I want to thank hon. members who have taken part in this debate so far for their objective approach. World affairs and our own affairs make it essential that we take an interest in matters of defence in these days but it is as essential that these matters should be discussed in an objective way.

The main pattern of the debate, as it was set by the Opposition, was one which really had nothing much to do with the internal management of our defence activities, but really what our defence plans are in view of the political situation internally and externally. The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) put a series of questions to me. Most of them arise, as I see it, from the hon. gentleman’s inherent fear that Bantustans will create new or additional military threats. I cannot blame the hon. member for his anxiety. We are all filled with anxiety these days. But, Sir, in matters of defence one must be prepared to take calculated risks to gain victory. Our Government’s Bantu policy has been discussed over and over again and I am not prepared to enter into that field again, but I must answer the hon. gentleman’s main question which was really the basis of his speech, and that is what the Government’s defence policy was in regard to the development of independent Bantu states. I take it that in talking about independent Bantu states he has in mind our own Bantu homelands which we are leading to full independence. Sir, defence plans can only be made after evaluating a particular threat. First of all I do not accept the fact that all Black sovereign independent states will of necessity be hostile. I see the day coming in Africa when Black and White states will have to stand together to fight a new encroaching imperialism, and for that reason I cannot accept that all independent Black states are of necessity hostile states. But coming back to our own developing free Bantu homelands, I want to state most emphatically that I have no special defence plan to control these states when once they get to the stage of sovereign independence, first of all, because as I have already said, I do not accept that these states will of necessity be hostile. Let us accept for a moment, for the sake of argument, that the presumption of the hon. member that they will be hostile states is correct, then surely our general defence build-up to keep us going on this vast continent can be adjusted in a comparatively short time to cope with this new task. Why therefore should we prepare long beforehand for such an eventual task? Sir, it is up to us, in the military field as well, to build up a more friendly co-existence in Africa, and we cannot possibly do it with present-day African demands but eventually we will have to make a break-through. That is essential. We can only hope to begin by gaining the goodwill of one or at least a few of the free African states, and it is my considered opinion, although I know that it may be belittled, that we have no better opportunity to gain this initial goodwill than we have with our own Bantu states which we lead to independence and financial stability—states with which we confer daily, states which for many years to come will be dependent on the military protection which we can give them to maintain order internally, states which daily will have the opportunity of experiencing our goodwill towards them. Our help in the way of medical science, our help in the way of veterinary science, our help in the way of agricultural science, will continually be experienced by them. In fact in all aspects of life they will be closely associated with us and will enjoy our help. For those reasons we have no better opportunity to gain the goodwill of free African states than we have with our own Bantu states which we lead to independence. These states will of necessity give us the best opportunity to make a break-through. I know that these arguments may be belittled but they are facts. If we argue that friendly co-existence with these states which we lead to independence is impossible then we accept the fact that friendly co-existence with African states as such is basically impossible. If this is impossible, then it can only be impossible because the Black man refuses to co-operate in any manner whatsoever with the White man in Africa, and in that case it will be impossible for a White-controlled state in Africa to continue in the future. I believe that we must be militarily prepared at all times, but I honestly believe that our free Bantu homelands will still prove to be one of the main pillars on which we will eventually build up African goodwill on this vast continent of ours.

*I do not think that our chances of creating this goodwill will be very good if we accept the advice of the hon. member for Simonstown to make military preparations at this stage to keep those people in order once they receive their sovereign freedom. We must accept the psychological truth that trust engenders trust, and if at this stage accept as a fact, as the hon. member suggested, that our entire military build-up is going to be neutralized by this great danger that we are creating, then I do not think we can expect those people to trust us. The second question which the hon. member put to me was whether we would have anything to do with the training of the armed forces of those states in the future. I cannot reply to that now. My reply is that everything will depend on the circumstances prevailing at that stage. It is impossible to give a reply in this connection so far in advance.

His third question was whether in the future we would Table a White Paper in connection with the Defence Budget. If hon. members really believe that such White Paper will be of value, I shall see to it that a White Paper of this nature is tabled in the future.

A further question which the hon. member for Simonstown put to me was whether I had done anything in connection with the suggestion put forward here that we should appoint a Defence Council. The hon. member then advised me not to allow myself to be deterred by the complications of that sort of arrangement in the bigger states. I told the hon. member a short while ago that we were making a study as to how this was being done in America, but up to the present moment I have found no solution. If we did issue a White Paper and if advantage was taken of my offer that if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition nominated certain members I would then give them far more information than it would be possible to give to the House as a whole, then I know that those members would be hampered to some extent but that would also apply to the members who made up such a Defence Council. But I am making a study of this matter. I am unable to make any promises in this connection at this stage.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Schoonbee) showed an intelligent interest in the question of our defence. I think I should reply to some of the points raised in his speech. He said firstly that the Commandos were having trouble as far as manpower was concerned. The fact remains that our Commandos represent the voluntary leg of our armed forces but even as far as our Commandos are concerned, great changes have also been brought about recently. Let us first ask ourselves what is the task of the Commandos. The prescribed task of the Commandos is to assist in maintaining internal order in their own area. We have now established in the Commandos the sentinel platoons which form a well-trained nucleus in those Commandos and consisting of men who are well equipped. Furthermore, we have mapped all the important places in each Commando area, proper maps have been made of these areas and as far as the strength of the Commandos is concerned, that is determined by the importance of the places which they would have to protect in their own areas. Furthermore, considerably more financial assistance is being given to the Commandos this year. Officers will now be able to obtain secretarial assistance. We are also going to give them office accommodation. Two years ago we placed members of the Commandos under military discipline once they were called up. The Commando organization has made rapid progress in recent times therefore.

The hon. member for Pretoria (District) also said that there were still large numbers of young men who were not yet receiving training and that they should all be trained. I have already explained in this House that we are doing as much as we possibly can to train more and more people, but we cannot train everyone at once. Mr. Menzies, who recently made a speech on defence in his Parliament because his Minister of Defence was ill, said this, amongst other things—

It is not only impossible there; it is also physically impossible here. The one great danger that we have to avoid is to have armed and undisciplined or poorly disciplined men. We cannot agree to that and we cannot encourage it. We must give proper training to the men to whom we give military training, and we must discipline them properly. We are continually expanding. Next year we shall be training about 20,000 young men—16,000 ballotees, 1,800 in the gymnasia and 1,800 who will be assigned to the Commandos and will also be given a reasonable amount of training. There we already have 19,600 and in addition to that the young men who join the Permanent Force. Next year we will train considerably more than 20,000 of our young men. We are making rapid progress therefore.

The hon. member also asked that we should buy scientific brainpower. I too am fully aware of the necessity for having scientific brainpower and so is the State, and that is why we now have a committee which is investigating the question of the training, etc., of scientists. We ourselves, on the military side, are continually in contact with the best brainpower in the world. We send missions overseas and overseas missions visit us.

In conclusion I want to put this question to the hon. member. When did he hear that Egypt possessed rockets? Did he hear it when this was still being foreshadowed, or after it had become an accomplished fact?

May I whisper the reply to you just now?

That is all I want to say in that regard. The hon. member also said that we needed rockets. I agree with him; of course we need rockets. We need them now and we will need them all the more in the future because certain types of weapons will become completely obsolete within a few years’ time. We will have to replace them with rockets of various kinds. This is being done throughout the world and we will also need them here. It is precisely for that reason that this House approved of a fairly large sum of money last year for military research, and that is why this House is approving of an even larger amount this year. South Africa will not be able to afford to continue to buy this expensive military equipment without buying the best. We will simply have to do research so that we can also manufacture these items in our own country. We are aware of the necessity for this. I want to say no more in that regard.

The hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) said that he was worried about the threats from the African States. I am also worried about them but when I issued a warning in regard to that threat in 1961 and asked for increased expenditure for defence, I was ridiculed throughout the whole of South Africa not only by hon. members of the Opposition but by practically the whole of the English-medium Press except for the military columnist of the Argus who strongly supported me. I am not going to make any accusations; I was also a member of an Opposition party and I know that these methods are resorted to. I just want to say that we must not become unnecessarily anxious or worried about these Africa threats. In the first place, if these people want to attack us soon, they will have to build up tremendously long lines to reach us, and the hon. member for North-East Rand knows what that will mean. In the second place, it is still going to take a long time before they can attack or before they would dare to make such an attack; then I just want to say that by that time South Africa will be considerably stronger than she is now. I am not going to express an opinion on the political implications of a direct threat to a fellow-member of UNO.

The hon. member also asked us to enter into a military agreement in regard to communist aggression, but to my mind communist military aggression at this stage is not as real a danger as communist political aggression. In our country the greatest danger at this moment is communist political infiltration. Communist military aggression must of necessity come from overseas and we have the Simonstown Agreement. But I do not want us to rely exclusively on military agreements. We know of military agreements which have not been honoured, not in the distant past but in the recent past. What is of more importance to my mind is the fact that we as Western states are of mutual value to each other. It does not matter so much what we have. If a man’s assistance is valuable to me I stand by him in time of trouble although I have no treaty with him. What is of primary importance to my mind is the fact that as Western states we are of mutual value to each other. Thus America, as the largest Western state, is of very great value to us, to the Republic, because we will have to stand or fall with the West. Similarly France and other Western states are also of tremendous value to us; the United Kingdom is of very great value to us not only because of the inherent military power of the United Kingdom but also as a result of the fact that the United Kingdom has many important strategic bases at its disposal, more than any other Western country. It is true that at the moment the United Kingdom is relinquishing those strategic bases, but that is the very reason why we are becoming more and more valuable to the West. It was said a little while ago in the British Parliament that the southern tip of Africa is of tremendous strategic value nowadays. The same thing was said in America. Our task, since we have to survive with the West, is to build up this southern tip of Africa which is of so much strategic value to the West in such a way that in the military sphere we will be of real value to the West.

The hon. member for North-East Rand also asked me to supply more information. I have already replied to this question in replying to the hon. member for Simonstown. The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) says that there can only be two directions to be followed in defence planning—internal defence and preparation for a collective effort. I want to give a definition of the expression “internal defence” before I argue with him because it appears to me that there is some confusion in this connection. Did the hon. member use the words “internal defence” in the sense of defence against any aggressor who attacks us within our own borders? My contention is that our armed forces have three main tasks. I am not going to mention them in order of importance because the force of circumstances may change their importance from time to time. The first task that I want to mention is to assist the police to maintain internal order. That is a task which rests upon the shoulders of every armed force in every country in the world. We had another striking example of this in America recently when the armed forces had to be used to integrate a few Negro students at a White university. We have also facilitated the task of the armed forces by passing legislation this Session to enable the armed forces to provide that assistance. The second task of the armed forces is to defend the country when we are attacked. Mr. Chairman, we are preparing ourselves as much as possible in that regard. I have already discussed manpower training. We have purchased many weapons for that purpose and we are manufacturing many locally. Our stockpiling of ammunition has been virtually completed. We have done great work in this regard. I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that during the past year the men of our armed forces have worked millions of hours’ overtime to do this great job of work. Do you know what remuneration they received for this work? Nothing but the satisfaction that they performed a necessary task well and the thanks, I presume, of the nation. But they cannot live on thanks alone and we will have to see what we can do.

Furthermore, one of the most important tasks for internal defence purposes is the organization of our combat headquarters. Every organized section of the armed forces has to be planned in advance for a predetermined main task. The planning of our combat headquarters’ organization has virtually been finished. The promotions which have been made during the past week have virtually put the finishing touches to it. In connection with our preparedness to carry out a common task, various matters have to be considered. The first essential task is the building up of mutual confidence. Without the building up of mutual confidence a joint task can never be tackled. I maintain this morning that South Africa is doing everything possible to build up that confidence. I just want to show what this Government has done. We participated in the Korean War and we entered into a treaty in regard to the Middle East defence line. When that agreement was dissolved South Africa was already prepared for the part which she had to play. We negotiated with the United Kingdom after our withdrawal from the Commonwealth, and the Simonstown Agreement was again accepted on a quid pro quo basis. The United Kingdom was very helpful in regard to the new Agreement, an Agreement from which we have derived definite military advantages and an Agreement which gives the United Kingdom the use of Simonstown, which is to their advantage, as well as other advantages. The United Kingdom did ask us never to ask them to sell small-arms and ammunition to us. They were very clear on that point. My reply to them, of course, was: “No, we do not buy that type of stuff; we sell it ourselves,” which is true. We have also given very definite benefits to the United Kingdom. After those discussions we gave the United Kingdom very definite benefits because we thought that as a Western state they needed them. We are therefore doing everything in our power to build up that mutual confidence. We have also given America definite benefits in this country, benefits which are of great value to them and which because they are of great value to them are of great value to us as a Western country which must either stand or fall with them. In order to fulfil this joint task we need certain weapons. We needed certain ships for our sea defences and we were given an undertaking under the Simonstown Agreement that we would be supplied with those ships. But while those ships were still being built, the technique of submarine hunting changed to such an extent that the whole construction of the ships had to be changed. Then we suddenly needed helicopters. We already have French helicopters in South Africa. But when we needed helicopters for our ships—items which were not specifically mentioned in the Simonstown Agreement—South Africa kept to the letter and the spirit of that Agreement. We did not canvas other countries to see whether we could save 7s. 6d. per helicopter by buying in those countries. We bought those helicopters from Britain because we share this sea defence with them and we felt that it would be better if we both used the same military equipment. There was no objection to that either. But we also discovered that if we wanted to strengthen our sea defences, we had to obtain maritime strike aircraft. We again decided to buy the British aircraft because we felt that if we were jointly responsible for sea defences we would have to act jointly and that it would suit the West and ourselves to use the same maritime strike aircraft as those used by the United Kingdom. Once again there was no objection at all to selling those aircraft to us. The contract has been signed; they are assembling those aircraft and the work has already progressed quite far. Mr. Wilson has now said, of course, that if his party comes into power he will not deliver those aircraft. That is a matter for the future that I do not want to discuss now. But I just want to say that even though Mr. Wilson has said that if his party comes into power in the future he will not carry out the provisions of an honourable contract, South Africa will in the meantime continue to abide by the terms of that honourable agreement. We will continue to build up confidence between ourselves and the other Western states.

Mr. Chairman, I sometimes find myself in great difficulty. Last week I had to take a decision in connection with the purchase of items that we needed for our defence forces. The contract was a large one. I did not know what to do. But then I decided that Mr. Wilson was not in power in Great Britain. The Conservative Party is in power, a party which up to the present has co-operated with us in a very fair way. Once again, therefore, I gave this contract for the supply of vehicles to Britain. South Africa will abide by the terms of that honourable agreement.

What about the U.S.A. agreement?

That still exists. We simply have not been buying under that agreement recently, that is to say, where we can buy more cheaply in the open market.

It has been said that that agreement is going to be cancelled, according to statements made by their ambassador to UNO.

officially I know nothing at all about that—nothing at all. If everything that the United Nations asked for was to be done, this world would really be in a chaotic state!

Mr. Chairman, I think I have now replied to most of the points raised by hon. members. The other hon. members who spoke merely defended my point of view, and I thank them very heartily for doing so.

I think we owe the hon. the Minister a word of gratitude for the manner in which he has dealt with the questions put to him and the replies which he has given to those members who raised questions on both sides of the House. I want to say at the outset that in regard to the hon. the Minister’s general picture of the three tasks which the Defence Force must face we are all agreed on that, namely, internal order, defence against aggression and participation in international conflict with allies. I would have preferred the Minister to have gone further in regard to the second of those tasks and that is one to which I should like to return, namely, the question of guerrilla warfare as it is likely to affect South Africa. Whilst dealing with that point may I also refer to the appointments which the Minister mentioned and which were made last week. I want to say what a pleasure it is to know that those positions have been filled by soldiers with practical experience. For too long we have seen appointments of people without experience made to high positions by the Minister’s predecessor. I think it gives great confidence to any ex-soldier to know that the people who are going to be at the head of combat troops are going to be people with decorations won in the service of their country. I am not interested in their politics; I do not know what their politics are. But they are soldiers who have served their country. If th Minister continues along that road he will build up confidence in the forces, confidence both from the new recruits who will look to their leaders as men who have served their country and know the meaning of service, and confidence from those who are no longer in the forces but who look with pride to our Army and our Air Force and our Navy. I say that we are very pleased to see that position pertaining.

The hon. the Minister said at the end of his speech that he had again placed a contract with Great Britain for supplies. I think everyone will welcome that decision as well. I do not think we should allow ourselves to be frightened by what one might call political mouthings at mass rallies. W are dealing with a country with a responsible Government and I am very pleased to see that the Minister has not been deterred from the responsible course of action by the wild claims made by the Leader of the Opposition in England. One can only hope that when the time comes that confidence will be justified. That was the correct step to take in view of our agreements with Great Britain.

I want to come back to what the hon. the Minister said at the beginning of his reply. The hon. the Minister referred to the question which the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) asked and said that he had no special plans to deal with the new situation which would arise in South Africa because of the development of independent states. Then he went on to deal with the question of an attack on South Africa and the length of the lines of communication which such an attack by African states would necessitate. He said the very length of those lines of communication would create difficulties which would give us time to readjust ourselves. But that was the very point which the hon. member for Simonstown was making that whilst, at the moment, those who were threatening South Africa from the north would have long lines of communication our borders were shrinking. Our borders are shrinking with event after event taking place on this continent. Those lines of communication are slowly contracting. The danger points to South Africa are coming closer to our physical border because as long as we have states between ourselves and those who threaten us, and they are friendly states, that extends our borders to the borders of those friendly states. But as friendly states achieve independence and become hostile states so the borders draw nearer and nearer to South Africa. I am sorry that the Minister made no reference whatsoever to the threats, for instance, against Angola and Mozambique which, I think, he will recognize are vital to the overall defence picture of our country. Now, in addition to those narrowing borders we are now finding within our own country potential—and I say purely potential bases—bases which will reduce those lines of communication to virtually nothing at all. In regard to the threat against Mozambique and Angola I believe South Africa should have a policy both from the defence point of view and the political point of view. I think the Minister owes the House a statement in regard to his attitude to those threats and the position in which we stand in regard to Portugal if attacks should break out against those states. I appreciate very fully the Minister’s hopes in regard to friendly relationships but we cannot afford to take a “Chamberlain” approach. We cannot afford to say we hope that things will be right. It will be too late to say, when the time comes, we should not have hoped; we should have been prepared. We cannot afford to pay the price of unpreparedness. As the Minister knows we have had warnings. Here I have a pamphlet of the A.N.C. in which they talk openly of revolution and of destroying the Army, the instruments of White power, as they call it. They say these instruments are the Army, the Railways, the Mines and the Docks, etc. Here are clear-cut specific threats not just idly made but made by an existing organization which the Minister of Justice takes very seriously indeed and which we in the Opposition take seriously and I am sure the Minister of Defence takes seriously.

That is all acknowledged in our Bill.

This sort of threat is the sort which leads to guerrilla warfare which we saw in Indonesia, Algeria and elsewhere. It is that type of guerrilla warfare which requires bases from which it can strike out and withdraw when it gets too hot—a quick flash attack and then withdrawal to a secure base.

You think that is possible in South Africa?

I think it could well be possible, Mr. Chairman, if we allowed such bases to develop; if we allowed such bases to develop without any plans. The Minister said quite frankly that he had no special plans …

You are over-stressing that point; I qualified it.

He said he believed we could adjust ourselves if and when the time came, but that he had no special plans. But a situation has already been created this year where we have linked Basutoland with the sea through a Bantu state with its own Parliament. That sea-link between Basutoland and the coast is now a fact; it is not something for the future. This Parliament in its wisdom or, as some may think, in its unwisdom, has taken that step. It has handed over, for instance, the control of law and order to the Parliament of the Transkei. Intelligence is one of the vital factors in any Army; intelligence comes to the Army to-day from its own sources and also from the police. We are not talking about something for the future now, Mr. Chairman. As soon as the Transkeian Parliament functions their Minister of Justice takes over the control of law and order in that territory …

Not the police.

He takes over the control of law and order and of such police work as is allocated to him. The hon. member must read the Transkei Constitution Bill. It is a fact our Police Force will have a right of access for certain purposes but that is a source of intelligence which will be lost to the Minister, not in the distant future, but now within the foreseeable future. Once you lose a source of intelligence like that it must be replaced; there must be plans. You cannot just idly say: We hope we are going to be friendly. Then we have people like the A.N.C. putting out warnings to which we cannot close our eyes. [Time limit.]

