In terms of the proposed new Rules of Parliament it will be possible for Parliament to dispense with the Committee Stage either as a whole or in regard to certain clauses. To-day that can only be done with the unanimous approval of the House. I should like to try it out to-day, Sir, and I, therefore, move as an unopposed motion—,

That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 169, the Bill be committed to the Committee of the whole House in respect of Clause 2 only and that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair.

I second.

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

Clause 2 put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment made by the Select Committee in Clause 2.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted.

I move—

This Bill, which makes bizarre changes to the veterinary practices of this country, may be the cause of considerable difficulty in future. It will certainly change the face of veterinary practice, I think. Firstly, it purports to protect the public from charlatanism in regard to veterinary practice. It makes it an offence for any person to pretend to be a veterinary practitioner when he is not so registered. It also prevents veterinary assistants, until such time as the hon. the Minister has created a register of veterinary assistants, to be paid for doing any veterinary work. Lastly, Sir, it prevents doctors from helping in veterinary work.

The clauses which carry this out have been taken over holus bolus from the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, but the positions are not parallel. In the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act you are dealing with human beings and therefore when a death occurs or when a serious crime is committed by charlatans the police interfere with readiness. They investigate the death of people who were not attended by a doctor during their last illness. To that extent it is possible to bring charlatanism where it is practised widely to an end, particularly where it involves life. But all the protection comes from the police. It is a fallacy to believe that the Medical Council or the Veterinary Board can take any action whatever. They only deal with people on their register. The only authority they have is in connection with people who are on their registers. Therefore they have to bring the police into action. On the whole, the police are very loath to take action where there is a remedy at common law. That is, of course, what always happens where veterinary people are concerned. If, for instance, a valuable animal is maimed or killed it is unlikely that the police will take action on the ground of charlatanism or of pretending to be a veterinarian when you are not. As I have said, the opposite holds for medicine. In the matter of the doctor I do not think the medical profession would in any way object to this clause, but I do think it is depriving the farming community of a means of help in their hour of need. It will mean that doctors will refuse, because they are not going to commit an offence by giving help where it might be necessary. As I have said before, the remedy suggested by the hon. the Minister in his speech was hardly one which doctors would accept.

Another point that is of importance is that for the first time in the history of, this country the registration of a liberal profession is tied to a political cord; that is, that if, after five or six years the men, who have been registered under special conditions, do not wish to become citizens of the State they are refused permission to continue to practice. While this may not prevent mediocre or even good citizens with veterinary qualifications from coming to the country it could, I think, hinder very great men who do not wish to jeopardize their citizenship of their own country from coming. If you have a great scientist coming out to carry out some work which might take longer than five years it is unlikely that a leader in the profession will come out. The hon. the Minister should cast his mind back to the rinderpest epidemic in the nineteen hundreds when the Government — I do not know whether it was the Government of the Republic or of the Cape — brought out the great Robert Koch. He came out specially to investigate rinderpest and he discovered a cure for that disease which changed the whole face of the veterinary services of this country. You can hardly imagine a man of that standing, holding as he did a very important post in Berlin, would to-day come out here on condition that after five years he must change his nationhood. I think this introduction of a principle of tying a liberal profession to citizenship is most undesirable. I think it will work to the detriment of the country.

I am very pleased with the reception this Bill has received in this House. This Act provides a very necessary safeguard to a profession which has rendered wonderful service to South Africa in the past, a service without which surely millions of morgen of land, which are to-day beneficially occupied, would have lain fallow and unused. I regret that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat struck this somewhat false note by saying that this Bill is coupled to a political motive. I do not know that obtaining citizenship is really a political act committed by a person. Protection is given in this Bill in this respect. The doors of South Africa are not simpy thrown open wide for everyone who wishes to do so to come here just because he is qualified to make a living here, to come and enrich himself here, in competition with and at the expense of our own sons who are trained in this country to become veterinarians, and who give their services to the State as citizens of the State, as well as people from other parts of the world who wish permanently to render service to this country as citizens of the State. That is nothing out of the ordinary. Personally I feel that without this provision we cannot obtain the services of aliens so easily unless they come from those countries with which we have reciprocal agreements as is the case at present. There is no compulsion. If a person after seven years, in terms of the law as now amended, does not wish to become a citizen of the State, it is very clear that he does not desire to live here permanently. Then his services might as well be dispensed with. The hon. member mentioned the example of an eminent research worker who had come here from overseas. I think the leaders produced by South Africa in this field need not take second place to the best in the world. I believe that we shall produce men in future who will maintain the prestige achieved in the past. In other words, the hon. member is still suffering from that disease of thinking that if a thing has not been imported it is not quite good. We shall not permit him to steer us off course. As we are raising the status of the profession by passing this legislation, I wish the profession everything that is good and great. I hope their work will be blessed in the interests of our country.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, having now reached the third-reading stage with its stricter requirements than at any other stage as regards the limitation of the debate to the subject-matter of the Bill, I should like to say a few things briefly both for the record and in order to put things in the proper perspective. Unfortunately certain members were somewhat confused during the debate. The true essence of this Bill has been confused with other realities that already existed apart from the introduction of this Bill, such things as family accommodation, land ownership and the development of Alexandra. Those things are not a logical consequence of this Bill. I should like to emphasize very clearly once again what is so clearly expressed in one small word in the Long Title of the Bill, namely that this Bill has been introduced for better administration; in other words, for more effective administration of certain kinds of Bantu residential areas. I have clearly stated the most typical feature of those residential areas, namely that they are residential areas where Bantu are living and where they enjoy land ownership, and that for that reason it is not possible for those areas to be managed and administered like an ordinary urban location, because, in an ordinary urban location, the residents do not enjoy land ownership. The outstanding feature of this Bill is that it provides a measure for local authorities better to administer the residential areas where the Bantu enjoy land ownership rights. I have said repeatedly that the fact that such a measure has been introduced does not mean that all rights of land ownership will necessarily be removed. That may happen, but it is not a requirement of the law. I wish to indicate again that this kind of area falls into three categories, and that this type of area may be found within an urban area, within the jurisdiction of a city council, and then that city council is unable properly to administer that area. Consequently we are introducing this legislation in order that a city council, if it so wishes, will have an additional legal means at its disposal, in terms of this legislation, for it to be able to administer that Bantu residential area in the manner in which it normally administers its other urban locations.

Secondly, there may be such a Bantu residential area with concomitant land ownership in an area falling outside the jurisdiction of an ordinary city council, but within the area of another kind of body which is a recognized local authority. As an example, I may mention divisional councils, the Peri-Urban Health Board of the Transvaal, and even the Public Health Board in Natal. If there are Bantu residential areas situated in such areas, which we call peri-urban areas and which require to be better administered, this Bill provides the local authorities with further means to enable them to govern those people as a residential community. All those other things, such as single people, or the family basis or expropriation do not flow from this Bill at all, because existing legislation can be invoked to deal with that.

Then we have the third category where such a residential community of Bantu even lives outside an extra-urban area in what I shall call the rural areas, and where there is no such body or local authority that is capable of being recognized. In that case it will be the Bantu Affairs Commission who will have to go and play that role there. I should like to place on record that the Government has introduced this measure because a hiatus was found in certain parts of our country which, it is true, is more clearly illustrated at certain places in consequence of particular townships. This hiatus is that effective measures of control are not possible under the law in respect of Bantu residential areas with land ownership, and that is why we are offering this legislation as an instrument and as an additional legal means. There is no duty imposed on local authorities. Now there should be fewer complaints that certain Bantu residential areas are poorly administered. There ought to be no excuse for it, because we are now creating an additional instrument here. Local authorities are at liberty to approach us in this regard and to use this instrument that is being offered. I hope that at this stage there will be more clarity, and that there will be greater unanimity in passing the Bill.

I want to say from this side of the House that we want to voice our objection to the attitude of the Deputy Minister in charge of this Bill in his refusal to reply to questions put from this side of the House yesterday. We deprecate it, Sir, and we do not think that the Deputy Minister acted in a fair and responsible manner towards Parliament. He should carry the blame which we attach to him fairly on his shoulders, and he should take the earliest possible opportunity of apologizing to the hon. member concerned whose questions he refused to answer.

The hon. the Minister said that certain matters were dealt with from time to time during the discussion of this Bill which did not really fall within the four corners of the Bill. He made specific reference to Alexandra. If that is so, Sir, then he has only got his own White Paper to blame for it. His own White Paper specifically uses Alexandra as a case in point for the purposes of the application of one of the clauses of the Bill before us. So he must not complain about that aspect, because he is responsible for his own White Paper. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that there is a gap in the legislation which deals with the matters envisaged in this Bill. He said yesterday that there was legislation available to deal with all questions that had arisen, but that it was circumlocutionary and difficult to administer except in regard to one principle. What is the gap in the other legislation which the Minister complains of? The only gap is that the Government cannot declare an area in which the Bantu have freehold title as a Native location. But that is not a gap in our legislation. Sir. It is not by chance that that is so. The Bantu who have freehold title in those areas presumably held a freehold title exactly similar to that of any other citizen of the Republic. It is nothing strange in our general legislation when provision is not made dealing with Bantu compounds, Bantu villages and Bantu areas and other areas in which Bantu are resident in large numbers. It is quite clear that those areas were deliberately left out in the legislation passed in the years gone by for the simple reason that there was freehold title. It is also clear that this Bill is designed, and the Minister now admits it, for dealing with those cases where the Bantu have freehold title. That is why the powers vested in other legislation are invoked in this Bill; those powers are directly imported into this measure which we have before us. The hon. the Deputy Minister said that he wanted the position clarified. That is fair enough, Sir; we also want the matter clarified. According to the Bill before us, whether within or without an area under the control of what you might call an orthodox local authority which includes, in the Transvaal, the Peri-Urban Areas Board, and in Natal the Local Health Commission, but not in a scheduled or released Native area, the Government can use the powers it has under this Bill for the purpose of not only clearing up an area in which slums conditions have developed, but it can deprive the owners of their freehold title. That is the main objection from this side of the House. We object to powers being imported into this Bill as the stalking horse for the Government to deprive people of their rightful ownership, of their title deeds, of the title which they have in that land. We say that if the Bantu in those areas, whether it be Alexandra or any other place, permit conditions to develop on their land which are, from a health point of view or any other point of view, undesirable and so forth, the legislation is there to deal with them, and the Minister admits it. We on this side of the House cannot for the life of us see why the Bantu cannot be treated in the same way as any member of any of the other races if he allows slum conditions to develop on his property. If a local authority finds that the property of a White man is developing into a slum, it does not say to that man: “We are going to expropriate your property.” The Slums Act can be used for the purpose, the Housing Act can be used for certain purposes and they can be used in regard to all races. There is no reason why they cannot be used in regard to these areas which the hon. the Minister is dealing with. The hon. the Deputy Minister has referred to the fact that outside of the area of an orthodox local authority, including the Peri-Urban Board and the National Health Commission, in other words virtually a rural area, the Bantu Affairs Commissioner can come into the picture. The matter can still be dealt with. There is an authority being created here. We have no objection to that, Sir, whatsoever. If the Minister will take from the provisions of this Bill the power of expropriation, leaving him with the powers in the other Acts, because I do not want him to be deprived of the power of expropriation under the Slums Act. [Laughter.] You see, Sir, that is the state of mind of the hon. the Deputy Minister. He considers this to be a laughing matter. The hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration always tells us how much he loves the Bantu and how we should try to build up good relationships with them and that this side of the House does not show a proper approach towards the Bantu. Why does he not speak to his Deputy Minister, who laughs when we are dealing with a question like this?

I am laughing at you.

I did not know I was so funny.

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must address the Chair.

Let me repeat, these title deeds are common to all races in South Africa. The basis on which any transaction is conducted to-day is a willing seller and a willing buyer. We in this Parliament are to-day being asked to agree to expropriation where that basis is no longer possible. We are picking on a section of the population which only has the hon. the Minister and the hon. Deputy Minister in this House to defend them. Those are the two hon. members who should be defending the rights of those Bantu people. I represent Bantu people. As I have said before in this House. I represent every one of the 108,000 Bantu in my constituency as much as I represent any other race. And when we come with a point like this, we do not get the slightest sympathy from the Government, and I cannot see how it affects either their overall plan, their ideology, their final intentions, the target they are striving for. If they want to clear up Alexandra or any other part of South Africa, Sir, they have got the legislation, and the Minister does not deny it. It may be a bit long-winded, I accept that. That is a difficulty of administration. But that does not permit the Government to come through the hon. Minister and demand of Parliament that we give them what are virtually excessive powers of expropriation that deprive people of their freehold rights which they have enjoyed, not for so long. It does not matter to me whether they have enjoyed those freehold rights for a year or a day or an hour or 50 years. When anybody has got his title, that should be protected by Parliament, except under conditions where he himself forfeits the right through some positive action on his own part. We would not do it to other races, why do we do it to the Bantu in these particular cases? I make no apology for coming back to the second point of objection, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister did not want to discuss it, namely the eight blocks of flats which the Minister proposes to build. We are utterly opposed to that.

That has nothing to do with the Bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I trust you will allow me the latitude to deal with the White Paper as though for all practical purposes it is attached to this Bill. It is the official document issued with the Bill, and the White Paper itself states that that is the position. I deal with the White Paper as though it were part of the Bill. It forms part of the contents of the Bill, it is an explanatory memorandum. I do not want to pursue it. I do not want to strain your indulgence in this matter, but that is the second point against which we are bitterly opposed that under the Housing Act which is imported here various types of accommodation can be provided, and on that particular score we are absolutely and bitterly opposed to the Bill, and we shall oppose the third reading.

I must commence by thanking the hon. member for South Const (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) for his gallant defence of me and his chastisement of the hon. Deputy Minister for his bad behaviour yesterday. I too shall oppose the third rending of this Bill. I am not going into any lengthy explanation. The contents of the Bill contain a clause which obviously is complete conflict with my belief…

Order! Before the hon. member proceeds, I thick she should withdraw the word “bad behaviour” ascribed to the hon. Deputy Minister.

Very well, Sir, may I then say “his discourtesy”?

The main provisions of this Bill are going to allow the hon. Minister to continue with a process which has been under way for some time now and that is the expropriation or rather the purchase of property by the Peri-Urban Areas Board of property owned by Bantu stand holders, freehold, in Alexandra Township, which the Minister says has been going on a voluntary basis for some time now, and he pointed out to us that under the Housing Act he could expropriate these properties, but, he said, the voluntary basis had worked satisfactorily up to now and had always been on a fair basis. I attempted to show yesterday that, of course, people were being grossly underpaid for the properties which they were selling under duress, because there was nobody else who could buy the property and the threat of expropriation was hanging over these people. Therefore it is duress and the price that they have been paid was very much below market value, despite what the hon. Minister has promised the Alexandra residents in reply to a question some three years ago. He says that the present Bill has nothing whatever to do with Alexandra Township, but the hon. member for South Coast has already pointed out that the White Paper makes mention of Alexandra and more specifically the hon. Minister in his own second-reading speech when he introduced the Bill made it clear that planning on the basis of this Bill was now going to be extended specifically to Alexandra Township.

Administration, not planning.

Of course it is planning. It says here: “This re-planning will make provision for the gradual establishment of single quarters for single male and female Bantu workers of the Northern Suburbs and Peri-Urban areas of Johannesburg.”

That is the principle, but not the contents of the Bill.

There is no compulsion under this Bill.

The hon. Minister and I differ, of course, but he made it quite clear that the intention of this Bill was to facilitate the principles which he wishes to apply to Alexandra Township, both as far as freehold property is concerned on the one hand, and, secondly, for the establishment of Alexandra Township as a dormitory area for workers in Johannesburg, and I am opposed to both these things completely in principle, and, therefore, I shall vote against the third reading.

As regards the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), in spite of the unsavoury paternal admonition by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), I am in exactly the same dilemma I was in yesterday, and that is that I have to reply to points she has raised but which are not relevant, most certainly not at the third reading. I want to tell the hon. member, and I hope the hon. member for South Coast will also understand this, that I do not take notice of his paternal admonition. I shall always, as I have in the past, reply to points raised by hon. members opposite, and I shall reply gladly and fully, but if points are not relevant, I am not at all an exception to the rule if I do not, as I did yesterday, reply to questions. It is done in this House from all quarters.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question, namely, if the removal of the Bantu from Alexandra is intended under the re-planning, why is it irrelevant when I ask what is proposed to be done in respect of the 14 schools in Alexandra Township? Or is he thinking of using them for illegitimate children?

If you will permit me, Mr. Speaker, I shall reply to the hon. member a little later, with the permission of the Minister of Bantu Education. But I first want to dispose of this admonition, and I want to tell the hon. member opposite that it is customary that when the points raised are irrelevant they may be ignored and the hon. member for Houghton yesterday asked me things which were not relevant at that stage, and I was complying wholly with the ethics of the House in not replying to her. And as to the hon. member for South Coast, who now wants to reprimand me in such a pious tone, I can in turn admonish him by saying that in the course of this debate, in all the stages of the Bill, I intimated to the hon. member for South Coast in clear and intelligible language on several occasions that I appreciated his attitude whenever he supported me, and every time I showed my appreciation to the hon. member for the contributions he made, and it does not behove him as a senior member to be as discourteous to me as he was this afternoon, after the courtesy I showed him personally. But I take it from whom it comes, and in spite of that I shall still be courteous to him in future. It is fitting that as members we should be courteous to one another.

Yesterday I told the hon. member for Houghton that she with her cleverness—we admit she is clever—ought to know what the fate of such buildings is. It is not the first time something of this nature has happened. If such a building has to be taken over, it will be taken over in the way other places have been taken over, and in a place such as Alexandra, where land is so extremely scarce, and where every inch of land will have to be utilized for future housing development there, the hon. member may accept that such a school building will not be abandoned there and will not be left derelict. Those buildings will have to be used in connection with future planning and the hon. member and the owners of those buildings can rest assured. I think the hon. member will now have to admit that I have replied to her.

With reference to the utterances of the hon. member for South Coast in his speech this afternoon, I just want to say that when he referred to the “powers of expropriation taken in this Bill”…

I asked that they be excluded.

Yes, and that is why I laughed and I feel like laughing again because of that. I laughed because the hon. member can possibly make such a suggestion. I have said repeatedly and the hon. member ought to know it, and other lawyers opposite can explain this to him that there already are measures in existence under which there can be expropriation in Alexandra without the provisions of this Bill. But the hon. member has an ideological struggle in regard to his party: Whenever they come across “land ownership” they raise a hue and cry about it. That is why the hon. member clamours about ownership. If we were to omit the expropriation clauses from this Bill, what will we have achieved? We shall make possible even worse administration, and we shall make available more severe measures for the expropriation of properties of the Bantu there. For what is the position? The expropriation made possible under this Bill, with reference to the Housing Act, means that if expropriation were resorted to—which could be done under existing legislation—then the most tried and most favourable means of expropriation become available, namely the Housing Act. Does the hon. member for South Coast not know that in all the urban Bantu residential areas in South Africa which are laid out, when there has to be expropriation in order to acquire land— and it has already occurred in a limited number of instances—that measure is used, but for the ordinary method of acquiring property by purchase the Housing Act is also available? Must we now make the Housing Act available only for purposes of purchase and sale, but not for expropriation? On the basis of experience we have had throughout the whole country, the hon. member surely ought to agree that the acquisition of property for urban Bantu residential areas, whether by means of ordinary purchase and sale or by means of expropriation has always given general satisfaction when done by means of the machinery of the Housing Act.

Throughout the country the machinery under the Housing Act for the acquisition of land for urban Bantu residential areas has always given great satisfaction, and the expropriation procedure of the Housing Act is a more favourable and better machinery. But the hon. member does not wish to create better machinery for Alexandra. For the sake of his ideological struggle, he is constantly on the defensive when the properties of the Bantu are involved, and for that reason he now wants to oppose this. After all a party should not be near-sighted and blind when a good measure is introduced, and one should not oppose it simply for ideological reasons. The hon. member has referred to the right of “freehold”, the right of ownership, but this Bill does not deal with that at all. Where a Bantu has freehold, he may be deprived of it without this legislation. We are introducing a new and more favourable method and the hon. member ought not to have raised his objection.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Last night the debate in the House turned mainly on three points: Firstly, what my policy is in respect of the Indians as regards their political and economic future in the Republic; secondly, what have my Department and I done to implement this policy; thirdly, what are the functions of the Department of Indian Affairs?

I have already largely replied to all the questions, but as misunderstandings may arise as a result of the sporadic replies which sometimes, under the circumstances, stressed side issues, and because I think it is necessary for hon. members, and particularly also the Indians in general, to have a proper understanding of the direction and the functions of my Department, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to present a full picture of my Department’s policy and activities.

