Before this Bill was transmitted to the Other Place this side of the House proposed an amendment at the Committee Stage. We withdrew that amendment because the Minister told us that the matter would be considered in the Other Place. The reason why we moved that amendment was because the definition of service was so wide at the time that it would have brought in a tremendous number of things that were not intended to be brought in. The Minister informed us at the time that that was the case. In view of his representations we withdrew our amendment with the reservation that we would be allowed to consider the amendment as passed in the Other Place. In replying to our objections as brought forward originally, the Minister made it quite clear that it was not intended to apply and would never apply to wages or salaries or professional fees. The amendment that we now have before us could legally be read to mean that it will include these wages, salaries or professional fees. What we on this side of the House are asking is, that as the amendment passed in the Other Place does not really cover our original objections nor the Minister’s own views, whether the hon. the Minister will please again give us the assurance that it is not the intention that this definition of “services”, with the inclusion of the words “commercial transactions” should ever be construed by anybody as including wages or salaries or professional fees. All we are asking is for the Minister to confirm that that is the intention in this amendment.

When the debate was in progress here the hon. the Minister stated very clearly that it was not the intention to include miscellaneous services and salaries here. The Minister also indicated that he was prepared to have this clause amended in the Other Place in order to make it quite clear. The hon. the Minister and the Department gave the Opposition the full opportunity themselves to negotiate with the law advisers with a view to wording this clause as clearly as possible. The Opposition made full use of that opportunity. I have here a letter from the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn), in which he thanks the Minister and the Department for having agreed that the Opposition could consult the law advisers in order to word it more clearly. After that consultation, this is the clearest way in which it could be drafted. If the Opposition is not satisfied with the amendments as we now have them before us, if in any way they could be drafted in clearer legal terms, one would have expected them to have moved an amendment in the Other Place. They had the opportunity to do so. But this amendment was accepted there; the Opposition did not suggest an alternative. The fact is that this is the best wording possible to bring out the meaning, and it was done with the full consent of the opposite side. It is correct that they said they were not quite satisfied, but what we have now, Mr. Speaker, is the best result, after consultation with the law advisers and after the Opposition has had every opportunity to suggest any improvements. I agree with what the Minister said in the first instance, namely that the intention is not to include other types of services.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Amendments in Clauses 12 and 13 put and agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, last night we had the opportunity of seeing the United Party in their true colours. They are supposed to be the champions of the interests of the Bantu, but when something has to be done in this House for the Bantu they carry on in this way against the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I do not think the Opposition is really opposed to this amount of R550,000. I think they are still a little angry because their lottery tickets were confiscated.

I would just like to tell the Opposition that if last year they had had their way when the Radio Act was amended to the effect that a person was unable to buy a radio set without having taken out a licence, it would now have been interesting to see how much greater the losses would have been in connection with the Bantu radio services. I want to point out to the Opposition that these Bantu services in fact have only been a fully-fledged service since 1961 when we got F.M. and when the Bantu Programme Board was established. There we also had a very good example of how the Opposition opposed even that legislation establishing the Bantu Programme Control Board so as to give the Bantu the best possible programmes. The object was to give them programmes which suited them, which suited the Xhosa, the Zulu and the various ethnic groups. Then the Opposition made a fuss here and created the impression that this was a terrible thing. I should now like to point out what the actual consequences were of the amendment of the Radio Act last year, how many more licences were issued. In 1962 the number of licences issued between July and December amounted to 5,310 more than in the corresponding period the previous year and in the same period of the following year, from July to the end of December, no fewer than 63,000 more licences were issued.

Bantu licences?

That clearly shows the effect of the Bill passed last year to amend the Radio Act.

Are you now referring to Bantu licences?

No, all licences.

What has that got to do with the Vote?

I think the hon. member for Turffontein is stuck in the mud. It has this to do with it, that if the Minister had not introduced that Bill and the position had continued as before, with people being able to buy radios, and particularly Bantu, without taking out licences, the losses on the Bantu services would have been so much greater. After this legislation has now come into operation, I do not think it will take more than three years before the Bantu services will no longer show a loss, because the Bantu who have radio sets will now take out licences.

But the Minister says that the losses will increase.

Any person with common sense will appreciate that the service is expanding much faster than the rate at which new licences are being taken out; the services for the Bantu will in the next year or two be provided in all the densely populated areas, and consequently the capital cost of providing that service there will increase tremendously during the first two years. I think that is what the Minister intended.

I went to some trouble to ascertain what the position is, and it appears that in 1961 there were 77,638 Bantu licence holders, and now I know the hon. member for Turffontein will ask me how I know that, but it is quite simple. The Postmaster-General makes a survey. I do not think one can go very far wrong if one takes the names, because the difference between the surname of a Bantu and that of a White man is big enough, and one can more or less get an idea of how many Bantu took out licences. In 1962 there were already 92,879 Bantu licences, and in 1963 that number increased to 128,265 Bantu licences. That is after the Act came into operation in 1963, the Act which the Opposition so strenuously opposed. In other words, if the Opposition had had their way, the losses could never have been recouped. At the moment there are 1,250,0 Bantu listeners, and new stations are continually being added, and if this expansion of the Bantu services continues I think hon. members will agree with me that the position will change greatly. The Bantu are very interested in the Bantu programmes. When one walks in the streets of Cape Town, one sees everybody with a transistor set in his hand, listening to the radio. It is expected that revenue will gradually catch up with expenditure and that within three years the revenue derived from Bantu licences will exceed the expenditure. Now I ask what is wrong with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs asking the House to vote the amount of R550,000 for the Bantu service? Are we not the guardians of the Bantu? Should we not look after the interests of the non-Whites? I agree with the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) that the United Party prefers the Bantu not to have this service at all, and that is the reason why they oppose every step taken to promote the Bantu radio services.

The last speaker, like the hon. Minister last night, and also the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) tried to say that members on this side of the House are not in favour of helping the Bantu in relation to their programmes.

Quite right.