I do not want to reply to the hon. member who has just spoken, except to say that it is a pity that we should base our arguments in this debate on fears which at this stage are obviously prematurely aired and based on the wrong premises. The hon. member ought to know that the Schedule to the Act specifically provides that the police in the Transkei will remain under the control of the Minister of Justice of the Republic except to the extent that he hands over his control. The hon. the Minister has told us that nothing of that kind is envisaged.

But I think at this stage our defence planning must be based on the assumption that in our lifetime we are going to become involved in a military struggle which will require every grain or our national energy. I think that approach is justified without our trying to determine the danger and speculating from which direction it will come. In pursuance of this I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. In the first place I would like to be reassured in connection with the following: What progress is being made with the classification of our manpower who will do their compulsory military service in industry, commerce or administration in relation to the men who will do their compulsory military service under arms? The men who will do their compulsory military service in industry, commerce and administration are the men whom we cannot afford to place under arms. This affects the ballotees to some small extent; it is difficult to classify these young men at this stage; but it does affect our Active Citizen Force Reserve to a large extent—the men between the ages of 20 and 35 who have been trained but who in the meantime have been absorbed by various key industries. Is there some national system by means of which we can determine which men we can use militarily and which men will have to fulfil other functions?

I would also like to know from the hon. the Minister when we will be able to call up every single able-bodied man. I know that he is loath to give any date but we have little time left. He has indicated that by next year we will be calling up 60 per cent of our able-bodied men. I want to ask: What about our younger untrained men? There is a very large reserve of untrained men below the age of 35. A large number of them are excluded because they occupy key positions, but there are large numbers of them who do not occupy key positions and who are as yet untrained. Up to the present I admit that we have not made sufficient progress in our planning to be able to absorb fully the available supply. But is that our aim, and when do we hope to realize it?

In conclusion, are we also planning to utilize the older men who are available for military service, and when do we propose to do so? I want to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister in connection with material. The first is this: Have we already made or are we making an administrative survey of equipment which is available in the civilian sector and which can be of assistance to us in the military sphere? I am thinking of our large reserve of motor vehicles, tractors, construction machinery, means of communication and the large variety of apparatus and equipment that we have in the civilian sector. We do not always think about it, Mr. Chairman, but we have more vehicles in South Africa than we would ever need to transport all the men we have, and I want to know whether we have some system whereby we will be able to lay our hands on those vehicles at a moment’s notice when the time comes? That is the first question that I want to ask in regard to material.

In the second place, as far as material is concerned, have we already planned a scheme for the utilization of our industrial potential in time of military need? I do not know whether this is the task of the Department of Defence or of the Department of Economic Affairs, but I know that we have a tremendous industrial potential in the engineering industry, the electronic industry and in numbers of industries which can work wonders as far as production is concerned in time of need. Whose work is it in South Africa to ascertain what our potential is and how that potential can be utilized for military purposes when the need arises? Is the Department working on it and has a system been worked out?

The last aspect that I want to raise in connection with material is the question of research into the manufacture of modern weapons about which the hon. the Minister has already told us, but I also want to raise the question of research into the large-scale storage of materials and here I am thinking particularly of fuel. Are we working to a programme; are we making experiments? What do we know and how far have we progressed? I do not want the hon. the Minister to tell us what has already been done but I would like to know whether this has been agreed to in principle and whether any progress has been made.

I want to conclude by saying a few words about the hon. the Minister’s reference to a White Paper. I think this is a good idea but I want immediately to oppose the idea that a White Paper should be made available to the whole House. I believe that such a White Paper can only be of importance if it contains information of such a nature that it can only be made available to members whom the hon. the Minister has selected from his side of the House for this purpose and to hon. members selected by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition from his side of the House. As an ordinary member of this House, I should be sorry if we were all supplied with such a White Paper.

In asking these questions I have not done so in a spirit of criticism or because of lack of confidence but I believe that we must be prepared to fight to the best of our ability during our lifetime and we want the assurance that the Department is engaged upon a variety of matters, which are actually administrative matters, which will be necessary to enable us to make the best use of the resources at our disposal.

I would like to touch upon the topic raised by the hon. member for Kempton Park, and I shall do so. But before I come to that, I want to point out to hon. members opposite that this side of the House has steadily supported the expenditure on defence—when it was R44,000,000 in 1961, and equally last year and this year when it has risen to R160,000,000 per year. That has been our attitude, and that very much is the approach which is made from this side of the House. And we are very glad to see that the hon. Minister, both in dealing with us and in dealing with other aspects of defence, makes it easier for one to maintain that attitude.

But I do not think that because that is the approach one makes, we can simply fall into the attitude of the hon. member for Kimberley (District) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) who said that we should simply say whether we should spend more on defence or less on defence, or whether we should have more men in the Army or more men in the Air Force. I think it is most essential, particularly in view of the speech of the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) that we should examine very carefully not only those sort of technical aspects of defence, but the whole basis on which this country is proceeding into the time which the hon. member for Kempton Park visualizes—because he has said here that he believes that in our lifetime every single ounce of our energy will be required to defend ourselves. If that is a proper assumption to make, and I think there is a lot of evidence to suggest that it may be, then I think we must go much further than simply “more or less”; we must go into the whole question of the foundations upon which we are building our defence. In this regard I suggest most earnestly to hon. members opposite that we must examine the whole foundation or our defence, which, to my mind, is closely linked with our non-European policy. I say very definitely that defence and the defendability of South Africa is now a prime consideration in our non-European Affairs. And I say with full conviction that the approach of the Government with their non-European policy is a shifting sand upon which to base our defence. How can one approach the sort of task that the hon. member for Kempton Park has in mind when one is taking decisions and affecting one’s strategic position to the extent that we are, and do that with equanimity?

What are some of those dangers which we are facing? The hon. Minister himself in a recent statement said, as reported in the Argus of 19 June—

That is the sort of thing that the hon. Minister of Defence has in mind and that is the sort of thing that the hon. member for Kempton Park probably has in mind. When that is the position according to the hon. Minister, and when that external danger is pointed out to us, and when we have from nobody less than the hon. Minister of Justice that so far as the internal danger is concerned we are faced with a possible Algerian type of revolution, what are we planning in this connection? In his last speech on his Vote here in the House, the hon. Minister of Justice quoted from a pamphlet of the A.N.C. in which they make their attitude clear that this is their method of achieving their aims in South Africa. We know from Mr. Duncan that this is also the aim of the P.A.C. In other words, the clear aim is to have external aggression assisted by internal trouble here, and thereby to bring us to their point of view.

Mr. Chairman, when that is so, one must consider, I suggest, postponing any aspect of breaking up your defensive position, as they are planning to do under the guidance of this Government. We should take note of those threats and we should rather strengthen our position. I would like to read to hon. gentlemen what a learned historian feels about the Realpolitik in a situation of this kind. I say without any hesitation, and I believe it could carry conviction with hon. members opposite, that on no account when we are facing threats of this kind, can one proceed with a policy of the kind that the Government is suggesting to us for Non-European Affairs. I suggest that it is the height of madness, and I will now proceed to try and underline those points.

Mr. Chairman, let me say at once that it has been held to be absolutely essential to have the very strongest base. Professor C. W. de Kiewiet, the noted historian and president of the University of Rochester, U.S.A., in July 1960, was in Durban and gave certain lectures. These were some of the things that he said, which I suggest bear most strongly upon our present position—

Then lower on he continues—

And then lower down, and this is the important point—

Then he goes on—

I am not, nor was he, advocating those steps; but the point I wish to make is that where a man with a sense of history, and a friend of South Africa, approaches our questions of defence and says that in terms of Realpolitik this is the approach to make, surely it is self-evident that the very last thing one would think of doing in a threatened situation, such as this, would be to cut out parts of our country. Moreover in the light of those threats from the East the very fact then, one would think of doing would be to bring it about that these people should no longer owe any loyalty to South Africa, and to be fostering their loyalty to these other new countries that are being created. So that in the very event of internal trouble, aided by external aggression

Where do you see signs of that?

I am merely building on the speech of the hon. member for Kempton Park and I am referring to the words of the hon. Minister’s a few days ago. What I say is that if there ever was any merit in the non-European policy of the present Government, under the threats of the kind that we have been told of to-day again by the hon. Minister and by the hon. member for Kempton Park, this is the moment when they should be completely shifted into the background, because the hon. Minister said to-day that his warnings of danger had been scoffed at by this side and how true they were. I suggest with absolute frankness that there was very little scoffing, because in fact we supported the Vote of the hon. Minister.

But I come back to the point and I would like to get it from the hon. Minister whether he, doubtless with the advice of his army chiefs, has brought home to the Government the dangers of this policy at this time—particularly this policy of separate development and the implications thereof. I would like to know whether our defence chiefs are content that we should so weaken our defences at a time like this, when rather in the view of this noted historian we should be thinking if anything rather to press out our boundaries in order to ensure our defence. So I ask the hon. Minister to give us the assurance that these matters were brought before the Government when this step was being resorted to in January this year, and whether in fact our service chiefs are happy that we should attempt to meet the challenge which the hon. member for Kempton Park speaks about on the basis of this weakened South African base, and, as I say, without even seeking to retain the loyalty of so many of our peoples here in this country.

This is not the only evidence that we are on an unwise course. I would like to remind the hon. Minister of what the previous Minister of Defence, Minister Erasmus said in regard to this question. I have here two reports from the Press, one dated 6 May 1954 (the Cape Times) in which he said that it was absolutely essential for our defence that we should incorporate the Protectorates. Now apparently that has been overruled, and not only do we not need to do that, but we are giving away areas bigger than the Protectorates, areas of vital importance. Indeed the hon. Minister spoke about this threat coming from the Indian Ocean, and there is precisely where we are about to open a wide gap in our defences. It is absolutely fantastic nonsense to this side of the House and we really want most earnest assurances, and we do approach this matter, completely as South Africans who are concerned for the fate of our country. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down has considered our defence policy from the point of view of the establishment of separate, self-governing Bantu states, and the danger which he sees is that through fragmentation of the Republic of South Africa—I may as well put the word into his mouth—we are going to create a base for what he fears may become guerrilla warfare in South Africa. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) expressed the same fear. My reply to that is that the hon. member does not want self-governing Bantu states to be established because he fears that our defence position will be weakened. Hon. members have apparently not heeded what we have been telling over the years and that is that it is far more dangerous to integrate politically because then we would be left with nothing. It is not only we who say that. History has taught us that lesson right up to the present moment, up to 1963, and hon. members know that that is so.

Give us an example.

Hon. members know that once the process which they advocate is begun, it will eventually lead to the destruction of the political control of the White man. What would we be left with then? We would have lost everything.

Bloodless capitulation.

No, capitulation in easy stages, gradual capitulation, with one concession here and another there—a gradual acceptance of your downfall. But I think that the hon. member for Durban (Point) must answer the question which I put to him: Does he think that guerrilla warfare is possible in South Africa? Has the hon. member not made a study of the prerequisites for guerrilla warfare? After all, the protagonists or planners of guerrilla warfare do not have a fertile reed bed in this country for exploitation. It is not like Korea or Laos where the people are primitive and starving and are only too willing to accept anything, knowing that it will be better than what they have at present. Guerrilla warfare in South Africa is out of the question because one must first consolidate one position before one can take the next step, and that cannot be done in South Africa. Our topography does not lend itself to it. The relationship between White and non-White in South Africa does not lend itself to this type of warfare. Our standard of living in South Africa does not lend itself to this type of operation. The hon. member who links up the establishment of the Bantustans—to use their term—with a base for a possible future guerrilla operation is completely wrong in his approach to this matter. We on this side cannot allow our strategy to be dictated to us by people who have such false notions. No, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that we are threatened from only four quarters. The first is the threat from the African states which we have discussed over and over again. The second is the possible threat that may arise if a Pan-Africanist attack on our neighbouring states such as Moçambique and Angola should succeed. This would create a real problem for us. The third is the possibility of an attack upon us if these Black African states, driven to it by their own helplessness and their own weakness, tried some manoeuvre against us through the medium of UNO and the fourth threat may come if we have a world war. We must consider our position in South Africa in the light of these four threats, because that will determine the enemy that we have to face and what our strategy will have to be in this regard. We must therefore evaluate our own position in the light of these four possibilities and in doing so, we can say—unfortunately my time is very short—that the first fact which we cannot get away from is that our borders are shrinking. The hon. member for Durban (Point) mentioned this fact and I agree with him. The second is that for political reasons and international considerations we cannot be sure that we will get assistance from any state in the event of three of these threats materializing. I exclude a global war because in that event everyone would need our assistance. The third point in connection with our appreciation of the position is that our own geographical borders and distances in South Africa are particularly long. Fourthly, we have only a limited manpower. We shall therefore have to develop our own approach to the defence of the country in the light of our evaluation of our own position. I want to say—and we must accept this fact—that we are entering an era in which we will have to resign ourselves to ever-increasing defence expenditure. We must accept that fact. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. S. M. Steyn) was quite correct in saying that during our lifetime we will have to prepare ourselves for any of these four eventualities that I have just mentioned. We will have to take into account the new conditions. I want to say that I believe that never before in our history have the people of South Africa been so prepared to pay for the defence of their country as they are at this time. We must therefore prepare ourselves for any manoeuvre, operation or eventuality connected with any of these four threats that I have mentioned. We will therefore have to adapt our weapons according to our appreciation of our own military position in the light of these threats. I want to say—without wishing to thank the hon. the Minister in the usual way—that if I see the position correctly I think that the hon. the Minister and his military Chiefs of Staff have drawn a true picture of our position in South Africa, our military position, and that both as regards weapons and as regards organization, particularly our latest re-organization, they are making South Africa as prepared as possible to meet any of these four threats which may materialize from the Black states from our neighbouring states through the medium of UNO, or because of a world war. In the short time at my disposal I want to say to the hon. the Minister: Carry on, a wonderful pattern is unfolding and the more one investigates these matters, the more one realizes that this pattern that is unfolding testifies to a through appreciation of our military position and the needs that spring from that appreciation. The position is still far from satisfactory. We are still in our infancy but excluding a world war we will in the course of time be able to overcome any threat from the sea and we will also be able to overcome our defence difficulties which arise from the geographical nature of our country. But we need new weapons for this, weapons that will save manpower, weapons that will have striking power and weapons that will be able to overcome any irresponsible manoeuvre. We will also have to have an organization which will guarantee the mobility that we need and a programme which will have to make provision for the local manufacture of weapons which we are unable to purchase because we will not be able to go on buying weapons indefinitely. [Time limit.)

Before calling upon the next speaker I just want to say that I have permitted both the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) and the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) to refer to the Transkei policy but I do not want a protracted discussion of that policy in this debate.

On a point of order, as far as the position of the Transkei is concerned, apart from the policy in regard to the Transkei, can we discuss the consequences of the Transkei situation in relation to our defence position?

Without condemning the policy.

Abiding by your ruling, Mr. Chairman, and not condemning the policy in regard to the Transkei, I want to say for the benefit of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) that from the military point of view the Government policy is creating conditions favourable for guerrilla warfare by the creation of bases to which guerrillas can return. So obviously the whole defence plan is tied to the tail of the Government’s policy in general.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister in his speech said that he was not taking into account the creation of the new Bantu states in his defence plans. He said that he hoped they would be friendly because of all the assistance we intend to give them, but in the event of these people being hostile, we would have had it. That is to say from a purely military point of view.

I said nothing of the kind.

Shall I put it this way that the hon. Minister said that it would then be almost impossible or impossible for any state in the whole of Africa to remain under the control of a White Government.

No. Is my English so bad that I can be so completely misunderstood?

Sir, that is what I gathered from the Minister’s speech. But I want to say that when you are dealing with defence plans, all factors affecting defence have to be considered, and the major factor in our case of course is a Fifth Column should trouble arise. Fifth Columns can be in any campaign of any sort the factor on which the fate of the campaign rests. I was going to tie that up with the new states, not as a matter of policy, but purely militarily. but I will now have to deal more in detail with this question of a Fifth Column which is of the greatest importance and which creates a military nightmare for the men in command. You see, Sir, the urbanized Native is being told that he does not belong to this country, he belongs to a homeland. He has no roots in the country in which he is living, no loyalty to that country. You will remember the words of the poet, Mr. Chairman, “Breathes there the man, with soul so dead, who never to himself hath said, this is my own, my native land”! You see, these men who are likely to be the Fifth Column are not men with dead souls. They behave as other men, seeking security for themselves and their wives and families. If they were a happy, contented people, there could be no question of them being twisted to the ends to which we all hope they will not be twisted. But the policies of this Government in regard to the Bantu have quite definitely told them that they belong to independent states.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing Bantu policy.

I appeal to you, Mr. Chairman, the question of a Fifth Column in any appreciation of any military situation is of the utmost importance, and I am trying to stress the danger of the Fifth Column to us in this country if we ever have any trouble. If I mention Government policy, Mr. Chairman, I ask you not to take it as criticism, I am merely stating the facts as to why this Fifth Column can be dangerous.

On a point of order, may I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that if you are going to allow a discussion of the Transkeian policy, and we from our side are going to point out that our policy ultimately will lead to racial harmony in this country, where are we going to land with such a discussion?

A mere reference to Native policy is allowed.

On a point of explanation, may I ask whether that debars one from referring to the defence effect of this existing policy?

I have given my ruling.

This Fifth Column consisting of migrant labourers and temporary sojourners, who must look elsewhere for citizenship, are, I repeat, fertile soil for agitators from outside and spies who will work up their feelings in regard to their loyalty to this country.

Order! Does the hon. member see the implication of his line of debate? It is that the Bantu policy of the Government is responsible for Fifth Columnists.

Sir, I am trying hard not to say it. I have tried to establish my case that militarily there is a Fifth Column, wherever it comes from, and whatever the reason for it is. and having made my point I will carry on with something else.

Where there is a military situation it must be appreciated and various factors must be considered, the courses open to the enemy, and the courses open to yourself, everything has to be considered and weighed. The question of a Fifth Column is one of the main factors to be considered. A Fifth Column will consist of the millions of urbanized Natives who are not happy, and the question is what these people will do eventually except to appeal to their friends of the same colour, just as the Algerians appealed to the Tunisians, and possibly with the same tragic results. In Algeria 800,000 out of 1,000,000 Frenchmen had to run. Where are we going to run? I do not see that 3,500,000 people can be run into the sea, so you have to consider the question of a possible Fifth Column. I must say that various things that have arisen have made the defence of this country impossible. These new states can eventually be nothing but hostile.

Why?

Because they will be appealed to by the Fifth Column in our own country, just as Algeria appealed to Tunisia. I repeat that if you cannot take this factor into account, our military men are facing an impossible task and we are certainly going to finish up in the lager, and I only hope to God that we can hold the perimeter.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) is a man who wants to save White civilization by holding a bomb in each hand, but it is high time he showed a little wisdom also. He knows that our whole race policy is aimed at eventual racial peace. It is precisely because this Government takes into account the primary need of the Black man in Africa that we have this policy of Bantu homelands. That is why I think that as a Christian guardian it is entirely wrong for him to suggest that the Black man in the Transkei, who will eventually be emancipated, is our potential enemy. Is it not the policy of the Christian White guardian to emancipate those people in such a way that we will eventually enjoy their friendship? I think the speech of the hon. member could almost be called a crime. Their attitude is one of wishful thinking and it is high time the Opposition grew up. We must not play games in these dying hours of the Session. The hon. member is playing with political dynamite by telling the world that the Transkei which will eventually be emancipated is our potential enemy. The Transkei is going to become our neighbouring state and if we do not have friendly relations with that state, what chance do we have of surviving? It is precisely because we intend to act wisely that trouble will not arise within the country. I say that eventually the Black states that we emancipate will become our greatest allies. If we do not have the right perspective, our days will be numbered. But we need not look for trouble half-way. That hon. member is frightening himself so much that the United Party will never come into power.