As regards the policy, I gave a full exposition of my policy at the request of hon. members last year. The policy still stands and it is still being implemented. One’s policy does not vary from year to year. The broad policy of the Government has been laid down and I do not think it is necessary to go into details. It is only within the broad framework of that policy that minor adjustments have to be made from time to time. Briefly, the policy is that the Indian population of the Republic must be guided to development socially, economically and politically, in order that they may be enabled to accept, in conformity with the pattern of separate development, a steadily increasing say and eventually self-government in those matters that are peculiar to them, such as, for instance, education, local government, etc. That is the main task of my Department, and the justification for its existence is found in this. The Department of Indian Affairs was not established merely to render certain services to the Indians because the Government does not like them to be served together with the Whites by other Departments. The Department is the logical result of the acceptance by the Government of the Indians as a permanent part of the population of the Republic of South Africa which means that this population group also must be given the opportunity for separate development in conformity with the policy of the Government. Social and economic development is inseparable from political development, and that involves separate residential areas, diversification of the Indian’s economy by the creation of a greater variety of channels of employment, and opportunities to utilize their capital for the development of the Indian community in particular and of the country in general. So much for the policy, briefly.

What has the Department of Indian Affairs done to implement this policy? Several speakers on both sides of the Committee have already pointed out that the Indian problem is a very difficult one. I do not think anybody has any doubt on this point. In the past the Indian was regarded as a foreign element that does not belong in South Africa. Consequently there has always, in the past, been suspicion and distrust on the part of the Indian towards the White man and his motives. When this Department was established, it found expression in violent opposition to the Department of Indian Affairs. For instance, when I met leaders of the Indian communities there were demonstrations. The Indians I interviewed were branded by other Indians as Government stooges. Leaders who dared to negotiate with me or with the Department were denounced as lackeys of the Government, and they were treated as outcasts socially. The first task of my Department was to break down this active opposition and hostility and to attempt to create goodwill in its place. The Department has already achieved a large measure of success in this regard, and I can say candidly that only the few leftist organizations, such as the Congress movement and its satellites, are still actively opposing the Department. For instance, people who organized resistance to the Department last year are now prepared to co-operate because they are convinced of the bona fides of the Government in the establishment of the Department. The Department continues to develop this goodwill and is doing very good work to bring about good race relations between the Indians and the Whites. Because the Oriental is a strange and inscrutable being to the Whites, there is prejudice against the Indian on the part of the Whites also, and in this respect also the Department has a task to fulfil and some success has already been achieved.

A second task the Department has to perform in the implementation of the policy of separate development, is to gather together all those services that are presently being rendered to the Indians by other Departments of State, and over which they will ultimately get control, in the Department. Good progress has been made in this respect also during the past year. In addition to the statutory functions originally entrusted to the Department, it has also as from 1 April taken over higher and university education, as well as the functions in connection with education outside the school connection of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. Welfare and social services have also been taken over from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions as from 1 April. The taking over of these services is not a task that could just be completed in a moment. It requires planning, organization and manpower. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) has asked what the 95 members of the staff of the Department are really doing. The establishment of the Department is not 95. On 1 April 1962 it was 78 White posts and 25 Indian posts, a total of 103. On 1 April of this year there were 120 White posts and 52 Indian posts.

Parkinson’s law.

Jobs for pals.

At the same time the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions seconded a number of officials to my Department. This personnel was constantly engaged in rendering services to the Indian population and planning and organizing for the development of the Department to implement the policy laid down by the Government. In this process not only opportunities for employment for Indians are created in the Department, but they are also being trained to be able eventually themselves to handle the services for their own community. The Department is continuing this essential work of the consolidation of services for the Indian population. Yesterday evening I outlined the position in regard to primary and secondary education and I shall not refer to that again. It is clear therefore that the Department of Indian Affairs is not only fulfilling the task of being a link, as Opposition members tried to suggest last night, but that the Department and I have an active role to fulfil and that that task is being tackled resolutely. However, there are certain State functions that cannot be incorporated in my Department, from the very nature of things, and which must necessarily remain the functions of other State Departments. I refer, e.g., to the application of group areas legislation, job reservation, transport, posts and telegraphs, the administration of justice, etc. But in respect of these matters my Department has to serve as a link and constitute the channel through which the Indians may bring their legitimate grievances and needs to the attention of the Departments concerned. Of course, there is nothing that debars an Indian from going directly to one of those Departments with his grievances but as the Department of Indian Affairs is better able to put the case of the Indian by virtue of its special knowledge of the Indian and his circumstances, his needs and his aspirations, it is more beneficial to the Indians to canalize their representations through this Department than themselves to go to the other Departments with their representations. For this reason, too, the Department of Indian Affairs is consulted by other Departments as the expert on Indian matters. The statement that the other Departments are responsible for the determination of policy in their own sphere is correct, of course, and that must be so too, because one cannot have various Departments taking decisions on matters of a particular nature; but the inference that Indian Affairs has no influence on policy in those spheres is wrong. Indian Affairs is not only consulted on an ad hoc basis by the other Departments, but representatives of Indian Affairs serve on a whole series of inter-departmental committees, boards and bodies, which are concerned with the formulation of policy, and in this way Indian Affairs very definitely exerts its influence as regards the policy of other Departments. However, the responsibility for the policy remains always that of the Department concerned and its Minister.

As regards the functions of Indian Affairs, it is necessary that I should give a brief outline of that. The hon. the Prime Minister, in a Press statement, said on 2 August 1961 that the function of the Department is to devote special attention to the economic and social development, as individual communities, of the Indian and Coloured Groups in the Republic.

Did he write out that statement also?

I should like to know whether I heard the hon. member correctly?

Is that an official statement too?

No, this is my own statement. [Interjections.]

Order!

Pursuant to the statement by the Prime Minister, Proclamation No. 74 of 1961 was published, on 1 September 1961 announcing the establishment of the Department of Indian Affairs, and the following functions were entrusted to it: (a) the promotion of the interests of the Indian community in the Republic of South Africa; (b) the making available of means, opportunities and facilities for providing for the needs of the Indian communities; (c) the provision, where necessary, of auxiliary services; (d) the administration of the following Acts: (1) the Indian Immigration Law of 1891 (Act No. 25 of 1891, Natal, as amended by Act No. 2 of 1907, Natal); (2) the Indians Relief Act of 1914 (Act No. 22 of 1914, as amended); (3) The Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act of 1927 (Act No. 33 of 1927, as amended); (4) the Act of 1907 to amend the Asiatics Act (Act No. 2 of 1907, Transvaal); (5) the Registration of Asiatics Amendment Act, of 1908 (Act No. 36 of 1908, Transvaal); (6) the Indian Immigration Bureau Transfer Act, 1949 (Act No. 31 of 1949); (7) the Admission of Persons to the Union Regulation Act, 1913 (Act No. 22 of 1913, as amended), in so far as it relates to the inter-proviricial movement of Indians; and (e) other matters to be determined from time to time. As from 1 April 1963 the following further services in respect of Indians were transferred to the Department: Firstly, welfare services and pensions. This entails the administration firstly of certain provisions of the Children’s Act of 1960, the Old Age Pensions Act of 1962, the Blind Persons Act of 1962, as amended, including the registration of blind persons; the War Veterans’ Pensions Act of 1962, and the Disability Grants Act of 1962 as amended. It further entails the giving of temporary State aid under the revised memorandum on poor relief and the work in connection with medical aids for the Department of Health. That also involves the control of allowances to dependants, of leprosy patients and conditionally discharged lepers, the subsidization of homes for the aged people, the subsidization of infirm old people in provincial hospitals. Furthermore, the following education services were also transferred to my Department on 1 April 1962 namely the control and administration of the University College for Indians in Durban, and secondly the control over the administration of the M. L. Sultan Technical College in Durban, with its branches in Pietermaritzburg and Stanger. Since April 1962 the Department also has taken over control, in terms of the provisions of the Special Education Act, No. 9 of 1948, of the administration of the Arthur Blaxall school for the blind in Durban. In addition to this long list of statutory duties we have taken over, all passports and travel documents are issued to Indians in the Republic by my Department by virtue of delegated powers on behalf of the Department of the Interior.

Then I think it is necessary to give hon. members some idea of the liaison services my Department is rendering in the interest of the Indians. I just want to mention a number of commissions, committees and boards on which my Department serves. I do not know whether this list is complete, but it is all I could lay my hands upon in my haste this morning. First, there is the Committee for the Campaign against Malnutrition, second, the Auxiliary Committee for Physical and Industrial Planning of the Natural Resources Development Council, third, the Inter-Departmental Committee for Rehabilitation, fourth, the Inter-Departmental Advisory Committee on Juvenile Delinquency; fifth, the Inter-Departmental Advisory Committee for Educational and Social Research, sixth, the National Housing Commission, seventh, the S.A. Council for Alcoholism, eighth, the S.A. National Child Welfare Council, ninth, the Inter-Departmental Committee for the Transport of Non-Whites, tenth, the Regional Committee of the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board, eleventh, the Regional Planning Committee for the Pietermaritzburg-Durban Complex, and twelfth, the Inter-Departmental Committee for the Development of Forms of Local Government for Indians and Coloureds. I think after having given this exposition of the functions of my Department and of what my Department has done in this very short period already, that the hon. member for South Coast will agree with me that he tried last night to paint a picture that does not fit in at all with the comprehensive activities of my Department during the short period of its existence, and that my reference to the colossal task of the small group of people with whom we had to start, and which they carried out, was fully justified.

I have listened with interest to the Minister, and it appears to me and to most members of this Committee that the Minister came to this House last night and took part in the debate totally unprepared. If there was any confusion in the minds of hon. members last night as to what his functions were, it took a prepared statement to clear the air, not only on this side but on his own side as well. Last night we came away with the impression, from what he said, that he was simply a link between the Indians and the other Departments. If he knew his portfolio last night, these points should have been put to us then, and it would have obviated a lot of the difficulty that has arisen.

I did not think it was necessary to repeat what I had already said last year and I replied only to the specific points raised.

This long screed that the Minister has read out this afternoon is all contained in the Estimates, and it was not necessary to read it again. The fact that he has to administer six or seven additional laws does not make this Department so difficult to administer. In addition, a lot of the points he read out cut across already existing services and should not be separated from the existing services. There is no need for the Minister to take under his care, for example, Social Welfare or the medical services for the Indians. Disease does not make any distinction between race or colour. All I can say is that it is a vote of no confidence in the hon. Minister of Health, and the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare if he has now decided to take these matters under his own wing.

What is very important, however, is what the policy of this Government is concerning the Indians. The Minister says it has remained unchanged. He means that it has remained unchanged since the scheme of repatriation has been done away with. I have listened carefully to what the Minister said and it seems to me that not only is there an attempt to run the affairs of the Indian community parallel with those of the Coloured community, but virtually it is the same policy for the Indians as for the Coloureds. I am sure the Minister has emphasized that to-day, and it was also emphasized last night by the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee).

That is the first correct statement you have made.

If that is the case, is there to be any alteration in the representation of the Coloureds in this House?

No. The Prime Minister told you that.

If the Coloureds are going to retain representation in this House and the policy in regard to them is going to remain unaltered, where do the Indians come in? Is the Minister going to recommend that the Indians have representation in this House?

No.

And if not, I would like to know why not, and if not, how can it be compared along the same lines with the Coloured people? These are very important points. The whole policy concerning the Indians depends on their political representation here, because the Minister said that politically and economically these things run hand in hand and you cannot separate the one from the other. If economically he wants to bring the Indians to the same level as the Coloureds, then surely politically he must do the same. You cannot have the same policy in parts. That is the crux of the matter concerning the present uneasiness in the minds of the Indians.

What uneasiness is there?

That is the point which we would like to have cleared up as soon as possible. I want the Minister to reply and let us and the Indians know how they stand. Will they get representation in this House or not?

In the short time I have, I want to bring to the Minister’s notice a parochial matter which, although it may only concern the Indians in my constituency, I am sure the same thing takes place in many other constituencies. Due to the Group Areas Act, Indians are given permission to trade in certain areas. They are unable to move from one shop to another. He is a fixture for a temporary period in one spot. Because he has no security of tenure, it is impossible for him to enter into a lease with the landlord. Now I find that many of these Indian traders, small people, who possibly have been trading on the same site for 20 years or more, suddenly find that the landlord is exploiting the position, and these Indian traders are being squeezed by the landlords and their rents are continually being increased. The landlords know that they have no other place to go to. It means that they must either go out of business or go insolvent. Some of them have actually gone insolvent in my constituency because of the unfair rise in rents, which has put them out of business. I would urge the Minister to go into this matter and see whether or not these rentals cannot be fixed for them. It is grossly unfair to allow this sort of thing to happen to these unfortunate individuals. If it is the Minister’s policy to get rid of them as soon as possible, of course that is the way to do it, but I think it is grossly unfair that while they are allowed to trade in the area they should be exploited in this way. I urge the Minister to take steps as soon as possible to fix these rentals, giving due regard to the rise in the value of properties, but I say that while these people are trading they should be allowed to have a fixed rental for their premises.

You feel you should rather remain quiet about the sneering remarks which have come from the other side against the Minister, Sir. You feel that you should ignore them because hon. members are only making this thorny problem more difficult. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) wants a definite reply in regard to the ultimate form of our Indian policy. He wants to know whether we are going to give them representatives in this House as in the case of the Coloureds. As far as I am concerned I do not think it is even necessary for the Government to negotiate in the greatest detail with the Indians as it does in the case of the Coloureds. It is not necessary to have absolute uniformity. The announcement by the Prime Minister that we shall deal with the Indians along the same lines of parallel development is sufficient to indicate the direction in which we shall develop. What hon. members opposite do not want to understand is that as far as the Indians are concerned we are dealing with a section of the population which is absolutely unique and the only one of its sort, and that their presence here trebles our racial problem. The Indians came here a little over 100 years ago for material reasons only. They worked here and entered the other provinces except the Free State. Throughout the years supporters of both sides of the House have had only one idea namely that they would have to emigrate and that they would ultimately have to be deported from the country. The fact that we now have to accept them as citizens of this country was a very bitter pill to swallow for me and many others. As far as I myself am concerned I still cannot associate myself with the idea, I cannot reconcile myself completely with the idea. I accept it against my will and I must accept it because there is obviously no other way out. I have the highest respect and regard for the Minister who has been saddled with the task of carrying out a policy of finding room for the Indians within our social and political economy, where they have to live, how they must develop and what peculiar position they must occupy in future. Hon. members opposite expect that the Minister, who was only appointed about a year ago, should already have obtained wonderful results. He is busy laying the foundations for a new Department and, as in the case of a house, you must make absolutely sure that your foundations are sound so that you can be sure that the building will be firm. Similarly the Minister has to go ahead carefully and take all the facts into account.

The Indian nation is a nation which does not adapt itself easily. They stem from one of the oldest Eastern cultures. They have always remained isolated here. They are unadaptable as far as their religion, their language and their way of life are concerned. They are totally different from the Bantu and the Coloured who are indigenous national groups. It is true that they have learnt English and Afrikaans for their own purposes but we have not learnt their language and their religion and their culture have not been taken over here to any appreciable extent. They must be treated differently from any other races who have accepted the Western way of life more readily. The Indian is now given a second chance. He had his first chance in 1946-7 when the Smuts Government offered him representation in this House and in the Provincial Council of Natal. He spurned the hand of General Smuts. We on this side did not subscribe to the Smuts plan but it was a golden opportunity for the Indians to show that they were prepared to take part in the administration of the country. It was offered to them although nobody on this side was reconciled to the idea. With the establishment of this Ministry and this Department this Government is now giving the Indian a second chance. The initiative must now come from the Indian and he must show whether he is prepared to follow the direction which is indicated to him, whether he wants to make use of the services which are offered to him. whether he wants to co-operate with the Minister and the Government or whether he wants to continue focusing his eyes on the East; whether he wants to continue to make common cause, like the Indian Congress and other organizations, with the Afro-Asian ideology which regards the Indian in South Africa as a very important “lebensraum” outpost for India in Africa and also in South Africa. The Indians must tell us whether they want to make common cause with all the Pan Africanist organizations in Africa and inside our country to overthrow the White Government. If that is the reason why they do not want to cooperate they must say it but they must also know that they will not make any progress; that they will not be able to work out their own salvation and that drastic action will probably be taken against them. I regard the establishment of this Department as a very great concession to the Indian population. I look at it from this point of view that the Government is trying to build a bridge to reach them but I should rather compare that bridge with a thin layer of ice across a river; while that layer is still very thin the Indian should be very careful to prevent that ice from breaking. We are offering them the opportunity and they must accept it. We expect the Opposition on the other side to co-operate. Because this problem is so difficult and delicate we expect the Opposition to support us and not, from the very outset, from the very inception of this Department, to attack the Minister in such a sneering way. The hon. the Minister is faced with an extremely difficult task, in many respects more difficult than the task with which the Minister of Bantu Administration is grappling. He has a more difficult task than the Minister of Coloured Affairs because he is dealing with this specific national group which represents a foreign civilization, a group which is maladjusted to us, a group which really does not fit into our social and political structure. They are traders in the Transvaal and they live in the main streets of our towns. They do not do any manual work. Most of those in Natal are labourers and they are in competition with Bantu labour in the sugar plantations, in agriculture and in general. Mr. Chairman, we must approach this problem in a calm, sane, well-considered and careful manner; we must keep our balance and if we do not we shall only make the problem more difficult. That is why I hope and trust that the Opposition will adopt a more moderate attitude, that they will adopt a more positive attitude and give the Government greater support. I refer particularly to Natal where there are 394,000 Indians as against 62,000 in the Transvaal and 20,000 in the Cape Province. Hon. members from Natal should therefore rather be more sympathetic towards the Government in its attempt to find a solution for this problem because if the Government were to succeed in establishing good relations and in making a success of this Department, the people from Natal will gain much more by it than the inhabitants of any other province. As far as the Free State is concerned we can fortunately say that in this respect it is a free State because there only 16 Indians within its borders. To them we say “free State!”