There you have it. How incorrect that statement is! Because, Mr. Chairman, when the Bantu Programme Control Board Bill was before the House, we warned the Minister that the bringing into being of the Bantu Programme Control Board would cause unnecessary expense. We pointed out that the S.A.B.C. was quite sufficient to bring out any programme necessary and that it would only lead to further administrative expenditure and that it was not necessary to bring into being another control board. That is the truth. We were in favour of not splitting the South African Broadcasting Corporation into different factions and then dividing the cost and dividing the programmes into Black and White and making the different sections pay for those costs. It was the hon. the Minister who said at the time, in 1960, “Why should the White man pay for the Black man? The Black man has to pay for his amenities”. When we pointed out that these extra costs would come about, he said that there would be no extra costs. He said that no heavy indebtedness could be incurred without his authority and that he would see to it that no debts were incurred. Now, Sir, we cannot get the details of this debt of this R550,000 from the hon. the Minister, and it proves his inefficiency, and so the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson) proposed in protest that this item of R550,000 should be deleted. It is in protest because we cannot find out from the hon. the Minister where his inefficiency and the inefficiency of the administrative side lines. There is no reason why the hon. Minister cannot give us these details. He should know them and if he does not, it shows that he is thoroughly inefficient and that the Bantu Programme Control Board does not know what it is doing. This committee before it votes the money, is entitled to know what that amount represents. We are entitled to know the details and to make sure that it does not happen again. The S.A.B.C. should have been left in control, there should have been no splitting of the administrative costs and no new control board should have been brought into being. This Minister slipped up as usual. We warned him at the time when the Bill was introduced that he was making another mistake by forcing this onto the House, their ideology, which would lead to further costs, quite unnecessary. But they did not want to listen to us and assured us that we were wrong. Once again we have proved to be right. We want to point out that it was the hon. Minister and that side of the House who said that the Black man should pay for his amenities. That was not said by hon. members on this side of the House.

I want to deal with one matter which the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) raised yesterday. He challenged us on this side of the House to say whether we wanted either the White licence-holders to pay for the losses or whether he wanted the White taxpayers, as we are now being asked, to pay. I say that neither need pay. I say that it is not necessary that this amount should be paid, and it is not necessary that the hon. Minister should come to this House with this loss.

How could this loss have been avoided? That is the key issue, and if we can prove that it could have been avoided, then it would not have been necessary for the hon. Minister to come here, and the whole question of the value or the non-value of the Bantu services would be irrelevant. Now I say first of all that the loss could have been avoided by cutting out the costly duplication of having two separate boards. We on this side have no objection to a special advisory committee for Bantu services, as we also have no objection to a special advisory committee for the A-programme or the B-programme or for Springbok Radio. If we had not had this cutting of the Central Board in two, such a loss would not have resulted, and we would have been quite prepared to accept an advisory committee on Bantu radio affairs, with wide discretionary powers.

Secondly, this loss could have been avoided by making the programmes more acceptable and the licence fees more realistic so that a greater income would have resulted from the licence fees paid by Bantu listeners themselves. Mr. Speaker, we have heard some really fantastic figures about the number of Bantu licence holders. Let me mention one. The hon. member for Bethlehem stood up here and told us that in 1963 there were 128,000 Bantu licence holders.

Yes.

If that figure is correct, what is the figure in the official paper Bantu issued by the Department of Bantu Administration, the people who should know about these things? In the issue of Bantu of April 1963 it is stated—

But the hon. member says there were only 128,000 in 1963. I believe I know where the mistake is. I think that probably the figure in Bantu was correct and that the hon. Minister under-estimated through the Postmaster-General the actual number of holders of Bantu licences by 42.000—in other words, there was a loss of up to R200,000 in regard to Radio Bantu by under-estimating the number of Bantu licence holders. There is no way in which to make a definite check of the number of Bantu licence holders in South Africa. It has to be an estimate and the law permits the Postmaster-General to make such an estimate.

The third way to avoid losses is that other departments making use of Radio Bantu should contribute towards the services rendered. I put a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Bantu Education this afternoon, and asked him whether all the costs in regard to the school radio broadcast for Bantu schools were carried by the Department of Bantu Education. The hon. Minister replied, “Yes”. But I believe that to be a wrong principle. Why should the Department of Bantu Education not contribute at least part of the expense of these services? That too would have brought this loss down and would have made it unnecessary for the hon. Minister to have come here.

Fourthly, and the most important of all, why did the hon. Minister not see to it, through Radio Bantu, or whatever means he has at his disposal, that advertising is used to a greater extent by Radio Bantu? That is the way to avoid losses in respect of the S.A.B.C.—through advertising. Surely Radio Bantu with the vast Bantu audience would be able to obtain advertisements on a much larger scale than at present, but Radio Bantu has not been doing its duty in this respect. These are four factors I can think of at the moment, and it those four factors had been properly taken into account, there would have been no loss whatsoever on Radio Bantu and it would not have been necessary for the hon. Minister to come here this afternoon and ask us to condone and make up a loss of more than R500,000.