Mr. Chairman, the Defence Vote is one of the most important Votes we have to deal with. Unfortunately it comes at the end of a long Session. To-day we listened to the hon. the Minister giving us answers to the various questions. We have also listened to hon. members here and to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and have noticed right throughout the Session the lack of information from the Government as to how far they have got with the negotiation of military alliances. We know we have the Simonstown Agreement and we hope that we have the goodwill of the West. It was said by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) that in the case of hostilities we would assist the West. The Minister of Defence said that he hoped there would be a break-through of friendship with the African states. I think he is quite correct, he realizes as a sensible person that in order for us to exist in this southernmost tip of Africa there has to be greater liaison and understanding between ourselves and those African states, and that notwithstanding what they say about us we must hold out the hand of friendship to those states. We know what happened after the last war. So that the continent of Europe including former hostile states would not become communist, the U.S.A. implemented the Marshall Aid Plan and to-day Europe is prosperous, and I think that should also be our attitude. I do not think it would be right if we were not prepared for eventualities. Nobody knows where a global war will break out, not even the Chiefs of Staff of the major states, but we have to be prepared for any eventuality. Our major task is to cope with the internal risk, due to policies over which we have no control. I do not want to deal with Bantustans and the Government’s policy, but there is that risk. The position is that in organizing our defence it will not be for a year or two. I think it will be for a long time. I think our whole defence plan has to be such that with our small population it will have to be organized so that it does not disorganize the economy of the country. Every year some 16,000 youths will be called up for training. I should like to ask the Minister what he is doing to give these youngsters a measure of vocational guidance? Has he vocational guidance officers in the Defence Department? We had them at the end of the last war. Has he educational officers posted to the various units so that these boys will not fall by the way, the flower of our youth? Has the Minister any plan so that these boys, once they have finished their basic training, are not wasted in the Army but are posted to such areas so that they can carry on their educational training? There are thousands of boys going into the Army who would normally have gone to the university, or into commerce or into a trade. I wonder whether the Minister cannot assist by having these youths, when once their basic training is over, posted to areas where they can continue their education.

Do you mean after completion of their nine months’ training?

No. I do not say the end of the nine months’ training, but towards the end of the nine months they do sit about a bit because the training is not as intensive as it was in the first six months.

Do you think this is the task of defence?

Yes, it was during the last war. Towards the end of the war we had vocational guidance officers and we prepared our men to come back into economic life. The Minister must realize that this will not last a year or two, but that it will go on for a very long time. With the conditions in the world to-day, every country mobilizes its army for the prevention of war. We are not an aggressor nation, but we have to be ready for eventualities. With our small White population we cannot afford to have the economy of the country upset. So the plans of the Defence Department must be tied up closely with labour and education, and we must have the youth of the country ready to take their place in our economy once they are released. As I said, the Minister’s statement about a possible break-through and extending the hand of friendship is a good thing. The longer we can keep talking, the longer the shooting war will be postponed. Those of us who have experienced war, realize the tremendous waste of life, and therefore the longer we can keep talking the better, and that should be our plan. We should never lose contact with anybody. We could even talk for the next ten years, but we must be prepared to fight, but we should not get into a position where we have to shoot because that gets you nowhere.

I want to come back to the Minister’s Budget. The Minister is buying a lot of equipment and spending a lot of money. It is always easy to spend someone else’s money, but I want to ask the Minister what his plans are in these purchases? I do not mean to say anything derogatory to the Defence Department, but I have always found that a soldier is a very bad buyer. In the last war we had a set-up whereby the Minister of Defence was advised by civilians as to the best purchases. It also happens in the U.S.A. where Mr. Macnamara often has to put his Army Chiefs in their place and decide on what has to be purchased. There are considerable purchases of clothing and motor vehicles. We know in the last war we had many armoured vehicles which were made here and which became white elephants because they were quite useless. I would like the Minister to tell us what he has in mind in regard to getting civilian advice as to the best way of purchasing equipment. Commercial men have that experience, and the army does not have it. The army man might see an aircraft or a vehicle which he thinks is very desirable and he wants to test it, but in nine cases out of ten you find that they have purchased useless vehicles. I think we have to face up to the fact that war is wasteful. Everything we buy for the army is non-productive and can be written off because it has no commercial value. [Time limit.]

I do not want to reply to what the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) has had to say. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he believes, as I do, in the necessity of having good road and rail connections in time of war for the conveyance of foodstuffs, medical supplies, military equipment and soldiers. The reason why I ask this question is because I am aware of the fact that hon. members in this Committee on both sides of the House have said and people outside have told me that in a future war roads and rail communications will not play such an important role but that aircraft will be used as the main means of transport. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the attitude of his Department is in this regard.

If we lose control over the Moçambique Channel, that is to say, that section of the ocean between Madagascar and the southeast coast of Africa, we will have to rely on a few small harbours on the south-west coast of Africa. That is all that will be left to us and the only real harbour that we will have on the south-west coast will be Walvis Bay. If we lose control over the Moçambique Channel we will not only lose our harbours but we will also lose the warm water route of our Western allies to the southern democracies of Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand. I do not know whether hon. members realize what the position will be if we and our allies lose the Moçambique Channel and what the position will be as far as imports are concerned. That might quite easily happen. Walvis Bay will then become the most important import harbour of the Republic. I say—and I want to know whether the hon. the Minister agrees—that it is in the interests of our safety that we should have good rail and road communications between Walvis Bay and the other four provinces of the Republic.

As far as roads are concerned we have a very good road to-day that can be used for military purposes; a road which runs from Cape Town via Vioolsdrift right up into the northern parts of South West Africa. We have another road which can be used from the northern part of the country, a road with a bridge at Onseepkans. We also have another main road via Ariamsvlei. But what is still lacking is a short-cut. It has been said by three Prime Ministers in this country that anyone who interferes with South West Africa will be interfering with the Republic, and if we are in earnest then we need another road as well as another railway line. We need a road running straight from South West Africa past the Gemsbok Reserve to the eastern coast and we need a railway connection between Karasburg and Bitterfontein. I just want to say this. All our Prime Ministers since I have come to Parliament have made this statement in regard to South West Africa, and if they were in earnest I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he approves of the proposition that we must have the necessary road and rail connections before we become involved in a hot war.

Like the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), I should like to say that I appreciate the general pattern of the Minister’s reply. It is not a question of the policy of Bantustans that affects us. It is the fact that independent Bantustans have been accepted as Government policy. When one talks of hostility coming from them we are not thinking of hostility from the people of the Bantustans, but that they will be defenceless and helpless except to the extent that they are defended by us, and they will therefore be subject to all the external pressures and the appeals, all the things that go with the building up of a sabotage centre inside their territory. We saw what happened in Swaziland last week. As the result of external influence, of people going into Swaziland, in some cases even from the Republic, and fomenting trouble there, it has been necessary for Britain to move troops in there. That is the fear we have, that before the Native states are in a position to look after themselves, we have to be their guardians and we want to know what plans are being made for that—important safeguard to the Republic’s security. Being the guardian of a state of that nature is very different from being the guardian of an integral part of the Republic. The Minister says he has no plans actually made for it, but he will take calculated risks. But when you take a calculated risk, you still have to evaluate that risk beforehand and in your overall Defence plan you must leave a loophole whereby you can switch over to meet that calculated risk if it arises. Are those plans being made? Has the risk been calculated, and is the appropriate pattern being built up in our defence to-day to provide for it should the calculation unfortunately prove to be a correct one and the risk arise? We have had so many examples of what happens with these new states, like in Algeria, where if people had been allowed to settle down on their own they would probably have been perfectly willing to go on under the pattern set for them by France, but they were not permitted to do that. External pressure was brought to bear, just as it will be brought to bear on the inexperienced people in these states, and therefore we have to be prepared for it.

When the Minister spoke about the long line of communication between probable aggressors and ourselves, those are things we are not at present considering. We do not believe that long lines of communication will be necessary at this stage and for a long time to come. The pattern of aggression has been so built up over the world during the last ten years that it is common to all the places where there has been aggression, in the East and in India even in Portuguese Goa. You find that trouble starts inside the territory because the seeds of trouble have been planted there and those subversive elements will disrupt our lines of communication and it makes it practically impossible for the army to operate. That is the type of aggression we have to deal with, a type of guerrilla warfare combined with the fomentation of internal unrest. Those are the points we are asking the Minister about. It is not merely a calculated risk. It is practically a certainty, judging from what has happened in other places. We want to know whether those plans to cope with this aspect have been made in advance.

I do not propose to deal with all the points raised by the hon. the Minister in his reply. At the commencement of my previous address I pointed out that the limited time available in this debate precluded us from dealing with these things as thoroughly as we would have liked to, but we will do so on a later occasion which will offer itself before the end of this Session. So I do not propose to continue on those lines now. The Simonstown Agreement has been mentioned. It is of great value and I am fully in accord with the line taken by the hon. the Minister, but there are matters arising from that agreement which I propose to deal with at a later stage.

I want to touch on two other matters arising from the Estimates themselves. One is in connection with the return of the trainees to private life. We are increasingly calling up tens of thousands of young men, many of whom have not started their professional careers yet and we cannot just throw these thousands of young men back on the labour market at the end of their training period without making adequate provision for their absorption. We can no longer look upon this as an ordinary peacetime procedure. It may be on a smaller scale but it is still a most important responsibility. In your wartime demobilization most of the people who have completed their service period either have jobs to go back to or at least have a profession to follow. In this type of training we are now carrying out, however, the youngsters have not got that background to help them. We can no longer leave it to chance as to how they get absorbed back into the labour market. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether plans are being prepared for the absorption of our thousands of young trainees back into private life, plans to assist them, after the break which defence training has necessitated in their lives, to help them to get back to their ordinary civilian work without too much hardship on the boys themselves. I would like the hon. the Minister to deal with that, and then the other matter which I want to deal with very briefly is this: In the Estimates before us and in the general planning that one sees in defence, one is struck with the fact that again we cannot assume that at the moment we are dealing with defence matters on the normal peacetime basis. Numbers have gone far beyond that stage; the general set-up is quite beyond it. Whether we are engaged in a cold war or any other type of war, we have these many thousands of young fellows on the threshold of life being brought together in the masses of young men scattered all over the country. That is necessary under the system under which we are working. It strikes one on going through these Estimates and also from one’s experience and contact with the various training centres that not enough urgency is being shown in regard to the provision of recreational and social facilities for the young men when they are in these massed formations. You get several thousand young fellows massed together in one area, and of necessity the defence areas in which they are collected are very often isolated from places where ordinary, normal recreation can be provided. It is imperative that their spare time should be catered for. I assume that the hon. the Minister has accepted the position of foster father to these defence trainees who have been called up, and, like a father, whether he likes it or not, he has now accepted certain very onerous responsibilities. He knows as I know and as we all know as men, that the easiest road to temptation is always in front of the young man who has nothing to occupy his spare time. There is spare time and there must be spare time even with the arduous training that these young men have to undergo. I know that at the moment there are schemes for providing sports, recreational and other facilities, where the high spirits and the energies of these young people can be usefully absorbed in their spare time, but these schemes are not big enough and they are not moving fast enough. We cannot apply peacetime speed and peacetime organization or expenditure to the provision of these facilities. Just as in wartime it had to be made a number one priority, so now in the interests of our youth of the country, if we are going to use them for defence, then defence must be prepared and the country must be prepared to pay for giving these young men a fair deal by rapidly providing the necessary recreational and social facilities under the physical conditions which they have to face and live under whilst under training. [Time limit.]

When my time expired just now I was saying that we must arrange our defence matters in the light of our appreciation of our own position. I think that is a fair attitude to adopt and I also think it is also the most sensible attitude that we can adopt. Once we have evaluated our own position, as far as it is humanly possible to do so and as far as it is possible for our military experts to ascertain the position, we will have to manufacture or acquire our military equipment on the basis of that evaluation. In this appreciation of our own position there are a few things which will inevitably come to the fore. I want to say immediately that as far as a global war is concerned, it will be of such magnitude that in order to be able to meet the requirements that will flow from such a war, we will have to be in a position to provide as much striking power as possible to assist our friends who will be involved in the war. But, excluding a world war, the acquisition of arms for our own defence purposes will have to be priority number one. That is important because that is what this House votes the money for—to obtain weapons. These weapons must fit in with our appreciation of our own position as we see it. In the light of this fact therefore we will have to prepare ourselves to obtain those weapons, or even to manufacture them in order to be able to meet to the best of our ability any threat from the sea though the medium of conventional weapons. We will have to manufacture or obtain weapons to defend our cities. We have large complexes in this country which have to be defended. I have in mind the Cape Town complex and its environs; I have in mind the Durban-Pietermaritzburg complex; I think of the Johannesburg-Pretoria-Vereeniging complex. These are vital parts of the Republic which are open to attack and they are areas which can be severely damaged from a long distance away. I think of our limited manpower and I say that the weapons that we obtain or manufacture ourselves will also have to supplement our limited manpower. Bearing in mind all these things I say that we will have to accept the fact that we will have to pay more for our defence in the future; that we will have to continue to be prepared to make available more money for defence. We will have to make preparations to establish a permanent weapon-manufacturing industry in South Africa which will be able to meet our ever-increasing and changing needs as far as the manufacture of new weapons is concerned. Such a weapon-manufacturing industry will not only benefit our own defence but it will also have a salutary influence in other spheres of our State structure. We must simply accept the fact that we will have to meet ever-increasing defence expenditure and we can only build up a permanent weapon-manufacturing industry in South Africa and maintain it if we concentrate on research because it is the scientists, the technologists, who stand and will stand in the forefront of our defence in the future. I read the other day that the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) had said that we would have to buy this brainpower. I said the same thing here last year or at the beginning of this year. I cannot sufficiently emphasize the fact that we must keep ourselves in the maximum state of preparedness in the defence sphere. In order to ensure that we are always prepared for any eventuality, we will need the assistance of the scientist, the technologist, the trained man who has a knowledge of these things. I cannot help feeling sometimes that people do not realize that this is a matter which must receive priority. We must find these people abroad or we must send our own people abroad to gain the necessary knowledge there and then return to our country, and we must be prepared to pay for that knowledge. We cannot obtain that specialized and scientific knowledge that is so vitally necessary for this tremendous task that we have to undertake unless we are prepared to pay for it and we cannot measure that payment in terms of the earnings of the man in the street.

I should like to conclude the remarks I was making in regard to what the Minister himself has described as the calculated risks, militarily speaking, of the new states which are being created in South Africa. One point which has arisen in the debate since then is that all the members on the Government side, including the Chief Whip who has dealt with this matter, have had only one answer and that answer is, “we hope or we believe that these states will be friendly states and that therefore there is no military necessity for preparation”. Naturally we all hope that everyone with whom we have to live in juxtaposition is going to be friendly. That is a natural hope but we cannot live on hope in this world; you have to live on realities, and the reality is that in Addis Ababa threats have been made against this country. Training schools have been set up to train our own citizens in sabotage, and threats have been made both of aggression from outside and of guerrilla warfare from within, which we have to face. Sir, I must say in passing that for many of us it is a bitter thought that this conference should have been held in Addis Ababa, the place which our South African troops freed from a conqueror, a country in which our South African blood was shed in order to give them freedom. The gratitude that we get is that that country now takes the lead against South Africa. I would like to say that I think every South African who went through those days, who went through Abyssinia, who did something towards the freeing of their country, feels bitterly disappointed to-day at their reaction.

That was the mistake you made.

My hon. friend says that it was a mistake; it was no more than the mistake which he made when he thought that the Japanese would be good allies of South Africa if we were neutral. It was no mistake to believe in freedom and justice; it was no mistake to fight for the Western concepts of freedom against the Nazism which that hon. member was prepared to support. I would fight again and again against Nazism or Communism or any totalitarianism just as we did in those days when he was not prepared to do it. It was not a mistake; it was one of the tragedies of post-war history that that should come about.

On a point of order, the hon. member has clearly insinuated that I was a Nazi. That is against the rules of the House.

Order! The hon. member must resume his seat. The hon. member may proceed.

Sir, the Minister and the Government has said that these Bantustans are going to be friendly. But the Minister has to give us a little more than hope. In these new states we face a new sort of terrain. If you look at a map of South Africa and see where these Bantustans are going to be, you see that their borders are going to include some of the most difficult terrain in our country. It is going to include areas which are going to need highly mobile forces able to deal with the most difficult sort of country. Above all we are going to face a completely new concept in regard to these Bantustans. You have to deal with threats from outside in the relationship of your country to another country, but Bantustans introduce for the first time the added element of your own civilian population. In other words, it will be adding the problem of our own South African civilians living in these territories whom we shall have to take into account and not merely the guarding of a border.

What about the protectorates?

My hon. friend keeps throwing up the argument “What about the protectorates”? We are not dealing with old history, we are dealing with the additional problems. We made the point, Sir, that this Government was creating additional problems over and above those we had already. We have had a problem; we have always had a border between South Africa and other countries. In the last war we stretched that border; we went beyond that border to meet the fighting away from ourselves—as far as we could. We have always had that border. The point now is that the Government has created new borders, additional borders, tens of thousands of miles of rough country which our defence mechanism has got to take into its thinking. A year or so ago the hon. the Minister, for instance, spoke about border posts; he said he was creating border posts in the northern Transvaal; not border posts along the Limpopo only but border posts along the border between so-called White South Africa and Bantu areas. We heard no more about that but about two years ago it was mooted that these outposts were going to be established. It indicates that that thinking was there. Now that the reality of the problem is starting to become clearer we hear no more about those border posts.

I think I shall leave the point there because we have stated our case on that clearly. I want to add one other point linking up with what the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) said, namely, the question of specialists in our Army. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has considered, instead of taking youngsters who are going to university into training and postponing their university education for a year thereby, they should not be trained at university in specialist units. In other words, whether you should not create of your universities where you have your trained brains, your professors and lecturers, your post-graduate students and your new students, a nucleus for specialist units in engineering, chemistry, signalling and other technical and specialized branches of the service. So that pari passu with their normal education they will be engaged in military training. Rather this than taking those youngsters, putting them on the parade ground and giving them a little technical training which really does not get them very far except if they are lucky enough to get into one of the specialist units, why not consider creating real specialist units at those places where the brain power is available. It is something which I believe we must think about rather than waste our manpower.

One last unrelated point I wish to make is the question of these young trainees who live in single quarters on mines and so on. They have their rifles for which they are responsible but they have no facilities for protecting them. They have to lock them up in a wardrobe. They go underground or they go off to work for the whole day but there are no facilities for the proper protection of those arms. This is also a matter which I believe requires some consideration. [Time limit.]

I have been asked to be brief. I want to start with the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) who spoke just after my previous speech. I cannot reply to all the points that he raised but I just want to say that the hon. member and other hon. members who spoke after him said in quite a friendly way: “We cannot just idly say that we hope things will come right,” in other words, that we cannot simply hope that these new Bantu states will be favourably disposed towards us. But, Mr. Chairman, I never said that. I must object to that statement. That is a completely wrong interpretation of what I said. I did not say it. What I said was that we had no prearranged plan to keep those Bantu states under control when they eventually become independent. What I said was that our general expansion in the defence sphere would enable us to meet that new danger if it arises. I said this most emphatically, so it is not a question of “hoping”. The hon. member also spoke about guerrilla warfare. Of course we are preparing ourselves for guerrilla warfare; we have annual manoeuvres in guerrilla warfare. The danger has been outlined here of enemies who may cross our borders, attack us, and then withdraw. That is probably the best known of all dangers. We are preparing ourselves for that in various ways. I want to mention just one example. It would be no easy task for a paratroop unit to launch an offensive in this country and then withdraw. That withdrawal would not be so easy. Our defence forces are becoming more and more mobile and it would not be easy for paratroop units, therefore, to strike and to withdraw again. I do not say that it will not happen; it may possibly still happen, but we are daily preparing ourselves to cope with such a situation.