The hon. member for Marico (Mr. Grobler) has mentioned various matters concerning the Indian community. He says that the task of the Minister of Indian Affairs is perhaps even more difficult than that of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I think we must bear in mind that the Indian community is not a section of the community, like the Bantu, which is going through a process of evolution. We are dealing here with a section of the community which is well established, which has a strong cultural background and which has an advanced civilization. There are numbers of responsible Indian leaders who are so highly civilized that I cannot see how the hon. member can say that the hon. Minister’s task is perhaps a more difficult one than that of the Minister of Bantu Administration who has to deal with the Bantu where we find a vast difference between members of the community who are still primitive and others who have advanced along the path of evolution. This afternoon the hon. Minister read out a very carefully prepared statement which was listened to very attentively by the hon. the Prime Minister, an important statement setting out Government policy and the functions of his Department. I am afraid it still seems to me that there is a great deal of confusion in regard to certain aspects of this policy, and one of those is the ultimate political goal for the Indian community in South Africa; what their destiny is in regard to political development. The other aspect is the exact nature of the functions of the Department of Indian Affairs. Although the Minister mentioned various Acts which are now being administered by his Department and also a number of inter-departmental committees on which his Department has representation, when one gets down to the basic position, one finds that there is very little really that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs can achieve as an administrative officer in the Cabinet in regard to legislation because it is not within his power to control the situation. For instance, two particular matters which are causing a great deal of concern amongst the Indian community are job reservation and unemployment, and then there is also the question of the application of the Group Areas Act. We have heard from the Minister that it is not within his power to alter those Acts, but the fact remains that these measures vitally affect the lives of the Indian community. As the Minister responsible for the well-being and the welfare of some 500,000 Asiatics in South Africa ii is vitally important that he should use his influence to bring about an alleviation of the conditions under which many Indians are living. The various inter-departmental committees, on which the Indian Affairs Department has representation, consists for a greater part of purely advisory committees. There is one particular aspect to which I want to refer again at a later stage in regard to the duties of the Minister and members of his Department in regard to legislative enactments. First of all, however, in dealing with the question of unemployment amongst the Indian community I would like to say that although there is extreme wealth amongst a very small section of the Indian community, there is also extreme poverty amongst the vast majority of the Indian population. Sir, as the result of various factors, various welfare organizations in 1959 formed an unemployment committee which endeavoured to bring about an alleviation in the position of the Indians, particularly the poorer classes. As a result of the formation of that committee a survey was carried out by the Institute for Social Research of the University of Natal. I am sure the Minister has received the report produced by this committee, because I know for a fact that members of his Department were interested in the deliberations of this committee and attended as observers on a number of occasions. This survey showed that some 15,000 adult Indians were unemployed in 1962. I believe that there has been a slight decrease since then in the number of unemployed Indians in Durban, but the fact remains that the figure supplied to us by the Department of Labour only covers those Indians who are registered with the Department and, as this report says, only 11 per cent of the unemployed Indians were actually receiving unemployment insurance benefit or were in contact with the Department of Labour. It is clear from these figures that the question of unemployment amongst the Indians is a very real problem indeed. But what makes the position even more acute is the difficulty experienced by younger Indians in finding avenues of employment. For instance, the report mentions that unemployment is most severe amongst the younger work seekers, particularly those under the age of 19, only 43 per cent of whom are employed. When we look at the other figures contained in this report we find that 23 per cent of all the work seekers have never worked before. These figures show that unemployment is a very serious problem as far as the younger Indians are concerned because according to the latest figures, from 1951 to 1961 there was an increase in the Indian population of Natal only from 299,000 to 440,000, an increase of 25 per cent. The 1960 census revealed that of the Indian population in Natal, 131,000 were children under 15 years of age, in other words, 40 per cent of the total Indian population in Natal. If young Indians are finding it difficult to-day to find avenues of employment then we can imagine how much worse the position is going to be in four or five years’ time when such a large number of Indians will be seeking employment. The responsibility of the Department of Labour is a very heavy one as far as this matter is concerned, but my plea to the Minister as Minister of Indian Affairs is that he should try to seek further avenues of employment for the Indians, because unless that is done we shall have a very real social problem on our hands. The Minister mentioned last night that a socio-economic survey was being carried out by his Department, but I want to stress the urgency of this problem of finding avenues of employment for the Indian people. I particularly mention this because there are certain steps which have been taken which have made the position even more difficult for the Indian community. For instance in terms of a Government Gazette notice dated 18 January 1963, the Minister of Labour, under the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956, Section 77, promulgated a determination whereby the position of barmen in White bars will be restricted to White persons only. Here we have an application of job reservation which excludes the Indian community from a further avenue of employment. We know that the catering trade is one in which the Indians have traditionally found a means of livelihood, and yet here we have a determination which will completely close this avenue of employment to the Indians. I would like to know whether the Minister of any member of his Department were consulted before this determination was made. I feel that this is a very important determination. I know of cases in Durban where the hotelier has found that an Indian barman is performing his work satisfactorily and has decided to employ Indians as barmen, but he now finds that from 18 July 1963 in terms of this determination, that avenue of employment will be blocked to the Indian people. The position is even more curious when you realize that the Indian waiter will be allowed to come and serve you in a bar lounge but he will not be allowed to serve you over a bar counter. Sir, these are some of the steps which are taken by other Departments but which vitally affect the Indian community. Sir, last year in the Other Place the Minister in dealing with the question of Indian housing said that steps would be taken to ensure that Indians would be used in housing projects. However, in the case of the Indian housing scheme at Chatsworth, which will ultimately house about 160,000 Indians, we find that the National Housing Commission is building a type of concrete-block house where the contractors are using African labour. I believe that if a certain number of these houses were to be constructed of brick, thus allowing the employment of Indian labour, it would once again relieve the unemployment position amongst the Indian community. As far as other aspects of the welfare and the well-being of the Indian community is concerned, the hon. Minister mentioned certain services which were being taken over from the beginning of April of this year. One of those services is welfare. As I have mentioned earlier, the incidence of poverty amongst a certain section of the Indian community is a matter of grave concern to the welfare organization. There are certain philanthropic Indians who have made available funds for their own welfare organizations which are assisting those unfortunate members of the Indian community who have to receive some form of charity or assistance. [Time limit.]

I am very pleased indeed that the hon. the Minister of Health is present because what I want to say concerns him to some extent. I refer particularly to the M.L. Sultan Technical College. I suggest to the Minister that there are certain auxiliaries in medicine who cannot be produced by the Indian community. The Indian community in South Africa, through the agency of King Edward VIII Hospital, has produced quite a large number of Indian doctors. In fact, I think they must be very near saturation point. Some 30 years ago there were perhaps five or six Indian doctors in the whole of the Transvaal and Natal; to-day there is no village, quite apart from the larger towns between Johannesburg and Durban or between the Umzimkulu and the Tugela, which does not have at least one Indian doctor. The Indians have gone further than that; they themselves have financed a private hospital in Durban with about 250 beds. They do a certain amount of charitable work but they also take in private patients who pay their own way and who are looked after by Indian doctors or European specialists, if needed. The Indian doctors, because of the fact that they are reaching saturation point, are beginning to specialize. Already we have at least two Indian specialists practising in Natal. There may be some in the Transvaal although I do not think so. One of the ways in which Indian medical technologists and technicians could be trained would be if the M.L. Sultan Technical College would work in co-operation with the University of Natal. The Indian has shown by his development in medicine, at any rate, that he has the potential, as the Minister of Education puts it, to be educated in scientific work, but there is no means whereby he can qualify as a medical technologist except in a place like the M.L. Sultan Technical College or the Indian University, but his practical work would have to be done in a hospital. He must therefore get his qualifications from the University of Natal. I am sure that this would be supported by the Minister of Health because there is a great shortage of technologists in any case and there are none at all amongst the Indians. Surely some arrangement can be made whereby the M.L. Sultan can give not the practical part but the theoretical part of the education; there can be no possible excuse for not allowed these people to do some of their practical work in a non-European medical school. The point is that up to now the Government has only permitted the training of non-European doctors and not non-European technologists and technicians; that is, of course, a different type of degree. I hope that the Minister will discuss this with the Minister of Health and see what can be done in this direction.

I want to refer again to this technical college and draw attention to the fact that one of the greatest avenues of employment for Indians is as market gardeners. There are in actual fact not only market gardeners amongst the Indian community, there are some Indian sugar planters who have fairly large tracts of land. There is no mechanism by which these Indians who have lost their traditional skill in land husbandry and who, being purely tenants on the whole, are rather apt to work out the land and then move on, to be taught to re-acquire this traditional skill of theirs. The time has come when these people should be given land and taught to look after their land. If you read about India and talk to the Indians themselves you will find that in the past they had a very high degree of skill in agriculture. They are very keen to get back to the land. In that respect they resemble other nations. They damage the land to-day because it does not belong to them. They do not put much back into the land; they take everything out, and you cannot blame them for doing so; they are not the only people who do so. The fact remains, however, that if they were given a fair chance I am sure they would learn very quickly and they would become good gardeners. Sir, this is not the first time I raise this matter in this House; it is at least the third time, but this time I am dealing with the Minister of Indian Affairs, so there is some little hope that perhaps he will do something about it. Some effort should be made to give an agricultural college to the Indians or to give them instruction, somehow or other, so that they can learn how to look after the land as they did in the past and learn what crops to grow. They should also be helped with their marketing. So much with regard to education.

Then I want to refer also to the university college for Indians where I understand the examinations are carried out by the University of South Africa. As far as I have been able to discover, there seems to be an effort to allow a standard which I do not think is altogether satisfactory. I hesitate to speak on this matter but I think it is necessary that it should be known that on the whole the examinations at this college are set by the teachers. I know I am going to be told that there are moderators appointed by the University of South Africa, but the only thing that a moderator can do is to see that the examination has been properly conducted. If the teacher sets his own examination, it is quite obvious that he is not going to set a paper on a broad scale; he will set it within his teaching sphere, and one can hardly say that a qualification obtained under those circumstances is likely to be of the same standard as a university qualification which is obtained at a university where there is an outside examiner who sets most of the papers and who in the oral and practical work has the last word as to whether a student passes or fails. Sir, those are questions which are worrying the Indians because they feel that on the whole they are not being given a standard (as they are in medicine) which is equivalent to the standards of other universities in the country.

Let me start with the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and also the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), who, in spite of everything I have said, maintain that there is still no clarity in regard to the political future of the Indians. If hon. members opposite cannot comprehend it yet, then I also understand why they are sitting on that side and not on this side of the House, because it has repeatedly been stated clearly that the policy of separate development means separate political rights. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, their particular position has to be taken into account, namely that they previously had political representation in this country which we do not want to deprive them of. In spite of the fact that they have been placed on a separate Voters’ Roll they retain their representation in this House.

For how long?

That is not relevant. I am saying now that because they enjoyed representation here before they will not be deprived of it, but now that hon. member again starts doubting. There is no idea of taking it away. If perhaps one day the Coloureds themselves were to ask for it one could consider it, but of our own volition we will never consider depriving them of their representation in this Parliament. That is a right they have and which we will not take away from them.

In regard to the Indians, the position is different. The United Party offered them representation in this Parliament on the same basis on which we are now giving it to the Coloureds, but the Indians refused it. They did not want it and therefore it would be useless again to offer them something they have already rejected.

But it is quite a new generation now.

I heartily wish that we could have a new generation of United Party members. Then there would perhaps be more sense spoken in these debates in regard to these matters. I say that the political rights of the Indians will be limited to self-government within their own community, but there it will end. I do not wish to say more about it.

I want to come to the actual problems mentioned here. The hon. member for Rosettenville referred to the exploitation of Indian tenants. The hon. member knows that rent control in respect of business premises was lifted some time ago already, and the only way in which to protect Indian traders will be to reintroduce it. That is a matter which falls under the Department of Housing. But if rent control is reintroduced, it cannot be applied only in respect of premises occupied by Indians; it will have to be applied throughout the whole area. I do not think that is practicable. We have already in the past brought the details to the notice of the Department of Housing, and where there are specific cases and hon. members bring those cases to our notice, we will in turn bring them to the notice of the Department of Housing. I just want to point out that rent control is not always the solution, because our experience in regard to houses, in regard to which rent control still exists in most of the large centres, is that in spite of rent control the most grievous exploitation of Indians takes place. Numerous cases are brought to our notice where the rentals indicated on the receipts correspond with the rental fixed, but every month the lessees have to pay a certain sum in so-called “key money”, which amounts to considerable sums. One cannot always find the proof that this is being done. The lessees are often only too thankful to have a roof over their heads, with the result that they pay those amounts. That type of exploitation therefore really takes place on a much larger scale in the sphere where rent control still exists, and it is done illegally. The solution to it, particularly in so far as housing is concerned, is to remove the Indians to their own residential areas. That is the only way in which they can avoid that exploitation. As I said, if there are particular cases which hon. members want to bring to our notice, we shall be only too glad to bring them to the notice of the Department of Housing and request them to see what can be done in that regard.

The hon. member for Umbilo spoke about unemployment. The report of the Institute for Social Research is known to my Department. In fact, my Department co-operated with the Durban Indian Unemployment Committee and is aware of the findings contained in the report. The chief finding is that the employment is in proportion to the education level. That is, it is really an inverted ratio: The lower the educational level is, the more unemployment there is. That is already an important finding which gives us an indication as to what we should do to combat the problem. Therefore we are now busy making an investigation at the M.L. Sultan College to make special courses available there where they can be trained in new avenues of employment, so that the people who cannot be employed elsewhere can be placed in employment. We have in mind, amongst other things, training in the building industry trades, training as ships’ cooks, etc. I may just say, in regard to unemployment in general, that in so far as the employment of Indians in the Indian areas is concerned my Department has succeeded, through consultations we have had with the municipalities and with the contractors who have the contracts to build houses in Chatsworth and other Indian areas, in obtaining employment for a large number of Indians there. Now one is faced with the problem that the contracts issued are faily large contracts. Such a contractor is certain of the one contract he has in that area, but if that contract is concluded he has no certainty that he will obtain another contract in that area. He may then receive another contract in the White area, in which case he would prefer to employ Bantu labour. I personally spoke to one of those contractors and specifically discussed the employment of Indians in that area. I felt that there were enough Indians to do this unskilled work. Those contractors, however, are not prepared to dismiss their Bantu workers, who have been with them for years, now that they have obtained a contract in an Indian area, and in future when they obtain another contract in a White area they must again dismiss the Indians and employ Bantu. So there are problems in this regard. But as the result of the consultations, we have succeeded in getting appreciably more Indians employed in those housing schemes.

That is the type of house prescribed for Indian artisans.

There again it is a question of the cost of the house. The cement blocks used instead of bricks result in the cost per house being so much lower. That is as the result of investigations made by the Building Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. By making use of bricks instead of cement blocks, more Indians can be employed, but then the cost per house is again higher, with the result that the rental of the house is higher. So there are problems. The methods of building the houses are determined on close consultation with the Building Research Institute of the C.S.I.R., so that we can obtain these houses in the most economical way possible.

In regard to the question of job reservation, the hon. member for Umbilo said that it was a pity that my Department did not have the right to amend the law so that the law in regard to job reservation could be amended or applied differently so as to make better provision for Indians. I said last night, but I want to repeat it, that the provisions in regard to job reservation have hitherto in no way deleteriously affected the Indians. The only thing that could, at first glance, affect them deleteriously is the proclamation referred to by the hon. member, viz. the one in connection with barmen. It is the clear understanding that the Indian barmen who are already in employment will remain in employment and that not one of them will be dismissed. In fact, in the catering business, viz. service in hotels and restaurants in the Natal area, an investigation is already being made into the question of job reservation to protect the Indian there against the Bantu. That provision in regard to barmen was imperative, because after the Liquor Act was amended last year to make it possible for the Bantu also to acquire liquor, a large number of hotels and bar-owners threatened to employ Bantu as barmen. In order to prevent that, a job reservation order had to be issued in that regard.

It was in order to protect the White barmen.

It was particularly reserved for Whites so that Bantu should not enter the trade. At the same time the Department of Labour gave the assurance that where Indians were employed they could apply for an exemption and that their applications would normally be granted. We therefore have the assurance that where Indian barmen are employed they will not be dismissed as the result of this determination.

By what he said here the hon. member created the impression that our labour legislation was the cause of this large degree of unemployment amongst the Indians. I want to deny that most emphatically, because our labour legislation has never discriminated between the Indians and the Whites. It is only now, in exceptional job reservation provisions, where it has slipped in and, as I have said, those provisions did not affect the Indians deleteriously. For the rest, there is no discrimination in our labour legislation between Whites and Indians. Take, e.g. the Apprenticeship Act. There is no discrimination between the Indian and the White. Unfortunately the convention in the country is such that a White artisan will not engage an Indian apprentice and that a firm which employs a number of apprentices gives preference to Whites, if it can obtain them, rather than to Indians. That is the problem with which we are faced. It is therefore not the legislation which is responsible for it, but the convention in the country. Therefore the solution to the problem does not lie in amending the law, but, in my opinion, in the creation of opportunities for the Indians to develop industries themselves, in which their own people can be employed as artisans, etc. There are many prosperous Indians in the country, and they have money to invest. We will within the near future demarcate places where they can start factories and industries. Our experience, however, is that when Indians establish industries they do not employ Indians but Bantu, because they can get the Bantu at cheaper wage rates. It will therefore be seen that this is a problem within a problem. We have already devoted our attention to this problem, and to the extent that we make more investigations in this direction, we find out what the problems are and we can give increasingly more advice in connection with the possible solution of the problem.

The hon. member for Durban (Central (Dr. Radford) spoke about the training of Indians to render certain medical auxiliary services. The hon. member knows that the University College for Indians has only recently been taken over by my Department. Personally, I have not yet devoted particular attention to that matter. However I want to say that I am strongly in favour of our getting away from the idea that we in South Africa should train non-Whites—and now I am referring to Indians, Coloureds and the Bantu—in every respect as doctors and dentists of the highest degree, whilst neglecting the training of people who can render auxiliary service. I think that is where we have erred in the past. Therefore I am quite at one with the hon. member in feeling that we should investigate the possibility of training more Indians for the various medical auxiliary services. I am even in favour of going so far as to train non-Whites in dental services so that they will be able to perform certain elementary services in clinics under the supervision of a trained dentist. I say under supervision, because I do not believe one can leave a person who has not been fully trained to work on his own. I think, however, that in clinics these people can be used on a large scale, and there is a tremendous shortage of such people. This problem is already receiving the attention of the Government. The hon. member is surely aware of the fact that my colleague, the Minister of Health, recently appointed a Commission of Inquiry into the training of non-White dentists. I do no think we should go too deeply into this matter at this stage; I think we should await that report. I hope that report will give us an indication of the directions in which we can think of training non-Whites in the various medical auxiliary services. It is a matter in which I am personally very interested. The hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science recently requested me to discuss with him the whole question of the future of the training of Indian doctors and Bantu doctors at the non-White Medical School in Durban. There we also have a problem. Only a limited number can be enrolled; the hospital facilities are hopelessly inadequate, and we have to decide what can be done in that regard. This matter is therefore receiving our attention. We shall have to deliberate on it within the near future. Perhaps we shall have to go so far as to establish a medical faculty for the Indians at the Indian College, with all the necessary sub-divisions, so that we will be able to train all the medical technologists and the other people who are needed. All these are things which will have to be investigated. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that those matters are receiving our attention.

I want to emphasize that the hon. member should not be under the impression that the examinations at the Indian College or at the Bantu colleges are of an inferior standard compared with those at any other university. In fact, it has been agreed between the University of South Africa and these colleges that only lecturers who have been approved by the Senate of the University of South Africa will be regarded as capable of teaching a subject and examining the students on it, whilst the moderators are appointed from outside, as is the practice in the case of any college. The selection of those who may examine rests with the Senate of the University of South Africa, and I think that guarantees the standards. I hope hon. members will not create the impression that the standards at these university colleges is lower than those at any other university in South Africa. It may of course happen that the standards in respect of particular subjects differ from each other. For example I do not believe that the standards of the examination in law is precisely the same at all our White universities. It varies to a large extent according to the lecturers available at the various universities. So there is a variation in standards from university to university amongst the White universities, depending on who the lecturers and consequently the examiners, are. But in general, taking the broad view, the standards of the university colleges are quite comparable and equal to those of the other universities in South Africa. I do not think the hon. member need be concerned about that.

May I put a question? The point I raised is that in the case of the White universities the examiners come from other universities, whereas in the case of the non-White university colleges the examiners come only from the University of South Africa or from those specific university colleges; they do not come from other universities.

Vote put and agreed to.

Precedence given to Revenue Vote No. 35 and Loan Vote C (Posts and Telegraphs) and Revenue Votes Nos. 36 and 37 (Health).

On Revenue Account No. 35.—“Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones,” R69,904,000,

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half-hour please? The Post Office is undoubtedly one of the most important of all Government departments. It employs 47,000 workers making it, apart from the Railways, the largest employer of White labour of all Government institutions in South Africa. It has an annual budget of R70,000,000 which is exceeded only by those of Social Welfare and Pensions and Defence. It is larger than that of Agriculture, Police, and Bantu Administration and Development. Its annual profit of R13,000,000 makes it one of the greatest revenue producing departments in the Republic, second only to the taxation department. With its size, with its great organization and with the undoubted character and ability of the post office workers, I really do not think they deserve the weak, stumbling and vacillating Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that they have to-day.

Let me say something about staff matters first of all. Earlier this year certain improvements were announced in regard to post office salaries. While there is an undoubted measure of satisfaction in regard to the improved salary scales for post office workers, we must view those increases against a certain background. First of all there is still a large number of anomalies in regard to the salary structure of post office workers. Indeed, only a few months ago, at least a hundred post office employees met in Cape Town and they were highly critical of the announced new wage scales. They were most disturbed that a separate salary structure had not been announced as yet for the post office. Those 100 post office employees decided to ask for an interview with the hon. the Minister. I should like to know—this is one of the many questions I am going to ask —whether that interview took place and what the Minister’s reply was to them. I want to know why one of the speakers at that meeting said that the postal workers had been bamboozled by the new salary scales. Another member at that meeting shouted: “If we did not have the Hertzog Tower we might have got what we asked for ”.

These increases have also to be seen against the background of the fact that the postal associations has had to fight a long and uphill battle to obtain them. It has to be seen against the background of the fight put up separately, outside and inside Parliament by the Opposition. We have been in favour of better conditions for the post office workers over the years. It is indeed a pity that these improvements were only granted so very belatedly. We can only express our admiration of the sterling work done by the Post Office associations—the Postal and Telegraph Association and the South African Postal Association. They were the people who did the great work of ultimately persuading the Government and the Minister to grant the increases which were so belatedly made.