We have no idea of unnecessarily prolonging the debate on this particular issue. I believe that we can shorten it appreciably if we make it quite clear to the hon. the Minister what the kind of information is that we would like to have. We ask him to tell us firstly to which questions he can reply, and to tell us secondly whether in respect of other questions he has to get further statistics, and to inform us in regard to a third type of question: “Very well, this type of question I refuse to answer.” Now, Sir, I have drawn up a list of 15 relevant questions which I am not putting to the hon. Minister. I do not wish to put the hon. Minister to the additional trouble of making notes, I shall give him a list of the questions after I have put them: (1) Does the loss of R500,000 represent the loss up to the end of December 1963 and if so, what is the estimated loss up to 31 March 1964? The hon. Minister gave a part reply, but it was not very clear to me. (2) Why did the hon. Minister not tell Parliament in previous years when there were losses on Radio Bantu that there had been such losses, and why did he not come to Parliament then? (3) If, as he says, losses are to be expected as a result of introducing a new service, why did he not tell Parliament in 1960 when the new service was going to be introduced that there would be initial losses? (4) How much of the losses are represented by the salaries of the members of the Programme Control Board? The Act says that the salaries must be paid out of the income of the Bantu Programme Control Board. (5) What are the members of the Advisory Committee paid? (6) Will he see to it that a report to Parliament is tabled containing at least the same financial information which is given, however poorly, in regard to the S.A.B.C. in its annual report? (7) Under what law has he the right to ask Parliament to make good the losses? (8) What are the latest figures in regard to expenses on (a) the administration and (b) the programme of Radio Bantu? (9) What total salaries are paid to the personnel of Radio Bantu? (10) Is any of the income of Radio Bantu also used for the Africa service, and if so, why? (11) Are Radio Bantu programmes broadcast over the Africa service, that is to Bantu in the rest of Africa, and if so, why should Bantu listeners pay for that? (12) Do the Department of Bantu Education and the Department of Bantu Administration pay towards the cost of Radio Bantu? (13) How much of Radio Bantu’s income is from (a) licence fees and (b) advertising? (14) What does the item “estimated amounts recoverable from Bantu services”, R120,000 in the 1962 report of the S.A.B.C. mean? Has that amount been recovered? (15) The hon. Minister said that the Postmaster-General can now establish whether a radio licence has been issued to a Bantu or a White person and that a record is kept. That is not the information I have, but I would be glad if the hon. Minister would explain the discrepancy in regard to that. These are the questions.

Instead of having a Bantu radio service along the lines I have indicated and along the lines the United Party would have it, as a subdivision of the S.A.B.C., we now have a divided radio service with the second service dominated by the Broderbund, just as the S.A.B.C. is dominated by the Broderbund. The chairman of the S.A.B.C. is also chairman of this Bantu Programme Control Board. [Time limit.]

I want to discuss another matter of principle with the hon. Minister. Since the debate yesterday, I took the opportunity of looking up the past records since the founding of the S.A.B.C., to find if any other example existed where, when the Corporation was in financial difficulties, as it obviously is in view of the Minister coming to ask for this amount, whether any other example existed of any other Minister of Posts and Telegraphs asking for the assistance of the House to help the S.A.B.C. out of any financial difficulty. As far as I can ascertain, Mr. Chairman, in fact no example exists. The only other time that money has been passed by this House was for the development of the F.M. services, where the S.A.B.C. required certain capital and approached the Minister of Finance, and through the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs it was put before this House and this House approved a Loan Vote to the S.A.B.C., a direct loan which, as you will see if you refer to their annual report tabled in this House, they have to pay certain interest charges to the Treasury.

The principle here arises because it amounts to nothing more or less than that before we have had the accounts for 1963 of the S.A.B.C., the Minister is telling us in advance that the S.A.B.C. in fact cannot conduct a Bantu programme because of the losses that it is sustaining, and therefore he must get R550,000 from this House in order to carry on these services. That is what it amounts to in plain financial language. Now the question arises whether it is justified? Are there any other means? The S.A.B.C. some few years ago was faced with a similar financial crisis where they could not meet their commitments and conduct their programmes for the European services. They approached the Minister of the day and said: Look we have an answer to it; if we introduce a commercial service, it will result in additional revenue to the S.A.B.C. That was approved in principle and that led to the introduction of the Springbok Service. Now I would like to ask the hon. the Minister this very pertinent question: Why has it not been considered by him, or why has the S.A.B.C. not considered the possible introduction of a commercial service as far as Bantu listeners are concerned, which was suggested in this House as far back as 1960. You see, Mr. Speaker, we are in this situation that if the House has to approve this amount of R550,000, we are in fact subsidizing by a direct Vote, that is by the taxpayer, programmes delivered by the S.A.B.C. to one section of the community only. But we have no guarantee in this House and neither has the Minister, that a licensed Bantu listener will only listen to Bantu programmes. He does not in fact listen to the Bantu programmes, because I want to tell the hon. Minister now that before he comes to this House and asks our approval, he should go to the Springbok Services of the S.A.B.C. who have a very efficient and a very extensive department conducting listeners’ research, and the Minister will find if he refers to the department of the S.A.B.C. who sell their programmes to advertisers and sponsors in South Africa that one of the things sold by the S.A.B.C. commercial service is that an advertiser of any national product in South Africa can reach the widest possible Native market through the English transmissions and not through Bantu programmes. So in fact you have the situation that as far as one section of the community is concerned, this House must come and vote this money because losses have been sustained. But when it comes to the interests of the White listeners—and the English programmes in many instances are very strongly criticized—there is no question of the Minister coming to this House and saying: Look, the White listeners represent the bulk of the licence-payers of the S.A.B.C. and therefore I want you to help me to give them better programmes, and I am asking you to vote me say R200,000 to improve the quality of the programmes put across over the English and Afrikaans transmitters. But when it comes to the question of a Bantu programme, then because the S.A.B.C. is in financial difficulties and cannot meet its commitments because of the extensive staff that is being employed for a minute number of listeners, it is a different story, and let me tell the House and the Minister that if he looks through the report of the S.A.B.C., he will find that the staffing and the number of people employed by the S.A.B.C. for this very limited Bantu programme is far out of proportion to the staff of the S.A.B.C. on either the English or the Afrikaans transmissions; in other words, the thing has run wild as a result of bad administration, by having two different boards going in two different directions, and we have to come and listen to the poppycock of the hon. member for Vereeniging that there are millions listening …

Where have you ever heard such nonsense? You are talking poppycock. I said “thousands.”

We had to listen to the hon. member talking about the vast number of listeners to the Bantu programmes. Why does he not go and read the reports of the S.A.B.C., which tells us of 64,000 additional licences issued since the establishment of the Bantu programme.

That is a lot.

