesson we can learn from the recent outbreak of rabies is that there is a complete lack of liaison between what should otherwise be two closely allied departments. Another lesson we should learn is that there is not enough teams available to deal with grave epidemics. For years we have relied on a group of civilized people to the North of us, who fortunately are fairly well-informed on health matters. It seems, however, that information from that quarter will shortly become unreliable and the present barrier will then no longer be available to us. If I were a foreigner anxious to do this country damage, if I were an enemy of this country wishing to do it harm, if I wanted to sabotage this country, I could easily do so by way of spreading disease. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not, here so that I can tell him that he is wasting his money on building up an army and that he should rather invest that money in veterinary surgeons and doctors. Disease is the Achilles Heel of this country-diseases of animals and diseases of human beings could be imported with the greatest ease. Our greatest danger lies in germ warfare. This is not a fairy tale. Because it was not used in the last war, we must not regard this as a fairy tale. We professional people know that before 1939 the Germans were experimenting with germ warfare in Paris. We know that they planted recognizable, but harmless, germs into the underground of Paris and studied how these trains could spread it. So that, had it become necessary, they would have planted disease germs in Paris. They did not do so, however, because they found they could easily achieve their objects in another way and because they were afraid they could infect their own people thereby. It is an easy matter to plant a virus amongst the herds in this country and in our cities. We are backwards in regard to the manufacture of antibodies. There is only one Department that can do so at the moment and I have indicated that it could not handle more than one outbreak at a time. Only one institution in the country, namely the S.A. Institution of Medical Research can manufacture anti-toxins and vaccines. We are very short of virologists. There is, for instance, no virologist in Natal, nor is there an electronic microscope there. A grave feature of the recent outbreak, is that no rapid diagnosis could be made. Every case which needed investigation and every brain which needed examination had to be sent to Pretoria. I know it might be said that this is a function for which provision should be made by the provincial departments of health. There is a public health laboratory in Durban, but is it equipped, even now, to handle this? We cannot tolerate that a large city like Durban, or Pietermaritzburg, or Vryheid, or Eshowe, shall have this disease permanently around it, and that we shall be faced with outbreaks year after year. I believe, therefore, that it is necessary for this campaign against rabies to be fought to the end. The teams which are at present doing so in Natal must remain there and they must work at hours when working men can bring their dogs. It is no good having the hours from 9 to 5 because people are then working. Overtime must be paid to the health officials in order that they may work on Saturdays and Sundays. The working man can and will then bring his dog. This is a very serious matter. I think it is high time that the veterinary services and the Departments of Health and Agricultural Technical Services amalagamated. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down made a plea in connection with a very serious disease and when he warns us in that connection we must take notice of it. Rabies is definitely a dangerous and serious disease but to present it as though this is a new illness which has suddenly descended upon us and to allege that no publicity is given to the illness and that the Department has allowed the illness to spread …

It is a fact!