This whole question of pay increases was extremely badly handled by the Minister last year. It was so badly handled that in April 1962, at a special congress of the South African Post and Telegraph Association, there was strong support for a proposal to work to the manual. It was so ineptly handled that in August 1962, at the Post and Telegraph Association meeting held in Johannesburg, an unofficial motion of no-confidence was carried by 500 people in the Minister himself. At another meeting held a few months later a speaker got up and shouted: “Oh, if only we had a Minister like Mr. Ben Schoeman instead of Albert Hertzog!” Deputation upon deputation has gone to see the Minister, yet the postal workers did not get what they were entitled to. Indeed, Sir, I believe that these new scales do not in all instances compensate for the rise in the cost of living which we have had since 1948 when the last substantial increases were granted. We have this position that living costs are catching up with salary increases once again. We must realize that the post office is in a special position in that there are so many people working in the post office in such a large number of lower paid posts that the chances of promotion in the post office are much less than in most other Government departments. In fact, it has been estimated that the chances of promotion are only 1 in 7.8 as against 1 in 2.7 in the case of other Government departments.

Apart from that, working conditions, instead of improving, have been worsening for the postal staff. I can mention many instances. I know there have been complaints that sufficient money is not made available on Capital Account for the expansion of the post office in order to serve the country as it would really like to serve it. I know of one meeting that was held last year of the Northern Transvaal branch of the Postal and Telegraph Association at which an indication was given of the actual working conditions in some parts of South Africa. It was pointed out that this one association had received no less than 100 complaints. Let me give a few examples. At Evander, it was said, a woman employee had to sleep for some time in a bath because no accommodation was available. The post office at Brentwood Park was described as nothing less than a cow-shed which any veterinary official would condemn. The Port Elizabeth post office was infested with rats and the staff had to work in cellars lacking air and light. At Gravelotte the staff had to work in a caravan with the veld as a lavatory. These are only a few of the more than 100 examples of complaints in regard to working conditions. I said that the chief reason for these appalling conditions was that insufficient funds were made available for the expansion of the post office so that the necessary facilities could be provided for the ordinary post office employees.

The hon. Minister issued a statement some time ago in which he envisaged a new era for the post office, he envisaged vast new changes. One of the changes envisaged was that Treasury would try to make more funds available for the expansion of the post office. But what did we find? We found that in 1962-3, on the Loan Estimates, R2,092,000 were made available; in the 1963-4 Estimates, after the promise by the hon. the Minister, only R1,712,000 were made available—a decrease of nearly 20 per cent. The only ray of light that I can see in the Loan Estimates this year—although it was there last year, too but not a penny of it has been spent—comes from the Eastern Transvaal, from Ermelo, where a new post office is to be built at a cost of R230,000. I wonder who the member of Parliament for Ermelo is.

I have mentioned the statement made by the Minister earlier this year in regard to the new arrangement for the post office. There is still a great amount of confusion in regard to that statement and I hope the Minister will give us clarity. I say there is confusion. I happen to know—the hon. Minister will not get me to tell him how I happen to know—that there was strong dissension in the Cabinet itself about the proposals which were submitted to the Cabinet. [Laughter.] The hon. member who is laughing can ask the Minister whether it is not true what I am saying. I understand there is going to be a new relationship between the post office and the Public Works Department. What is that new relationship going to be? I asked the Minister of Public Works about it when his Vote was under discussion and he indicated that the changes would not be of any fundamental nature, that they would be very small.

There is also going to be new legislation in regard to a special post office service commission. Before we express ourselves on the merits of that, we should like to see the legislation that is coming. But speaking for myself, if any measure can be introduced which improves the welfare of the post office workers and improves the standard of efficiency of the Post Office itself and which at the same time ensures that there is not one whit of diminution of parliamentary control and parliamentary supervision of the expenses and finances of the administration of the Post Office, I personally would welcome something like that. We have heard that there is going to be a change in the relationship between the Treasury and the Post Office under this new scheme. Indeed I should like to know what changes are contemplated. In particular I should like to know whether there are going to be any changes in regard to the present Tender Board procedure: At the present moment tenders are asked by the Post Office through the Tender Board under ordinary Tender Board regulations, I believe. Are there going to be any changes in regard to that? I believe that we are entitled to know.

Having dealt with staff matters, I wish to come to another very important and vital part of the Minister’s work, and that is what he has been doing, or has neglected in doing, in regard to that huge organization, indirectly under him, viz., the South African Broadcasting Corporation. Now I wish to say that until the hon. Minister does his duty under the Broadcasting Act to see that the funds of the S.A.B.C. are properly spent and properly supervised by this House itself, and until the hon. Minister sees to it that the Government does not misuse the South African Broadcasting Corporation as a private propaganda organ for its own views on certain occasions, we shall continue to introduce the motion and the amendment that I intend to move this afternoon to reduce the Minister’s salary. I move—

I wish to remove some misconceptions which may exist in regard to the policy of the United Party vis-à-vis the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. First of all we do not believe that it should be an organization dominated by any particular Government in power. We believe in fact that it should be an independent public corporation for most purposes. I do not believe that it is correct for any Government to interfere say in the cultural and the ordinary programmes of the S.A.B.C. It is only when it comes to matters which infringe on the liberties of this Parliament when political propaganda is broadcast, and one-sided propaganda at that, that we have the right to object. In fact, Sir, you will find me personally amongst the top half of people when it comes to admiration for the quality of many of the programmes, musical and otherwise, of the Broadcasting Corporation itself. Some of them are indeed of a high standard. At the same time too there should not be interference in the technical work of the S.A.B.C. in so far as public policy is not involved. I had the privilege, with some other hon. members on both sides of the House, to visit the S.A.B.C. building in Sea Point and we were extremely impressed by the technical efficiency of much of what is being done. In fact I believe that much more could be done technically in this particular case had there not been Government interference. I refer to the fact that television would have been introduced by the S.A.B.C. if the Government had not interfered in that respect.

Having said that, I come to a point where I do feel that we in Parliament should have greater say and that is in regard to the finances of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation itself. It is public money that is being spent, and Parliament must have the right to see that that public money is properly spent. More than R4,000,000 a year is paid in licence fees to the S.A.B.C. It has received capital loans, and it has funds in capital accounts, in its reserve funds and in its F.M. Capital Account totalling R17,000,000. Most of that is public money, and we have no say as to how that money is being spent. For this year alone R3,800,000 are being asked for the S.A.B.C., largely for its frequency modulation programme. In actual fact it is twice the amount that was asked last year. Yet when I seek to get particulars from the hon. Minister as to how that money is being spent, I cannot get them. I believe incidentally that the F.M. service as compared with the old service is a vast improvement, and I believe the reception that one can get over the F.M. medium to be an excellent one. If we have F.M. coverage for the whole of the country it would indeed be a good thing, as long as F.M. does not interfere with the coming of television itself.

Sir, one sees the confusion that arises when Parliament has no say in how its money is being spent by the S.A.B.C. We saw it in a report in yesterday’s paper. It was reported that in the House of Commons a Conservative M.P. had stated that the S.A.B.C. had switched a certain contract for R200,000 from a British firm to a French firm on account of the unfriendly policies of Britain towards South Africa. That was immediately denied by the S.A.B.C. I am not saying that the S.A.B.C. was not correct in denying it, but I do say that if the S.A.B.C.’s funds had been under the scrutiny of our Public Accounts Committee, it would not have been necessary for me to get up here and raise this matter and mention it in this House. It would have gone to the Auditor-General and it would have been discussed in the Public Accounts Committee as a case where a certain contract had been entered into and an alleged change had been made, and if the Auditor-General had found that there was nothing in it that would have absolutely been the last we would have heard of that particular matter. But if I wanted to put a question in Parliament on that, the hon. Minister would refuse to reply to it. We do not want hard and fast control over the S.A.B.C., but we do need supervision of the funds and over some of the things that are being done. That supervision can be brought about in three ways. Firstly, by means of questions in Parliament, secondly by having the reports audited by the Auditor-General, and thirdly, by the Minister himself complying with all the provisions of the Broadcasting Act to which he is committed.

Let me take the first of these, questions in Parliament. The Minister stated in Parliament this year (Col. 3746) that not even questions can be asked about the British Broadcasting Corporation in the British Parliament. Now I am not accusing the hon. Minister of a deliberate falsehood in that regard; I am sure that he was ignorant when he made this statement; but whoever gave him that information was guilty of a deliberate lie. I have the facts here in regard to questions in the British Parliament. Here I have the index in respect of only one year, only one session of questions asked in the House of Commons. Under the heading “B.B.C.” I find that in that one session alone no less than 16 questions were asked on the British Broadcasting Corporation. There were questions on its Charter. I asked a question here about the licence of the S.A.B.C. and was told that Parliament was not entitled to know what the contents were. I had to go down to the post office and look at it there. Questions were asked in the House of Commons about school transcription services for colonial territories, questions on the external broadcasting services of the B.B.C., about the finances of the B.B.C., about the general overseas service, about the North Home Service, about the jamming of programmes, about the Russian language broadcasts, about the sound services, about television and V.H.F. broadcasting, about television programmes, and about the Jugoslav service. In one year alone! How can the hon. Minister come here and tell Parliament that in the British House of Commons questions are not asked about the B.B.C.? The hon. Minister came with a second excuse. He said: Why should the accounts of the S.A.B.C. be placed before the Auditor-General and the Select Committee on Public Accounts? (And that despite the recommendations of the 1948 commission.) “Why should it be done; after all, those accounts are not scrutinized by the Select Committee on Public Accounts in Great Britain.” Again I say that that is not the truth. I have here a book “Parliament and Public Ownership”, and I read on page 129—*

In this year the Public Accounts Committee subjected Sir Ian Jacob, the B.B.C’s Director-General, and Mr. J. G. L. Francis, its Chief Accountant, to a rather severe and wide-ranging examination.

And if the hon. Minister goes to the library he will find there a report of the Public Accounts Committee in Britain and if he turns to the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Reports, and the Special Report for the session of 1955-6, he will find that in that one session when the B.B.C. came before the Public Accounts Committee no fewer than 110 questions were put to the Director-General and his assistant. Sir, it is important that Parliament should have say in what is going on in regard to the finances of the S.A.B.C., and that it should have some say, without deliberate interference, in what is happening in general in regard to that corporation. I make no apology for quoting paragraph 394 from the Report of the Committee on Broadcasting of 1960, issued by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office on the B.B.C.—

The B.B.C. does not mind if matters are raised in Parliament—

The B.B.C. values criticism in Parliament, but the hon. Minister here rejects such criticism and withdraws behind his own little iron curtain whenever questions are put to him on the S.A.B.C. The paragraph continues—

The third method by which Parliament can look after what is happening in the S.A.B.C. is by insisting that the hon. Minister complies with the Broadcasting Act. I have done so before, but I shall again refer to that. Section 24 of the Broadcasting Act demands that the S.A.B.C. shall submit an annual report to the hon. Minister and that in that annual report certain matters should be explained and be reported on. In fact Section 24 goes so far as to say that in the report particulars must be given in regard to certain matters. I have raised the matter before. The hon. Minister went and took legal advice and he indicated actually that there would be changes in this year’s report. I compared this year’s report with last year’s report, and the changes are of such a minor nature as to be utterly negligible. The S.A.B.C. is for instance required by the Act to report on the extent and value of all classes of property owned by the Corporation. We find a few little lines on page 54 in regard to that, saying that lands and buildings are valued at R5,000,000, that transmitters, aerial systems and other broadcasting equipment are valued at R579,000, and then they mention a few other items. But these are not the particulars required by the Act. The hon. Minister should give much greater particulars in regard to these matters.

I do not wish to go into all the ways in which I believe this report does not comply with the Act, but I would like to refer particularly to one sub-section of Section 24 which demands that that report shall contain “the name of every member of a political party by whom any political speech was broadcast”. Now it is quite interesting to see what this report says on page 9 in regard to this demand in Section 24. This is the latest report of the S.A.B.C. and it says—

Sir, there were many such broadcasts. I do not wish to mention them all, but allow me to mention at least one of them, a speech made by a very distinguished member of this House, a speech made by the hon. Prime Minister himself in a New Year’s Message in which the following remarks appeared, and if they are not political and one-sided, I should like to know what is. The hon. the Prime Minister said—

Who are the “onheilsprofete”?

“Die Sappe.”

There you have it. The hon. Prime Minister was referring to this side of the House. He was calling us “onheilsprofete”. There the hon. Minister of Information has admitted that the hon. the Prime Minister was referring to us, and that he was making a political speech. He added—

And then the hon. Prime Minister ended with these words—

That was a political speech. Political matters were raised by the hon. Prime Minister, and that speech should have been mentioned in this particular report of the S.A.B.C., according to the law.

I have to skip a lot of what I have to say, but I do want to say a few words on the news services. The report that I have here claims that these news services are “unbiased, factual and impartial”. You will find those words in the report. I claim that they are most certainly not so. I claim that there have been talks, sometimes weekly talks, that there have been ways in which in these news services have been presented which make them more biased, more partial and more one-sided than even the worst thing that one can find in a leading article in the Transvaler. But it may be said that I am prejudiced. May I therefore read to you and to the House what a newspaper of the Government party, a very influential newspaper indeed, the Burger said about certain of the news services of the S.A.B.C. I am reading from a leading article in the Burger on 30 March 1963—

This does not come from the United Party, but from the official organ of the Nationalist Party. And then the article continues—

Here they are accusing the S.A.B.C. not of giving the facts in the news services, but giving the country what the commentator thinks the country should have, and giving a mixture of facts and comment, a “mengelmoes” as so appropriately expressed by the Burger.

Perhaps I will have another opportunity to stress this matter, but I should like to ask the hon. Minister how far this whole matter of television has been proceeding. [Time limit.]

It may perhaps be as well to deal with certain matters in connection with the Post Office first and then to deal later with the bee which the hon. member always has in his bonnet, the S.A.B.C.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) mentioned one fact that was correct—which completely surprised me—when he said that the profit of the Post Office amounted to R13,000,000 last year. But apart from that everything that he said was so misrepresented that I was really surprised. After all this time, after so many years during which we have tried to educate the hon. member in regard to the problems of the Post Office and the S.A.B.C., there is still no evidence of any improvement in his understanding of the position. What struck me was the fact that he made a large number of accusations about the dissatisfaction of officials in the Post Office, but he kept on referring back to the state of affairs which existed before these matters were settled a month or two ago. The Government announced that all those problems had been settled but the hon. member now comes forward and creates the impression that nothing has been done in this regard at all, that conditions have not changed at all and that he does not know that the postal officials are satisfied. I think this simply goes to show the hollowness of his attacks. He mentions grievances which no longer exist to-day—difficulties which have already been solved. He says that the working conditions are very poor. We admit that they were poor and that they had to be improved. He says that not enough money is being made available to the Post Office. We admit that, but does the hon. member not know what has happened? Apparently he knows nothing about the decisions of the Government. He even goes so far as to make an attack on me in connection with the post office at Ermelo, but he does not know that a decision was taken in regard to the post office at Ermelo long before my time and that that decision is only being implemented now. Either the hon. member does not understand the information that he has collected or else he does not have sufficient knowledge of the subject. Let me explain to the Committee what actually happened because it is important. The Post Office officials are so satisfied that the representatives of the various associations came to see me personally and also wrote to me to say that this was one of the greatest improvements ever made in the history of the Post Office. The hon. member represented the postal officials as a group of people who are just out to make money. But the postal officials are not money-grabbers. Of course provision must be made for them financially, but they are people who look further ahead and are far more patriotic than the hon. member. I just want to explain What the position was and what improvements were made upon the establishment of Union the Post Office started as a small undertaking. At that time it had a turnover of R39,000,000. But it is no longer a small institution with a small staff as it was at that time. To-day the Post Office is an institution with a turnover of R546,000,000. Enormous changes have taken place in the Post Office over the years. The Post Office is a business undertaking.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Cradock (Mr. G. F. H. Bekker) referred to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) as a “miskruier I contend that that is an unparliamentary expression.

I mentioned no names.

(Mr. Faurie): The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it.

The Post Office is a business undertaking that has to serve everyone in South Africa and also satisfy everyone as far as it is reasonably possible to do so. It is a business on which the welfare of a very large number of persons and undertakings depends. In 1910, when Union was established, the Post Office was a small undertaking which in the nature of things fitted in with the other State undertakings which had to provide certain of its services. A normal business takes care of its own transport, buildings and staff, but in 1910 things were so arranged that the Post Office was dependent upon other State Departments for those services. That is how the position arose and that is how it developed. But because the Post Office developed to such an extent over the years, the shoes which fitted it originally, which it was originally able to wear, gradually started to pinch, and eventually those shoes had to be changed. As the years went on it became more and more necessary to place the Post Office on a different basis because of the changed circumstances. Mr. Chairman, when two Departments have to cooperate or when three businesses have to cooperate it is very difficult to organize things in such a way that everyone is satisfied and so that things will run smoothly. That is why it was always very difficult for the Post Office to have to depend upon other Departments for its staff, for its buildings, its transport and its finances. One can understand how difficult the adjustment was from time to time because of the growth of the Post Office. Let me give the Committee an example. For example, the Post Office is responsible for telephone exchanges, but a telephone exchange is not something that one can buy off the shelves. A telephone exchange has to be adapted to the needs of the town and the district in which it is erected, and the circumstances differ in each case. That is why every exchange is different and has to fit in with the specific conditions that exist at various places. Because the requirements differ, each exchange has to be built separately. In other words, a post office exchange has to be “tailor-made” and it sometimes takes 18 months or two years before an exchange of this nature can be built. It does not help to have the exchange completed within 18 months or two years and then to house it in a building which is not suitable. In other words, the time taken to complete the exchange has to be the same as the time taken to complete the building in which it has to be installed. It has happened that the Post Office has given out the work on contract but that the buildings have not been finished by the time the exchange has been completed. The result has been that the Post Office has suffered heavy losses and has also got a bad name in these cases because if there is a community that is entitled to these facilities and those facilities are not provided, great dissatisfaction arises. One realizes the difficulty of having one Department construct the buildings and having another Department provide the services.

I want to discuss another point. The Post Office is a very specialized Department. Its officials have to have a wide and accurate knowledge of a variety of matters. They do not only handle letters, telegrams and telephone calls but they have to know the tariffs of every place, both here and abroad, and they have to know the conditions applying in each case. They have to know all the various tariffs for surface mail, air mail and for letter mail and parcel post. It is an institution which handles and invests large sums of money. It has its own savings bank and it invests money in saving certificates on behalf of the Government. There are various conditions under which it may receive the money and the officials have to know all these things. The Post Office also pays out pensions. It pays old-age pensions, war veterans’ pensions and disability pensions, and it cannot pay out incorrect amounts. The officials have to be fully conversant with all these matters. There are many things that have to be done. The Post Office collects radio licence fees; it also collects instalments under housing schemes as well as entertainment tax, and it has to know all there is to know about these matters. I say that the knowledge of the Post Office staff is a specialized knowledge and every member of the staff must also have a knowledge of book-keeping. Some officials have to spend part of their time sorting letters for which they have to have a wide geographic knowledge, not only of South Africa but of the whole world. All this means that the postal officials have to receive special training, training which differs from that of the ordinary public servants. The training that is given may vary from three months’ to five years. The training of an ordinary clerk costs the Post Office about R675 and the training of a technician costs about R4,000. One can understand therefore that its officials are of particular importance to the Post Office. They are so valuable to the Post Office that one cannot use them in any other Department. If one did, they would lose their value completely and that would mean a loss to the State. The Post Office has therefore become a closed Department with 36,000 officials on the fixed establishment. Its officials can only look forward to promotion in the Post Office. This whole picture is wrapped up in the Post Office. At the same time, we still have the anomalous position that members of the Post Office Staff have always been members of the Public Service. Because they have friends in the rest of the Public Service the postal officials know the salaries and conditions in other parts of the Public Service and if there is any discrimination one can quite understand that there will be dissatisfaction. This was one of the reasons for the dissatisfaction that has existed over the years.

But there is a further difference and that is that although the Public Service is one large organization, there are big differences between the Public Service and the Post Office. The first of these is that postal officials work far longer hours. The ordinary Public Service officials work a 39-hour week but the Post Office officials work up to 42, 44 and even 48 hours a week. These men are on their feet for long periods during the day while this is not the position in the rest of the Public Service. Officials in the Post Office work shifts. Many of them work over week-ends, Saturday and Sundays, and yet they are still members of the same Public Service. Opportunities for promotion in the Post Office have also been less favourable than in the ordinary Public Service. That has been the case up to the present. When we look at the lower ranks in the Post Office, the rank of senior postal clerk, we find that in the Public Service there are something like 8,000 clerks waiting for promotion to about 2,000 more senior posts. In other words, four men are waiting for one post. But in the Post Office there are 6,000 officials waiting for 800 posts. In other words, eight men are waiting for one post. This means that the Post Office officials have to wait longer for promotion than officials in other branches of the Public Service. Their friends in the Public Service are promoted ahead of them.

And you are only finding that out now!