Is that a vast listenership? Who forms the bulk of the licence-payers? The white licence-payers. If there is such a vast listenership, where is it? But we are called here to vote R500,000 as a result of bad administration by the S.A.B.C. in regard to this one section of programmes. But when an appeal was made to the hon. Minister to give a relaxation to white licence-payers and pensioners so that they can listen more cheaply to the S.A.B.C., then that is met with no sympathy whatsoever on the Government benches. Talk about a discriminating approach to the whole question of broadcasting? We get this unctuous innocence displayed on the other side, their desire to look after the interests of the Bantu, while the cruel Opposition is not doing its duty. I want to remind the hon. member for Vereeniging of the sentiments of this Minister, when he introduced the Bill and when he was reminded of what he said in 1960, he was frightened, because the Minister went out of his way to assure the country and his own followers in the Nationalist Party in 1960 that this news services was not going to be to the detriment of the White listeners in any way, and that it would not affect the White listeners’ pocket. They are very interesting. I ask the Minister whether he will repeat those words to-day. Talk about political innocence! This is wonderful, and I will read it—

Now let me ask the Minister who is paying for this? Does the Minister still stand by those sentiments? Will he withdraw this item from the Estimates and vote with the Opposition? Will it be the White man who pays? And will the hon. member for Vereeniging support those sentiments?

Yes.

Then the hon. member for Vereeniging talks with two voices. He has one story on the platform at Vereeniging, but another when he comes into this House and deals with the double-talk of the Minister in regard to these radio services. The plain fact of the matter is that the whole approach of the Minister and the degree of ministerial interference he has displayed in the interests of the S.A.B.C. has led to the existence of this tremendous muddle in the operation of these services. The whole thing is lopsided. [Time limit.]

I do not wish to prolong this debate unnecessarily, but I should like to say that what we are asked to do here is to vote R550,000 in a direction which was not expected either by the Minister or by other members of the House when the Radio Bantu Bill was introduced. Now when the Minister comes forward with a proposal of that kind, we expect him to give us details of this loss and to explain why it came about, as other Ministers have done in discussing these additional Estimates. Other Ministers have been quite frank and have given us the information we asked for. I think in this case, this being a special case, the Minister should have given us detailed information, not on the merits of whether we should vote for a White or a Black radio—that is not the point at issue—but he should have given us reasons for this loss. That is a matter of accountancy, telling us how this loss was arrived at and asking us whether we are prepared to condone it and to vote the money. But the Minister launches into a tirade on whether we are not prepared to do anything for the Bantu. He even says to me that I want to hear the S.A.B.C. in the Select Committee so that I can discover their secrets and learn the secrets of Sasol. Well, I do not want to learn any secrets. I assume there are no secrets. That does not arise. The Minister’s response is quite beside the question. What we ask for is a simple explanation as to why this money is necessary. Had we received that simple explanation it would not have been necessary to delay the proceedings. But the Minister is evidently suspicious. There is no reason why he should be suspicious. We are voting money, and according to the rules of Parliament we should know why and how money is spent. That is the whole basis of Parliament, and that is all we ask him to tell us.

I rise primarily to ask for some information on Item “A”, but I first want to say in regard to the matter we have now been discussing so long that the Minister is really a bad business man. I want to give him some good business advice which will turn this loss into a profit. The Minister said that this Radio Bantu was necessary because the Bantu should hear all about the White man. But why should they keep on hearing voices in the dark and not see faces in the day-time? Television is the answer.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Vote.

I will come back to Item “A”. Will the Minister tell me how much of this increase in salaries will be used for the Coloured employees in his service, and if he can break up this figure between the White and the Coloured employees? There is an increase of R2,367,000 for wages and allowances. How much of this is due to the Coloured employees in the Department, and have any new grades for the Coloureds been established?

Mr. Chairman, having listened to the speeches from hon. members opposite, one really does not know what impression to form. Some hon. members adopted a sensible attitude, but others not. You can only shake your head when you think of it that they can see their way clear to act like that in Parliament. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has adopted such a ridiculous attitude that it is hardly necessary for me to react to it. He says he will show how by the introduction of television it can be conducted on a profitable basis. We have difficulty in producing sets so cheaply that the Bantu can afford to buy them but the hon. member wants to sell expensive television sets to them so that the S.A.B.C. can make a big profit! That gives me the impression that the remarks made by members opposite are just so much hullabaloo. Fancy asking me what portion of the millions of rand constitutes the salaries of a few Coloureds! I do not know how the hon. member can ask that.

On a point of order, does the Vote not deal with salaries?

The hon. member dealt with item “A”.

The hon. member wants to know how much of that was paid to Coloureds in the form of salaries. He can ask that when we deal with the Main Estimates. But he asks that childish question at this stage.

On a point of order, is the hon. the Minister entitled to say I am childish when I ask for information?

That is not a point of order.

The Minister does not know his job.

Let me come to the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore). I am afraid he has lost sight of the facts. He says “When the Bantu Radio Bill was introduced, no loss was expected.”

Quite correct. You said so yourself.

Quite right, but I pointed out to the House three times yesterday—and I hope hon. members understand Afrikaans—that the position was simply this that in 1960 when that Act was passed it related to the radio broadcasting system as it existed at the time. We did not have a big F.M. system in mind at that time. [Interjections.] The hon. member can read my speech over and over again. I know as well as he does what I said. I said that F.M. and all sorts of schemes had been submitted to us but that we had not had the time to give attention to them and that it was something which we would investigate in future. But it has nothing to do with the Bantu programme Control Board. That board was established to deal with the programmes which were broadcast on Bantu Radio at the time—programmes which the Bantu liked.

By Whites.