The hon. member also said: “We have heard no more about the border posts.” I do not know that I ever said that we would set up border posts. What I did say was that we would station full-time units at strategic points throughout the country. We do not have to do it at some future date; it has already been done. We already have large and strong sections of our full-time units at various strategic points. I cannot give the figure at the moment but I think that the figure is about 7,000 or more. These are not things, therefore, which still have to be done; they have already been done.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) put quite a number of questions to me. He asked how we were progressing with the allocation of our manpower in the various branches of our national activities. I just want to say that there is still a great deal of work to be done in studying the situation. But the appointment of a statutory manpower board is one of the things that will help us to make a better study of the situation. The hon. member also asked when we would be able to have a 100 per cent call-up. I cannot tell him that in advance. I replied to this point this morning. We are making rapid progress. In connection with material, the hon. member asked whether we were making a survey of what was available in our country. Of course we are making a survey in this regard, but I want to point this out to the hon. member: He said that we had more vehicles in this country than we could use in time of mobilization. He is not quite correct. There are certain vehicles of a technical nature that we cannot commandeer; we do not have them. I can also tell him that if we have to fight in a desert area where we need four-wheel drive vehicles, we do not have many in this country to commandeer. If we have to meet an attack from outside, we must accept that our enemies will not be equipped with two-wheel drive vehicles, and we would then have to oppose them, if we commandeer vehicles on a large scale, with two-wheel drive vehicles. It is not an easy matter to commandeer vehicles. The hon. member also asked me how far we had progressed with research in connection with the large-scale storage of fuel. I do not think we have made much progress in this regard. We are storing fuel to the extent that it is possible for us to do so, but no research has been necessary in this regard. If the hon. member wants to know whether special research is being done, let me tell him that it is not being done by the Army, although it may perhaps be done in other quarters.

The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross) spoke about a Fifth Column. Of course every Minister of Defence in any part of the world is aware of the possibility of Fifth Columnists. We are well aware of that danger. It all depends on the possible danger of the Fifth Columnists how we shall handle them. If it is just a bagatelle there will not be unnecessary punishment. But if it is a Fifth Column, where we are fighting for our very existence, we shall deal with them most severely because we cannot allow ourselves to be ruined by a Fifth Column when we are fighting for our very lives. But I am not prepared to accept that all those envisaged by the hon. member are Fifth Columnists.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) asked me whether we were giving the youngsters vocational guidance. As an ex-Administrator I am fully aware of the necessity for vocational guidance as far as education is concerned. But I do not know whether we are giving them vocational guidance today. We are certainly giving them vocational guidance as far as their future military careers are concerned but in connection with other matters, I do not know. In any case, I do not know whether we are capable of doing that; we are not expert in all directions.

May I ask the Minister a question? I think the Minister will find out from his own Department that during the last war we did have these vocational guidance officers. Cannot they be reabsorbed?

They demobilized men who were in the Army for many years, men who entered the Army practically as grown-up men but that was a totally different position. We now receive these youngsters and we really give them a pre-university year which is not the same thing at all. I would not like my military people to meddle with the advice those youngsters already received while at school. The hon. member also asked me what was the best way of buying. No, Sir, I do not know. But surely the best way of buying is not to be advised by interested people. I think the best way of buying has been evolved through the years by successive Governments and that is the way in which we are doing things at the present moment.

*The hon. member for Karas (Mr. von Moltke) must not blame me if I do not reply to his question. I can only tell him that roads are always necessary for defence.

The hon. member for Simonstown again referred to my expression of “calculated risk”. I think I have now answered that fully. He also asked a question about trainees returning to private life. No, Sir, we cannot possibly accept responsibility for them in respect of occupations for them after their training. It is only natural that we help them. Last year we helped quite a number to get into the universities, but we cannot accept responsibility for their way of life after training. Here again it is not the same thing as demobilization after the last war. The hon. member spoke about a very practical problem and that is the creation of more recreational facilities for these youngsters. I am worried about it, but this year we have doubled the amount for that purpose and I do hope that we will be able to provide those facilities much faster than we did in the past. We have a very big job in this build-up to provide camps, buildings, etc., but I can give the hon. member the assurance that we are well aware of the necessity of these recreational facilities.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote S,—“Defence”, R26,111, put and agreed to.

Supplementary Estimates:

The Committee proceeded to consider the Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue, Bantu Education and Loan Accounts [R.P. 50—’63].

On Revenue Vote No. 38.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing (Administration)”, R80,000,

May I ask the hon. Minister whether there are special reasons for this additional amount. Are there special circumstances attached to the working of abattoirs that make it necessary to vote this money?

On the motion of the Minister of Finance, the further consideration of this Vote stood over.

On Revenue Vote No. 51.—“Tourism”, R29.000,

This is a new Vote which arises from the gazetted appointment of a Minister of Tourism, and I think it is perhaps appropriate that certain questions be put to the hon. Minister in regard to the development of this Department of Tourism. Our obvious difficulty is that we cannot discuss the policy of the Minister because he has not had an opportunity yet of applying a policy, and secondly, the House and the country do not know the Minister’s intentions in regard to the development of this Department. We hope that he will take the opportunity to-day of giving us some outline of what he considers should be the lines of development of this Department. There is one significant aspect. I noticed that in the gazetted appointment of the hon. Minister reference is made to the coordination of existing Departments, or methods of developing tourism in South Africa, and that seems to indicate that apart from what ideas the hon. Minister may have in considering the development of his own Department, he obviously will have jurisdiction over the South African Tourist Corporation which up to now has fallen under the Minister of Transport. The time for this debate is very limited and I want to put one point crisply to the hon. Minister. It is clear that the majority of tourists coming to South Africa have come from other African territories, in Africa itself. The bulk of our tourists have not come from countries overseas, from Europe, America and other countries in the world. With the developments in Africa, I would like to ask the Minister if he considers that there is likely to be a shortfall of that traffic, and particularly what steps will he take for the development of tourism as such as an industry in regard to attracting people from other overseas countries to visit South Africa?

The hon. member quite rightly says that he cannot expect a major statement of policy from me at this stage. But what I would like to say to hon. members is that the functions of the new Department, I think, will give a line to the directions in which this Department must operate. Firstly, there is the promotion of overseas tourists to South Africa, and also the promotion of inland tourism in South Africa. So the Department applies itself both to overseas tourism, the Rhodesian tourists, and tourists from the adjoining territories, and also to the tourist in South Africa, a holiday-vacationer, or whatever you want to call them. The Department also has to consider his interests. Then there is the need to make South Africa attractive to tourists. The idea is that the whole tourist industry should be propagated by this Department. The hon. member for Turffontein mentioned the fact that there might be a drop in the number of visitors from adjoining territories to South Africa. That may or may not be the case. Undoubtedly in the past the tourists from adjoining territories have to a large extent made up the number of tourists which have come to South Africa, a matter of over 200,000 people during the last year.

What percentage comes from overseas?

From the 200,000, I think some 20,000 were tourists from overseas, from Britain, a certain number from America, and from other countries. But most of the tourists came from adjoining territories.

As far as the objectives of this Department are concerned, the Department will be here to try and increase the number of tourists from overseas, from Britain, from Germany, from Europe, from the United States. We will do what we can to increase these numbers. The Department will also do all it can to endeavour to see that the numbers from adjoining territories do not decrease, if that is possible. We hope that it will be possible to build up the attractions in this country so that we will be the tourist centre for adjoining territories.

May I say that what the House is interested in is what plans have been made up to now to attract overseas tourists to South Africa, and secondly, whether the Minister still intends to use as the major medium to attract these tourists, the South African Tourist Corporation.

Plans have been discussed with Satour in particular, because the overseas avenue for attracting tourists to South Africa will be Satour. It will still operate as the statutory body whose main purpose is to attract tourists from overseas. It will be the operative body when it comes to this Department’s efforts in overseas countries, and we are not trying to duplicate the work of Satour. We are trying to co-ordinate the work of the various publicity bodies. One of our stated functions is to co-ordinate the existing facilities that are offered by various bodies at the present moment, such as the South African Railways, the S.A. Airways, Satour publicity associations, the hotel industry—all these bodies are avenues through which we are going to co-ordinate the tourist industry. In that respect the emphasis will be on improved facilities, additional facilities, and in general the development of tourism. We shall act as the co-ordinating body. Then surveys will be undertaken by our Department and these surveys will be in respect of tourist amenities, tourist lodgings, tourist hotels. The standard and nature and possible improvements will receive attention.

Vote put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Revenue Vote No. 38 standing over.

Revenue Vote No. 38.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing (Administration)”, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue Account, Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account, Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Account and Supplementary Estimates of Expenditure from Revenue, Bantu Education and Loan Accounts reported without amendment.

Estimates of Expenditure, as printed, adopted.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE then brought up a Bill to give effect to the Estimates of Expenditure adopted by the House.

Arising out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, will he tell us why, when the extension of the regulations had been agreed to, notification of the extension was not sent to the Committee of the Stock Exchange in order that the Committee could inform its members, and if it were confidential, that the Committee should be asked to maintain the confidence of the Reserve Bank, as has happened in the past. The Stock Exchange Committee have on previous occasions been taken into the confidence of the Reserve Bank or of the Minister. Why was the Stock Exchange Committee not informed, instead of only one or two members?

The hon. member will see that nobody was informed. There was an application for a permit; that application was granted under an extended interpretation and it did not go further than that. If any other members had also submitted an application, it would have been granted to them in the same circumstances.

How did they know?

Well, how did the first one know? I do not know whether the first person who started it took a chance or not, but the Reserve Bank have asked me to say that they regret that they did not take the precaution of making it known to the Committee. I am afraid I cannot carry it further than that. It is unfortunate that this has happened. This was merely a widening of the interpretation of the regulations; it was not a question of new regulations being issued, but when the application was made there was a widening of the interpretation of the existing regulation and the applicant who happened to be the first, got away with it. He did not tell anybody else about it, and it is regrettable that the Reserve Bank, when they did broaden the interpretation, did not inform the Committee of the Stock Exchange. They have expressed their regret for having failed to do so.

Arising further out of the hon. the Minister’s reply, is he satisfied that it is not necessary to set up a commission of inquiry to go into it?

I am satisfied that nothing further can be done about it. This is the report which I have had from the president of the Reserve Bank and I do not think that the matter can be taken further.

I move—

This is the usual Bill to give effect to certain proposals contained in the main Budget and the Railway Budget and in which various other matters which affect the Consolidated Revenue Fund are dealt with. The various provisions are explained in the White Paper and it is therefore not my intention to deal with the Bill clause for clause. I want to confine myself to a few supplementary remarks with regard to certain clauses.

Clause 4 merely rectifies a technical error made by the Transvaal Provincial Administration. After the provincial auditor had drawn attention to the fact that the way in which the particular service was being provided was ultra vires, the province followed the correct procedure by paying subsidies to the institutions concerned to enable them to make their own arrangements for regular visits to the inmates of old-age homes by a general practitioner. As in the case of the original arrangements, the praiseworthy main objects are still being achieved, that is, to eliminate the inconvenience caused to the aged through visits to the Pretoria Hospital, and to provide the medical treatment that they need on the most convenient and most economical basis. I may perhaps add that each of the institutions concerned has a sick bay in which old people who would otherwise have to be admitted to hospital can be given the necessary nursing and medical treatment.

Clauses 9 and 10 simply deal with interprovincial bridges situated on national roads or connecting such roads. As far as other interprovincial bridges are concerned, the Department of Public Works will, as it has done hitherto, accept responsibility in this connection, having regard to the provisions of Section 84 of the Constitution in terms of which provinces are not given the power to pass ordinances in connection with bridges connecting two provinces.

As far as Clause 15 is concerned, it may be mentioned that negotiations with the Cape Province regarding the financial adjustments arising from the transfer of Coloured education have already reached an advanced stage and all that now remains is to determine the precise figures within the framework of the agreement that has been reached. It is intended to enter into similar negotiations with the other provinces as soon as it is practicable to do so.

Clause 16 provides for an increase in the fixed borrowing powers of the State President.

In terms of Sections 2 and 3 of the General Loans Act, 1961, the State President may in any financial year borrow R30,000,000 more than the amount by which the approved loan expenditure exceeds the amount which stands to the credit of the Loan Account or which accrues to that Account.

Originally this latitude was intended to make reasonable allowance for unforeseen increased receipts on Loan Account, and to give the Treasury the opportunity to take advantage of favourable opportunities to enter into loans in anticipation of actual requirements. As a result of the considerable increase in the State Budget over the years, together with the greater uncertainty and the changed character of foreign markets for capital, it was found necessary in 1951 to increase the original amount of R6,000,000 to R30,000,000. Since that time there has been a further considerable increase in our national Budget. The total expenditure on Loan Account, for example, has risen from R130,000,000 to R300.000.000. In addition to that other important factors have also come into the picture in the meanwhile. In the first place with a view to bringing about savings in interest charges and from the point of view of the sound management of public debt, it is considered necessary that the State should have more freedom to enter into loans when rates of interest are favourable in order to meet expenditure which will arise in a future financial year. Secondly it is necessary from time to time in the interests of financial stability, to make available more Government stocks to the money and capital markets in order to cope with conditions of excess liquidity and unsound fluctuations in rates of interest.

All these considerations make it extremely desirable that the fixed borrowing powers of the State President should be further increased to the extent proposed here.

As the Minister has indicated this is really the annual conglomerate of financial matters which require legislative sanction to regulate and facilitate Government administration. The hon. the Minister has enlarged on some of the matters and the White Paper which has been tabled gives a clear picture in regard to the need of this legislation. There will therefore be no opposition to the measure from this side of the House.

The hon. the Minister did not mention Clause 6 which gives powers to the Staalwerkers Koöperatiewe Spaarbank Beperk to become incorporated as a company instead of as a Co-operative Society, but there is a precedent for that as explained in the White Paper in the case where Volkskas Kodperatiewe Beperk also desired to become incorporated as a company. But I think the hon. the Minister might have elaborated a little more on the provisions of Section 16 because those provisions do affect parliamentary control over the Government’s actions in respect of the Loan Account. As the House knows, Government spending on Loan Account is strictly limited to the amount appropriated in the Appropriation Act for a year and for that reason the law specifically places limitations on borrowing powers—I say very necessary limitations—so that the borrowing shall be sufficient only (1) to meet actual expenditure sanctioned by Parliament and (2) to raise money necessary for the redemption of maturing loans during a year. As the Minister has indicated there has in addition been this third aspect in which a limited amount of excess borrowing power has been granted to the State. Prior to 1951 it was only R6,000,000. In 1951, as the Minister has indicated, it was increased to R30,000,000, and the suggestion now is that it should go up to R60,000,000. Sir, I appreciate the points which the hon. the Minister has made, but never to my knowledge—and I should be surprised if it has ever happened—has the borrowing power during one year been exhausted. In fact the evidence indicates that in most years—in fact every year—the borrowing powers are not exhausted but that there has been an unexercised borrowing power which has been left over. I would just quote two years by way of example: For the year ending March 1961 the unexercised portion of the borrowing powers amounted to over R110,000,000; for the next year ending in March 1962 the unexercised borrowing power for the year amounted almost R27,000,000. It seems therefore that the hon. the Minister should have been a little more explicit as to why it is necessary at this stage to increase this additional borrowing power. If during any year there has been a stage in which the Government has not been able to function because of limitations, that would have been a good argument, I think. In respect of last year when criticism was offered from this side of the House that a larger credit balance in the Loan Account was being carried forward than was needed by the Government, the hon. the Minister justified it by saying, not that it was necessary to meet appropriated expenditure but merely to draw off some of the excess liquidity which was being built up in the banks. That seems to be the main purpose of this provision because I understood the hon. the Minister to mention this new factor, namely to extend these provisions to bring about, as he said, financial stability. But I ask if this is the appropriate way to do that, because we are now embarking on a new principle in so far as borrowing powers are concerned and I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister will be a little more explicit as to why this should be regarded as the appropriate method for bringing about such stability. If the Minister was right last year, he already has an adequacy of borrowing powers. The figures for the last year are not available to me but I have given the figures for two years to indicate that there is a substantial unexercised borrowing power every year which the Minister could use. As I have said, there will be no opposition to the second reading of the Bill, but I hope the Minister will deal with this a little more specifically.

I have given the House the reasons as to why we want a greater latitude as far as borrowing powers are concerned. The first reason is that we want to be able to take advantage of it when the opportunity occurs, to reduce the interest charge against Public Debt. When the rates of interest are low and we are able to borrow, as we have done this year, then we want to be able to take advantage of that opportunity. This year we have already redeemed loans which will only mature next year. We took advantage of this not only because of the lower interest rates prevailing at the present time, but also because next year we have an extraordinarily heavy programme of repayments. This year was a comparatively light year and we wanted to spread the burden over the two years. The other reason is that we want to make use of this power to give the capital market and the money market an opportunity of getting the necessary money for their legitimate purposes. If we did not do so it might mean that there would be an undue hardening of interest rates. If there is a shortage of money to meet their ordinary purposes, then we want to be able to take advantage of this Bill to ensure that they are able to raise the necessary money. I think the hon. member is not quite right. My information is that the borrowing powers were not adequate in 1963. If we had had greater latitude the State would have been able to borrow more with advantages all round, as I have already indicated. I want to point out too that the ratio between our new borrowing powers and the total amount of our Revenue and Loan Budget, remains more or less unchanged, but the Loan Budget has grown tremendously in the last ten years and as far as I can see there is no indication that it will stop growing. We want to ensure that at least for the following decade we will be able to do what we think is necessary for the financial stability of this country, and that is why we consider it necessary to increase the State’s borrowing powers. It was for that reason that the amount was increased fivefold in 1951. We are only asking for it to be doubled now. I think there is every justification for doing so, because both the Revenue Budget and the Loan Budget have been more than doubled in the last 13 years. I think it is very necessary in order to maintain our financial stability of which we are very proud in this country to allow sufficient money to meet the normal requirements of the money and the capital market. That is why it is necessary to have this extra latitude.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

It will be observed that the usual Customs and Excise Amendment Bills have on this occasion been combined into a single Bill. The reason for this is that the provision to pave the way for the designation of the head of the Department to be altered from “Commissioner” to “Secretary” relates to both the principal Acts. A second consideration is that there are no provisions in the Bill which do not relate to proposals dealt with by the House in Committee of Ways and Means. The only exception is the inclusion in the Bill, for approval by Parliament, of the Government Notices which have been published as a result of the recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries. In the circumstances it has not been considered necessary to introduce separate Bills to give effect to the resolution adopted in Committee of Ways and Means. I have placed at the disposal of hon. members on the other side very voluminous explanatory notes and it will not be necessary for me to go into the details of the Bill.

Sir, we have to thank the hon. the Minister for the explanatory notes. We will support this Bill which in effect makes provision for the changes in duty which we have already agreed to in Committee of Ways and Means and for giving effect to the recommendations of the Board of Trade and Industries. For the rest the Bill deals with certain Government notices which have been published and certain requirements under G.A.T.T. If there are any details to be discussed they can be discussed in the Committee Stage.

There is one clause, however, to which I want to refer and that is Clause 2 which changes Section 91 of the existing Act, and particularly the proviso to Clause 2. This is an interesting proviso because it has the effect, by the magic wand of the Minister, put into words in this particular Bill, of changing a second-hand motor-car into a new motor-car. Up to now a motor-car has been considered to be a new vehicle if it has been run for a period of less than a month. Now, although a motor vehicle has been run for up to six months it will be regarded as a new vehicle in terms of this Act. I wonder perhaps if the hon. the Minister would care to go into Parliament Street and say the magic words over my second-hand car so that it too can become a new car. There is no doubt that the vehicle when it arrives here can be a second-hand car as we all understand that term. I know it is said that people go overseas, buy a new car, drive it for a thousand or two thousand miles and then bring it back into the country when it is in effect a new car. There are many other people, however, who will buy a car overseas, drive it for four or five months, covering 15,000 or 20,000 miles and yet in terms of this proviso that car will be regarded as a new vehicle when it arrives here. Up to now when one bought a car overseas one was allowed a depreciation of 12½ per cent for duty purposes. To-day that falls by the wayside and unless the car has been driven for six months, duty will have to be paid as if it were a new car. Sir, I have here a calculation by the Department of Customs in regard to the purchase of a new car, and let me say at once that it is not my new car. I have never bought a new car overseas, so I have no personal interest in this matter. The approximate price of the car overseas was R1,888, and the duty under the existing circumstances is R747. One would have thought that the hon. the Minister of Finance would have been reasonably satisfied with R747 on a car costing R1,888, but apparently he is not. He now wants to charge an additional 25 per cent on a car costing less than R1,600 in respect of the difference, which will give him approximately another R57. We do not think that that is at all necessary; we do not think it is warranted and we do not see the reason for it. It is true that it may be said that a South African buying a car overseas has in fact taken possession of the car and whether he drives it overseas or in this country, it was a new car when he bought it. There are many cases where people buy things overseas. Fortunately up to now—we express a certain fear for the future—these things have been regarded as second-hand if they have been used before they are brought into the country.