That was one of the important grievances that we had to overcome. We have been trying to overcome that grievance for years.

I want to mention another problem. The Post Office has its own merit system, an effective system that has been in operation for some years. It was in operation in the Post Office long before the Public Service applied it. The Public Service also introduced that system some years ago but the law still provides that no promotion can take place in the Post Office unless the Public Service Commission has recommended it, because the Post Office is still part of the Public Service. This means that if a promotion in the Post Office has already been decided upon on merit, the Public Service Commission still has to consider that promotion and approve of it. This sort of thing has resulted in delays of as long as four months. This means that the postal official has to wait a further four months and it may only be in about February of a particular year that an official hears that he has been promoted. By that time the school year has already started. The father of the family then has to work at some other place while his children still attend school at their old place of residence. That man has to rent another house while his wife and children remain behind in the old house. This is the outcome of the legal provision that the Public Service Commission first has to recommend promotions before they can be given effect to. This also created a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the postal officials.

To keep pace with its expansion each year the Post Office has to create new posts and it has experts to determine precisely how many posts should be created. It has an outstanding 0 and M division. This is such an excellent division that the Public Service Commission has no inspector in the Post Office. It relies on the services of this O and M division. Promotions are worked out and the numbers of new posts to be created are determined but one had still sometimes to wait for some months for the Public Service Commission to give its approval. This was an important reason for the dissatisfaction that existed.

I do not want to discuss the necessity for buildings, but I just want to explain that difficulties always arise when the Post Office needs certain buildings and another Department has to erect those buildings because that Department also has to meet the needs of the rest of the Public Service. That Department cannot always meet the needs of the Post Office only; it has to consider the requirements of the whole of the Public Service. Because there is a shortage of buildings throughout South Africa this has resulted in the postal staff often having to work under the most impossible conditions. Imagine, Sir, a large organization like the Post Office which handles more than R500,000,000 annually, having a number of clerks standing side by side, each of them handling money, but not having partitions between them because of lack of space. Because of this fact each man has to take special precautions to ensure that some of his money does not disappear. Even though it may be his own fault if he is short, he thinks that the man standing next to him must have taken the money. A great deal of dissatisfaction arises because of this fact. There are large numbers of reasons therefore for dissatisfaction amongst the postal officials.

There is another reason that I can mention. I think we will all admit that the Post Office is an extremely efficient organization which is as well organized as the best businesses in our country. Every official knows that he has to effect as large a saving as possible in the interests of the State. But this is the sort of thing that is happening in regard to transport. As far as the collection of post is concerned, for example, a light car or light van is all that is required—a vehicle that can operate effectively at 7c per mile. But the Post Office is dependent upon the Department of Transport for its vehicles and that Department not only has to meet the requirements of the Post Office, it also has to meet the needs of the other Departments and it may only have heavy vehicles at its disposal. This means that the Post Office has to pay 15c per mile instead of 7c and then officials say: “We have to try to effect savings but here money is being thrown away on transport.”

As the result this fortuitous concatenation of circumstances caused by the fact that various Departments had to do the work of the Post Office, this dissatisfaction eventually increased. The dissatisfaction therefore was not confined to the question of salaries. The question of salaries only plays a small part. The working conditions caused the greatest dissatisfaction. It was not possible to therefore solve this problem merely by increasing salaries. The officials even went so far as to say that they would not be satisfied with salary improvements alone but that they wanted their other difficulties resolved. The Government then decided to find an effective solution to the whole problem. I can well understand the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) jumping to the conclusion immediately that finances were the cause of the dissatisfaction in the Post Office. But that is not what this side of the House does. We go to the root of the trouble and try to solve the problem in that way. The Government decided to take certain steps.

The Government first appointed a departmental commission of inquiry consisting of the most senior officials and the most expert officials of the Post Office itself. The various staff associations were also represented on that commission. After the commission had carefully investigated all the circumstances it submitted a very comprehensive report. But those problems also affected various Departments and the Government therefore appointed an inter-departmental committee consisting of the heads of State Departments under the Chairmanship of Mr. Danie du Plessis, the former General Manager of Railways. The task tackled by this committee was not an easy one. To reorganize the affairs of these large Departments required a tremendous amount of work because this reorganization had to be something that would stand the test of time. I want to make use of this opportunity to express my appreciation for the work done by these people.

Let me tell the Committee what changes were introduced. In the first place, the Treasury agreed that there were certain procedures that could easily be changed or simplified or even abolished, and this was put into operation almost immediately. As a result of this fact alone, 3,000 letters will be eliminated annually. Secondly, the P.W.D. agreed that in the future the Post Office may hire its own premises. The Post Office is also empowered to repair large buildings to a maximum value of R50,000 and to erect small works costing R8,000 or less. It also has the right to acquire its own furniture. These are concessions which will greatly facilitate matters.

The hon. the Minister says that there is going to be a change in the relationship between the Treasury and the Post Office. Will that change also affect the Tender Board procedure?

No. The Department of Transport has also agreed to the Post Office acquiring its own vehicles in the future. While the interdepartmental committee was still busy, the Government took certain decisions which were also recommended by the committee at a later stage. They were as follows. The Government decided that a Post Office Service Commission should be established. This will consist of two members of the Post Office staff with a chairman who will be a member of the Public Service Commission. This Post Office Service Commission will perform many functions which will be delegated to it by the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission will delegate as many of its powers as possible to this body. The next decision which the Government arrived at was that in increasing the salaries of all the officials, postal officials and public servants, the scale of the senior Post Office clerks would go higher than the equivalent posts in the Public Service. I have explained that the opportunities for promotion for these officials are not as favourable as those obtaining in the Public Service. The Government has now decided that the scale of these officials will have a higher maximum. In other words, the senior Post Office official will now receive an additional increment which the public servant will not receive. This will bring him much closer to the public servant as far as his position and his salary are concerned. The Government also decided to raise the salary scales for Postmasters Grade IV in order to give them the same opportunities. It also decided that additional posts could, if necessary, be created above the post of Postmaster Grade IV and similar ranks, to give the postal officials more opportunity for advancement. Now we come to the point to which the hon. member referred. We must admit that more money should have been spent on the accommodation of postal officials over the years. The Post Office estimates that it requires 17 large works each year but only 14 per annum have been built over the past few years. Therefore, there has been a backlog of 3 per year as far as the larger works are concerned and the backlog has therefore become greater and greater. The Government has now stated that it will make a special concession so that additional funds will be made available to wipe out that backlog. Finally, the Government has also decided to make provision for permanent machinery to prevent what has happened in the past and that is that eventually the various Departments get out of step with one another and difficulties arise. A committee will now be appointed which will meet from time to time to consider proposals for the elimination of any difficulties that may arise.

I wanted to deal with this matter first because it was raised by the hon. member. I suggest that we deal with this matter first before we discuss the other matters raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

Mr. Chairman, what the hon. the Minister has treated us to up to now has been largely a rehash of statements he has been making at various times since the beginning of the year. Practically all the developments, the appointment of the Commission and the various proposals made, have been heard by us before. What the hon. member for Orange Grove asked for was a practical answer to the criticism he levelled, but up to now we have not received those replies. The Minister traced the history of the Post Office from its beginnings as a small concern at the time of Union up to the present. Its ramifications have spread to such an extent that it is no longer the Post Office that we had at the time of Union. To-day, apart from its communication duties, it is one of the biggest financial concerns under Government direction. It deals with a wide variety of activities. It pays out practically all the social pensions, and a hundred and one other things have now been delegated to the Post Office to handle. This has completely altered the character of the Post Office, but the development of the facilities to meet these demands have lagged woefully behind. That is the real crux of the matter. There has not been the dynamic leadership and the drive on the part of those responsible for the Post Office to keep pace with the increased demands. When the Minister referred to the Post Office being run as a huge business concern, he lost sight of the fact which is one of the greatest axioms in any successful business, namely that the needs of the customers have to be met or otherwise the business will be a failure. That is just what the Post Office on the whole is not doing today. Not meeting the needs of its customers. I am not referring here to the officials and general staff of the Post Office administration. [Interjection.] Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member moves out of the way of the Minister, perhaps I can continue. Sir, how some members of the staff carry on with their most exacting and important duties is beyond comprehension. I think one can take off one’s hat to the rank and file of the staff and the officials and those controlling the post offices for the way in which they carry on under the conditions under which they are compelled to work. Let me quote one classic example of what I mean, and I quote that example not because I have any particular interest in it although it is in my own constituency but because it is an example of conditions which can be found in practically everyone of the smaller, older post offices all over the country. I want to refer to the conditions which exist in the post office at Simonstown, conditions which have been known to the Department over a number of years through the reports of the various postmasters in charge of that post office, but nothing or little has been done to improve the position. This matter has come to a head recently as a result of the huge expansion brought about by the development of the naval base, and I understand that action is now to be taken to remedy the appalling state of affairs in that post office. But these conditions, as I say, can be found in practically all the small post offices in the country. The premises are completely inadequate to meet the requirements. The total public floor space for Whites in that post office, serving some 8,000 inhabitants, plus all the naval personnel, is about 80 square feet. The length of the counter available for the whole of the White services is about 10 feet, and on practically every day of the week and certainly towards the end and at the beginning of each month, it is a regular feature that the queue extends right out on to the public pavement in the main road. That position has existed to my knowledge over the last five years and it has been brought to the notice of the Department. The staff are working under the most cramped and unhealthy conditions that it is possible to imagine. They have no proper staff rooms; the sanitary arrangements are completely inadequate and the conditions which exist are such that if a normal business concern operated under those conditions they would be prosecuted. I take off my hat to the staff there and to the staff in dozens of similar post offices throughout the country who are functioning under those same conditions. It is a marvel to me that they do not crack up in their health more often than they do. It appears to be the current fashion to carry out special inquiries into what are unsatisfactory features of State or public administration. I would suggest that there is ample scope for the Public Health Department to inquire in to the conditions at the Simonstown General Post Office and other similar post offices and to take action to see that the Department’s own basic health regulations are carried out in Government concerns. The postal administration as I say, have been aware of these conditions for a number of years because they have been reported on in the Reports of the postmasters. I understand that as a result of heavy pressure recently action is now to be taken and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will apply his mind to this matter and see that the very highest priority is given not only to the Simonstown post office but to the many others which operate under similar conditions. When the Minister talks about the Post Office being run as a business concern, I say that that is one of the features where he falls down in providing the necessary facilities for his customers. The post office is no longer simply a place to deal with communications. The same staff usually consisting of one or two people have to deal with all the financial arrangements of pensions and 101 other things dealing with State administration passed onto them. The post office is an easy mark, because there are post offices in most areas and when some new piece of legislation is adopted which requires the collection of funds, or, certain other action to be taken, it is very simple to place that duty on the nearest post office. But what does not happen is that the facilities and staff in the post office are also stepped up to cope with the additional work involved. If one half of the promises held out in the report of the Commission are carried into effect, it would still be useless to meet the demands which are being made on the post office unless at the top level there is a positive and dynamic leadership to see that those promises and the means to implement them are carried into effect quickly. What we want is not only development; we want a dynamic leadership and a vision. We want vision on an international basis, not even on a national one. We do not want the Minister in charge to be looking at his Post Office and the general postal services through the small window of a little bioscope; there is no room to-day for these personal little foibles and mannerisms; we want a much wider vision. [Time limit.]

It is my unfortunate task to refer to the unsavoury, and I almost want to say the scandalous personal attacks made here by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) against the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. It is a pity that the debate should have been opened on that note. The hon. member for Orange Grove evidently does not feel happy unless he can continuously plough through the mire.

Skunk.

I want to give the hon. member the advice that he will get no further in this House by such means. These bitter, exaggerated allegations with which his speeches are larded simply have the effect that no one listens to him any more, and that even his own people laugh at him. Does the hon. member expect any member on this side of the House to take note of and to react to this halfbaked scandal mongering with which he comes along every time? Nobody with self-respect is prepared to sink to that level, and I am not prepared to follow the hon. member on that road. I just want to tell him that one must admire the hon. the Minister for still being willing, after such an uncalled for…

Unsavoury.

… unsavoury attack he is still prepared to reply to the hon. member in the way he did. I now leave the hon. member there.

Skunk.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “unsavoury” (smerig).

I withdraw it. I regret that I had to say it under provocation.

On a point of order, there is one of those hon. members over there who is continually saying “Skunk, skunk”.

It is the hon. member who is sitting with his hand under his chin.

Order! Which hon. member said that?

I raise the strongest objection. It is an infamous lie.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I cannot withdraw it because it is an infamous lie. It is an untruth.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, and say it is an untruth.

On a point of order, I said that I did not know who the hon. member was who called out “Skunk”. I merely said it was one of the hon. members opposite.

Order! Is there an hon. member there who used the word “skunk”?

Yes, I said the hon. member was a skunk. Must I withdraw that?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it.

I should like to say a few words about the tremendous backlog in regard to the building programme of the Post Office, and although I want to voice a few points of criticism in a good spirit I readily accept that during the war years the building programme of the Post Office came to a standstill and after the war lack of capital funds further obstructed that programme. As the result of the tremendous development in South Africa, there has been an increasing demand for new services and new post offices. I also accept that thousands of rand had to be spent on our telecommunication system and the housing of telephone exchanges. But the disturbing fact of the matter is that in spite of all the attempts made hitherto, the position in regard to the provision of post office accommodation has not improved; on the contrary, the position is becoming worse every year and the tempo of retrogression is continuing. At least a quarter of the approximately 2,000 post offices in the Republic must be replaced to-day, or need to be extended. There are unfortunately post offices which have been on the waiting-list of new buildings for almost 20 years. Nor does it help to-day for us as the representative of the area to get a post office or extensions of it put on the preferent list; it simply means that one still has to wait six or ten years before the work is tackled. I should like to refer here to what was said by the Postmaster-General in an article in Volkshandel in April 1963. He said—

Also in the Annual Report of the Postmaster-General he says the following—

Many of the complaints and much of the criticism in regard to the Post Office are due to the lack of proper and effective accommodation, and that undermines not only the rendering of efficient services, but also the morale of the Post Office officials. It also creates dissatisfaction on the part of the public which has to be served, and it creates dissatisfaction with the service itself. We must remember that the introduction of apartheid measures in the Post Office further aggravated this problem. Take, for example, a large town like Parow which 30 years ago received a post office with a counter which was intended to be attended by two clerks. To-day six clerks have to serve at that counter, not the same counter, but one which in the meantime has been reduced by half to provide for apartheid—and it was necessary. That applies not only to counter space, but also to the general floor space and space in which to move around in the post office. As the result of those conditions, clerks stand shoulder to shoulder behind the counters handling thousands of rand every day and valuable postal and registered articles. In certain of the telegraph offices one finds the clerks sitting back to back and head to head, transmitting important messages word for word. That is not a sound state of affairs. Sir, these people work under nerve-racking conditions. Lack of space not only hampers them in doing this responsible work, but it greatly increases the burden of the work and the responsibilities resting upon them. Therefore it is one of the main complaints on the part of the post office staff to-day that many of them have to work in these uncongenial conditions. They complain about the unhealthy places in which they sometimes have to work; they complain about the lack of cloakroom space, the primitive and humiliating cubicles in which the postmaster and senior officials often have to receive and serve members of the public of all strata of society. [Time limit.]

I am surprised that the hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé) objected to the attack on the Minister and the Government from this side of the House. I would remind him that “a wife and a dog and a walnut tree, the more you beat them, the better they be.” That is what we are endeavouring to do from this side of the House. The Post Office, as controlled by the Minister, if it were solely used to serve the public and not as a taxing machine, could be much more efficient and much more up to date than it is to-day. One realizes the magnitude of the service rendered by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. One finds by a study of Item O alone that the costs, only in respect of telegraph and telephone renewals and replacements, amount to over R3,000,000 annually. Although the Management and the staff merit the appreciation of the public, the inadequate conditions under which the personnel work as referred to by the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) are to be found everywhere. We find that many have to work in limited space. The conditions under which many officials have to operate are deplored by this side of the House. I wish also to make the strongest representations to the Minister to introduce a more efficient farm telephone service. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would inform the House what steps he contemplates taking to modernize the service. The present farm line service, where ten subscribers are served on a single transmission line, can only be classified as primitive. It restricts business activities, and farmers often have to wait hours and hours not only for the line to become disengaged but to get through to the exchange. Present-day farming must be regarded as a business proposition. No business institution would tolerate two institutions being served on the same telephone line. No business man could conduct his business on those conditions, whereas the farmer has to be satisfied with ten individuals served by the same line. Our present farm line system is completely out of date and hopelessly inefficient. Not only is there a constant waste of time, waiting for the line to become disengaged, but one has no privacy; people listen in to conversation; they interfere with the receivers and they cut out calls going through to the exchange. The service is hopelessly inadequate to meet modern needs. The farmers would willingly pay more for a better service. I understand that that can be provided now. Under modern conditions up to 15 people can be put onto one line. At the present time the Minister has to provide an extra line to serve more than ten people, but if he could put more people on one line he could obviate extra expense. I have no doubt that if this improvement was brought about it may even prove more economical for the farmers. As I have said, the farmers are quite prepared to pay more. I would like the Minister to realize that much time, much travelling is taken up by the services rendered by the various departments of the Post Office to keep lines in order. Trivial little faults necessitate miles of travelling and hours of extra time and sometimes overtime. I am quite certain that if there was regular, periodic supervision of lines to ensure that a line is in first-class order, these trivial faults could be minimized. Farm lines are sometimes out of service for days on end. Not only does this inconvenience the farmer but it entails more expense because he may have to undertake a journey in order to conduct business which he could have conducted on the telephone and, at the same time, the Department loses that extra revenue. It is quite unbusinesslike to allow telephone lines to get out of order. It is not good business and it is not in keeping with modern trends in the telephonic system. The Minister might even be able to introduce a system by which one could obviate the use of a line at all; I often wonder whether investigations along those lines are taking place. I do want to impress upon the Minister that the time is overdue when greater attention should be paid to farm lines. I know, of course, that the service to farmers in this country is run at a loss, but I think that, if the farmers, were given a better and more up to date service, they would be prepared to pay for that service and to guarantee that it will not involve the Department in a loss. I have no doubt that, if the Department would use the means at its disposal to induce the Minister to approach the Government with a request that a greater share of the revenue of the Post Office should be spent on its development, we would have very much better service than the public receives to-day.

I have outlined the problems with which the hon. the Minister and the Department are faced, and I want to say here that the Minister, the Postmaster-General and the Department go out of their way to do everything possible to catch up with the backlog and to cope with these problems, but the Minister and his Department find themselves in the position where they can do no more than they are already doing. They are landed with a system they inherited, with the result that the Department cannot supply its own needs. The position is serious and I think we have the right to ask what we can do to try to improve the position. The hon. the Minister has just told us that the Government has decided to make more money available so that post offices may be built more quickly. But I do not think that the lack of funds has always been the only reason for the slow pace at which this building programme proceeded. I think there were other reasons, and I want to say frankly that it seems to outsiders that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has become the Cinderella of the Department of Public Works. It seems that there is far too much red tape and too much waste of time because so many Departments are concerned in this matter. The position at the moment is that the Department of Lands has to buy the sites for post offices, and they take their time about it. Then the Post Office has to await its turn for P.W.D. to erect the buildings. I think circumstances justify us at this stage in seriously considering this whole policy in regard to the provision of accommodation for the Post Office.

I should like to make a few suggestions which I think the hon. the Minister should consider seriously. The one is that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs should be allowed at least to buy its own land. The second is that at this stage a survey should be made and a priority list drawn up of all the most essential works in this building programme, and that this work should be handed over to private contractors, but with the specific proviso that the Department of Posts should be allowed to appoint the architects themselves, as well as the quantity surveyors, and they should themselves consider the tenders. I think that if we do something in this direction we can hope to catch up with this tremendous backlog which is very irritating both to the public and to the staff, but I do not think that we can catch up with the backlog soon merely by making more funds available whilst still continuing with this clumsy method by which the Post Office cannot provide its own requirements in regard to buildings.