That has nothing to do with the matter either. That was the principle underlying the Bantu Control Board and there were no Bantu at that stage who were qualified to serve on that board. The hon. member for Kensington now says that we did not expect losses and he reproaches me for that. But we were talking about a totally different system. It was only decided after December 1960 that the Bantu would be given a comprehensive service in the form of the new F.M. system—a totally new principle. As a former businessman, the hon. member will surely understand that when we embark on a new big undertaking you have to invest capital in it and that it involves costs. Why this terrible accusation that R550,000 is being wasted here. The principle is clear, surely, that the Bantu services were not introduced for the benefit of the White listeners, but for the benefit of the country as a whole. You can even call it a defence system, Sir, because the goodwill which this service has established between the White man and the Bantu is better protection than a defence force or a police force. It is in the interests of the whole population, therefore, and it is only right that the entire population should bear the costs. I hope it is not a loss that will never be recouped. I hope the Bantu service will in the course of time make such profits that the costs connected with its introduction will be completely cancelled out. I do not understand, therefore, how the hon. member for Kensington can say that I did not explain it at the time. Surely it is obvious that costs must have been involved in its introduction and that those costs should in the meantime be advanced by somebody and that when it yields profits the costs connected with its introduction will be wiped out.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) suggested a whole list of possible ways in which the initial losses of Bantu Radio could be met. He asked in the first place why we should subsidize one section of the listeners, namely the Bantu. I have explained that. In the long run it is not really a subsidy. It may be regarded as a temporary subsidy. It is something that we contribute to the costs of introduction. But I hope the profits will eventually wipe out that subsidy. He made many wild statements. The one was that more Bantu listened in to Springbok Radio that to Bantu Radio. A small number of Bantu do listen to Springbok Radio but the advertisers say to-day that they have never had such wonderful results as they have had since they have advertised on Bantu Radio. The advertising service on Bantu Radio had only been in existence for a short time when all the advertising time was sold out. The income of Bantu Radio is to-day already a considerable amount and with the passage of time, as the number of listeners increases, the income derived from those advertisements will naturally increase. The hon. member repeated time and again that the S.A.B.C. was bankrupt. Where does he get that from? As a whole the S.A.B.C. is a profitable undertaking. But the principle was accepted in 1960 that the losses suffered on Bantu Radio would be carried by the Bantu listeners, and even if they cannot carry it all at the moment, they will in future assist in paying off those costs that have to be incurred to-day.

Typical of the hon. member he made the further point that it would supposedly be bad administration to have two boards. I want to know what the second board is? The S.A.B.C. has one board which controls both the White and Bantu services. It has another smaller board whose function it is to see to it that the Bantu programmes conform to the taste of the Bantu, but it has no power to conduct business; that is its only function; it has no power. There can, therefore, be no question of the two clashing. The main body remains the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. Why this wild allegation that there are two boards which clash with each other and that there is chaos? Such as allegation does the hon. member no credit.

I now come to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). He started off by making similar wild statements. I always find it strange, Sir, that when we are dealing with the S.A.B.C. hon. members opposite, especially the hon. member for Orange Grove, never take the trouble of checking their facts. We always get the most reckless statements from him. He also talked about the “costly duplication of the two bodies”. Has the hon. member ever taken the trouble to find out what the costs are connected with the Bantu Control Board? Unfortunately I do not have the figures with me but I do not think it can be more than R6,000 at the most. Perhaps it is even less. But the hon. member carries on as though it forms a main feature of this item of R550,000. That is childish and misleading. He launched an attack on this side of the House by saying that I maintained yesterday that there were 128,000 licensees last year and he said he had read in Bantu that there were approximately 170,000 Bantu radio owners. I do not know where Bantu gets its figures from but it is quite possible that it may be right; both figures may be right. The hon. member knows that before we introduced the amending Bill last year which made it compulsory for every person to take out a licence before he bought a radio there were numbers and numbers of Bantu who had sets but no licences. It is quite possible, therefore, that there may be 170,000 radio owners, but I do know that approximately 128,0 licences were taken out last year. I find it very remarkable that the hon. member for Orange Grove does not take the trouble to try to understand matters he always tries merely to confuse the issue. I think I have already dealt with the other points raised by him. He then gave me a list of questions he wanted to put to me. He asks: “Does the R550,000 represent the loss up to the end of December 1963?” I explained yesterday that there were relatively small losses in 1961 and 1962 and that there was an estimated loss for the year 1963 and that the total losses for the three years amounted to R620,000, and that Treasury was for the time being prepared to give R550,000.

We have before us the Additional Expenditure up to 31 March 1964. Are those losses calculated up to 31 Mar1964 or up to 31 December 1963?

It is the estimated expenditure for the S.A.B.C.’s financial year ending on 31 December 1960. Now the hon. member asks: “Why did the Minister not warn Parliament in previous years that there have been losses?” It is because the whole system of allocating the amounts has had to be worked out very carefully and has only now been finalized. We do not even know what the exact figures are.

Did it take three years to work it out?

Originally it was a relatively small amount and it had to be checked by the S.A.B.C., the Post Office and Treasury. Then the hon. member says: “If losses were to be expected as the result of the introduction of the new service, why did the Minister not tell Parliament in 1960 when the new service was introduced that there would be initial losses?” Surely, Sir, one is entitled to expect a certain amount of common sense from hon. members in such matters and we told Parliament that an amount of R34,000,000 would be involved. Surely everybody must know that when you introduce such a system over the whole country capital has to be invested and that there may be losses to start off with before you show any profit.

That sum ofR34,000,000 was capital and the Minister himself said that it would be carried by the Whites and not by the Bantu.

The hon. member is quite correct there. All the capital is allocated to the White service but the Bantu service must pay interest on that portion of the capital of which they have the benefit.

Does that mean that Radio Bantu pays a portion of the interest on the capital?

Yes, on that portion of the capital spent on their behalf. The hon. member also asked: “How much of the losses is represented by the salaries of the members of the board?” I said I did not know at the moment, but that I did not think it was more than R6,000. He wanted to know what the members of the advisory boards were paid. As far as I know they do not receive anything.

Do Bantu serve on these bodies?

Is the hon. member now referring to the advisory committees of Bantu Radio?

Order! The hon. member cannot carry on in this way.

As far as I know, there are no Bantu advisory committees at the moment. Then the hon. member asked: “Will the Minister see that a report to Parliament is Tabled containing at least the same financial information which is given, however poorly, by the S.A.B.C. in its annual report?” Obviously information which is required by law to be furnished will be made available to this House. Then the hon. member asked: “Under what law has the Minister the right to ask Parliament to make good the losses on Radio Bantu?” As I have said, we hope that it will only be a temporary loss, but if it appears to be a permanent loss, a loss which Bantu Radio will never be able to pay back, it is voted as any item on the Estimates is voted and the House gives its approval.

But which law gives you the right to come to Parliament?