… is so much nonsense. I agree that we should be wide awake but to pretend that he saved South Africa because of the cable to which he referred is the biggest nonsense I have ever heard. We have known for years that this illness was endemic to this country. We know the disease is with us and we know that the Department is on the alert and I repeat that to suggest that the Department is asleep and that it allows the illness to spread, is nonsense in its highest degree. I leave the matter at that and go on to something else. I know it always irritates hon. members of the Opposition when we thank a Minister or the Government for something hut I am convinced that even the most ungrateful member of the Opposition will agree with me when I congratulate the Minister and thank him for the part he has played in the campaign against polio. My hon. friend says: That is a dangerous illness. That is so. I do not want to enlarge upon that but I wish to point out that although it is true that scientists were the people who discovered the means of combating this dreaded disease, I maintain that it was due to the hon. the Minister who had the foresight, who saw beyond the horizon, who realized the possibilities, who encouaged his people and who convinced the Government that it was right to embark upon this campaign. That is why I and the whole country wish to thank the Minister for the part he played in this matter. On 2 March last year the Minister signed the document officially authorizing the distributions in order to carry the campaign against polio further. I think that document will become a historical document because on that date polio received its death blow in South Africa and I am convinced that I am right when I say that for all practical purposes polio has been eliminated in South Africa. It is really too good to be true but for practical purposes that is the position. That is why it is a pleasant duty to thank the Government on such an occasion because it was the Government who provided the vaccine free of charge and who made an amount of R360,000 available to conduct this campaign to a successful conclusion. It is a pleasant duty to express appreciation to the officials in numerous departments, provincial authorities and local authorities and to doctors, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross, St. John’s and the Noodhulpliga, and the agricultural unions. They all assisted and they all did their best to make a success of this campaign. I think of creameries and butcheries etc., who made their refrigeration facilities available to the Department free of charge for the greater part. I think of Dr. Gear and his assistants, some of them very efficient, who went out of their way in order to solve the problems. I think of the thermus flask which they designed and which was produced in this country at a third of the price that it would have cost to import it. I think of a local factory who worked out a special formula to manufacture the sugar lumps which were used to administer this vaccine. By the way, it is interesting to know that 76,500 lbs. of those sugar lumps were used to administer 20,800,000 doses of vaccine. It is alleged, and I think it is scientifically correct, that if 80 per cent of the population is immunized that community can be regarded as being immune against polio. As far as we can ascertain from official figures it would appear that as far as the White people of South Africa are concerned, that figure has been reached. Unfortunately we encountered some opposition on the part of certain Bantu tribes and that figure could not be reached in their case, but for practical purposes we have reached a successful percentage. We find that as a result of that a certain figure has been reached in Cape Town, a figure which I think applies throughout the country. We find that in Cape Town where there used to be an average of 30 to 40 cases every year, after the campaign there were only seven cases during the last season and in these seven cases the persons concerned had not been properly immunized. I think it will be found that that figure applies to the whole country. In other words, this campaign has been very successful and we can take it that polio has received its death blow in South Africa. It is only necessary to utter one word of warning, namely that when a community has been immunized, or the major portion of that community, whereas that community would otherwise have acquired a natural immunity, had the polio virus been spread around that will no longer happen in the future. [Time limit.]

I want to bring to the notice of the Minister and the House another matter which I think is of vital importance to the health of South Africa and one which I think will interest the public very greatly. Last week this House spent several days discussing pneumoconiosis, I find deaths from that malady in the last year were in the vicinity of 400, whereas deaths from cancer in the last year of which statistics are available were over 4,000. The exact figure is 4,045. I find that in 1950, eight years earlier, the figure was 3,088. In other words, in eight years the deaths from cancer have increased by nearly one-third. Now the difficulty I have here is that the available statistics of the Department of Health do not analyse the figures of deaths from cancer to show in what part of the body that cancer took place, as the result of which the value of the figures is greatly reduced. I think it is essential that those figures should be analysed and that publicity should be given to the analysis of those figures. The reason why I put this to the Minister is that I think it is essential that we should have those figures analysed in view of the report which has just arrived in South Africa of the Royal College of Physicians of Great Britain. I have a copy here of that report. The reason why I refer to this report is that in it statistics are given of Great Britain, and there it is shown that while in recent years the deaths from cancer of other parts of the body have been slightly reduced, the deaths from lung cancer have gone ahead enormously, by leaps and bounds. This report fully confirms the previous report issued about seven years previously by the British Medical Research Council. In order to realize the value of this report, I think I should say a few words about the history of these reports.

It was about 10 years ago that the matter was first raised in the House of Commons because there was spreading alarm at the frequent reports being issued by lung specialists and cancer specialists that in practically every case of cancer of the lungs with which they had to deal they found that the patient had been a heavy smoker. This matter was raised in Britain by several members, but it took three years before the House took any notice of it, because their statements were sidetracked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who at that time was getting £600,000,000 a year in revenue in taxation from tobacco. That figure has since risen to £800,000,000, and it was some time before the House was sufficiently impressed to take action. The House eventually took action and instructed the British Medical Research Council to go into the whole matter and report. That was seven years ago. It took two years to get the report. When that report was issued it greatly startled not only the House of Commons but also the public of Great Britain, with the result that the Health Education Department was instructed to spread the information around, passing the buck as they did to the various local government bodies, to spread the information as to the result of that report. Now, what was that report which so startled the House of Commons as to induce them to take action? The report stated that every 10 years for the past 40 years the number of deaths from lung cancer in Britain had doubled. In 1926 the deaths were 2,510. In 1936 it had risen to 4,180, and in 1946 it was 9,499, and in 1956 it was 20,169, and last year it was 25,000—deaths from lung cancer in Britain. The Research Council was asked to give an opinion as to what was the cause of this rapidly mounting death rate from lung cancer. They made a wide investigation and came forward with the statement that of every 300 non-smokers one died of lung cancer. Of every 300 moderate smokers smoking 15 to 20 cigarettes a day, 24 died of lung cancer; of every 300 heavy smokers, smoking 25 to 40 cigarettes a day, 40 died died of lung cancer, and of every 300 extra-heavy smokers, smoking 40 to 70 cigarettes a day, 70 died of lung cancer. That was the information put before the House of Commons and which compelled the House to take action. The Research Council did not just rely on their own statistics. They reported that they had been in touch with other countries which had been similarly alarmed, and found that 19 similar statistical inquiries had been made in six major countries and they all found the same progression. To impress it on the country, they put forward these facts, that in the year in which there were 20,000 deaths from lung cancer, there were 5,367 deaths from road accidents, and referring to polio, in the same period there were 755 deaths. In that year there were 755 deaths from polio which caused the country enormous expense in eradicating it, but there were 20,000 deaths from lung cancer. I want to finish off by saying that this is the final summing up of their report—