Whilst I still have a minute available, I also want to break a lance for the provision of more official housing for the Post Office staff. To-day there are very few official dwellings available for Post Office officials. I understand that there are only 250 officials dwellings for this tremendous staff of more than 45,000. The Post Office staff, and particularly the senior officials, are continually subject to compulsory transfer, with the result that they cannot buy their own houses. Often they have to work in towns where they have to live in hotels or boarding-houses with their families. On their salaries they cannot afford to pay that boarding. Sir, the Post Office is a great business institution and a postmaster ought to be an important person in his community. I want to ask that these people should be met. They usually work much longer hours than other public servants, as the hon. the Minister has just told us. Very often they have to stand on their feet from morning till night. They often work irregular shifts, and if there are public servants who are entitled to ample provision being made for official housing, then I say the Post Office staff are entitled to those benefits, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will devote serious attention also to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) very heartily indeed on the speech that he made. It was one of the best speeches that I have yet heard from the other side of the House. It was the strongest criticism of a Minister that I have ever heard. That criticism is of course well-deserved. We can take it for granted that things are twice as bad as the hon. member for Parow insinuated. He spoke about primitive little buildings; he said that 40 per cent of the post offices on the platteland were ineffective; he told us that telephonists have to sit shoulder to shoulder; that clerks have to sit back to back, and he described the impossible conditions under which these officials are expected to do their work. The hon. member told me that he could not be present here this evening. I am sorry about that because I should have liked him to have heard my tribute to his excellent speech. While the hon. member for Parow was speaking, in my mind’s eye I saw the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in the Hertzog Tower and I also saw a crack appearing in the structure of that tower. This is the first large crack in the Hertzog Tower.

The hon. the Minister’s own speech was a condemnation of himself and his Department. He took 40 minutes to say what I am going to say in 2 minutes. The hon. the Minister said that all these matters had now been settled and that the “working conditions” of these people had been improved. The hon. the Minister, three hours before the congress which had been convened for 3 April was due to meet, sent a telegram to them and this is what he announced. Firstly he said that a Post Office Service Commission would be appointed under the Public Service Commission consisting of a member of the Public Service Commission as chairman and two members of the Post Office. Secondly he spoke about the increased salary scales and an improved cost structure that will be introduced. His third point was that certain procedures between the Treasury and the Post Office would be changed in order to allow the Post Office more freedom of action. His fourth point was that the Post Office would now take over certain functions from the Department of Public Works. I want you to hear what these functions are, Sir. They deal with the renting of certain buildings, the erection of small works and the provision of furniture. The fifth point is that the Post Office will have control over its own vehicles. The hon. the Minister spoke for ten minutes about the ¾-ton van they are going to get. His sixth point was that additional funds would be voted in order to make up the backlog in Post Office accommodation. His seventh point was that permanent machinery would be established to consider further proposals for the transfer of functions and activities to the Post Office from time to time. It took the hon. the Minister 40 minutes to tell us this. The hon. the Minister also told us that all these matters had now been settled. Mr. Chairman, we are discussing the Estimates. I see no appreciable increase in the Loan Vote as compared with former years, and the same thing applies to the Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account. There are no appreciable increases in this regard. The one increase that I was able to find was an increase from R12,500,000 to R14,300,000 for salaries. I find that in respect of 42 Post Office buildings for which provision is being made, an amount of only R50 is provided for on the Estimates. In other words, nothing is going to be done about these buildings during the current year. This is only a token amount. The position will be the same next year. If the hon. the Minister will look at the last page he will see that all the buildings that have to be erected are shown by way of a token amount.

Do you know what “token amount” means?

The hon. member should have listened to the hon. member for Parow, because the hon. member for Parow pointed out that even though provision is made in the Estimates we still have to wait six years before anything is done. And he is a member of that side of the House! Now the hon. the Minister tells us that all these matters have been settled. He spoke about the “working conditions” that have been improved. Is the hon. the Minister living in a dream world? What greater condemnation can we have of his own administration than his statement that four men have to wait for one post in the Public Service and that eight men have to wait for one post in the Post Office? He also spoke about a merit system in the Post Office. The Post Office has a merit system, but do hon. members know what the position is? They say that the merit system demands such high standards that they do not know how anyone can comply with those standards. They say [Translation.]—

Do you see what these poor people have to comply with in order to qualify for promotion, Mr. Chairman? They say [Translation]—

One asks how any of these people can ever qualify on merit. When will an official ever receive promotion if he has to comply with all these requirements? I do not resent the fact that the hon. the Minister’s Department has introduced this system. What I do resent is the fact that for so many years they have not realized how difficult it has been for a person in the Post Office to receive promotion. I said that the hon. the Minister made this announcement three hours before the congress was due to meet. I also said that we were discussing the Estimates to see whether those promises in regard to the building of premises and new salary scales were being kept, but I cannot find any evidence of it in these Estimates. [Time limit.]

I do not want to reply to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) at this stage. I want to come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) and to what he said about the South African Broadcasting Corporation. The hon. member has moved to reduce the salary of the hon. the Minister. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether you will rule me out of order if I move that the salary of the hon. member be reduced by R2,000? May I move such a motion?

Order! The hon. member for Orange Grove is not under discussion now.

I am sorry because I would have liked to have moved such a motion. If the hon. member had looked at the Act setting up the South African Broadcasting Corporation, he would have realized that in terms of Section 1, the S.A.B.C. is a corporate body. I should like to quote this section. I refer to Section 1 of Act No. 22 of 1936, which provides—

If the hon member had studied that section he would have realized that the hon. the Minister has no say over the finances of the Corporation. A Board has been appointed and that board has control over everything. The hon. member says that the accounts of the S.A.B.C. should be examined by the Auditor-General because, according to him, there is mal-administration in this regard. I just want to mention the fact that the S.A.B.C. does have auditors and those auditors are Messrs. Deloitte, Pender, Griffiths, Annan and Company, and Messrs. Grant, Taylor and Cowie. The first mentioned is a firm of international repute and practices throughout the world. It so happens that they also audit the accounts of the Brirish Broadcasting Corporation. If there was anything wrong with the South African Broadcasting Corporation that firm would certainly bring it to the attention of the Governors, and in that way it would be brought to the attention of the Minister. These accusations which have been made against the Corporation are reprehensible in the opinion of hon. members of this side of the House. They are based on hearsay and the hon. member has no facts on which to base his case. He bears a grudge against the hon. the Minister for some reason or other and he takes it out on the Corporation. It would be better if the hon. member checked his facts before making accusations. This sort of thing certainly does not pay. Sasol is also a corporate body and so is Iscor but nobody asks that the accounts of those bodies should be examined by the Auditor-General. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. I think it is a shame that he should make these accusations against the Corporation and try to blacken the name of the hon. the Minister in this way. There is a saying that it is futile to fight against superior numbers but I am sure that in this case the superior numbers ranged against him will prove ineffective against the Minister.

The hon. the Minister has already replied to the accusation made by the hon. member in respect of the post office at Ermelo. This proves once again that the hon. member does not know what is going on. The hon. the Minister has only occupied this post for a few years. If the hon. member knew how long it took to draw up plans and to have them approved, he would know that that building was approved of long before this Minister was appointed to the Cabinet.

As far as the remarks of the hon. member for Drakensberg on the speech of the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) are concerned, I can only say that we are not afraid to bring unsatisfactory conditions in our constituencies to the attention of the hon. the Minister. There are many cases of this kind. The hon. the Minister does not know everything. It is our duty to bring these cases to his notice so that the necessary steps can be taken to rectify these conditions.

The hon. member who has just sat down supported what was said by the hon. member for Parow— that it takes years to have a post office built. If I understood him correctly, I think the hon. Minister said that the post office at Ermelo was approved of during the period of office of the United Party, and it has taken all this time to have that post office built. I do not want to devote too much of my time to this matter

This is the second occasion this year on which the hon. the Minister has announced an increase in Post Office salaries. He announced one increase at the beginning of January and the reaction of the Post and Telegraph Association was as follows [translation]—

Mr. Chairman they say that nothing happened. Then the hon. the Minister waited until a protest meeting had been convened. Three hours before that meeting was to start he made the announcement that it took him 40 minutes to deal with here this evening and that I dealt with in two minutes. I want more information from the hon. the Minister. Who is going to be appointed to this Post Office Commission that is to be set up? Who is the member of the Public Service Commission who will be chairman of the body and who are the two members who are going to be appointed? From what date will the improvements in the salary scales and cost structure take effect? Are these increases going to be retrospective to 1 January? I want in passing to put this question to the hon. the Minister: What is the position in regard to overtime? I do not think that the overtime rates have been changed in the past six or eight years. When a person reaches a certain salary scale he reaches the maximum rate of overtime that he can earn. I think that in one case it is 91c and in another case R1. That has been the position for years and years. We have now had an improvement in salary scales. When the first announcement of salary increases was made we found that in many cases the increase was not more than R10 per annum. The salary scales have not yet been worked out in connection with this second increase and we do not know what they are going to be.

The hon. the Minister took some time to tell us that certain procedures between the Treasury and the Post Office were going to be changed in order to give the Post Office more freedom of action. What procedures are going to be changed? It is very easy to say that certain procedures are going to be changed but what procedures are involved? Will a lump sum be made available to the Post Office annually so that they can erect the buildings that they need? What control will they have over Public Works? What control will they have over the planning of these buildings? What control is there going to be over the 101 matters that are involved before a post office is built? As I said just now, 42 buildings are provided for in these Estimates but only a token amount has been made available for them. What control is the Post Office going to have in this regard? The hon. the Minister has told us that certain procedures between the Treasury and the Post Office will be changed in order to give the Post Office more freedom of action. This is so vague, Mr. Chairman, that it means absolutely nothing. To my mind it means as little as the whole speech of the hon. the Minister which it took him 40 minutes to make and in which he told us what the Post Office was responsible for, that it was a business undertaking and so forth. These are things which we know perfectly well but now the hon. the Minister comes along and tells us about them again.

We do have a little more clarity in connection with the functions of the Department of Public Works because reference is made to the hiring and maintenance of certain buildings and the erection of small works. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to tell you what comes to my mind when I think of small works. There is also the question of furniture. This sounds very strange to me. What do small works in a post office mean? For example, we need a new exchange at Ladysmith. That means an entirely new building and everything connected with it. Is this a small work? [Interjections.] It is also very necessary at Danskraal. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister will tell us what is meant by “small works The Post Office will also have control over its own vehicles. The hon. the Minister has told us that they will now be able to use a ¾-ton van instead of hiring a heavy vehicle. He also talks about additional funds that will be voted in order to make up the backlog in Post Office accommodation over a fixed period. This item and the one in connection with the Treasury are very similar I think. What other agreement can be entered into with the Treasury in order to obtain more money? If this is the case, why then this repetition in the sixth paragraph? The seventh is even more vague: “Permanent machinery will be established in order to consider proposals for the further transfer of functions and activities to the Post Office from time to time.” I do not know what it all means. What machinery? All that I can make out of it is that more functions will probably be taken away from Public Works and other Departments and transferred to the Post Office. The hon. the Minister must surely know what it all means.

The hon. the Minister took 40 minutes to impress upon us that improvements were needed in the Post Office. May I ask the hon. the Minister, when he rises again, not to try to convince this House that it is desirable for improvements to be effected in the Post Office. We are all in agreement with him there. He must please not tell us that because he will only be wasting time. Both sides of the House are agreed that the Post Office is in a critical position, that buildings are in a poor condition and that the staff are working under extremely difficult conditions. I think it says a great deal for their endurance that they are still able to do the work that they are doing Mr. Chairman, I think it is time these conditions were improved. [Time limit.]

There is of course no art in standing up in this House and painting an extremely spectacular picture of the requirements in any constituency as far as postal facilities are concerned. There is no art in that at all. I think that even the hon. the Minister of Defence could do that. The impression is being created this evening that this is all the fault of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. One would think that he had all the wisdom and treasures of Solomon at his disposal and that he was able to provide the requirements of the whole country in one year. That of course is absolute nonsense. I could also make the fuss made by the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk), but I would not become so hysterical about things. Hon. members forget that the Post Office is a State Department; it is a Department in control of a large machine and the hon. the Minister of Finance is at the head. The hon. the Minister of Finance has to allocate funds to each Department to meet its requirements. If the hon. the Minister of Finance were to allocate sufficient funds to cover all the requirements, and he had to raise taxes in order to do so, what would hon. members have to say if they were compelled to pay those very high taxes? Let us imagine that the hon. the Minister of Finance decided that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs should receive all the funds that it required; that the Departments of Defence, Education, Arts and Science and Justice and all the other Departments should receive the funds that they required. I ask you then with tears in my eyes, Mr. Chairman, where would we find the labour to complete all those works? The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is being accused of being unable to handle the Department. The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) made some very personal remarks. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself. If he looks at the Estimates he will see that an additional amount of R4,879,000 is being voted for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs on Loan Account as well. I challenge hon. members of the Opposition to show me a Minister who is more interested in his Department and in his staff than the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Mr. Chairman, the Post Office is a Government Department and its officials have up to this stage been public servants. They form part of a large machine. They fall under the Public Service Commission and when one group of officials is treated in a certain way, then every one must be treated in that way. The hon. the Minister made out a good case to the Cabinet for the staff of the Post Office. He said that they were specially trained officials. They are officials whom one would not be able to use, for example, in the Department of Justice; they are specialists in their work. They cannot be used anywhere else but in the Post Office. The hon. the Minister used all his influence with the Cabinet. The result has been that special provision will be made for the staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Then the hon. member for Orange Grove tries to kick up a lot of dust and tell us that the Post Office staff are seething with rage. But these things happened before the hon. the Minister succeeded in getting the Cabinet to appoint that inter-departmental committee. The hon. member for Drakensberg now wants to know in detail what is going to be done. The hon., the Minister told her that a special committee had been set up to bring new stumbling blocks in connection with Post Office matters to the attention of the authorities concerned. I do not doubt for one moment that this will be done. This question of the Post Office is almost as old as the hills. I have here a document in my hand dated 1940. In 1940 the Select Committee on Public Accounts submitted a report in which they said—

I do not want to advocate this; there is probably a great deal to be said for it but there is also probably a great deal to be said against it. All the State Departments may perhaps eventually advocate it and what then will become of the entire State machine? As long as we have the position where the Department of Posts and Telegraphs falls under the State machine we will always have the problem that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will have to be satisfied with the amount of money that he receives from the Treasury. I challenge the Opposition to mention one single case where the hon. the Minister obtained the money and did not carry out the work. They cannot mention one such case. That is why I want to thank the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Postmaster-General and his staff for their zeal and for what they have done in the past and for what they are going to do for our country in the future.

It is clear from the speeches we have had from both sides of the House that there is a general feeling that the position in regard to the buildings of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is very bad and that the officials have to work under very difficult circumstances. What I cannot understand is why it is just the Postal Department which is lagging so far behind in this respect. You do not find it in the case of other Government Departments. Where does the fault lie? The Department of Posts and Telegraphs shows a profit, why can it not keep pace? 1f the Department of Public Works cannot keep pace with the requirements of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, has the time not arrived that greater use be made of private initiative in order to get out of the difficulty? I also think there is another way in which the position can be eased. Perhaps the Minister can ease the position by spending a little less money on pursuing ideological luxuries and duplicating entrances and counters and standing room. There is no logic in it for people, when they want to buy a stamp from the Government, to enter through one of two entrances, the Coloureds through the one and the Whites through another entrance. But when those two leave and cross the street to purchase something from a Nationalist shop there is only one entrance and one counter. I do not see any logic in that. I think the time has arrived for the Minister to tell us whether he intends continuing with this policy which, to my mind, is a waste of, money, a waste of money which can rather be used to improve the working conditions of the officials. Perhaps there is yet another way in which the position can be ameliorated. Is there not room for greater decentralization of services? My impression is that the service rendered to the public is inferior to that rendered in Europe and particularly in America. In America they make great use of private initiative. In a country like America, for example, they have an office or a counter in every large shop and large hotel in all main streets where you can buy stamps and send off telegrams. I ask myself the question whether we should not do more in the direction of decentralization of services instead of concentrating everything in one large building which is after all not so very successful. Decentralization has already taken place in two directions, namely, in the posting of letters and in telephone facilities. I wonder whether, as far as telegram services are concerned, over and above the phonogram system, greater decentralization cannot be brought about so that you will have telegram agencies in your big shops, in the hotels and in various parts of the city. According to the figures supplied by the Minister 11,000,000 telegrams are accepted by the Post Office annually. I am convinced that if the service were extended in this regard not only will the officials be able to work in better circumstances but that greater use will be made of the telegram service with a consequent increase in revenue. I think the same applies in the case of the sale of stamps. I notice that greater and greater use is being made of slot machines for stamps but I think it can be done on an even larger scale so that the service can be better distributed.

Another service which I think can be greatly improved upon is the public telephone service. I know the Minister has great difficulty with vandals who damage and destroy the instruments in the telephone booths. If I am not mistaken the hon. the Minister recently said in a statement that if the instrument in a telephone booth is damaged two or three times he is not going to have it repaired again. I came across such ghost booths in Johannesburg. It is very annoying, of course, if you are in a hurry and you want to make a hurried telephone call and you go to a telephone booth only to find that there is no instrument. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there are still any of those ghost booths in Johannesburg and whether it is the intention to leave them like that or not? I saw in the East that they are much more successful than we are in their public telephone services. There the public telephone service is connected with either a shop or a café and in any case you have it in every hotel. The instrument consequently remains in good order, is always neat and available where people meet. It is true, of course, that in a country like Japan the shops remain open much later than here. But I do think, in any case, that that idea can be investigated even though our shops do not remain open so late. Perhaps we can make more use of cafés to provide public telephone services. I am convinced that a great extent of the damage which the Department of Posts and Telegraphs suffer as a result of damage to instruments in booths can be eliminated by coming to an agreement with public places such as cafés, etc., for the provision of public telephone facilities. It can be done easily enough on an ordinary telephone table. The Minister may perhaps argue that that will not be sufficiently private but I think most people who avail themselves of the public telephone do so not with the idea of carrying on a conversation, but usually because it is urgent and as a rule people in a shop do not pay attention to the conversations around them. Something else which struck me which I want to suggest and which you find all over America is a kind of drive-in telephone. The telephone is in a small box on a holder high enough for a motor car to stop alongside it and you then make your call from the motor car. I think that is a very useful idea and it will assist in eliminating the telephone booths which are in any case not very satisfactory. A further question I want to put to the Minister is this: In some places I came across an air-letter card with a stamp affixed more or less equivalent to our 6d. which can be used to all parts of the world. Here you have the annoyance when using an air-letter card of 5 cent, of first having to ascertain what additional postage you must add for this country and how much for the other country. Is it not possible, on some basis or other, to have an average air-letter card which can be used for all parts of the world at the same tariff?

Then I have a complaint in connection with the handling of books by the post office. I realize that the post office handles thousands of books and it is perhaps not always so easy to handle heavy books carefully and gently. I do think, however, that I am right in saying that books are handled roughly in the post office, I have often seen how they throw books from one corner to another corner in the sorting rooms. You do not order a book with the idea that it should reach you in a damaged or broken state. My experience is that it is the exception if you receive a book in an undamaged condition.

What nonsense.

Not long ago I received a special edition of a leather-bound book which cost R10 in a badly damaged condition and it was properly packed. The Hansards which are sent from Parliament often arrive in such a broken state at your home that I have often had to bring them back for exchange. That is a form of vandalism in the Post Office which I trust will be attended to.

In conclusion just one question. There were reports in the newspapers that the Government intended erecting a new post office in Rissik Street and that it was going to be named after the leader of the governing party. As a Johannesburg member I want to say that Johannesburg will not like that. Perhaps I should draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the public is beginning to notice that a form of Nkrumahnism is beginning to develop in South Africa. By that I mean a form of self-glorification by political leaders by attaching their own names to everything. There is an increasing tendency to-day on the part of the Government to name towers and public buildings after their political figures. Let me say at once that the buildings are subsidized by the public, not by the Ministers. I have no objection to it if the public of a certain city or any other section make representations to honour somebody by calling a building after him but I object to the present tendency where officials, who want to curry favour with Ministers, are responsible for it that buildings are named after political leaders. [Time limit.]

Perhaps I should start by replying to various questions asked by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson). He asked why the Post Office had such a backlog as far as buildings were concerned and he said that that was not the case in all Government Departments. I do not know to what extent the hon. member is acquainted with the requirements of the other Departments. I think he will find that there is a great shortage in most Departments in this regard. But the reason why it is particularly noticeable as far as the Post Office is concerned is that the post office is a business undertaking with which one makes daily contact, whether it is to make a telephone call or to buy a stamp or to send off a parcel or to deposit money. I think the hon. member can accept the fact that the position throughout South Africa is that we do have a shortage of buildings and the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel) has given a clear reply in this regard. Since 1948 South Africa has developed as never before in her history. Up to 1948 the buildings in South Africa were more or less adequate but now we have to keep pace with this tremendous development in South Africa and it is obvious that unless our country is squeezed for capital and on such a scale that we cannot afford it, it will simply be impossible for us to find the capital for all the buildings that are required in this swiftly expanding and developing country. I do not want to deny for one moment that there are delays and red tape to a certain extent, but these are not delays caused by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The delays are caused by the Department that is responsible for the purchase of land and the erection of buildings, and that Department has its own difficulties. I cannot deal with all the difficulties that they have but they certainly do have great difficulties. But no one can point a finger at the Post Office. No sensible member opposite—unfortunately, we have a few very silly people in this House—will accuse the Post Office of not being responsible as far as its buildings are concerned. I have explained that according to the new arrangement the Post Office will be able to undertake small works to the value of R8,000 itself. All large works will, however, still have to be undertaken, probably for some time yet, by the Department of Public Works. Hon. members who are so concerned about this fact and who have made such personal attacks are picking on the wrong person. If they were really concerned about this position they should have raised the matter during the debate on the Vote of the responsible Department.