The hon. member ought to know that we subsidize numbers of institutions in South Africa. Then he asks: “What are the latest figures in regard to expenses on the administration and programmes of Bantu Radio?” I have told the hon. member what the budget for last year was; I told him yesterday that the expenditure for last year was estimated at R137,200 and the revenue at R880,000.

How much of that is administration costs?

The administration costs are estimated at R33,000. Then the hon. member asked: “What total salaries are paid to the personnel of Radio Bantu.” the total amount paid in salaries—all salaries, and that, of course, includes all salaries paid to persons appointed to the White radio service but devote part of their time to the Bantu Radio service—amounts to R697,000, according to the Budget. His tenth question was: “Whether any of the income of Bantu Radio is also used for the Africa Service?” No, nothing as far as I know. Then he asks: “Are Bantu Radio programmes broadcast over the Africa Service?” I can only say not as far as I know. I can find out for the hon. member, but I do not know of it. Question No. 12: “Does the Department of Bantu Education pay towards the cost of Bantu Radio?” The Department of Bantu Education does not make any contribution except in the case of Bantu school broadcasts, as that hon. Minister has explained. Then the hon. member asks: “What does the amount ‘Estimated amounts recoverable from Bantu Service’, R120,000 in the 1962 S.A.B.C. Report mean?” I do not think that is relevant at the moment. It has no bearing on these Additional Estimates, Sir. I shall be able to enlighten the hon. member in this respect at a later stage.

Can the Minister …

Order! The hon. member is now trying to evade the Rules of the House. He has spoken three times and he cannot speak a fourth time by way of interjection.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether it was possible for us to differentiate between White and Bantu licensees. The Post Office is at the moment going carefully into every licence and noting whether the licensee is a Bantu or a non-Bantu in order to allocate the licence fees.

How do they know he is a Bantu?

It can be determined from the name. A mistake may slip in here and there and it is consequently left to the discretion of the Postmaster-General to judge whether the licensee is Bantu or not but in the majority of cases it is easy to determine from the name and the address whether the licensee is a Bantu or not.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want the House to misunderstand me. Yesterday, when we talked about Bantu licences I said there were more or less 128,000 listeners. I was naturally referring to the number of licences that are taken out, because according to surveys of listeners which the S.A.B.C. make there are probably 1,250,0 listeners at the moment. At the end of last year the figure was 1,136,000. I also said yesterday that even if we were to regard this R550,000 as a subsidy to Bantu Radio, it would be worthwhile over and over again to pay it. Let me just mention a few figures in connection with Bantu Radio. Radio Bantu has really made an impact on the Bantu to a degree unknown in South Africa. That is proved by minor incidents. For example, in 1960 when the Durban Bantu Radio service was started, the Zulus wrote 2,000 letters to the S.A.B.C. the next day in which they paid tribute to this new Bantu Service—2,000 letters in one day! Such reaction is practically unknown. Let me compare the effect of the Bantu Radio service with the effect of the White service. The White people write approximately 24,000 letters per annum to the S.A.B.C. The Bantu services have so far really only been introduced partly and at the beginning of last year, 40,000 letters had been received from Bantu by the S.A.B.C. and 83,000 in the month of November.

Competition.

Here we have proof of the tremendous break-through to the Bantu which we have established. That shows how much the Bantu appreciate this service and that is the reason why the advertisers say that they have never had a better way of contacting the Bantu than this very Bantu Radio.

But they object to that.

May I just point out to the hon. Minister that he has overlooked question No. 13 on that list by mistake. Will he please reply to that.

I can tell the hon. member what it is estimated the position is. In 1963 the income derived from licence fees was R480,000 and R400,000 from the commercial service. Those were the estimated figures at the beginning of 1963. But the final figures, as I have already told the hon. member, may be slightly different.

Mr. Chairman, every time I say that we have made a break-through to the Bantu hon. members opposite suggest in a belittling way that I am the only one who says that. But let me remind you what the Star said recently—

I repeat that even if Bantu Radio has to be subsidized to an amount of R550,000—even if it has to be a continuous subsidy—it would have been worth while over and over again. Let me just remind the House that the small Rhodesia on our borders subsidize their radio service, and they subsidize it because it is so important to make contact with the Bantu. They pay a subsidy of R560,000 which is more than the R550,000 which we are asking for here. The small Rhodesia finds it worth their while to subsidize their service yet we find the Opposition strenuously objecting to it in this House. Mr. Chairman, we are in actual fact dealing with a country in which the Bantu in the Bantu areas are practically foreign Bantu. Let us compare our own position with that of other countries who also minister to the needs of foreign areas. Do hon. members know that a country like England subsidizes its overseas radio service to an amount of 6,300,000. That was the subsidy they paid the year before last. Every country realizes to-day that it is of the utmost importance to them to subsidize those services, indeed for the sake of your own safety and prosperity. If that is the experience throughout the world and if that is the experience of our small neighbouring state in the north, is it something that we must discard? I can only come to one conclusion, Sir, and it is this: Perhaps hon. members of the Opposition do not begrudge the Bantu this service but they do not want the Bantu to have it for the simple reason that it engenders a feeling of goodwill in the Bantu towards the Whites, because the result has been that White and Black are living harmoniously together in South Africa. That may be the reason for their opposition because when you think of the way they acted in the past in connection with all legislation that has been passed in this House to ensure the safety of the White man and you think how strenuously they opposed those laws, and you think of their strenuous opposition to this insignificant amount of R550,000 which is being spent to promote goodwill between the national groups of South Africa, you cannot but come to the conclusion that they are motivated by a desire that we should not promote goodwill between the national groups.

When we consider, as we have been obliged to consider since yesterday, the almost complete failure of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to explain the reason why this item appears in his Vote, then I think it is—I hesitate to say, scandalous—but it is certainly ridiculous for him to say that the reason why we have discussed this matter, let alone opposed this particular item, is because we do not want to give the Bantu his rightful share of the radio services in this country. I think he does himself an injustice. Sir, if the Minister does not want to listen to me I will talk to the House at large. The hon. the Minister does himself an injustice when he suggests that that is the reason why we raised this item, and that that is the reason why we have opposed it.