I feel that in view of this thoroughly authentic report I am justified in asking the Minister also to appoint a Research Council in South Africa to go into this whole matter and to issue a report showing what the position is in this country, and also to have the statistics published annually of the deaths from cancer analysed so that it will be possible for the public to realize what is taking place.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. Field) spoke about cancer of the lungs and smoking. I do not swallow that theory about smoking and cancer of the lungs so easily, because I like to smoke. There is medical evidence that cancer of the lungs is more prevalent among heavy smokers than non-smokers but others believe that diesel oil fumes in the air is probably the most dangerous cause and that diesel oil fumes are probably more responsible than anything else for cancer of the lungs. That, however, has not been definitely decided and I am not going to argue that point. I rather wish to congratulate my colleagues, the hon. members for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) and Odendaalsrus (Dr. Meyer) on what they have told us about rabies and polio. I think those are contributions which the Minister should take to heart. I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Odendaalsrus when he congratulated the Minister on the success of the campaign against polio. I also wish to say something about these epidemic diseases. Where the hon. member for Durban (Central) pleaded for immunization against rabies, I wish to ask for compulsory immunization against polio, diphtheria and whooping cough. It is indeed true, as the hon. member for Odendaalsrus has said, that this campaign has dealt polio the death blow, but that applies to the people who have been injected. As far as the generations to be born are concerned we will have to have a campaign every year to immunize them against polio, otherwise they will contract it and the benefits which we have achieved will be neutralized. When you ask for compulsory immunization, you must produce the statistics to prove what you are saying. In the case of smallpox, in respect of which immunization is compulsory in terms of the law, we find that in the years 1957, 1958 and 1959 not a single case of small pox was reported in the Republic and that in 1960 there were 63 cases amongst the Natives and two in the case of the Coloureds, a total of 65 and in 1961 only eight cases were reported amongst the Bantu. That shows that vaccination against small pox does indeed produce immunity. In the case of polio we find that in 1957 there were 1,178 cases amongst the Whites alone, and after the first injections were administered in 1959 and 1960 the figure dropped to 99. Amongst the Bantu there were 800 cases in 1957 and that figure dropped to 224. Amongst the Asiatics there were 47 cases in 1957 and it has now dropped to six. Amongst the Coloureds there were 417 cases in 1957 and 54 cases in 1961. If you take the global figure for all the races together you find that there were 2,442 cases in 1957 and only 383 in 1961. After the vaccination campaign which was started on 1 October last year, only 56 cases were reported in the whole country in respect of all races. That proves that success can indeed be attained by immunization against polio. Then we come to diphtheria. The child is always injected against diphtheria and whooping cough at one and the same time and that is why, when you inject a child against diphtheria, he becomes immune against whooping cough at the same time. What do we find here? The doctors are continually advising parents to have their children injected but we find that the number of cases remain more or less constant and that there were 3.440 cases in 1957 in respect of all races and 2,968 in 1961. You see, therefore. Sir, that it remains at approximately 3,000 cases per year and we know that if you inject the child that child is immunized to a great extent.

How long is the immunization effective?

About seven years. Whooping cough does not have to be reported and that is why we can only judge according to the death rate figures. In 1957, and throughout all the years approximately ten to 15 White children died of whooping cough, between 150 and 200 in the case of the Coloureds, and about the same in the case of the Asiatics. I feel, therefore, that seeing that it is legally compulsory in the case of smallpox I think it is fair and reasonable, in view of these figures, to ask the Minister to make immunization against polio, diphtheria and whooping cough compulsory thereby, saving the lives of our children and safeguarding them against becoming cripples.