We cannot do the work for you.

Unfortunately some people are slow to understand. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout thought that he could get in a blow against the National Party Government by insinuating that if we did not have separate entrances and separate facilities for Bantu at the counters, we would be able to erect the necessary buildings. That is being very petty. Has the hon. member ever asked himself what it costs to partition off part of a counter so that the Bantu can be served separately? Has the hon. member ever considered that the first principle in life when one wants to co-operate with other people and when one wants to promote good relationships is that one must not allow offence to be given? Has the hon. member never noticed that it gives offence if Bantu are allowed to force themselves upon the White people? Has the hon. member never considered that the White man prefers to be by himself and that the Bantu prefers to be by himself? Has he not yet realized that if we organize South Africa in this way we will create greater happiness? But the hon. member is so obsessed with his ideological liberalism that he advocates this sort of thing. The hon. member travelled through America. I appreciate the good things that he saw there, but he went a bit too far. If one goes to another country it is certainly worth while giving attention to the good things there, but it is certainly not a sensible thing to go to other countries and then on returning to South Africa seek to apply all of those things here. The hon. member made a few interesting suggestions but they are already being applied in South Africa. The hon. member asks why shops and cafes cannot have public telephones and why they cannot sell stamps. But they can do so. They simply have to apply to the Post Office for a licence. Of course this cannot be done without Post Office control. But the shops and cafés are not going to set up telephone kiosks at their own expense if it is not going to pay them to do so. That is why cafés and shops first make sure that the demand for such facilities justifies such an application.

My point is that the Post Office must decentralize. This step must be taken by the Post Office.

Does it not amount to decentralization of the Post Office if shops apply for telephone kiosks; and is there less decentralization when the Post Office approaches the shop owner?

I want the Post Office to pay the shop owner for those services.

If that is what the hon. member is advocating, it will result in telephones and postal tariffs having to be raised within the next 12 months. Hon. members must not forget that the Post Office is not a luxury service. It is a public service. We cannot institute a service at 20c or 25c per local call or 20c per letter. We have to institute a service that is as cheap as possible so that every citizen of the country can afford to use it. And if we make it as cheap as possible, then we cannot at the same time provide the luxury services that we would like to provide. The hon. member also spoke about the ghost kiosks in Johannesburg. This is unfortunately a very sad reflection of the mentality of certain people. This is a very unfortunate characteristic that has developed amongst certain sections of the population who apparently find it amusing or exciting to destroy State property. We are also faced with the unfortunate position that if we install the same type of telephone in those same kiosks once again, they will again be destroyed. Accordingly the Post Office is taking the following steps to avoid damage to its property. In the first place the closed or opaque kiosks must gradually be replaced and glass kiosks with glass doors erected so that the public outside will be able to watch and see if anyone is meddling with the instruments. The instruments in these kiosks are very rarely damaged. Of course, it costs a great deal of money to replace all those kiosks but the Post Office is patiently setting about that task. In the second place the Post Office is replacing the coin boxes installed in the telephone kiosks. Hon. members have probably seen the stronger apparatus with a rubber receiver and a steel cable that it will be difficult to break. These are the steps that we have to take but I am sure that the hon. member will agree with me that this has to be a gradual process because of the expense involved. But we are doing this work and I hope that eventually the problem will be solved to some extent.

The hon. member referred to his experience in regard to the posting of books. I am sorry; this sort of thing does probably happen but I must say that I myself have received many books and it has very, very seldom happened that I have received a damaged book through the post.

Hear, hear!

I cannot even remember one case. It all depends on how the book is packed. A good firm will pack the book in cardboard and strong paper. A good bookseller will never send a book through the post in any other way and I am sure that if it is posted in this way it will not arrive in a damaged condition.

Unfortunately the hon. member also went a little too far in another respect by making distasteful remarks when it was not necessary to do so. I do not think that it serves any purpose to be insulting towards South Africa, or towards the Prime Minister who is the leader of the country; particularly towards him. The hon. member made certain insinuations because it has been suggested that the Post Office in Rissik Street should be called Hendrik Verwoerd Post Office. But that suggestion was not made by the hon. the Prime Minister. The hon. the Prime Minister was opposed to that suggestion for some months. The suggestion came from large organizations and from the Johannesburg public who acted in such a way that we had no alternative but say that this was the wish of the public of Johannesburg. It was only because of this fact that the hon. the Prime Minister eventually agreed to allow the Post Office to be named after him. Right from the start he was opposed to it; he did not want it. I deprecate it when an hon. member goes out of his way to make mean (smerige) remarks while conducting himself very well indeed in other respects. It is like a woman who puts on a pretty frock with a few ugly stains on it.

Surely I am in order in discussing it.

On a point of order, did I understand the hon. the Minister to say that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout had made some mean remarks? Is that permissible?

Order! I drew the hon. the Minister’s attention to it.

If the hon. member does not like the word, I shall withdraw it.

May I not raise a matter of policy here?

I have no objection to that but it is not necessary to do so in an insulting manner. The hon. member started his speech on a high level but then he proceeded to make observations which are unworthy of any person.

In this debate on the Post Office and the S.A.B.C. this evening we have again had an example of people who are unable to behave decently, people who forget themselves and who are always abusive. Is that necessary? And when this comes from a woman, it really hurts one. The hon. member’s speech consisted of abuse from start to finish. Nowhere did we have any sound reasoning; all we had was abuse. The hon. member said that the Minister had spoken a very long time; that the Minister had said this and that and that he did not even know what was going on in his Department. That sort of thing does not behove us; least of all does it behove the female sex.

As far as the attacks of hon. members in regard to the shortage of buildings are concerned, this is largely due to a misapprehension. Hon. members must understand that the responsibility for the erection of large buildings rests with the Department of Public Works and not with us. No matter how much I may plead with the Department of Public Works, no matter how much my Department may nag the Department of Public Works, the position is simply that that Department only has a certain amount of money that it receives from the hon. the Minister of Finance, an amount that it is estimated the country can afford, and the Department of Public Works can do no more than that. There may be a small amount of play, but there is no such thing as a large amount of play. It is not the fault of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and I go so far as to say that it is not the fault of the Department of Public Works. It is simply due to the fact that the development of South Africa requires an enormous amount of capital and we have to form that capital. A nation forms its own capital. In that way it builds up its prosperity in later years.

May I ask a question? The hon. the Minister said that the Department of Public Works was responsible. Did he not issue a statement in which he said that it would be part of the new set-up that additional funds would be made available so that the backlog in regard to Post Office accommodation can be eliminated?

I said that that was the Government’s decision, as announced in the Press.

But that decision is not being implemented.

Are we dealing here with sensible people? This decision of the Government was taken a month or two ago and now the hon. member comes along and says that it is not being implemented. Surely the hon. member knows that before that can be done the money first has to be voted. Sir, have you ever heard of such a thing? The decision was taken a short while ago and now the hon. member regards it as terrible that the money has not yet been voted and spent!

Why do you not ask for more money?

In order to avoid being misunderstood by the hon. member for Drakensberg again I want to remind the House that I said that part of the new set-up was that the Post Office would now be able to undertake small works costing up to R8,000 each. These works include homes for Post Office employees and even small post offices. This is a step forward. These works may even include a post office at, let us way, Waschbank. But where a large Department has been doing this building work over the years one cannot now expect this work to be transferred holus-bolus to another Department. Eventually as things develop and the Post Office gets its new sections under control, more and more powers will probably be transferred to it. But this is a matter for the future and it depends upon how the Post Office will be able to do its work. The hon. member says that nowhere in the Estimates has anything been voted for the Post Office. Let me refer the hon. member to page 32 of the Loan Estimates.

I know that it is reflected in the Loan Estimates.

That is where the hon. member will find details of the buildings that are going to be erected for the Post Office. This only goes to show how wilful the hon. member was. I realize that now. I thought that the hon. member was ignorant but I now think that she was being wilful. The hon. member says that she knows that provision is made for these buildings in the Estimates but she probably did not notice that this provision appears under the Loan Vote of Public Works. Why did she attack me?

The hon. member for Drakensberg raised another point. She said—again very wilfully— that I had said that the post office at Ermelohad been promised during the period of office of the United Party. If she had no ulterior motive, do you see how wilful she was? Or is it simply a case of lack of understanding? I said very clearly that it was promised by a former Minister when I was member of Parliament for Ermelo and before I became Minister. But I am now being accused of looking after my own constituency as Minister and of practically abusing my powers. That is a completely misplaced remark. I did not decide on this; a previous Minister did. Then the hon. member for Drakensberg made the point that the overtime rates of pay of postal officials were still the same as they were before the increase in salaries. Is it so difficult for the hon. member to be fair in her criticism? Must one always look for a motive, no matter how unfair it may be? Surely the hon. member must realize that all these things are determined by the Public Service Commission and that it takes time to deal with everything. After every major salary change the overtime payments are revised by the Public Service Commission and the Commission is doing that at the moment. But why insinuate that the Public Service Commission neglected its duty because it did not simply wave a magic wand and rectify the position in that way? The hon. member asked what was the good of my saying that arrangements had been made with the Treasury in terms of which certain of its powers would be delegated to the Post Office. I want to ask what good it will do to tell her what the arrangements are because we have seen how difficult it is for her to grasp these things? Let me say that arrangements have been made in connection with the adjustment of tariffs which can henceforward be made by the Post Office itself. Certain adjustments have been made in connection with the functions of the Post Office. The Post Office will have to conclude postal agreements with other postal administrations, a thing that happens regularly. In the past, the permission of the Treasury always had to be obtained first. We found that it served no good purpose for our Department, which is the expert Department, to have to do all these things in consultation with the Treasury. There are all sorts of minor matters such as articles lost in the post in regard to which Treasury approval first has to be obtained, minor losses for which compensation has to be paid—for example, of RIO. This has resulted in unnecessary administration There is the recovery of overpayments, postal agency allowances, ex-gratia rewards for information and certain arrangements in that regard; and also the question of journeys abroad when they are necessary for technical reasons. Similarly there are numbers of small things which caused unnecessary administration and unnecessary expenditure in the past. Many of these things are now being changed.

Mr. OLDFIELD; The Minister’s reply to questions raised so far indicate that there is an enormous backlog of buildings for the Post Office, and I am very tempted to devote my time to stressing the need for a new post office in Durban to replace the old post office which is completely outdated and inadequate. However, I wish to devote the time available to me to addressing the Minister on another matter. It is a matter which concerns the S.A.B.C. and it is awaiting certain action by the Minister. I am referring to concessionary radio licences. From 1 January 1962 radio licences were increased from R3.50 to R5.50 a year. It was then found that a large number of old age pensioners were perhaps the hardest hit by this increase. Certain organizations such as the Women’s Institute and the Benevolent Society and myself took up this matter with the S.A.B.C. in an endeavour to see whether concessionary licences could be granted to those persons. To sketch the background of this issue, I must mention that the S.A.B.C., in terms of regulations published in the Government Gazette, made certain exemptions to certain classes of persons, such as a 25c concessionary radio licence to blind persons and indigent invalids, and then a concessionary licence fee of R1 was made available to aged persons living in certain institutions. Those regulations read as follows—

This provision, which is indeed a very welcome one to these persons, does bring about an anomaly because there are a large number of persons, old age pensioners and others, who are living alone and who are not in such an institution, and their sole means of entertainment is often a small radio which can only receive medium-wave broadcasts, and they are called upon to pay the full licence fee of R5.50, and it is very difficult for some of them to pay it. But apart from all the social pensioners who live alone and who look upon the radio as their main means of entertainment, there are also other aged persons living in institutions which do not fall within the scope of these provisions. In my own constituency there is a home for aged women which provides accommodation for some 20 people, all of whom are old age pensioners. This home was established by some public-spirited persons and it is self-supporting. It has an enthusiastic committee which raises the necessary funds to maintain this institution, and because they do not fall within the scope of this regulation and are not subsidized, and therefore are not a burden on the taxpayer in any way, they are discriminated against because they cannot receive the concessionary licence. There are two persons in the institution who fall under the category of indigent invalids and obtain the 25c licence; the others do not. It is particularly hard on some of these people. A letter I have here from a person writing on behalf of those inmates draws attention to the fact that one of the inmates, an old lady of 77 who cannot read and write any more, and whose sole means of entertainment is the radio, is now facing prosecution for not being able to pay her radio licence of R5.50. I took up this matter with the S.A.B.C. again this year, in spite of the fact that last year the Corporation did not favour extending the concessionary licences to all pensioners, or to those pensioners living in a home or institution which does not receive any Government subsidy, or a subsidy from any other authority. I was very pleased to receive a letter dated 20 February from the S.A.B.C., which reads as follows—

The Board of Governors in their generosity advocated that the regulation should be revised so as to extend the R1 concessionary licence to all these pensioners, and the higher authority referred to is of course the hon. the Minister. I have discussed the matter with the Minister, and also wrote to him, and he kindly replied on 8 May, saying that the matter was receiving consideration. My appeal to the Minister is that this concessionary licence should receive the urgent attention of the Minister. I might mention that the meeting of the Board of Governors was held in February and the letter addressed to me was also dated February. As long as the Minister does not agree to have the revised regulations published in the Gazette, it is causing a good deal of confusion amongst the old people. Press reports have mentioned the fact that this concession has been recommended by the Board of Governors and is awaiting the approval of higher authority, but in spite of that a good deal of confusion has arisen because those persons whose licences fall due now are being called upon to pay the full fee of R5.50. I hope the Minister will be sympathetic in regard to the generous gesture of the S.A.B.C. and will agree to what they have recommended. If the Minister can give this his urgent attention, so as to make the position perfectly clear and so that these persons can benefit by the concession which has been recommended, it will be a very good thing, because as long as it is delayed more and more of these persons are called upon to pay the full fee. I might also mention the fact that a number of these persons have been called upon to pay the increased fee, and that increase has to a certain extent been justified by the S.A.B.C. in view of the enormous expenditure incurred in improving the services and in providing F. M. services, but because many of these people will not benefit by such a service I should also like to ask the Minister what progress has been made in regard to the introduction of the F.M. system in the Republic. We know that it has been extended to most of the urban areas. When does the Minister expect the full coverage and the whole network to be complete? I believe that is contingent upon the fact of the Government’ refusal to proceed with the introduction of television. [Time limit.]

I do not want to follow the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) because he did his duty towards his constituents in contrast to the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) and the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). I think that these two people imagine that no legislation can come before this House without their attacking it and trying to make political capital out of it, but we know those two hon. members for what they are. The hon. member for Orange Grove always attacks the S.A.B.C. and he says that it is the fault of the hon. the Minister that, in his view, certain irregularities take place in the S.A.B.C. That is a great pity. In listening to the hon. member for Umbilo we realize the differences that exist between hon. members on that same side of the House. Instead of giving the hon. the Minister a little credit for what he is doing, all they do is to attack him. I am sure that he is one of the most hardworking Ministers of Posts and Telegraphs that we have ever had. And instead of thanking the staff for what they have done in difficult times, all the Opposition has done has been to criticize them. When we think that we can post a letter in Cape Town to-day and that it is delivered in Johannesburg to-morrow and that this work is done during the night, we feel that the Opposition should give some recognition to the postal staff for what they are doing. Is the only function of the Opposition to obstruct everything in this House? I leave it at that. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister.

Thank him!

I also want to congratulate the staff for what they have done and I want to thank the hon. the Minister of Finance too for the increase in salaries that the officials have received. Everyone wants as much as possible to be done and there are certain shortcomings that must be brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In his first year a postman earns R34. I want to give the hon. the Minister an example of what happened on the Railways. The hon. the Minister of Transport told us year after year that he had sufficient staff except for shunters, and year after year I drew the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that the remuneration was too low to attract the best persons to the service. The wages of learner shunters were increased to R100 and provision was made for this in the Railway Estimates. Now we can be sure that we will obtain the services of the best men and that the work will be done well. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider this fact. It is impossible for a person to keep body and soul together on R34 per month and perhaps too to rear a family. I also want to bring another shortcoming to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I am struck by the fact that there is this great difference in regard to salaries. I must mention it because we find in every large city in the country that we have special grade woman clerks whose salary is R1,608, and we also have senior woman clerks with the same period of service and their salary is R2.280. I want to ask why there is such a great difference between these two salaries where these officials have practically the same period of service. The difference amounts to R56 per month. This sounds rather much when we find that these women do practically the same work and have practically the same period of service except for the fact that the one rank is a senior clerk and the other is a special clerk. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to inquire into this and I also want to ask him to give consideration to the telephonists because their salaries are also very low. When we consider that the Post Office shows a profit of R13,000,000 then I think that it is time that these people were looked after. We are grateful to see that the Post Office can now undertake its own building operations in regard to works costing up to R8,000, although this is a very small amount. I cannot imagine what a R8,000 post office will look like but we hope that we will soon reach the stage when the Post Office will also stand on its own legs like the Railways. But we know that we must not kill the goose that lays the golden egg and that is why it will perhaps not be so easy to release the Post Office from its present position.

I also want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the question of pensioners and here I want to support the hon. member for Umbilo. I think that the time has come for us to look after our old people and to charge them nominal fees for their radio licences, and even in respect of telephone rentals. When we see the small pensions that those people receive and we think of the cost of living, we realize that it is difficult for them to have a radio or a telephone. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter in order to see whether something cannot be done in this regard.

Before I come to the matter that I really want to discuss with the hon. the Minister I want to come back to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) said about stamp machines. He used this as an example of decentralization and he spoke with praise of the use of such machines. But I would like to know from the hon. member—he is not here now—when last he saw a stamp machine that was working? We have had no stamp machines in operation in this country since decimalization was introduced and that was some time ago. Wherever these machines are to be found, in post offices and elsewhere, they have notices attached to them saying that the machines are out of order.

They are all working again from this week! [Laughter.]

I hope that the hon. member is correct. This is something to which the hon. the Minister should really give his attention—the re-introduction of these stamp machines because it often happens that one is not able to obtain a stamp. I am not one who wants to abuse the privileges of members but I must honestly say that it has already happened a few times that I have had to post my urgent private correspondence in an official envelope because I was not able to buy a stamp after office hours. I think it is time that the Department gave attention to this matter and that these machines were again put into service for the public.

The hon. the Minister replied to what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said when he spoke about the possible expense in connection with the introduction of apartheid in post offices, and I want to deal with this matter. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister, as I would like to draw the attention of other hon. Ministers and the attention of the Government as such, to the fact that we must consider whether the time has not arrived at this stage in our history and in the critical times in which we are living for us to reconsider our conception of apartheid. [Interjections.] Sir, there are so many chairmen here that one does not know to whom to listen.

Order!

I attended a session of the National Coloured Council recently and one of the Council members spoke about apartheid in post offices and pointed out that it was the policy of the Government to have parallel development. He then asked: Parallel with what? He said: “If I walk into a post office, with whom am I parallel because wherever one goes one only comes across segregation between Whites and Coloureds and then we are told that the Coloured has a Western background and that his future and his fate are bound up with those of the Whites. But if we go to a post office or public place, we are included with the Natives, irrespective of our social standing.” I think that the time has come for a change to be made and we can start with the Post Office. For that reason I am directing my remarks to this Minister so that we will not make the people whose salvation and fate are so closely interwoven with those of the Whites feel that we will continue to push them away from us. Steps were taken and legislation was placed on the Statute Book after 1948 when the wave of apartheid broke and when the Government kept the promises that it had made at the election, but that time has gone and we must now adapt ourselves to circumstances. Let us consider that as in the case of any living organism there must be evolution and an adjustment to circumstances and that it is also necessary for the Government to change its ideas in connection with this matter.