Order! That point has been made time and again.

No, Sir, the hon. the Minister has just made the point to which I am replying. Which other point has been made, Sir? I have only spoken once to-day.

Order! The hon. member cannot argue with the Chair.

I am not arguing with you, Sir.

The hon. member may continue.

I will continue by saying again that when the hon. the Minister suggests that our motive in opposing this item is that we do not wish to give the Bantu his rightful share of radio services, he does himself and this House an injustice. We have been asking him since yesterday to give us one reasonable explanation for the appearance, in this form, of this particular item, and what do we find? We find that everything which the hon. the Minister told us when the Broadcasting Amendment Act of 1960 was passed by this House, has been completely changed in order to meet his argument of yesterday and to-day. Sir, I want to give you some examples of that. For example, we were told by the hon. the Minister yesterday, “we want to teach the Bantu the White man’s culture; we want to civilize him”. In 1960, when he wanted this House to pass that particular amendment, he told this House a very different story; he said, for example, that these people were different and separate from the White people, and so they had to have a separate (“eie”) Bantu service. Has he forgotten that he said (Hansard, Col. 5070)—

Then, Sir, he proceeded to develop that point in such a way as to say that he was now going to give the Bantu the broadcasting equivalent of the Kaffir beer that he liked. Sir, after 3½ to 4 years, having given the Bantu public this Radio “Kaffir beer” which the Minister says the Bantu like, he says, “No, that was not our intention at all; the reason why we want you to vote this money to-day and why I say that you, the House of Assembly, and the White taxpayer must agree that it is a reasonable proposition to Vote this R550,000, is because it is to the White man’s advantage”—not the Black man’s—“that there shall be this Bantu Radio”. He then went on to say, “We want to teach the Bantu the White man’s culture”. I did not say that, Sir, the hon. the Minister said it. When I, for one, drew his attention to the same Act, the Broadcasting Amendment Act of 1960, and pointed out to him certain provisions which he proposed and which he got this House to pass including Section 5 (b) (3), which provided clearly, without any equivocation, that this board, this service, could not exceed its expenditure without the hon. the Minister’s approval—he addressed this House, as he did yesterday, and said in all innocence, “Well, it took us three years to figure out the accounts, and we had to estimate the number of Bantu listeners, and we had all sorts of other problems. This is really a matter which I could and should have reported to this House last year, or the year before, or the year before that, but I tell you now that the amount has grown to R550,000”. Far from trying to justify it, as he did in 1960, on the basis that we had to give the Bantu what he wanted on the radio, he now says that we are doing this for our security, for our defence. He points to the fact that the United Kingdom has a broadcasting service a corporation like the S.A.B.C. through which he says they spend over 6,000,000 on external broadcasts. Sir, what has that to do with this amount? I ask the hon. the Minister that question, with great respect. He points to Rhodesia and says, “Look at Rhodesia, a small country; look how Rhodesia subsidizes its broadcasting services to the tune of 286,000”. Surely the hon. the Minister with all his experience, knows better than I that he did not set out to get a subsidy for Radio Bantu. He came here with a Bill and said specifically that he did not require a subsidy for that service, but he wanted to separate it in order to make sure that the Black man, the African, the Bantu, got his own kind of radio programme—“Kaffir beer” radio, in a manner of speaking. He himself said, “I do not know why they like Magou; I detest the stuff—but they want it, and so they must have it. In the same way they want a Radio Bantu and we are going to give them a Radio Bantu”. Sir, the whole position has changed and I think the hon. the Minister should have the good grace to admit that he was either wrong in 1960, or that he is wrong in 1964 because the two statements and the two attitudes are completely irreconcilable. Finally, I want to say this: In the light of what the hon. the Minister told us a few minutes ago, pointing to the United Kingdom and to the Southern Rhodesian broadcasting policies, and to the large amount they spent in the form of subsidies for external broadcasts, I want to know what the interest of the Minister of Information is in these external broadcasts, because on the same Bantu Radio Programme Board there is a gentleman who happens to be—perhaps fortuitously—the Deputy Secretary for Information, Mr. C. W. Prinsloo. There is therefore a very real and personal link between the Bantu Radio Control Board and the Department of Information which is presided over by the hon. the Minister of Information. And when we are told in what I presume are the closing stages of this debate on the Radio Bantu Vote, when we are told in the very last breath of the Minister that there is this important aspect of external broadcasts in the interests of national security—one thinks of broadcasts to the other peoples of Africa to make them friendly towards us (what other construction does he expect me to put on that?)—then I want to know: What is the interest of the Minister of Information and his Department, who should be paying for these external broadcasts, if it is the policy of the Government that we should radiate Radio Bantu and its programmes to the rest of Africa, to the very northern-most tip of the Continent? Sir, I say this with great diffidence and with great deference to the hon. the Minister: Seldom has it happened that a Minister has so lamentably failed to give a reasonable and cogent explanation of the appearance in a Budget Vote of a certain item; and he must not take us to task and say that we do not want the Bantu to have radio services. He knows very well what this side of the House said in 1960, and he has been told almost ad nauseam—since yesterday—that the point at issue is not that we do not want to concede to the Bantu his own type of radio, if, in fact, he wants it.

Order! The hon. member admits that that has been said ad nauseam and yet he repeats it.

No, Sir, I have not said it. It was said by other people. In other words, it was said so often that the hon. Minister’s explanation should have been forthcoming by now.

Order! The hon. member cannot repeat arguments advanced by other hon. members

Sir, I want to raise another item and that is sub-head R of this Vote, which is a new item on the estimates, “South African contribution in respect of Arrear Pension Adjustment in terms of the Commonwealth Telecommunications Agreement.” Can the hon. the Minister give us some information on this item.