I wish to avail myself of this opportunity of thanking the hon. the Minister for the new mental hospital at Stikland. The hospital has been erected on 200 morgen of land. Provision has been made for 1,000 chronic White cases.

Order! That falls under the next vote, Institutions.

I am not asking for an institution, Sir. I am talking about mental patients in general. There was a serious shortage of beds for mental patients in the Republic but due to the erection of this hospital we have been provided with 1,000 beds for chronic White cases and 166 beds for acute cases. There are also 300 beds for Coloureds. That means that we have a sufficient number of beds in the Republic for our White mental patients. Many White patients are also being transferred from Fort Napier and Valkenburg and that means that more beds become available there for non-White patients. We know that there is not sufficient provision as yet for non-White mental patients and we trust that the Minister will shortly be able to make more accommodation available to the non-Whites. We also wish to ask for an institution for the non-White feeble-minded, because they do not have one. In this regard I have in mind the Westlake Hospital which will shortly be vacated; perhaps that could be used for the non-Whites.

We are also grateful for the fact that the Minister has made it possible for us to give all the modern psychiatric treatment at our mental hospital. We know that less use is being made to-day of the insulin treatment and that more use is being made of the new methods, also electrical treatment, which was very extensively used in the past, but not so much to-day because of the new stimulating methods which are used. All that means that we no longer need as many beds in hospitals as we used to but that there is a greater need for outside clinics. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that under this Vote I have the privilege of expressing gratitude to Santa for their achievements in the tuberculosis campaign and for the sacrifices they have so willingly made. We know what an endeavour of this nature demands of its members. Through Santa the ravages of T.B. are restricted, and in some areas it has been brought entirely under control. We also appreciate the financial assistance the State provides for Santa to establish the necessary T.B. beds which now amount to 7,015 in 34 centres. The contribution of the Government amounted to R110,396. Beds we must have to nurse the afflicted back to health, but to check the advance of this scourge the most effective weapon is food. Dr. Bremer, a former Minister of Health, said that he could wipe out T.B. provided he had adequate food. It is a tragedy that our protective foods like butter, cheese, milk and bananas, of which there are surpluses amounting to millions of lbs. to-day, are not distributed at economic rates to the lower income groups amongst whom T.B. is so rampant. On the one hand the control boards are carrying uneconomic and unsaleable surpluses and on the other hand the Department of Health is paying out R10,000,000 every year to fight tuberculosis, which is more than half the expenditure on this entire Health Vote. This R10,000,000 does not include the amounts spent by divisional councils, municipalities, institutions like Nelspoort, Santa, and health centres and the R500,000 spent annually on research. I want to appeal to the Minister to induce the Cabinet to bring about a get-together of responsible departmental officials and to rid the country of this ravage, where on the one hand people are starving and on the other hand there is surplus food which we cannot sell. On the one hand people are suffering from malnutrition and on the other hand vast supplies of food lie in cold storage or are destroyed. I read here in “Santa News” of April 1962, that according to a leading Johannesburg newspaper, the Chairman of the Banana Distributors Association reported recently that the 4,000 crates of bananas chopped up on the orders of the Banana Board at Louis Trichardt not long ago were only a drop in the ocean compared with the thousands upon thousands of tons destroyed during the past six months. [Interjections.] What is the hon. member grumbling about? Has he no bananas to eat? It is most discouraging to have interjections from the Government side when one is discussing an important subject like this. I am not blaming, anybody for the position in which we are in this country, but we definitely should do something about the matter. We should develop some common sense and rather than pay out enormous sums to control tuberculosis, we should subsidize some of the food we have, and perhaps out of the money we save in combating diseases we could remunerate the farmers and sell their surplus products at an economic price. I am sure a balance could be arrived at if only we have guts enough to do it. The responsibility is on the Government and I call upon the Minister to use his influence to bring this about.

There are other matters I want to discuss. I see that R601,480 is spent annually on leprosy, and half this amount is spent at Wespoort, at Pretoria. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether the incidence of leprosy is decreasing and why there is this heavy expenditure at Wespoort. I always have the greatest sympathy for those who work with the ill and who try to combat misery in this world. When I speak of misery, I think of the enormous percentage of Native babies who die before they attain the age of one year, purely on account of malnutrition. In some areas the percentage of babies who die is over 40 per cent, and it is a most serious matter and it is a tremendous responsibility which we must shoulder if we face the facts.

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