Sir, there is another issue involved here and that is the retrospective effect of this legislation. This legislation is to become effective immediately. There are people who have bought cars overseas which are on the water already; they have been shipped. These people will now incur this new duty. There are people who have taken delivery of cars overseas and who are driving them on the Continent turning them into second-hand cars. Once again those cars will become new when they arrive here, and those people will have to pay the extra duty. Then there are people who have made arrangements for the purchase of cars who have paid for them and who have not yet had delivery and who will also be called upon to pay this excess duty. Sir, it is sometimes thought that the people who buy cars overseas are all very wealthy people. That is far from being the case. There are many hundreds of people who go overseas who have saved up for many years to go overseas; they buy their car overseas because it enables them to travel cheaply overseas. We have heard in this House from all sides that what we need are ambassadors overseas; these are all ambassadors, these South Africans who go overseas, and yet here we come along with a petty increase in duty of R57, which seems to be nothing but an annoyance to the person who goes overseas and buys a vehicle. I really do hope that even at this late hour the hon. the Minister will give some consideration to the Bill before us. (a) To the necessity of this increase, and (b) to the necessity of giving some protection to these people who I say, fall into three categories, those whose cars are on the water already, those whose cars have been delivered and paid for and who are driving them and those who have bought and paid for them but who have not taken delivery and who bought them in the belief that the duty was a certain amount. I know that there is the problem that once you announce a duty you have to have what I understand is called in professional circles a “duty point”, Well, perhaps we have to move away sometimes from these historical definitions. It seems to me it is a hardship for people suddenly to find that they are going to face this new duty.

I just want to mention an example to illustrate the argument of the hon. member who has just sat down. Nowadays many of our students go overseas, as hon. members know, and they find that it is necessary for them to have a car there. They buy a car and they stay there for a period of a year or even longer. I know of hon. members here in Parliament whose children have gone overseas to study. Under these circumstances where the use of a car there is really necessary for the work that these people are doing, I feel that it would be unjust to tax that car as a new car when it is brought back to this country. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister gave consideration to this question when the Bill was framed and the fact that it is often necessary to buy a car overseas not merely for the purpose of enjoyment, but to assist one in one’s work? It is in the interests of South Africa that our students should go overseas to widen their knowledge and I wonder whether in such cases these particular people cannot be assisted.

I would like to say a few words in support of the case so ably stated by the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) and supported by the hon. member for Hercules (Dr. A. I. Malan). Sir, I speak as one who not only sees this from the public point of view, but also from the personal point of view. I happen to be involved in exactly this situation. I think what has been said here should be amplified by this information; that anybody who buys a car of a particular make from the local franchise holder or the local assembler or dealer as the case may be, buys it after some negotiation and inquiries, not just haphazardly—except in the case of a few millionaires, possibly. The ordinary person like myself finds out what is involved. The present procedure is that such a person having discussed the matter with the dealer, who would give him the price of the car at a certain place, will then go to his Automobile Association or Rondalia or any of the touring or motoring clubs and get an estimate within a few cents of all the costs involved, such as the duty and even the freight, and even the clearing charges. If he wants to be quite sure about the position, he goes to the Customs official concerned and he will get a form, such as I have here, showing to a cent what the duty is on the tyres, etc. There is a rubber stamp on it “Customs/Doeane”. It all bears the hallmark of authenticity and officialdom. Only after all that has been done does the innocent purchaser pay for the car, as he is obliged to do. In my own case, for example, I was asked to pay in March. I had no choice about the matter. I subsequently paid. But then, Sir, when the deal has been done on a certain clear understanding which have been supported by information from an official source, to mulct the people who are already involved in this position, is somewhat unfair—I think the hon. Minister will agree—and cannot to a great extent enrich the Treasury. Therefore if such a provision is necessary—I am not prepared to discuss the necessity for it; I think it is unnecessary in general terms, but the Minister knows better than I—it should be made effective as from, say, 1 January 1964 so that anybody who then enters into such an agreement will know where he stands in the matter. I think that is the case which has been put by the hon. members who have spoken before me. Without enlarging upon it, I think it will be very difficult for the hon. the Minister to deny the justice of these representations. He may turn them down, but I do not think he can do so fairly.

It is not so very difficult for me to deny the justice of the representations that have been made to me. As a matter of fact, I have gone very carefully into this matter. It seems to me that the arrangement which has existed for some time is a grossly unfair arrangement. It favours certain people and not others. The second proviso to this clause is new and it means that if a South African resident purchases a car outside the Republic and uses it there for less than six months—it may be for a week—the car will be treated as new when imported and no reduction of the value will be made in respect of such use. If it is over six months, of course, due allowance is made. At the moment the Department allows a reduction of 12½ per cent of the value in respect of the use up to six months. I want to show how the present arrangement is unfair. The position is that the South African resident who is granted an import permit to purchase a car overseas to the detriment of the local motor industry, enjoys an advantage over the local purchaser in that he is exempt from a portion of the duty. The person who buys in South Africa has to pay that additional duty. Not only is he saved the expense of renting a car when he is travelling overseas, but he also escapes paying the full duty when he comes back with his car. It is clear from the customs duty on motor cars that the more expensive the car the greater is the duty on the value in relation to the duty on the weight. This means that the concession in respect of the more expensive car is relatively higher than in respect of the cheaper cars. I want to give hon. members an example of that. Before 1958 the cheaper cars, that is cars up to R1,200 f.o.b., did not enjoy this concession at all, because up to 1958 they were dutiable on weight only. When a rebate of excise duty in respect of local components was granted to the motor industry, it was decided not to increase the customs duty. The continuation of such concessions as these I have mentioned which serve as encouragement to import motor cars on their wheels is, however, inconsistent with the steps which the Government is taking in connection with the establishment of a motor industry in South Africa. It is also necessary to mention, Sir, that although there may be many bona fide cases, this concession has in the past been abused. I need only mention one case where a gentleman who stated that he had used his car for several months overseas and when it arrived here, he did not know how to start it. In these circumstances it has been decided to withdraw the concession. The new procedure will be effective from the date of promulgation of the Act in respect of all cars imported from that date. This is in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act and there is no justification for any exceptions because this was a concession to which such persons were not really entitled. In any event a deferment of the effective date would merely be an invitation for a rush to import cars under these very favourable circumstances before such date. It is accordingly not possible to consider any request for a postponement of the effective date.

Hon. members may think this is a tremendous sacrifice on the part of the poor man who has bought a car already, as mentioned by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel). But the amount he will now have to pay is not such a big amount. Take the small car first, the car of a f.o.b. value of R500. In that case the difference is only R12. That is not the selling price here, that is the f.o.b. value. In the case of the car of a f.o.b. value of R700 the sacrifice will be R17. When you come to the medium small class, i.e. from, say, R800, the amount is R20; R1,200 it is R30; R1,300 it is R40; R1,600 f.o.b. it is R50. When you come to the luxury cars, those with a f.o.b. value of R3,000 and more the difference is only R75. That is all. I think it is adjusting a position which has in the past weighed rather unfairly on the man who bought his car in South Africa, on the people who sold it here and on the people who assembled that car here. So I am afraid this is a concession that is being taken away, but I think it is a concession which should strictly not have been granted in the first instance. I have no qualms of conscience whatsoever about taking this concession away.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 3,

This opportunity of dealing with what the hon. the Minister said during the second reading cannot go without being used—in my opinion, Sir. Say, for instance, a man buys a car on these terms that we discussed at the second reading, and he uses it for less than six months, maybe for a week, according to the Minister. He then gets 12½ per cent rebate on the price of the car for the purposes of calculating the duty. Conversely, this person may have used the car for five months and three weeks. The hon. the Minister knows that very few people who go overseas can stay away from South Africa six months. They do not get a big enough allowance, as the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) says quite rightly, and even if they could get such an allowance, their means will not permit them to holiday in Europe or in America for six months.

If they get this concession it is worth their while.

Surely the hon. the Minister knows what it costs to travel or to live in Europe or the United States. Are you going to sit around there for six months in order to qualify for the 12½ per cent rebate of duty on a car?

. He need not sit around for four or five months; he need only sit around for one week.

That is quite incorrect. I am not suggesting that he should merely be allowed to acquire a car and immediately bring it in at a discount on duty. The present basis is fair because the minimum period, so far. has been two months. You have to keen the car out of the country, you must use it. for two months. That takes care of a normal overseas visit by ordinary people, but not six months. Clearly the Minister is now making it impossible to acquire a car on these terms. I must deal with the point the Minister made about it not being fair to the local industry. I think he said it was to the detriment of the local industry. If that were so, then I wonder how the hon the Minister can explain away the fact that the local industry assists the buyer of a car in these circumstances. I am such a buyer. There is nothing underhand, as has been suggested, no attempt to circumvent the South African industry. The South African assembler of a particular make of car will arrange for a visitor overseas—not the Minister—he does not need the facility—to take delivery of the car at the place where it is manufactured. So it is not a question of the hon. the Minister, protesting his altruism, protecting the South African assembler.

Do you only want to circumvent the fiscus?

Now I come to the fiscus. The hon. the Minister took great pains to say that if you bought a car of this or that value, the difference was only R15 or if you bought this or that car, the difference was only R20—and that on a car of R1,600 f.o.b. value it was only R75. He said it was “a small sacrifice”. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister, with great diffidence and deference, that if this is such a small sacrifice, surely the one who should be prepared to make it must be the one who can best afford to make it—and that is the hon. the Minister of Finance! Why expect it of the ordinary student, of the ordinary visitor who, as the hon. member for Parktown has said, may have spent a life-time saving for that trip, who needs a car over there, and arranges with the dealer here to take delivery of a car there? He buys it at a certain price level, and now the Minister says he is going to take a further R15 or R50, whatever it may be. out of that man’s packet. If it is such a small sacrifice, I seriously suggest to the hon. the Minister that he, and the fiscus and the Treasury, should be prepared to make such a small sacrifice in order to show goodwill towards the ordinary person, who is also the taxpayer.

Finally, the hon. Minister gave us an example of how people have tried to escape the full duty, where they should have paid the full duty. He gave the example of a gentleman who said he had used the car overseas for several months, but who, on the car’s arrival in South Africa, did not know even how to start the car! That only proves that that particular gentleman was a liar, perhaps, but that does not prove that everybody who buys a car overseas is a liar.

But you create an opening.

He may have had a chauffeur over there, as my hon. friend here says. This is my final suggestion, Sir. I realize the difficulty of laying down that this particular provision will be of force and effect, say, on 1 January 1964, as I suggested. But could the Minister possibly see it in this light—that where the Customs can be satisfied by the production of documents such as receipts or affidavits, proving beyond doubt that the person concerned paid for the vehicle before the introduction of this Bill, could such persons not then be exempted? That is my last suggestion to the hon. the Minister, although he has already said that he has no difficulty about being hard-hearted about this matter!

In fairness to the position there is one aspect which the hon. member has not dealt with. This means that the person who can afford to go overseas has an advantage over his poorer brother who cannot afford to do so. He gets 12½ per cent reduction on his duty as opposed to the man who has to stay here and pay the full duty. Then there is the man who says he is not going to support the local assembly industry, he is going to import his car on wheels. Those are the two points which make it absolutely conclusive, as far as I am concerned.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

I move—

This is a very short Bill which has only two material clauses. The purpose of this Bill is to prevent people listening in to the radio illegally by compelling listeners to take out licences when they buy a radio set. I think everyone in this House will admit that our broadcasting service is an excellent one. It is only possible to provide such a service by spending vast sums of money. We do not only broadcast warmed-up programmes from overseas as is done by many stations in Africa. Our programmes are drawn up for the people of South Africa and they are adapted to our tastes and requirements. Our own artists and writers take part in these programmes. We have our own orchestras. We have our own programmes. I wonder what other part of Africa provides the same service as that provided by the S.A.B.C.?

What has that to do with the Bill?

That hon. member still has a lot to learn. It costs a listener 1½ to listen to his radio for a whole day while a newspaper which he may possibly read for 15 to 20 minutes costs him 3c. If it is a Sunday newspaper he has to pay 5c for it. It means that he can listen to the radio from morning till night throughout the whole week for 10½c. I want to ask hon. members who always criticize the S.A.B.C. to such an extent—although I believe that that criticism is merely superficial—whether there is any other service in South Africa that can be obtained at this very low cost?

It is unfortunate that there are a large number of people in South Africa who always want to enjoy certain facilities at the cost of others. They think that they can listen in to the radio from morning till night, throughout the year, without paying a cent for it. In terms of our present Act, a dealer who sells a radio set has to send the invoice to the Post Office because it is the Post Office that collects the licence fees. Over the past 12 months more than 366,000 radio sets have been sold. We must accept the fact that a number of the people who have purchased radio sets already have licences. For the sake of argument let us say that two-thirds are already licensed listeners—which I do not believe—and that only one-third are not licensed. This means that over a period of 12 months we have had 120,000 listeners who have not paid a cent. It is very difficult to trace all these radio pirates. It was comparatively easy before. Then the sets were large. To-day, there are small sets, transistorized sets that one can put into one’s pocketor into one’s drawer. The result is that it is difficult to trace these sets to-day. Our tracing staff consists of 71 inspectors and 10 Bantu assistants. But notwithstanding this fact we have about 100,000 illegal listeners annually. The number of persons who purchased radio sets last year was 366,000 of whom at least one-third were not licensed, and of those 120,000 we were only able to trace 22,000. The trade profits thereby because the trade makes a profit on every set that it sells. The body that loses however is the S.A.B.C. This position is further aggravated to-day because the Bantu are purchasing radio sets on a steadily increasing scale. I think that I have mentioned before that it is estimated that more than half of the radios sold on the Rand to-day are sold to Bantu. As you know, it is an extremely difficult task to enter a Bantu location to do tracing work there and it is also often a dangerous task. And so it is also becoming much more difficult to trace these illegal listeners. We have experienced this state of affairs in South Africa before—prior to 1928—and as a result of the position that arose then, which was very much the same as the position that we have to-day, Act No. 23 of 1928 was passed in which it was provided by the then Government that before a person could sell a radio set, the buyer had to produce a licence, and before a radio repairer could repair a radio set, he had to make sure that the owner of that set was in possession of a licence. At the same time, the system was introduced whereby the seller had to send an invoice in respect of every set he sold to the Post Office, so that the Post Office was then able to trace the unlicensed owners of radios. In 1952 this House deemed fit to go out of its way to benefit the trade and it abolished the provision whereby a person buying a radio set had first to produce a licence although the invoice system was retained. Because of this invoice system we know to-day precisely how many sets are sold in South Africa, but we find that the licence fees for the sets sold are not always paid. All that we want to do by means of this Bill is to rectify that position and to revert to the system which existed before 1952—to make it compulsory once again for a person to be in possession of a licence before he can buy a radio set and for a person to be in possession of a licence before he can have his radio set repaired. This is a very small amendment but I think it is a most justified amendment and I am convinced that the hon. members opposite will welcome it.

This Bill is to me another clear indication that the Government does not know its own mind. The Government comes here with an amendment to the Radio Act of 1952. The Radio Act of 1952 came in place of the original Act of 1928. The Act of 1928 had the provision that a radio dealer had to ascertain the number of a listener’s licence before he could sell a radio to him and that a repairer had to make sure that the person whose radio he was repairing had a listener’s licence. But that was found to be impracticable. It did not work. This Government itself came with a Bill in 1952 to remove that provision. Now a bare 11 years later they come with a Bill to reinstate the provision. It is quite clear that the Government does not know its own mind in a matter such as this.

To me this Bill is just another instance of where the Government has failed to do its ordinary duty and now is calling on citizens outside to assist it in maintaining the law. The law is clear. Every citizen in possession of a radio must have a radio licence. The duty to enforce that is clear, too. It is the Government’s duty, it is the duty of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, with more than 70 inspectors to implement the Act, and it is the duty of the Department of Justice to assist in enforcing it. But it is obvious that the Government have again, as in so many other instances, failed where they had to apply a particular law, and now the Government asks for these new powers, which will not only put an additional burden on the Government itself, but also an additional burden on the public outside and on the radio dealers and the radio repairmen, who already have to fill in so many forms.

It is clear from what the hon. Minister said that there has been some breakdown in the system of checking the radio licences. I put a question to the hon. Minister on 18 June, a few days ago, and I asked him what his present estimate was of the number of unlicensed radio sets in the Republic, and he replied that a reliable estimate could not be furnished, but that he thought that the number of unlicensed radio listeners might well run into many thousands. Now, firstly, it is clear from that reply that the Minister is asking us to do something for a reason in regard to which he is still in doubt himself. He does not seem to have real genuine evidence as to how many listeners have not paid their licences. He says it is difficult to estimate, but it may run into many thousands. But I will concede this, that it is quite possible that many owners of radios have not paid their listener’s licence and that probably there has been some breakdown in the system.

I do believe, however, that under the existing Act, if properly applied, the matter can be cleared up. After all, quite a lot of money is spent every year on a large number of inspectors. The hon. Minister told me a couple of days ago in reply to a question what the position was. I asked him how many officials in his Department were charged with the duty of investigating whether the owners of radio sets were in possession of valid listener’s licences. He replied that altogether 71 inspectors of uniformed staff and 10 senior Bantu assistants are employed full time on radio licence inspection. I am quite sure that the salaries, the wages and the expenses, the office rentals and so forth, the transport costs of these 71 inspectors will run into close on R200,000 a year. So there is in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs a section costing close on R250,000 investigating those owners of radio sets who have not taken out licences. Surely with such a costly apparatus more could have been done in the past, and it should not have been necessary to have to come to Parliament and in fact admit that the system has broken down.

The hon. Minister did indicate that a large number of cases were submitted to the courts during recent years. In 1958-9, approximately 7,800 cases were submitted to the courts and in 1962-3 the number had more than doubled to 18,441. I should like to know from the hon. Minister if this is an indication of the increase in the efficiency of the inspectorate, and, if so, why it is then necessary to come with this particular Bill. I believe that this provision is going to cause a great deal of inconvenience to radio dealers and radio repairers. After all. commerce and industry are burdened and overburdened to-day with a mass of forms, which they have to fill in in duplicate, in triplicate and in quadruplicate. Time is wasted on these matters, inconvenience is caused, additional books have to be kept, and general costs, including the cost-of-living. are increased by red-tape measures such as these.

I realize that in the past radio dealers had to fill in a form in triplicate when a new set was bought. Now, however, they will be compelled to ascertain whether the person buying the new set is in possession of a licence. That can cause difficulties. Will it be necessary, for instance, for the intending buyer of a new radio set to come along to the radio dealer and show the licence to the radio dealer? Or will it be sufficient if he only comes along and gives the number of his particular licence? What procedure is envisaged under the regulations which are to be drawn up in the future? It will be a great inconvenience, particularly to repairmen. Now, Sir, when a radio breaks down it can be a sort of emergency. An owner of a radio may want to hear the market reports, or the Stock Exchange reports, or the weather reports, and he may feel that it is essential that his radio be repaired immediately as a matter of emergency. One can well imagine that a radio repairman will be very loath when it comes to the repair of a radio, particularly where there is an emergency, to demand the presentation of a radio licence. It may well be that he says, “Oh, let me have the number in a day or two’s time,” or, “Show it to me at my shop in a week’s time.” Actually, in that case, this radio repairman, as I read the law, will probably be breaking this particular law. What can he do under those circumstances? Is he to tell this person: I can’t repair your radio, you must first find that licence of yours, wherever you have mislaid it, before I can touch your particular radio and mend it? Or must he in fact break the law, not purposely, but still break it in the letter if not in the spirit, in order to repair this particular radio set?

I believe that it is not going to work in practice. There are going to be many, many practical difficulties in enforcing this particular provision. Let me mention one to the hon. Minister. As he knows, a person is permitted to own and to possess several radios under one licence. He can, for instance, have a gram radio which is a permanent fixture in his home, and at the same time have, say, the portable transistor radios. It could then happen that he lends one of these transistor radios to a member of his family, perhaps a minor in his family, his son going on holiday. That transistor radio breaks down 1,000 miles away from home. That son wants to have that radio repaired. He dare not go to a radio repair shop because he has not got a radio licence with him. The radio licence is at home with his parents. That can easily happen. Unless the radios are kept under the same roof all the time it can lead to great difficulties if one of the radios which is not at the home at the moment suddenly breaks down. Or a radio in a car breaks down far from home. Will it be sufficient only to tell the radio repairman what the number of the licence is? I do not think that will be sufficient according to this Bill. This Bill says specifically that “no holder of a radio repairer’s licence shall effect any repairs to any radio apparatus unless the person on whose behalf such repairs are effected is in possession of a valid listener’s licence.” I doubt whether it would be sufficient merely to say, “I have written down the number of the radio licence, here it is, please repair my radio”.