Mention was made this evening of increased salaries. With all respect, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether any indication can be given of the extent to which the salaries of Coloured postal workers have been increased. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. P. J. Coetzee) mentioned an important matter, particularly when he mentioned the figure of R34 which is the starting salary of a postman. That is shocking enough. The hon. member asked how a man could keep body and soul together on a salary such as this but I want to ask how the Coloured man who has a wife and family can do the same on a salary that is even lower? I am quite sure that if a White man receives R34 per month a Coloured will not receive more than about R20. We must remember that the Coloured who does the work of the White man in the Post Office has the same cost of living as that of the White man. He may perhaps live in a cheaper home but on the other hand we must consider that if he receives a better salary he tries to get a better house in order to live under better conditions.

We on these benches are very interested to know how the increased salaries for the Coloureds will compare with those of the White postal workers. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister what progress has been made in the implementation of the Government policy in respect of the Coloureds in the postal services, the policy that Coloureds will serve their own people as far as possible. I must say—and I do so to the credit of the hon. the Minister—that where it has been brought to my attention in my constituency that Whites are being used as postmen in Coloured townships the hon. the Minister has replaced them with Coloureds in every case that I have brought to his notice. [Hear, hear!] But it will be appreciated if the hon. the Minister can give as an indication of the progress that has been made in the creation of new and better posts for the Coloureds which they did not occupy previously. Because of the development that has taken place over the past years better posts for these people must of necessity have been provided. I would like to know whether there is any possibility of such posts with increased responsibility and higher salaries being created for the Coloureds.

What I say now I say on the instruction of the people who are affected. I have been specifically asked on behalf of the people who are affected and also on my own behalf, to mention the attitude of the hon. the Minister and to thank him for what he has done. In the first place I want to mention the case of two Coloured settlements, one 18 miles and the other three miles from Caledon, where for the past ten or 20 years efforts have been made to obtain telephone services for those people. They had to make use of party lines because they were surrounded by White farmers and they could not obtain the facilities they wanted. After a personal interview with the hon. the Minister provision was made in this regard on the Estimates last year and the work was carried out in October. I have been asked by those communities to express their appreciation in this regard.

I want to mention another case in which I am personally concerned and in regard to which I appreciate the attitude of the hon. the Minister. This is the case of a Coloured businessman who could not get a telephone because the White party-line subscribers did not want to agree to it. The one White person on the line was also a shopkeeper and the other was his brother-in-law. This Coloured man had to drive 22 miles to reach the nearest telephone if he wanted to place an order. I drew the attention of the hon. the Minister to this matter and the hon. the Minister felt that these were people who were acting in such a way as to adversely affect that Coloured man’s business. The hon. the Minister gave that Coloured man a telephone on that party-line, for which I am very grateful. I hope that the hon. the Minister will also apply that principle in other cases because there are other cases in my constituency where Coloureds are prevented from getting telephones simply because one or two Whites will not give the necessary permission. [Time limit.]

I want to return to another part of the speech of the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) in which as he does every year, he riled against the radio programme and in which he again complained and said that the radio had become the propaganda mouthpiece of the Government. We have already become so accustomed to that that I was reminded of the English poet who wrote: “Blossom and blossom and promise of blossom but never a fruit”. If one could adapt it to fit this occasion it would read: “Rile and rile and rile again, but never a fact”. During his whole speech and during all his exaggerated remarks about the propaganda over the radio he produced only one fact and that was that the Prime Minister allegedly talked politics in his New Year message. That was the only fact in his entire speech and that justified the hon. member to say what he did say. His greatest ambition apparently is to look and to sound as much as possible like the Sunday Times. That is the only explanation I can find for his attitude. There is only one other body in South Africa which adopts the same attitude towards the radio and that is the Sunday Times which runs a weekly article about the radio programmes.

But he writes them.

It is supposed to be a discussion on the radio programmes but more often than not it contains half truths and deliberate lies in an attempt to discredit the S.A.B.C. as a South African institution. I want to give one example. Last year in May there was an article called “Inquiry into S.A.B.C. News Slant: Eight monitors with tape recorders study broadcasts”. It then went on to say this;—

There you see the technique, Sir. A test was to be carried out over three months, but without a single fact they say in this report that the end result of the test will prove that the S.A.B.C. slants the news. I say with the greatest possible sense of responsibility that this article which appeared in the Sunday Times was a deliberate and wilful lie fabricated to try to cast suspicion on the S.A.B.C. I base my statement on this that had a test been carried out facts would have been collected and in view of the desire of the Sunday Times and the Opposition to come forward with facts to cast suspicion on the S.A.B.C. they would eagerly have grasped at those facts in order to say to the world: Here are the results of a test carried out over three months; we can now prove what we have said. But not another word was heard about that, and a year has passed since then. That is why I say it is a deliberate lie. The Sunday Times is usually alive with them. This kind of attitude on the part of a South African newspaper towards an institution such as the S.A.B.C. stems from a cowardly and warped spirit which recognizes no moral code. As if this immorality is not enough the Sunday Times indulges in yet another method. It does not satisfy them to fabricate lies in order to cast suspicion on the S.A.B.C. Those lies are accompanied by the appeal: “Tune in direct to B.B.C.” Here is another one: “For news of South Africa tune to B.B.C.” That is the cry which comes from the Sunday Times, a South African newspaper which supports the Opposition, and it does that in view of the fact that there is not any institution in the whole world which is more hostile towards South Africa and the Whites in Southern Africa than the B.B.C. but that is the appeal made by the Sunday Times namely that we in South Africa should ignore our own radio service and tune into the B.B.C. I repeat that not a single institution in the world is more hostile towards South Africa than the B.B.C. I shall give a few examples to substantiate that statement. Perhaps it is necessary to do so that we can see what the attitude of the B.B.C. is and in the light of that what the attitude of the Sunday Times is. Here is a short extract from a report which appeared in the Chronicle, a Rhodesian newspaper, of 22 April 1961—

That by way of introduction. That was said by somebody who is himself associated with the B.B.C. I have here the edition of the Sunday Tribune of 21 April this year. This is a Natal newspaper in which they quote from an article which appeared in The Tablet, a Roman Catholic journal in Britain. According to the Sunday Tribune, The Tablet said the following—

That was said by a Roman Catholic journal in Britain. As if to confirm that an article appeared in the Argus of 7 May 1963 about an interview which the B.B.C. had had with Patrick Duncan. The person who interviewed Mr. Duncan during that interview was a certain Mr. Robin Day. The Argus writes as follows—

Then I have another example. Mr. Paul Sauer, the Minister of Lands, is a very composed person and his views are very moderate. When he returned from Europe three years ago he said the following—

This is the appeal of the Sunday Times: We must listen to the “hymn of hate” of the B.B.C. That is what the Sunday Times, the staunch supporter of the other side of the House, appeal to us to do. But who writes these articles in the Sunday Times? The article to which I have referred under the heading “For News of South Africa tune to the B.B.C.” was written by the political correspondent of the Sunday Times— Mr. Stanley Uys. He is the person who bowed his head in humility to Nkrumah in Ghana in 1960 and who recorded his disloyalty to South Africa on paper.

Order! I must ask the hon. member to return to the Vote under discussion.

Let me just point out to you, Mr. Chairman that this is a newspaper which is supposed to be discussing the Broadcasting Corporation week after week and which appeals to us in those discussions not to tune in to the South African Broadcasting Corporation but to the B.B.C. In other words, it wants to substitute the B.B.C. for the South African Broadcasting Corporation. The person who writes these weekly articles is a certain Mr. Garry Allighan. He gives details of the programme over the B.B.C. in those articles but he omits to give details of the programmes of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. He even gives the wave lengths on which you can tune in to the B.B.C. The scandalous thing about it all is that this person is not a South African citizen. He is a British subject who is enjoying the hospitality of South Africa. Yet he is promoting this “hymn of hate” of the B.B.C. towards South Africa from within South Africa. He is a hireling of the Sunday Times and of the United Party because he also writes in the Weekblad, the official newspaper of the United Party. [Time limit.]

This has really been a revealing debate. It has been a revelation in so far as each hon. member on the other side who rose to speak, except for the hon. member who has just sat down, joined us in advocating improved conditions for the staff in the Post Office. It is not my intention to follow the hon. member who has just sat down because in my opinion his remarks should have been directed to the Minister of the B.B.C. He also discussed a newspaper which as far as I know is not issued by this hon. Minister. Accordingly I do not see my way clear to follow the hon. member. Nevertheless, I want to state that the South African Broadcasting Corporation is a great organization, an organization with a great deal of power, an organization which is in direct contact with the public and one over which there is no control. The public are powerless in this regard because once a report has been broadcast to the world, it is of no avail even for the hon. the Minister of Information to deny it.

I agree with those who say that we must not use our news for the purposes of political propaganda or indoctrination. I also think that definite lines of conduct must be laid down and that Parliament must be given the chance to criticize. Indeed, I think that the South African Broadcasting Corporation ought to welcome such criticism. Parliamentary criticism is necessary in order to direct the attention of the South African Broadcasting Corporation to the great responsibility that rests upon it. Someone had the following to say in connection with the aims of the South African Broadcasting Corporation—

And now I want to tell you who said this. This was said by a Whip on the other side—the hon. member for Middelland (Mr. P. S. van der Merwe). I have nothing against this. But here he speaks about “constructive criticism” and of the lines of conduct that have to be followed by the South African Broadcasting Corporation. But what does the hon. the Minister say? The hon. the Minister says that the South African Broadcasting Corporation must not be criticized. Indeed, he treats any person who criticizes the South African Broadcasting Corporation in the way in which he treated me and the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the hon. member for Orange Grove this evening. The hon. the Minister said that I had used abusive language. I challenge the hon. the Minister to mention one abusive word that I used because at no stage was I ordered by the Chairman to withdraw any word that I used. But the hon. the Minister had to do so. He was the only person who participated in this debate who had to withdraw an un-parliamentary word. I will apologize to the hon. the Minister if he can indicate one single word of abuse in my speech.

Mention has been made here of “fair criticism” and the hon. member for Innesdal (Mr. J. A. Marais) spoke about the Sunday Times. Other newspapers were mentioned which apparently did pass fair criticism. I am informed that the Burger of 29 March 1963 gave the Government 245 inches of single column news and only 194 inches to the Opposition. It also printed six photographs of Government supporters as against five members of the Opposition. This is, we are told, fair criticism. The hon. member for Orange Grove has already referred this evening to criticism levelled against the South African Broadcasting Corporation by the Burger. And what was the reaction of the hon. Minister to this? He said that the hon. member for Orange Grove had a bee in his bonnet. But do hon. members know what the Burger had to say? It had this to say [Translation]—

The reaction to this was precisely the same as the reaction of the hon. the Minister. No criticism is tolerated. On a previous occasion the hon. the Minister spoke about the head of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, Dr. Meyer, and said that Dr. Meyer came from a leading business concern in this country. Indeed, the hon. the Minister could not praise it sufficiently. The hon. the Minister then asked—

What is so interesting to my mind is the reply of the Broadcasting Corporation to the particular article in the Burger. This reply was given by a certain Mr. Douglas Fuchs, the Director of Programmes. Just listen to what he has to say about the Burger—

We appreciate the interest. The brash arrogance and tone made us think ruefully that the Burger was perhaps still under the impression that a newspaperman is a specialist or an expert. This was indeed the case 30 years ago when the Afrikaner had still to struggle to try to find his place in the Government of the country, in the economic life and in other spheres. [Time limit.]

We have become used to the fact that each year under this Vote the Opposition first attacks the Post Office and then the Broadcasting Corporation. We have become used to this fact. But to-day they continued with their attack on the Post Office until we had to remind them not to forget about the Broadcasting Corporation. Eventually they woke up to the fact and the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) then launched an attack on the Broadcasting Corporation. What is the objection of the Opposition to the Broadcasting Corporation, to its composition and to its news?

It is a propaganda body.

As I see it, their objection is firstly that its news is slanted and that it propagates nationalism. But the fact is that hon. members opposite and the Press that they read each day have been so indoctrinated by anti-South African propaganda that they brand the news of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, which is a true reflection of the news without the sting of anti-South Africanism, as being pro-National Party. Hon. members opposite do not know the difference between the National Party and the South African Republic. They expect the South African Broadcasting Corporation to see the news through the spectacles of anti-South Africanism, just like their Press. That is why they find fault with the news of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. The biggest problem of hon. members opposite is that the English Press is under the control and at the beck and call of the great financiers of our country. They are the people who want to liberalize South Africa. Because the South African Broadcasting Corporation does not want to have this stamp and is not prepared to propagate those liberal ideas over the air, because the South African Broadcasting Corporation gives its news in a true and impartial manner without the sting of liberalism, it appears strange to them. That is why they attack the Broadcasting Corporation and try to make the South African Broadcasting Corporation suspect on the part of the public. I want to put it very strongly. The S.A.B.C. is not controlled by liberalism; it is an institution that has been set up to give the news for its news value. In this task the South African Broadcasting Corporation is succeeding very well indeed.

Neither is it the task of the South African Broadcasting Corporation to put both sides of the picture. It is an impossible task to put the point of view of the Opposition in regard to every statement made by a Minister. The fact is that Ministers form part of the Government of this country and when one of them makes a statement, that statement does not consist of promises nor does it indicate the vague hope that something will come of it, but it is an official statement by the State machine. Then it has news value because it has been announced officially by a Minister. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition receives publicity in this way but the S.A.B.C. cannot give the same publicity to the speeches of every Tom, Dick and Harry. These speeches have no value because what they advocate cannot be given effect to.

The task of the South African Broadcasting Corporation is to broadcast the truth. It is not its task to repeat any gossip that may be blazoned abroad. Up to a few years ago the S.A.B.C. was slavishly dependent upon certain Press associations for its news. It received its news slavishly from those Press associations and had to broadcast that news obediently at the sound of His Master’s Voice. In the meantime, however, we have had a completely new system in the form of a new news service for the South African Broadcasting Corporation. I do not want to go into details in this regard but the S.A.B.C. now has links with other Press associations and is now in a position to sift news which comes to it along four or five or six different channels, to condense that news itself, to select the truth and then to broadcast what it selects. Now it can interpret and reflect its news and need no longer slavishly imitate His Master’s Voice. That is why it is attacked all the time. The facts are now being given and reflected in their correct perspective. Facts are now being given objectively. The South African Broadcasting Corporation considers it its task and calling to give a true picture of the position of the South African Republic here in South Africa and to uphold and defend that position. That is why it is continually being attacked by hon. members opposite. In this they see a threat to themselves because this news service is now penetrating into the homes of their own supporters, the people who are never given the true facts under normal circumstances. And now that the English-speaking person can compare the news of the South African Broadcasting Corporation with what is given to him by his own newspapers, and now that he is enabled to form his own point of view, those hon. members are afraid because the truth is now reaching their own voters, people who can no longer be bluffed by the English-medium newspapers. That is why we have these bitter attacks each year.

The objection was raised on the other side that the hon. the Minister refuses to take action, to give any information, and that he refuses this or he refuses that. Now the position is that the hon. the Minister has certain powers under the Broadcasting Act. Firstly, he can appoint Governors and pay their salaries. Secondly, he can approve new services of the Broadcasting Corporation; thirdly, he can appoint auditors to audit the books of the Broadcasting Corporation; fourthly, he can fix licence fees; fifthly, he must approve of loans obtained by the Broadcasting Corporation and sixthly, it is the duty of the Board of Governors of the South African Broadcasting Corporation to submit an Annual Report to Parliament in which certain facts must be given. These are the only powers that the hon. the Minister has in regard to the Broadcasting Corporation. From this it is clear that he has no power to give any information here. When the United Party was in power they were continually being asked why they were interfering with the S.A.B.C. At that time the attitude of the South African Broadcasting Corporation was that it need not supply any information. The United Party Government even went so far as to take legal advice and the advocate whom they selected for that purpose was one, Mr. J. G. N. Strauss, the man who later became the leader of that party. But in his capacity as an advocate he found that in terms of the Act the Government had no right to interfere with the powers and the affairs of the Broadcasting Corporation because the Broadcasting Corporation was an independent body which stood on its own two feet. And so the man who was their own leader at a later stage passed judgment in favour of the attitude which the hon. the Minister is adopting at present. Notwithstanding this fact the Opposition continue with their attacks. They simply cannot tolerate the South African Broadcasting Corporation because it tells the truth and undoes the lies which their Press is continually telling the world.

Actually I wanted to talk about licence fees. Indeed, I have here a table of fees that I have worked out but it appears to me that it will be better to leave this matter over to a later stage, and so I shall content myself with these few remarks.

It may perhaps be as well for me at this stage to deal with the discussion of the problems of the Post Office before I discuss the points raised in regard to the South African Broadcasting Corporation.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) is not here. He put a few questions to me earlier on that I should perhaps have dealt with sooner. In the first place he complained that telephone lines in his district are sometimes out of order for long periods. Here I can only say that the breakdowns must be of very short duration because there are large teams of officials in that district who are continually repairing lines and putting up new ones.

His second problem was in regard to farm lines. There are usually a large number of difficulties in connection with the use of farm lines. When one wants to make a call, one finds that everyone listens in to one’s conversation. We have, however, found a solution to this particular problem. After years of experimenting the Post Office has developed an instrument that can ensure private conversations on farm lines, but it can only be connected to automatic telephone exchanges. The Post Office has already progressed so far in this connection that contracts have been entered into with certain manufacturers for the manufacture of this instrument. But the manufacturers are still experiencing difficulty in the manufacture of certain of the parts on a large scale. The first town in which this new instrument will be used will be Bethlehem. Thereafter it will also be supplied elsewhere, for example, Virginia, Kempton Park and Stellenbosch. There are of course many other centres which will eventually be considered for such a service.

The hon. member for Albany also asked me whether it was not possible to introduce a system in which the use of wire would not be necessary. In other words, he asked for a wireless system. This is of course quite possible. Indeed, it is already being applied in South Africa. The problem is, however, that it is a radio system and that there are only a limited number of wavelengths that can be used in this regard. In other words, only a limited number of persons can make simultaneous use of it, otherwise they will disturb one another. With a view to the large number of farmers in South Africa, it is impossible to introduce a system of this nature for them.

The hon. member for Outeniqua (Mr. Holland) put a number of questions to me affecting his Coloured voters. He too spoke about the introduction and use of new stamp machines. The problem in connection with these machines is that one needs a coin for them. Not only must the coin be of a certain size, it must also be of a certain weight. Unless this precaution is taken, it will be very easy to commit fraud in this regard. So the weight and size of the coin used has to be correct. The hon. member also knows that since decimalization we have been experimenting with certain coins and that the hon. the Minister of Finance has announced that the result of the experiment indicates that we will have to effect certain changes in our coinage. Perhaps certain of our smaller coins will have to be changed. Amongst other things, their weight or perhaps their size may have to be changed. Under the circumstances, we are therefore compelled to hold back the putting into operation of these stamp machines until such time as our coins have been standardized.

As far as the problems of his Coloured voters are concerned I want to say that the hon. member mentioned the fact, quite correctly, that one does not want to introduce apartheid with the purpose of giving offence. Apartheid makes it possible for various races to co-exist harmoniously in the same country. This is the purpose of apartheid if it is applied in the right spirit. But if the non-White is told that because he has what is his own he is looked down upon, then the wrong thing is being done. To give separate facilities to, let us say, the Bantu, makes it possible in the first place for them to be served by their own people. The same thing holds good for the Coloured. A system of this nature has this advantage that every race group can be served by its own people. Birds of a feather flock together. That after all is a practical fact. And so a right-thinking Coloured is happier amongst the Coloured community as a right-thinking White man is happier amongst Whites. That is the only motive for the policy of the Post Office in this connection. The aim of the Post Office is to enable the various population groups of our country to live together harmoniously.

The point that I made was that the Coloureds and the Bantu were grouped together.

The hon. member now contends that the Coloureds are not happy to be served together with the Bantu. If this is not how one is to understand him, then I cannot understand too well what he means.

The Coloured is unhappy because we only have segregation between the non-Whites and the Whites while the Coloureds are grouped together with all the other race groups, including the Bantu.

The implication is that the Coloured does not like being grouped with the Bantu. It is the policy of the Post Office to make facilities available to satisfy the Coloured as well as the Bantu.

And what about the Indians, the Chinese and others?

If possible, separate facilities will be created for all race groups. This will be done if it is possible and convenient to do so.

The hon. member for Outeniqua also put a question to me about the salary increases of Coloured postal officials. The position is that their increases came into operation at the same time, on 1 January. The hon. member wanted to know further whether it was the policy of the Post Office to create further opportunities for the Coloured. I can give him the assurance that that is our policy. It is our policy to create more and more opportunities for the Coloured. The hon. member will know that there are already a number of post offices in the Peninsula that are administered solely by Coloureds. Amongst others, we have the post offices at Athlone, Bonteheuwel, Kasselsvlei, Matroosfontein, Rybel, Hanover Street, Castletown and Woltemade.