Anyway, I do not believe that Clauses 12 and 13 in this amending Bill will in any way solve the problem. We had two similar sections in the old Radio Act, also Sections 12 and 13, and those sections were, according to a reply given by the hon. Minister in this House, effective as regards only 50 per cent of the cases of delinquency. In other words, even changing those Sections 12 and 13 would not improve the position as regards more than 50 per cent of the cases. I believe that many of the other cases are discovered, say, in deceased estates, in raids on locations, or by some other method where the Police happen to find that a radio is in possession of a certain person who has not got a licence. Those are cases in which Clauses 12 and 13 will not apply. They have only applied in the past in the case of about 50 per cent of the convictions that were actually obtained or were brought to the courts under the old system. I doubt very much whether this particular Bill will in any way bring to an end what the hon. Minister has been pleased to call “illegal listening”. I believe that the old Act as we had it was sufficient. I do not want to quote from the Hansard of 1952. but I am sure that the arguments that the hon. Minister, or his predecessor, used then for not having this provision in the Bill would still apply to-day, and I should like to hear from the hon. Minister why those arguments which were used in 1952 do not equally well apply to-day.

The Minister says that it is difficult to-day to inspect whether a person has paid his radio licence after he has bought a new radio. But under the old Act it was also necessary for the radio dealer to add the name and address of the buyer of the radio to the particular form which he had to fill in in triplicate, one of which he had to send to the authorities. The name and address was available on that particular form to the Government authorities, the same as it will be available to-day. In other words, the inspection will be just as difficult in future, particularly when there has to be a renewal of a licence. Therefore, I conclude by saying that I do not believe that this Bill is a necessary one under the circumstances. I believe that the existing machinery can be used to better effect, and I believe that the Government was right in introducing the Radio Act in 1952 and that it is wrong to go back now on its own policy of 11 years ago.

I can see the difficulty the Broadcasting Corporation is experiencing. The cost of a licence is now so high that there is a temptation to evade payment. It is true of all taxation, that when taxation is increased to such extent that people have difficulty in paying and find it a hardship, they try to avoid payment, and there is evasion. Now quite obviously there is evasion here. But I don’t quite see why it is necessary to introduce this Bill at all. The 1952 Act says quite clearly under the same Sections 12 and 13, that it is necessary for a dealer and a repairer to furnish information similar to this information. It is quite impossible I feel to-day to cover all sales and all repairs to radio apparatus. It is an impossibility. Now that there are for sale these small transistor sets, the whole thing has got quite out of control. I don’t wish to discuss the Broadcasting Corporation in general, as the hon. Minister did, but I think the Corporation will have to consider having a system to finance broadcasting without a licence, or with a very small cost for a licence. I think that will have to come. The income will have to be derived from more advertising on the C-programme, and perhaps a subsidy from the Government, because the Government is using the radio for propaganda to-day.

When we look at this amendment that is proposed, there are the two clauses, the one dealing with the radio dealer’s licence. He may not sell any radio apparatus. Now how does one define any “radio apparatus”? Does the hon. Minister mean a “radio set”, what we used to call in the old days a “wireless set”? Does he mean a set or does he mean the element of a set? If that is so, and you have a transistor, what about the dry batteries? Are the “dry batteries” radio apparatus? These dry batteries you can buy for 8c and 10c in practically any shop in town? Are those people to have radio trading licences now? As a matter of fact, in transistor sets all that is needed is to have dry batteries to supply power. I can’t see how this can be interpreted.

When we come to the question of the radio repairer, if you are going to say, as is said in this Bill, that no radio repairer may carry out repairs without filling in all these forms and notifying the Postmaster-General, what is going to happen? What happens when you find the cost of repairing a car is too expensive? You go to a mechanic who is not on duty. You say: “Well, young Smith is just around the corner here and I am going to ask him to have a look at the carburettor.” Young Smith who works in a garage comes home in the evening and says: “Yes, I will have a look at it.” He repairs it and you give him 50c. What is going to happen if a radio set breaks down? It is quite a simple thing to fix a radio set. I have fixed numerous radio sets. It is quite a simple thing when you know the theory behind it.

Did you do it for five bob?

No, I did it free of charge. But you will get unofficial repairing by people who are not radio repairers and therefore need not put in a return, because officially they are not charging. I think that this amendment is unnecessary. It is an amendment to a law which cannot be carried out, and the essential thing in creating a new law is to make sure that it will not be broken easily, that people will respect the law and understand what it means. I think this will not create respect for the law. Therefore I would suggest to the hon. Minister as a first step to get the cost of licences reduced. I think it might even increase the revenue.

Of course, I differ completely from the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) as far as his last statement is concerned. He said that the amendment in Clause 13 (1) will assist in tracing those people who have not paid for their licences. I just want to point out that this Bill has in mind in the first place that all those buying new radio sets must have licences for those sets. Now the hon. member says that radio apparatus can also include light bulb. That is something that I cannot understand. The hon. member was a teacher but I do not think that he is correct in saying this. When one speaks of radio apparatus, one speaks of a radio set. The purpose of this Bill is to ensure that everyone buying a new radio set will take out a licence before taking possession of the radio. It may be possible that all the old radio sets will be replaced by new ones in ten years’ time. In this way one will eventually have the position where licences will have been taken out for all new radios. But in the meantime, there are thousands of old radio sets being sold and a large number of these sets are not licensed. This is the only way in which to trace these people. If an old radio set is out of order and is taken to a licensed radio repair shop, these cases will then be brought to light. I agree with the hon. member for Kensington that if one takes one’s radio set to be repaired by Jantjie in some backyard or other, the Postmaster-General will not be able to trace such a case, but such cases are exceptions to the rule. A person who has paid a reasonably high price for his radio set will not take that radio set to Jantjie or to the hon. member for Kensington. He will not dare to. He may find that the whole set has been ruined. That is why it is not fair of the hon. member to make such a statement. This sort of thing will only happen very seldom. I fully support this Bill. When we consider that the South African Broadcasting Corporation is providing us with a very important and good service and that it has virtually only two sources of income—from radio licences and from its commercial service—and when we consider the tremendous programme of expansion that it has on hand, when we consider that when the F.M. system has been finally introduced throughout the country within the next ten years or so it will have cost the Corporation about R37,000.000, we realize that they need every penny of the money obtained from radio licences. If we look at the annual report for 1962 we find that in 1962 an amount of slightly more than R4,000,000 was collected in respect of licences, and the Broadcasting Corporation cannot afford to lose these licence fees. This Bill is absolutely necessary. When we consider the B.B.C., for example, we find that not only do they have licence fees in regard to their internal services as a source of income, but that they also receive a Government loan which last year amounted to about £7,000,000 to assist them to render that service. The hon. member for Orange Grove has raised almost impossible cases of persons going away on holiday and having trouble with their radios while they are away. Well then, I say “it is just too bad”, but the Broadcasting Corporation cannot afford to leave loopholes to be made use of by people who want to be dishonest and who want to avoid paying for a licence in this way. When we look at the fees that the South African Broadcasting Corporation charges for its licences in comparison with the fees charged in other countries, we find that they are extremely fair. When we consider the tremendous area that is served by the South African Broadcasting Corporation, then I say that the statement that has already been made here that we have the highest fees in the world is simply not true. Our Broadcasting Corporation is rendering a service which I do not think is rendered by any other country in the world. We must consider that the Broadcasting Corporation only earns R9.03 per square mile in South Africa for the service that it is rendering and when we consider that a country like West Germany earns an amount of R288.85 per square mile, then we realize that there is no art in West Germany’s being able to make do with a cheaper tariff. Even then their tariff is not that much cheaper than ours. They pay R4.10 for a licence while our licence costs R5.50. and that is for three radios or more that are served in the high frequency areas.

That is why I want to conclude by wholeheartedly supporting the hon. the Minister and I think that every hon. member on this side will agree with me that we support this Bill. I just want to ask the Opposition—and particularly the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) who is always very critical of the Broadcasting Corporation, how they can expect the S.A.B.C. to render good services when it cannot collect the licence fees that are its due. I want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove whether he is going to vote against this Bill. I do not think that he will. I think that he is merely trying to find an argument on which to differ from the hon. the Minister, as he always does.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. Knobel), as usual, has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. This side of the House has no objection whatever to licence fees being collected and it has no sympathy for the person who does not pay his licence fees. Our objection to the measure is that the Minister, having failed through the proper channels to do his job, now has to go to the commercial channels and ask them to do his job for him because he has made a mess of it. The Bill actually says: I as the Minister have failed to collect the fees for licences and I must now ask the trade to help me.

But firstly I want to deal with the argument of the hon. member for Bethlehem. He questioned the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) when the latter spoke of apparatus, and the hon. member for Bethlehem said, “I think apparatus means a wireless set, or wireless apparatus.” That is typical of the hon. member. He has not read the Bill or the original Act. “Apparatus” is defined. It says that “radio apparatus” means any radio receiving or transmitting set which is capable of receiving or transmitting by radio any sound, image or signal, and includes any article which the Minister from time to time declares by notice in the Gazette to be radio apparatus for the purposes of this Act. In the amendment of 1962 it adds to this and says “except any article which the Minister from time to time by notice in the Gazette declares not to be radio apparatus for purposes of the Act. But this hon. member, this expert on radio affairs, questioned the definition of radio apparatus when really apparatus means anything the Minister says it is or is not. Now the hon. member will realize that in fact it is just too bad. He does not care for the person who suffers inconvenience, because he needs a new battery or valve and does not have his licence handy..

But I want to come back to the detail of this Bill, the first clause of which provides that any supplier of a radio shall ensure that a licence has been taken out. As justification for this clause, the Minister compared the cost of a newspaper at three cents with the cost of listening to the radio. I want to ask him whether on the S.A.B.C. you can take your choice of political policy as you can in a newspaper? When you buy a newspaper you can pick what you want. You can buy the Transvaler or the Burger if you want those sort of lies, or you can buy one of the other papers if you want the truth. You have a choice, but I want to ask the Minister whether there is a choice of political news when you are listening to the S.A.B.C.? No, we are bound to listen to whatever propaganda is pumped into us, and therefore only this Parliament has the right to determine whether in order to have S.A.B.C. propaganda pumped into you, you should have the radio trade of South Africa acting as the agents for the Minister.

Will the hon. member read to me in the 1928 Act what the definition of “apparatus” is?

I read from the 1952 Act. which is the consolidation of the 1928 Act, as amended, and this is the law as it stands now. I am not interested in what was radio apparatus in 1928; I am interested in what is radio apparatus now, and I quoted that to the hon. member because that is what this Bill is going to apply to. This Bill will not apply to the old crystal set of 1928, but to the complicated set of 1963. The Minister explained the difficulties he had with the 71 inspectors and 10 Bantu inspectors, and he admitted that they had failed to deal with the question of unlicensed listeners, and yet the law as it stands now lays down that whenever a radio is sold the seller shall send a copy of the invoice to the Postmaster-General, who is therefore aware of every radio sold in South Africa. What the Minister is in fact admitting is that he has not got the machinery to follow up the information he already has. He is told of the sale in terms of Clause 12 of the existing Act, and the Minister’s Department is so inefficient that although they know who has licences and what their names and addresses are and on what date they bought the sets, he cannot keep up to date with that. So now he says that instead of his inspectors doing the work, he will make the dealer see that the licence is taken out first.

Now I will tell the Minister why his inspectors cannot do the job, and I wrote to him about it and did not even get a reply. It is because his inspectors spend their time pestering people who have already paid their licences, instead of dealing with those who have not. I had four or five inquiries the year before last about not having paid my licence, until in desperation I wrote to the Minister and said I had already made my contribution to Nationalist Party propaganda through the S.A.B.C. and I objected to being bullied into paying a second time, and what happened? The inspector could not find the licence I had taken out here because he had apparently never heard of the little post office called the Volksraad. Because I paid my licence here, an inspector went to my home, he came to my office, he wrote me two cards and phoned three times, continuing this inquisition after he had been notified of the number and date of the licence. I wrote to the Minister and told him about that, but the next year exactly the same thing happened. They sent me a card and telephoned my office and a man came round to see why I had not paid my licence, which had been paid in the normal course and on time. If the inspectors are going to spend their time chasing people who have paid their licences, no wonder they cannot find those who have not paid. It just shows that the Minister has got his Department into an absolute mess and the only way he can get out of it is to ask us to act as policemen, and I object to that for two reasons. Firstly I object to making commerce and industry inspectors for the Government, and secondly I object to the Government trying to escape from its own mess by trying to use Parliament as an instrument to help the S.A.B.C.. That same S.A.B.C., when we want information about it, says it has nothing to do with Parliament. Then we are told that it is an independent corporation, but when it wants help they come to Parliament and ask us to pass a little law saying that the dealer should collect the licences on behalf of the S.A.B.C. because they and the Post Office cannot do it. This complete change in the whole set-up is in order to trace about 22,000 unlicensed listeners a year, but all the hundreds of thousands of licensed listeners have to be pestered and annoyed for the sake of those few whom the Minister cannot trace. Every time I want to get my wireless repaired if I am sitting in Cape Town with a portable radio I have to write to Durban and get the licence, and by that time it is probably the end of the Session, and all the hon. member for Bethlehem says is that it is too bad. Not that I listen to any of the propaganda that comes over, but sometimes there is a decent programme. And that applies to every holidaymaker in South Africa who takes a wireless with him. If we take a wireless with us, it is illegal to repair it unless the licence is produced. And what about those who have sons, as I have, who pull radios to bits for the fun of it, and you never know how many sets you have working at the moment? At the moment I think I have one, but there are bits and pieces lying all over the house. Everyone who knows boys will know that their rooms are a mess of radio parts. [Interjection.] If those members opposite had the intelligence to understand how a radio works, they would understand what I am talking about, but I cannot really blame them. Every time a kid wants to buy a valve he has to produce the licence. We on this side object to the inconvenience to the public and to the licensed dealers being turned into free spies for the Minister, and we object to the trade being asked to do the job of the Post Office. Finally we object to this measure being slipped through as an innocent little Bill in the dying days of the Session. The Minister will not get away with this sort of thing so easily.

I want to thank the hon. member heartily for his amusing speech here towards the end of the Session. The hon. member was probably instructed to talk on this matter and he made the fuss that he usually makes, and now I suppose I shall have to reply to him. The fact that the radio inspectors are after his blood so much is probably because they know him as we know him. Secondly, the hon. member made a mistake in saying that that inspector was not aware of a small post office called the House of Assembly Post Office. Well, there is such a post office. The official name of this post office is the Parliamentary Building Post Office. The hon. member probably misled the inspector in that regard. The hon. member has told us that he has a large number of sets.

I think that we have to deal here with a Bill to promote efficiency. Let us approach the matter from a practical point of view and not in such a theoretical way; we should not generalize all the exceptions to such an extent that they appear to be the rule. The position is that it is already provided by law that when a person buys a new radio the Postmaster-General must be informed. What is so wrong in the fact—because that administrative work must be done—that one additional form must be filled in giving the radio licence number, a copy of which is sent to the Postmaster-General, so that by taking this one step the Postmaster-General will immediately be able to see that that radio has been licensed? That is all that is provided for in this clause. The Opposition object to it, but they have no objection to the fact that the taxpayers’ money should be wasted by having to pay a whole horde of inspectors to investigate all the addresses that are given to them. No, it is a question of efficiency and it is not such a burden on the public or on the dealers, because the dealer has in any case to fill in a form. He will now have to fill in one additional form, and this will save the State a tremendous amount of money and trouble. I think that the Opposition are wasting time, because they cannot have any real objections to this Bill. Their opposition is merely for show; there is no substance in it. Is it so exceptional that the forms have to be filled in? How many cases do we not have where the dealer is expected to complete forms before he sells anything to the public? Take firearms. Before a dealer can sell a firearm he must obtain the licence from a magistrate and record it in his book. Before a man can sell a secondhand car to a member of the public, he has first of all to issue a roadworthy certificate as well as a third party insurance form. Even the collection of taxes is now being undertaken for the State by the employer, and the Opposition supports this, even though it does give the employer a great deal of additional administrative work. But they object to this one extra form that the dealer has to complete. No, I think that the matter is clear and I need not discuss it any further.

But there is another argument. Because of the different kinds of radio sets that are available to-day, such as the small transistor sets that one can put in one’s coat pocket, it is an impossible task for the inspectors to trace radios in order to ascertain whether they are licensed. The Bill provides for an effective way in which to control the position but now it is being opposed. I think that the Opposition are devoid of all objectivity. They simply want to oppose the hon. the Minister and they want to make political capital out of it. This is a necessary Bill which has efficiency in mind and there is nothing wrong with it at all.

We in this House always tie ourselves up with red tape and make more and more regulations which make it more and more difficult for people outside. The people are becoming punch-drunk. Here we have a Bill which says that you must first have a licence before you can buy a radio or have it repaired. The hon. member for Randfontein referred to roadworthy certificates for motor cars, but that is to promote road safety, something which is very necessary, and the same applies to third party insurance. Actually, this Bill should be called the Assistance in the Collection of Moneys Bill, and this sort of thing should not be thrust upon the commercial people in South Africa. Can you imagine an auctioneer selling 100 radios and calling for bids but saying that he cannot accept the bid unless the man has his licence? What happens then? Does the auction stand still while the bidder goes out to buy some licences? That is just how ridiculous this Bill is. You will probably see no more auctions of radios. Then you come to the repairer. Hon. members tried to make out that this is not serious, but a duty is being thrust upon the repair man. If he does not look at your licence he becomes a criminal, and why should we make a lot of people criminals? What will be the result of this Bill? The amount of revenue the Minister collects will never pay for the additional inspectors he will need. If you cannot enforce this law, why have it? It is a ridiculous thing. It is just one more thing thrust on the long-suffering public. People on holiday will not be able to have their radios repaired because they do not have their licences with them. The radio repair man naturally cannot be allowed to repair a set, so what will you have? You will have the substitution of licences. Anybody’s licence will be used and the Minister has no way of checking that. A licence has to be produced when a radio is purchased, but there will still have to be inspectors to check up the renewals of the licences, so no time or money is saved. There will have to be dozens of inspectors to carry out the law, and I hope that this House will throw out the Bill.

I want to tell the hon. member who has just sat down how wrong he is. If he had read the Bill well he would have seen that it provides that “No holder of a radio dealer’s licence shall sell or in any manner whatsoever supply …”. The Bill emphasizes the question of sale and supply. This means that if the dealer wants to sell a set, he can do so, but the sale is not finalized until delivery has been taken. All that the buyer then does is to go to the post office to take out a licence and by the time the radio set is delivered to his home, he can produce the licence. Precisely the same happens at a sale. It is presumed that the buyer has complied with the laws of the country. The law presumes that he has a licence; that is the basis of our system. There is no difficulty.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Sub-section (1) of the new Section 12 inserted by Clause 1 is quite clear. It provides—

Supposing a set is sold by public auction to a person who has no licence, what will be the position then?

The hon. member does not understand this provision. The word “supply” is the operative word.

The words that are used here are “give or”, not “give and”.

The word “supply” is the word that determines the eventual meaning of the subsection. “Sell” does not only mean that one tells a buyer that he can have what is being sold; one also has to give or supply the article. The supplying is part of the sale. The seller cannot simply say: “I will give it to you for a certain amount of money”. Part of the transaction is the supplying of that article. The supplying is the essence of the transaction and the supplying can be postponed until such time as the licence is produced. There is therefore no difficulty in that regard, and so that problem falls away completely.

The hon. member also has another difficulty; he says that there will be “substitution”. That is quite right, but can the hon. member mention to me any sphere of activity in which there are not certain people who are trying to get away with something? Some people are always trying to defraud others. I admit there is the possibility of fraud but we will now be able to compel most of the people who try to shirk their duty, to pay, and that is the important point. As I have already said, the people who do not pay are not few in number. I think that it was the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) who said that the amount involved was only about R20,000. The hon. member lost sight of the figure I gave him. I told him that last year 366,000 radio sets were sold but that only 22.000 radio pirates were traced. The amount involved therefore is very large indeed. I told him that I admitted that some of the people who bought radio sets did perhaps already have licences, but there are still a very large number of people who have no licences. We admit that there will be cases where fraud will still be committed, but by means of this provision we will be able to compel a very large number of these people to take out a licence.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) experienced some difficulty with the term “radio apparatus”, but unfortunately, as he himself admitted, the hon. member did not read the Bill too well. If he had read it well he would have seen that “radio apparatus” is defined in Section 1 of the Act. It is clearly provided that radio apparatus is any set by means of which one can receive a signal, by means of which one can hear something, and comprising such component parts as may be provided by the Minister. In other words, the Minister is not going to declare a little screw or a piece of wire to be a radio part. He will say that those articles that are used specifically for a radio cannot be supplied. In other words, the problem in this regard will not be as serious as the hon. member for Kensington imagines.

The hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) told me that the system had worked badly and that this Act was introduced in 1952, because the system was working badly. He said that I would have read what hon. members had had to say during the debate at the time, but the hon. member tripped himself up there because nothing was said about this section during that debate. In actual fact, this system did work well, but in 1952 when the Act was amended, the new development in radio was not anticipated—that one would eventually have transistor sets, sets which could be operated without electricity. In other words, one is able to-day to buy very small sets that are easily hidden away and that no one can trace. If hon. members investigate the number of licences issued, they will see that over the past year there has been a very small increase in the number of new listeners. There has been an increase of only 14,000 although 366,000 sets have been sold. This fact can only be ascribed to the new development in radio—that one is able to buy these small sets that are easily hidden away.

I think that other hon. members on this side have dealt effectively with the rest of the problems that have been raised here. I do not think that there are any other points remaining to which I need reply.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—84: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Frank, S.; Froneman, G. F. van L.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek, J.; Jonker, A. H.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotze, G. P.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Le Roux, P. M. K.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. I.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Nel, M. D. C. de W.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schoonbee, J. F.; Serfontein, J. J.; Smit, H. H.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, F. S.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Uys, D. C. H.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Venter, W. L. D. M.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; von Moltke, J. von S.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Webster, A.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Noes—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, P. D. du P.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; De Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Graaff, de V.; Hickman, T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Le Roux, G. S. P.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; Waterson, S. F.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

I move—

I second—

Bill read a third time.

I move—

As the long title indicates the aim of this Bill is to transfer an amount if R220,000 from the Local Loans Fund established by Act No. 19 of 1926, to the University of the Orange Free State. This amount will then be used as capital for the establishment of a Donation Fund to be called the Orange Free State Study Bursaries Fund.

The history of this amount of R220,000 is briefly as follows: In 1909 the Government of the then Orange River Colony set aside an amount of R220,000 for the establishment of a Local Loans Fund. This fund was established by Act No. 34 of 1909 of that Colony. In terms of the provisions of section five of the aforementioned Act, the interest occurring to the capital investment must be used as follows: (a) Interest on R100,000 to be used for the payment of annuities to persons wounded during the Anglo-Boer War and to the widows and orphans of persons who died in that war; and (b) interest on R120,000 plus any interest on the aforementioned amount of R100,000 which is not needed for the war pensioners, to be used for the granting of study bursaries to deserving pupils who are the children of inhabitants of the Orange River Colony (now the Orange Free State). A further condition connected with these study bursaries is that the bulk of these study bursaries must be allocated to people wanting to study at the Grey University College (now the University of the Orange Free State) or who study elsewhere with the object of acquiring agricultural knowledge or are studying to qualify as school teachers. At this point I just want to mention that the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) was good enough to consult me in connection with an amendment that may perhaps be moved to Clause 4 (2) (b). I am prepared at the Committee Stage to move an amendment to Clause 4 (2) (b) to include teachers in science and technology. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) has become known in this House as a staunch supporter of the training of teachers in science and technology, and it will be a pleasure for me to move this amendment at her request so that it can be brought more pertinently to the attention of the people administering the Fund and allocating the bursaries that special thought must be given to this aspect of the matter. I am prepared to move an amendment to this effect at the Committee Stage.

In 1926 the total capital amount involved R220,000, was transferred to the Local Loans Fund which was established by Act No. 19 of 1926. It is this amount that the Bill now envisages transferring to the proposed Orange Free State Study Bursaries Fund under the control of the University of the Orange Free State.

The amount of R100,000, the interest on which must in the first instance be used for pensions for wounded war veterans, will however remain with the Public Debt Commissioners until there are no longer any persons who are entitled to annuities from this source. At present there are still 33 persons receiving benefits from this Fund. Their annuities amount to more than R6,000 while the capital produces about R4,600 in interest. Their ages range from 75 to 85, with an average age of 80 years. It seems as though people in the Free State live to a ripe old age! The balance of the annuities is of course paid from State revenue in the normal way as in the case of other kinds of war pensions. It will be some years yet before the Free State Study Bursaries Fund will derive any benefit from surplus interest or will receive the capital amount of R100,000.

As hon. members know, it is general practice for universities to have control over their bursary funds. The money that Parliament votes every year as loans to universities for the purpose of building up Study Bursary Funds is also controlled and invested by the universities themselves.

The effect of this Bill will be that the University of the Orange Free State will initially have an amount of R120,000 available to it but will eventually receive the full amount of R220,000 which it will then be able to invest in the best interests of the Study Bursaries Fund. For example, where the university at the moment is paying up to 5¾ per cent on its own capital loans, this money can be invested in its own buildings. In this way the Study Bursaries Fund will be able to earn interest of more than 5½ per cent while an average of 4.6 per cent is derived at the moment from the amount invested with the Public Debt Commissioners.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his clear exposition of this piece of legislation before us. As the hon. the Minister said, this measure was passed because of the Anglo-Boer War and what happened thereafter. After the war many thousands of our people found themselves in a critical financial position, not only people who fought on the side of the Boers, but also those who fought on the other side. Many of their children were fatherless and/or motherless. There were many widows and orphans and I think that it was a good thing that the legislation of 1909 made provision for those people, and in the first instance, for those who were wounded during the Anglo-Boer War. I am pleased to hear that there are still 33 of them living and drawing benefits under this Fund. The hon. the Minister said that the average age of these war veterans was 80 years. It will therefore be some time before that portion of the Fund can be made available to the University. But it is a good thing that those people are being looked after, particularly the widows and orphans.

While I am on the subject, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister is able to tell us how many wounded war veterans or orphans or widows have received benefits from the Fund since 1909 and what the total amount is that has been paid out to them.

The legislation that was passed at the time also had the education of young people in mind. Many of them took an active part in the war at that time; many of our young boys of 14, 15 and 16 participated in the Anglo-Boer War and were therefore deprived of educational facilities. This Fund was also made available to them. The fact that is interesting to my mind is that such a practical method was used to rehabilitate our people. The Act provided that the greater part of the Fund should be spent on those pursuing agricultural studies or those wanting to become teachers. I am pleased that those principles are being maintained in this Bill. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us how many children of people who participated in the war in the Orange Free State and how many children of the inhabitants of the Orange Free State have derived benefits from this Fund up to the present; in other words, how many of them have received and are receiving assistance under this Fund. It will be interesting to know how many people have been and are being assisted in this way and the amount that is being spent in that connection.

I want to refer the hon. the Minister to Clause 4 (1) which provides that the children of the inhabitants of the Orange Free State can study at the University of the Orange Free State or at any other university or at the Glen Agricultural College. I can understand this. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the reason is for extending these provisions to Potchefstroom. I have no objection to it but what I want to ask him, in pursuance of this fact, is why Cedara was omitted? I do not think that Cedara is connected with the University of Natal and that is why I am asking this question. It is for this reason that I do not mention Elsenburg because Elsenburg forms part of the University of Stellenbosch. If the hon. the Minister would accept an amendment in this regard, I would like to move at the Committee Stage that the words “or Cedara” be inserted after the word “Potchefstroom” in clause 4 (3) (c) (ii).

What about Grootfontein?

Yes, Grootfontein is also one that can be included. These are the two institutions that are not connected with universities.

I want also to refer the hon. the Minister to clause (4) 2. He was good enough to accept the suggestion of the hon. member for Johannesburg-North (Mrs. Weiss) in connection with the extension of the training of teachers, both male and female, in order to include the sciences. Mr. Speaker, the original Act uses the expression “merendeel” (mostly), while the word “hoofsaaklik” (mainly) used in this Bill. I wonder whether we cannot extend this even further. Or let me put the question in this way: Will the University Council be able to extend these two courses which are mentioned in the Act to cover further courses? Let me quote it so that it will appear on record—

Will the council be able in terms of this Clause to extend that training to cover other courses besides agricultural and teachers courses?

I have one final question: The hon. the Minister did of course correctly point out that the control over the Fund will now pass into the hands of the University Council. Up to the present, the control over this Fund has been vested in the Public Debt Commissioners but up to 1910 the Fund was controlled by a council established under the Land and Agricultural Loan Fund Act, No. 33 of 1909. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the Council that was established under the Land and Agricultural Loan Fund by Act No. 33 of 1909, lapsed on the formation of Union or whether it continued to exist until 1926 when the later Act was passed?

I want to content myself with these few questions and remarks and I want to say that this side of the House will support this legislation. We want to express the hope that many more pupils and students will be able to derive benefit from this Fund.

It would be presumptuous on my part to attempt to criticize this Bill in any way. All I can do is to pay tribute to the memory of the men who established a fund of this kind. What a remarkable thing it is that as far back as 1909 these men were many years ahead of their time in establishing a fund for ex-servicemen and their dependants. I congratulate the Minister on having the opportunity to introduce the Bill. I cannot suggest any amendment. All I can say is that if the people of the Orange Free State want this then I am quite satisfied. If they have expressed their desire through their Provincial Council or through their members in this House then I am perfectly satisfied. This is a Free State Bill; it is their concern and I would give them the fullest support in what they wish to do.

May I say that it is a pleasure to be able to commend this Orange Free State Study Bursaries Bill. The principle laid down in the Act of 1926 which was preceded by the Act of 1909 to which the Minister has referred is not affected; the status quo is maintained and the Bill can be welcomed by this side of the House. I would also at the same time like to express appreciation of the Minister’s gesture in accepting the principle of my proposed extension of Clause 4 (1) (b). I feel this will extend the scope of the University Council to pay attention to prospective schoolteachers who will specialize in teaching the sciences and technology. Surely here is the opportunity to encourage the study of these subjects through the University of the Orange Free State. This year Dr. H. J. van Eck said at the University of Potchefstroom that despite the growth of the University there was still a shortage of scientists in South Africa. As the hon. the Minister has said earlier this afternoon during his second reading speech a further sum of R100,000 will gradually become available to be used by the University for more study bursaries. I feel as much as possible of these funds should be made available to encourage school teachers to train in the subjects of science and technology. I am sure that in enabling these school teachers to qualify in these subjects in order to train the youth of the country we would have the support of the instigators of the original Local Loan Fund Bursaries Act of the Orange River Colony. I feel this does not interfere in any way with the principle of the old Act but that this new Bill extends the principle.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister very carefully to consider the suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) to extend the agricultural colleges to include Cedara. I feel that if the other agricultural colleges are included in Clause 4 Cedara also has the right to be included here. There is a further question that I should like to ask the Minister concerning the Fund. I notice first of all that the exact amount of these funds in the old Orange River Colonies Act have been transferred to this new Bill—no appreciation and no depreciation. Is it not considered that that is necessary in any way? My further question to the hon. the Minister is whether he is able to give the House any further information regarding bursaries. The hon. member for Hillbrow has already asked how many of the wounded or the widows or the orphans were helped through this Fund which was instigated in 1909. I should like to extend that, Sir, if I may and ask the hon. the Minister whether he knows how much was utilized for bursaries for agriculture and for school teachers; how many were successful and how many of these fortunate students came back to teach in the Orange Free State. I feel that this Bill is a measure to be supported by this side of the House.

I want to express my appreciation for the support that this fine measure has received. I also want to reiterate the fact that one is pleased that they had the courage in those difficult years after the Anglo-Boer War to collect money and that they realized that there was a need for this sort of thing. I want to thank hon. members heartily for their participation in this debate. A few questions have been asked that are rather difficult for me to answer. The question of the number of bursaries and the amount of money that has been paid out, as well as the amount of money that has been paid out to widows, orphans and wounded war veterans, is a matter that falls under my colleague sitting next to me. In any case, it is a very interesting question, particularly as far as the bursaries are concerned. In 1926, when the money was made available, it was all transferred to the University Council. They actually allocate the bursaries and we shall have to obtain the correct information from them. As the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said, it is a Free State Fund and if the Free Staters want it that way, then we must give it to them. It is true that they have been agitating for more control over the Fund for some years now. The question put to me is an interesting one. I should like to obtain this information from them so that we can see how much money has been paid out.

Are the Free State members of Parliament satisfied with it?

They are completely satisfied with it. The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) also asked me whether we could not extend these provisions to include Cedara and Grootfontein. Originally, the idea was that the money should only be used for students studying at Glen. When the Department of Agricultural Technical Services heard that we wanted to deal with these bursary matters as provided for in this Bill, they had a great deal to say about these bursary allocations. We must remember that as far as farming methods are concerned it is best for the children of the Free State to go to Glen and Potchefstroom. Cedara and Grootfontein and Elsenburg and all the other experimental farms concentrate upon another type of agriculture. But this Bill does not at all prevent Free State children studying at Cedara. The actual intention was—and we have kept as closely as possible to the intentions of the original founders of the Fund—that the Fund should be used to assist Free State children. The Potchefstroom Agricultural College was only included later because it made provision for certain subjects for which Glen did not make provision. Actually, Glen and Potchefstroom form one for the purpose of the Free State. That is the only reason. I do not think that it would be right to include the other agricultural colleges at this stage.

Does the “possibility” include this?

Yes, there is that possibility. I want to assure the hon. member that the Council can act freely in terms of this Bill as it stands. It is not bound by provincialism and it will be able to do what is best for the inhabitants of the Free State irrespective of the university or experimental farm at which those facilities may be available. If hon. members accept the Bill as it stands, we will make the University of the Free State happy and the Fund will be in good hands. I think that I have replied to all the points that have been or? sed.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 4,

I would like to move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendement.

Amendment in Clause 4 put and agreed to, and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Bill amends the Public Health Act, No. 36 of 1919. In the first place it authorizes the framing of regulations to make immunization compulsory. We all realize that it is not always practicable to introduce compulsory immunization on a national scale. It is impracticable because it requires a great deal of administration and there are other reasons as well. I think it is an accepted fact that before one can make immunization against any disease compulsory, one must be convinced that it is a serious disease, that one’s vaccine is effective and that that obligation can be effectively carried out. It may therefore be desirable in certain specific cases, as for example in the case of smallpox. It may also become necessary in restricted areas. It may also become necessary only in respect of certain groups of persons, such as the children of immigrants for example. Polio is one of those special cases, and, strangely enough, polio falls within this category to-day as a result of the great success achieved by our campaign of two years ago. Our medical experts estimated at the time that if we could succeed in immunizing 80 per cent of the population of South Africa, spread evenly throughout South Africa, the result would actually be that the whole population would automatically become immunized because persons immunized against the living virus would within a short while infect everyone else and thus immunize them. Our experts told us that if this could be achieved the polio virus would virtually disappear from South Africa. This campaign was very successful. We cannot however, close our eyes to the fact that there were a few spots in South Africa where the people, mostly Bantu, did not co-operate with us in that campaign. They opposed the campaign because of superstition and certain tales which had been spread. We can say therefore that we have cleared South Africa of the wild polio virus except in a few spots. But we must also remember that the territories around South Africa are not free of the wild polio virus—the Protectorates and the other territories to the north of us. Since there is a continual interchange of population between this country and those territories, it means that people who may possibly be carriers of the polio virus are always entering South Africa. It is very necessary therefore for us to immunize all those persons who in the meantime have become susceptible to polio—for example children born since the immunization and all immigrants to this country. Our medical experts are of the opinion that the immunized persons in a community actually serve as a cushion between those who are carriers of the polio virus but who have been immunized and those who have not been immunized. If, however, there are large numbers of people who have not been immunized, the possibility of an epidemic is much greater.

Parents in South Africa have become very confident over the past few years. Adults were immunized during the campaign two years ago, but the young children born since that campaign have not yet been immunized. In other words, the adults can be perfectly confident as far as they themselves are concerned but the children are in danger. Our important duty now is to prevent these children from becoming the victims of polio. We also run the further risk that as a child becomes older, before he comes into contact with polio and is immunized, the chances of serious damage to him are correspondingly greater. It is a fact that small children suffer less serious after-effects than adults. It is therefore all the more necessary that we should not procrastinate in having all the children in South Africa immunized. Immunization is voluntary to-day and that means that before one can immunize a child one must obtain permission from its parents. We know from experience how difficult it is to obtain the permission of some parents, not because they are unwilling to give their permission, but simply because they are slow to act and because they do not think there is any great danger. We now want to make immunization compulsory so that the legal obligation will rest upon parents to ensure that their children are immunized. Our medical advisers deem it highly desirable that we should have the power to make immunization against polio compulsory. It may become necessary for us also to make it compulsory in respect of other diseases at some stage in the future. We have a tremendous problem as far as tuberculosis is concerned. We know that as far as tuberculosis is concerned, 80 per cent immunity can be obtained by using B.C.G. We do not at all exclude the possibility of eventually having a vaccine which will give us complete immunization. It may then perhaps be necessary for us to make use of the opportunity to protect the entire country from this terrible disease. It may be that we may have an epidemic in some part of the country in regard to which immediate action will have to be taken and where immunization will have to be made compulsory.

Section 36 (f) of the present Act gives the Minister the power to make regulations in regard to infectious diseases. Let me read the English text because the other version is in Dutch—

It is quite possible that we already have this power in terms of the present provision, but there is a difference of opinion in regard to its interpretation. For that reason we feel that it is necessary to make this small amendment.

The second amendment makes provision for vaccine to be supplied free of charge to local authorities. The Government has done so up to the present even though it has not been authorized to do so in terms of the original Act. We therefore want to bring the law into conformity with present-day practice. Clause 3 amends Section 92 of the principal Act. Section 92 of the Act provides that every child must be inoculated against smallpox. The parents then have to submit a doctor’s certificate to the Department of Health. One of the following certificates has to be submitted, a certificate that the child has been successfully inoculated, that he is immune, that he is unable to be inoculated or that he has already had smallpox. The Department keeps a register of these certificates. Those certificates are only useful to the Department inasmuch as they enable the Department to supply parents with a copy of a certificate when such an application is made. During the past two years there have been only three applications for copies. If it is borne in mind that we have nine officials who are engaged full-time in the sorting and so forth of all the certificates submitted and that the salary of one official is in the vicinity of R1,500, which is a very low estimate indeed, it will be appreciated that each of those three certificates costs us R9,000. Hon. members will also realize how unnecessary this system is which we have inherited from the past.

The amendments in Clauses 4, 5 and 6 are merely consequential. Section 138 is also amended by Clause 7 of this Bill. Section 138 lays down the procedure that has to be followed by the Government in promulgating regulations. The procedure is as follows: When a regulation affecting a large local authority has to be promulgated that local authority has to be given three months’ notice to promulgate a similar regulation. If it has not done so within three months, the State may promulgate such a regulation. The Government is given the power to make regulations in the case of small local authorities but then it has to give those smaller authorities three months’ notice of its intention to do so and ask them for their comments. The Act makes provision for exceptions under important circumstances when it becomes necessary for the Government to promulgate regulations immediately. We simply want to extend that right to include compulsory immunization. The last amendment is an amendment to Section 153 of the Act. Originally the area around Kimberley, as far as Warrenton and Ritchie, fell under the Kimberley Health Board. In 1919 that Health Board implemented all the provisions dealing with health matters except for two—the usual sanitary powers and powers in connection with food, the hygienic handling of food. In the course of time that large area of the Kimberley Health Board was divided into four different areas, the Kimberley Municipality, the Warrenton Municipality, the Ritchie Town Council and the remaining portion. The Kimberley Divisional Council was responsible for sanitation and for the hygienic handling of food for the whole area, except for Kimberley City. But the finances of the Kimberley Divisional Council were in such a critical state that they were not able to carry out their functions properly. In 1959 we amended the present Act to transfer the duties in respect of sanitation and food in the Warrenton area to the Warrenton Municipality and those in the Ritchie area to the Ritchie Municipality. Our intention was to transfer the rest, except for Kimberley City, to the Kimberley Health Board. The Bill was drawn up for this purpose but unfortunately a small mistake was made and it appeared that the aforementioned powers were not transferred to the Kimberley Health Board. All that this Bill now seeks to do is to rectify that small mistake.

We will support this Bill, but it seems a pity that in this country, in this enlightened age, it should still be necessary for legislation to be brought into this House to force people to become immunized against any disease at all. I would have thought that we should have had in the past very efficient educational plans whereby people could be educated and told why immunization is necessary. The safety of not only themselves but also of their offspring should have been emphasized. I feel that this Bill here should be implemented, even at this stage, by educational methods. I think schools should, in their courses in biology and hygiene, go as far as possible to educate people in favour of immunization. The Red Cross and Noodhulpliga services should give attention to this matter as well.

Most of us know that when it comes to refusal for immunization, it usually stems from fear of complications, or because of some religious group’s attitude towards medical treatment, and so forth, but I think even in those groups education should play a very important part, and these people should be told how necessary it is for the whole community to be protected against not only the diseases that are listed, in particular polio and diphtheria, but also other diseases. There are other diseases for which I am sure vaccines will soon be found which will help not only to cure the disease, but also to prevent diseases, and in particular I think the time is not far distant that we will be able to immunize people against venereal diseases. The time has come for us to look further afield than the emergency diseases, those which cause epidemics, like polio, smallpox and so on. Now a word or two about the matter that the hon. Minister brought up in relation to immigrants. It has been my feeling for a long time, Sir, that those people coming to our country should not only be vaccinated against smallpox and yellow-fever. I think the time has come that they should produce certifications to the authorities that they and their children had been immunized against polio. I think that is very, very important. We in this country know how rare it is to see a case of yellow-fever in South Africa. If it is necessary for an immigrant, for a traveller to be immunized against yellow-fever because he flies over a fever belt then immunization against poliomyelitis should certainly be made compulsory. If we in South Africa are going to be compelled to be immunized against, poliomyelitis, then the immigrants should bring forth sufficient evidence that they and their children have also been immunized. You might have a difficulty because some of the countries to-day are still not getting sufficient vaccine to immunize their people. I think the Immigration Department that has various offices in the various countries should make sure that facilities are provided for the immigrants to get the vaccine. The question of cost of vaccine to local authorities should not be included in this Act. I don’t see any necessity for a law to have to be provided so that the cost of vaccines to local authorities is laid down. I do not know whether I am making myself clear, but when the Minister decides that vaccine has got to be provided to the local authorities for any particular disease, not only those listed in the Act, the Treasury forthwith should make the money available for that, and it should not be a matter of the law of the land, it should be a purely voluntary method of getting money for these emergency periods that we go through.

There is one other point. I want to say to the hon. Minister in regard to immunizing localized groups of people that I do not think it is a satisfactory method of doing things. It can help for an immediate or sudden attack in one particular area in respect of a particular disease, but I think that it should be the object of the Minister to immunize all people in South Africa against all those diseases which we can immunize people against. In particular I was wondering whether it would not be a good idea to start an intensive campaign to immunize the whole of the population against tuberculosis, Blacks as well as Whites, the Coloureds as well as the Asiatics. We know that with all the efforts that the Government is using, with all the money that it is spending on tuberculosis, with all the assistance it is getting from voluntary organizations, the number of cases are rapidly increasing. I think the time has come for the Department of Health to seriously consider whether or not, under this Bill if you have got the other powers to do these things, it would not be possible to immunize the whole population. It is going to take a long time to do it, but I think a start should be made as soon as possible so that we, at least those who want to be immunized against tuberculosis, shall be able to get the vaccine.

There are other matters which I think the hon. Minister ought to point out to the public. One is that the fear of accidents following immunization is grossly exaggerated. Very rarely do we find accidents occurring after immunization. The fear of complications should not be a factor which we should allow people to carry in their minds as a reason for refusing immunization. These are the things that I think we on this side want to bring to the notice of the Minister. There are perhaps one or two small matters which we will bring up in the Committee Stage. But we support this Bill and we hope that the public will realize that it is a Bill that is brought in for their own good.

Motion put and agreed.

Bill read a second time.

House in Committee:

On Clause 1,

I cannot let this clause pass unnoticed, particularly because I think the hon. the Minister has, unwittingly, I am sure, misled the House as to its true effect. The Minister confined most of his remarks in his second-reading speech to polio. It is true that polio is fraught with very little danger to a person who is given the vaccine. But there were accidents to begin with. But the powers the hon. Minister is taking by this clause go a great deal further. The clause gives him a free hand, and I am afraid I am a little in disagreement with the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). There have been accidents with nearly all these immunizations and it is only right that this House should appreciate that fact and should understand that there is a possibility. Lastly, in regard to polio, I say that there I am pleased indeed to think that the hon. Minister is carrying on with this, because here again the presence of live viruses in our midst can undoubtedly cause a terrible epidemic unless he does persist, and indefinitely at that, with his immunization. Lastly I ask him where he is going to get vaccines. It is a simple matter for him to provide vaccines for smallpox and it is equally not very difficult for him to provide vaccine for polio, because there are facilities for the manufacture, although I do not believe that the Polio Foundation could really meet the demand if there were serious outbreaks. But what about the others? Where is he going to get them in a hurry? There are limited facilities in our country for manufacturing vaccines in this country and if we are faced with difficulties of import, and it could happen because not many countries carry large stocks of these substances, because the articles don’t keep well, where is the Minister going to get them? Will he not consider under Government auspices providing better facilities for the manufacture of vaccines on a large scale? That is one of the greatest problems that I think his Department should face, and they must face it soon.

Clause put and agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Bill read a third time.

I move—

This Bill is the usual omnibus Pensions Bill which is introduced almost every year.

Hon. members have been supplied with a memorandum on the Bill. All the proposals contained in the Bill are embodied in the memorandum and I trust that hon. members, especially those who are particularly interested in pension matters, have perused it carefully. It is not my intention therefore to explain the provisions of the Bill at length. But there are a few matters to which I would like to refer briefly. The first is in connection with concessions to social pensioners.

One of the aims of the Bill is to give effect to the concessions announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech in regard to social pensioners, and also to give effect to one of the concessions which I mentioned during the course of the discussion on the Vote of my Department.

Provision is made in Clauses 25, 28, 30 and 32 for the payment of a special allowance to certain social pensioners and grantees who can be regarded as being the less-privileged amongst those pensioners—those who have no assets and whose incomes are very small. It has long been felt that something should be done to alleviate the lot of these poorest among the poor because they have only their pensions with which to meet all their needs while others have their own homes or possess other assets or have regular incomes from some source or other.

It has therefore been decided in the case of a White social pensioner or grantee who has no assets and whose incidental income does not exceed R60 per annum, to pay such person a special allowance of R30 per annum. In such cases the maximum amount payable to, for example, a White old-age pensioner will now amount to R324 per annum.

The Clause also makes provision for the payment of proportional special allowances in the case of Coloureds, Indians and Bantu.

As hon. members will remember, during the discussion of the Vote of my Department I announced that we were introducing a simplified system in regard to the administration of the Acts governing social pensions and allowances.

One of the matters to be dealt with in this connection is the collection of overpayments. As the Act reads at present, all cases in which the financial circumstances of the pensioner or grantee improve must be reviewed and the pension or allowance must then be reduced or withdrawn with effect from the 1st of the month following upon the month in which the improvement has taken place. Overpayments resulting from these improved financial circumstances have to be repaid by the persons concerned or, if they are still receiving pensions or allowances, must be deducted from such pensions or allowances.

In many of these cases there is only a slight improvement in the circumstances of the person concerned and he does not give us timeous notice of such improvement. When the facts are brought to light at a later stage, such cases have to be reviewed with retrospective effect. The problems connected with this matter are becoming more and more difficult and in a large number of cases the recovery of such overpayments leads to hardship for the pensioners and grantees concerned, and the expenses involved in the recovery of such overpayments are high.

After careful consideration of the matter it has therefore been decided that in the future such overpayments will only be recovered when, in the opinion of the Department (a) a deliberate fraud has been committed—that is to say, when untrue statements have been made by the persons concerned; (b) persons who draw pensions or allowances by way of a power of attorney on behalf of beneficiaries can be held responsible; and (c) an error has been made by the Department.

It has also been decided that when it is deemed necessary to cancel a pension or an allowance with retrospective effect or to reduce such pension or allowance, the cancellation or reduction thereof will take effect from the beginning of the month following upon the month in which the change in the circumstances took place but that the retrospective calculation shall not be for longer than three years; furthermore, that any such retrospective calculation shall be based on the stage at which the calculation is made.

In those cases where it is not found necessary to cancel or reduce the pension or allowance with retrospective effect the cancellation or reduction will take effect from the beginning of the month following the month in which notice of the changed circumstances is received, and Clauses 26 and 31 of the Bill make the necessary provision in this regard.

Then I want to refer to Clause 34. When the Government Employees’ Provident Fund was set up in 1936 by the Government Service Pensions Act, 1936, it was decided that persons employed on State unemployment relief work could not become members of that Fund. Subsidized employees, that is to say, employees employed by State Departments under a labour scheme subsidized by the Department of Labour, were also all excluded from membership of the Fund. The last-mentioned employees consist of persons who because of some disability or other are not able to compete in the open labour market.

That followed from these earlier decisions in regard to subsidized employees that when a Government employee who was a member of the Provident Fund was transferred to a subsidized post, his membership of the Fund has terminated. It became apparent during 1951 that certain labourers in the employ of the Department of Forestry, who were members of the Fund, had been transferred over a number of years to subsidized works in that Department, but that the Department had continued to collect contributions from them. As a result of representations made on behalf of this group of subsidized labourers, the policy that a Government employee should cease to be a member of the Fund on being transferred to a subsidized labour scheme, was reviewed, and it was decided that members of the Provident Fund who were transferred to subsidized works should be permitted to remain members of the Fund.

It has also been decided that subject to parliamentary approval, subsidized employees whose membership of the Fund has already been terminated, shall be permitted with effect from a current date to contribute again to the Fund, and, if they so elect, from the date of which their contributions ceased. Clause 34 makes the necessary provision in this regard.

Although members of the Permanent Force or the South African Police are entitled to compensation in terms of the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1941, when they are injured in the course of the performance of their duty, they are not entitled to any compensation if they are injured or disabled while their services are used in wartime or during a state of emergency in defence of the Republic.

It has accordingly been decided to apply the provisions of the War Pensions Act, 1942 to them while they perform duty in defence of the Republic, that is to say, while they perform military service during wartime or in connection with the fulfillment of the obligations of the Republic arising from any agreement between the Republic and any other country.

The application of the provisions of the War Pensions Act to such members means that not only will they be entitled to compensation in respect of disabilities due to their war service, but also in respect of disabilities aggravated by such service. If they die as a result of such disability, their widows or other dependants will receive the compensation for which the Act makes provision. Clause 36 makes provision in this regard.

This Bill also deals with amendments to the Government Service Pensions Act. In the nature of things the amendments are either of technical or administrative nature. These amendments are being made after consultation with the Public Service Commission and the Treasury, and meet with their approval. But there are a few matters to which I want to refer briefly. In the first place there are the amendments contained in Clause 10 in terms of which higher retirement ages are being introduced for members of the Permanent Force. Full details of the changes which are being made have already been announced by the hon. the Minister of Defence in a Press statement. Details are also contained in the memorandum. In terms of sub-section (2) of the new Section 35 it will be noticed that as far as the serving members of the Force are concerned, the new retirement ages will come into operation progressively. In this connection I just want to mention that whilst the Government is aware of the fact that having regard to present conditions and the fact that people are now able to work for a longer period, South Africa cannot waste her manpower by adhering to the principle of early retirement ages, it does not want to hamper promotion possibilities. The pattern that was created by the raising of the pensionable ages in the Public Service in 1955, namely, to increase pensionable ages by stages, is now also being followed in the case of the Permanent Force. This, together with the fact that the Force is being expanded, will have the effect of giving fair promotion opportunities to everyone within a reasonable space of time. In regard to those persons whose promotions were somewhat delayed, they will benefit in that their pensionable service will be increased in so far as they fall within the higher age groups for retirement purposes.

I want to emphasize that serving members of the Permanent Force will retain the right to retire on pension when they reach the age at which they have the right to retire in terms of the regulation which is in force at the moment. Such members will also have the right, if they give the prescribed period of notice, to retire on pension at any stage after they have reached the afore-mentioned age but before reaching the new pensionable age. In this connection I want to refer to sub-section (3) of the new Section 35 inserted by Clause 10.

The raising of the retirement ages will have the effect that members of the Force will be entitled to increased pensions when they retire in view of the fact that they will have longer periods of pensionable service. According to the actuary, the raising of the retirement age will certainly redound to the benefit of the South African Permanent Force Pension Fund.

In terms of the amendment contained in Clause 2, the pension of a member of a new fund, that is to say, one of three new pension funds established by the Government Service Pensions Act, 1955, will in future be calculated on the whole period of his pensionable service. At the moment, a fraction of a month is not counted for this purpose. The amendment will have the effect that members will receive slightly higher pensions.

Clauses 6, 11 (b) and 15 make provision for the payment of increased benefits, in certain cases, to members of the new fund who are retired on grounds of ill-health caused by circumstances over which they have no control. I may mention that in terms of the provisions of Section 62 of the Act a pension can be paid to a member who is retired for this reason if he has rendered not less than 20 years’ satisfactory pensionable service. This pension is payable instead of the benefits for which the above mentioned Clause make provision. Accordingly, as in the past, the improved benefits will only be payable if at that stage the member has less than 20 years’ satisfactory pensionable service and a pension in terms of the provisions of Section 62 of the Act is not paid to him.

Clauses 7 and 16 make provision for the simplification of the method of calculating gratuities which are payable to the dependants of members of the Public Service Pension Fund and the South Africa Police and Prisons Service Pension Fund. The amounts of the gratuities calculated in terms of the new provision will be precisely the same as those calculated in terms of the existing provisions. The amendments contained in these Clauses are therefore of a purely formal nature and do not affect the rights of members or their dependants in this respect.

As hon. members will have realized, these provisions are chiefly as follows. In the first place, they give legislative sanction to the benefits which have already been announced in the Budget Speech in regard to social pensioners. Secondly, they contained provisions in regard to benefits that have already been announced publicly in regard to the retirement age of members of the Permanent Force. Thirdly, they extend the application of the provisions of the War Pensions Act of 1942 to members of the Permanent Force and the Police in wartime as well as in peacetime; and fourthly, amendments are being made to the Government Service Pensions Act to eliminate administrative difficulties and to obtain clearer definitions without in any way affecting the amounts involved. This Bill further prescribes the provisions to be made in the Government Service Pensions Act in regard to Coloured teachers who are transferred from the provinces—the provision in regard to retirement ages. The rest of the Clauses are mainly consequential. It is a privilege for me to introduce this Bill and I hope that the House will pass it with the improvements that it contains because of the effect that its provisions will have on our pensioners.

I cannot let this occasion pass without making my protest, as I did before, at the late arrival of this Bill. It is a complicated Bill, three-quarters of which is administrative and which I am sure must have been known to the Department six months ago, but it is introduced at this late stage and we have hardly had time to go through the Bill, nor have we had an opportunity of hearing protests from outside bodies who are affected by the Bill. I understand that the Department administers the pensions of about 125,000 people, almost all of whom are in one way or another affected by this Bill, and yet we on this side are expected to scrutinize the Bill carefully, not to find any chink in it, but just to do our plain duty and check what is being done. We were faced with this Bill only two or three days ago. I feel that it is not fair to the pensioners whom we are trying, just as much as the Department, to help and to look after. It is time that this was changed so that simple administrative procedures can be arrived at during an earlier stage of the Session.

In other respects we agree with this Bill and intend to support it. As far as we had an opportunity to scrutinize it. we believe that it is a good Bill. I think much of its liberalization is due to the fact that there are now machines which can do the calculations, so that unfortunate pensioners cannot be deprived of their pensions for some 29 days in the month because that complicated the calculations. However, that is by the way. Another very important principle that all of us on this side of the House are delighted to see in the Bill is Clause 9, which allows people to join a pension fund in the Government service if they join it after the age of 45. That is the first time that this country has publicly appreciated that men past 40 can still do good work. It is therefore much to be welcomed and it is an example set by the Government which I hope will be followed by commerce and industry and by all employers. It will help to solve the problems of the man over 40 who is looking for work. This is a most important and very welcome amendment.

In Clause 10 (2) (c) (i) there is provision made which we feel we will have to discuss and possibly amend in the Committee Stage. We want to change the age from 57 years to 58 years. The men affected by this Clause, compared with their colleagues, get only two years of extra time and we think they should receive three years, like the others. But this will be discussed more fully in the Committee Stage. However, I wanted to warn the Minister that this amendment will be moved. On the whole, as I say, this Bill is welcomed. I cannot say that it could not be better because we have not had time to study it. This same old story comes up every year. Here we are faced with a long Bill affecting a large number of humble people, most of them voiceless and unrepresented, and we are unable to carry out our work in a conscientious manner, because otherwise the Bill will be held up and perhaps a greater injustice will be done to these pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I have a suggestion to make to the Minister, referring specially in general terms to Clauses 6, 7, 11, 15 and 34. The Minister has told us that we are concerned here chiefly with administrative matters. I think the time has come for us to simplify the administration when we are dealing with State pensions for the Permanent Force, the Police, the Prisons Department and other public servants. We should not have a pension fund for them. There should be no fund into which people pay in 4 per cent and the Government pays in 4 per cent, and then the fund administered according to certain rules. The hon. the Minister should consider a system whereby a man is told: If you serve for 20 years, this will be your pension.

Where will it come from?

From the Consolidated Revenue Fund. There is no pension fund for Members of Parliament, and in many countries of the world they do not have this complicated system. I am not going to weary the House with detailed criticism, but I want to make that suggestion to the Minister, that he should appoint a commission, in consultation with the Public Service Commission, to investigate the whole system of pensions. Why should a soldier have to go about with records of his service showing how much he paid into the pension fund? That should be unnecessary. He should be told that after 20 years’ service he will get his pension. Funds might get bankrupt. That is all I have to say. I think I may be just on the brink of over-stepping the rules, Sir. and therefore I will leave it at that.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation of the reception accorded this Bill, a Bill that makes provision for benefits, eliminates difficulties and improves the position of our pensioners. I have already stated clearly the nature and the scope of this legislation. We will of course have an opportunity at the Committee Stage to discuss the particular clauses themselves. I just want to reply briefly to what the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Dr. Radford) said. The hon. member says that this Bill has been introduced at a very late stage of the Session. I want to say quite frankly that I would have liked it to have been introduced sooner. The hon. member says that three-quarters of what is contained in the Bill has been known to the Department for some time, but I want to tell the hon. member that the difficulty is that one cannot introduce three-quarters of an omnibus Bill because one will then be forced to introduce two omnibus Bills. We have to wait until we can introduce it as a whole, and that makes the position difficult. The hon. member will understand that there are certain amendments which flow from the concessions and improvements announced in the Budget speech. Those amendments are known not only to the officials of the Department at an early stage, but they are also known to the public as soon as the Budget is discussed. But from the nature of things one has to hold back legislation of this nature because we also have to have negotiations with other Departments which have to discuss with us the amendments affecting them, and certain amendments flow from those discussions, amendments which have also to be included. That process of discussion takes some time. That is also one of the reasons why the Bill has been delayed to this extent. But I want to give the hon. member the assurance that in future I shall ask all the Departments to submit any amendments that they want to make as soon as possible so that we can introduce this measure at an earlier stage in the Session.

As far as the remarks of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) are concerned, I want to say that we are already introducing a simplified system. I do not know whether the hon. member was here when I made my second-reading speech. I made a statement about a simplified system that was welcomed on all sides of the House. We are making new arrangements to simplify the burdensome machinery of the Department of Pensions, This will be to the advantage of the people with whom we have to deal. I also said that we were applying a simplified system. By means of this simplified system we hope to eliminate many of the difficulties which up to the present have bogged down the machinery of the Department. He suggested …

Order! That suggestion is out of order.

I was just going to say that it was out of order. Once again I want to express my thanks for the support that this measure has been given. I want to tell hon. members that my Department and I will do our best for our pensioners.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.