At the Commonwealth Telecommunication Conference held in 1958 it was recommended that the pension burdens of the Personnel of countries using the “common user system”, in which all the parties collectively bear the expenditure and draw the benefits, will be borne by member countries retrospectively from 1 April 1950. The British Post Office has calculated what the burdens would be of the various member countries, but the British Post Office made some mistakes in their calculations, and this payment is now being made as the result of those mistakes which have been discovered, and to remedy them.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

AYES—39: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Cronje, F. J. C.; de Kock, H. C.; Dodds, P. R.; Durrant, R. B.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman. T.; Higgerty, J. W.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell. D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Plewman, R. P.; Radford, A.; Ross, D. G.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Suzman, H.; Taurog, L.B.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van der Byl, P.; Warren, C. M.; Weiss, U. M.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and N. G. Eaton.

NOES—83: Badenhorst, F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; Dönges. T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Faurie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Jr.); Greyling, J. C.; Haak, J. F. W.; Henning, J. M.; Hertzog, A.; Heysteck, J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Knobel, G. J.; Kotzé, G. P.; Labuschagne, J. S.; le Roux, P. M. K.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Muller, H.; Muller, S. L.; Nel, J. A. F.; Niemand, F. J.; Odell, H. G. O.; Otto, J. C.; Pelser, P. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. W.; Sauer, P. O.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; 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.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van den Heever, D. J. G.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. J.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, G. H.; van Wyk, H. J.; van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Viljoen, M.; Visse, J. H.; Vorster, B. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Vote No. 35.—“Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services”, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 36.—“Health”, R1,286,000,

There is an amount of R110,000 asked for under A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances. Will the Minister please let me know whether this amount is for increased salaries or whether it is because he has managed to increase his personnel.

It is really due to both, namely increases in the salaries of numerous part-time district surgeons and also to net increases in respect of 18 posts since the framing of the original Estimates. It is also due to general revision of salary scales.

Has the Minister managed to increase his personnel?

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

Can the Minister explain the increase under item K “Medical Poor Relief”—R120,000.

The increase in respect of this item is due to the drug allowances payable to part-time district surgeons and also to meet the increased expenditure in respect of medicines and dressings supplied on prescriptions by full-time and also certain part-time district surgeons, as well as the replacement of more expensive ones. The demand for these services is continually increasing and the costs cannot unfortunately be either correctly estimated in advance or arbitrarily curtailed as the hon. member will obviously understand. A further amount of R15,000 is required under this item to combat nutritional diseases such as kwashiorkor and to allow more local authorities to participate in this scheme.

The sum of R800,000 under L is a formidable sum of money in relation to tuberculosis. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain why there is this enormous increase.

Secondly there is an amount of R65,000 under N for infectious diseases. Was there an epidemic or something of that nature?

Order! the hon. member cannot ask those questions. He must confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

The increase under item L is really due to the intensification of the campaign against tuberculosis and as a result of the ever increasing tuberculosis sufferers who are discovered and who consequently require treatment. As the hon. member will know our expenditure on tuberculosis has increased by leaps and bounds. Over the five years between 1957 and 1963 our expenditure has increased twofold, from roughly R5,000,000 to just over R11,000,000. That was due to the more strenuous efforts that were made to discover sufferers and to treat them when they have been discovered. There are other factors too that have added to this increase, e.g. the increase in the number of beds at the various isolation hospitals, mine hospitals and private chest hospitals and Santa centres. They have to be subsidized. It is also due to the increased daily fees these hospitals charge.

There is another reason. We have discovered that the standard drugs like PAH and INH and streptomycin are not always effective or that people do not always respond to them. In those cases new and much more expensive drugs have to be used which causes an appreciable increase in the expenditure. Another reason is the improvements in the salary scales applicable to the health personnel employed by local authorities. All these together amount to the sum of R800,000.

Mr. Chairman, I should like the hon. the Minister to give us more details in regard to two sub-heads. The first is J—“District Medical and Nursing Services”. There is an increase of R32,000 in respect of that. The second is sub-head Q—“Contribution towards expenses of the World Health Organization”. Is it due to reassessment?

Order! The hon. member must confine herself to asking for the reasons.

In respect of J, the hon. member will probably know that the Department subsidizes local authorities for district medical and nursing services. The salary scales of such personnel have been increased and this sum of R32,000 is attributable to these increases.

In regard to the increase under Q, the hon. member will remember that the W.H. Organization assesses its members every year. In its final assessment the W.H. Organization has increased the South African assessment by this R14,000 which appears under Q.

There is an amount of R65,000 under O additional to the original amount. Could the Minister please tell us why this has become necessary?

That is also due to the fact that the salary scales of the health personnel of local authorities have been improved. We subsidize local authorities in respect of these services and the increase we have to bear amounts to R65,000.

I think the hon. member for Durban (Central) Dr. Radford also asked me a question in regard to N, i.e. the increased expenditure on other infectious diseases. That is also largely due to the increased salary scales of the personnel employed by local authorities.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 39.—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing (General)”, R2,273,820,

I want to deal with item B, the loss on the importation of butter and cheese. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to a remark he made earlier this afternoon when he gave us the assurance that there was no loss on the importation of butter. If that is the position why is he asking us to vote this R42,000? It seems to be a remarkable change in a very short time in the agricultural economy of South Africa. Sir, this is a most important matter as far as we are concerned. The hon. the Minister has been warned for a year or more, in fact I can go back to 1960, by the South African Agricultural Union. At page 61 of the Report of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing they point out, in Table IX, what the position is in regard to cheese, milk and condensing milk: In July to September, 1962 the price was 158c per 100 lb. according to this report. In October, 1962 it went down to 148c; from November, 1962 to May, 1963 it went down to 138c; in June, 1963 it went up to 163c and at the time or the report, namely June, 1963, there was an increase of three cent per 100 lb. Under the same Vote, under item E, we are asked to vote for an amount of R1,631,420—“net expenses in connection with the stabilization of the price of maize”. Sir, we export maize at a loss and some of the butter we have imported came from Finland. In respect of which importation did we suffer the loss on butter and cheese that now requires us to vote another R42,000? We export our maize at a loss to Finland—we subsidize the local growers—so that the dairy farmers of Finland can get concentrates to feed their dairy cows, so that those cows may produce the cream from which the butter is made that we import from them at a loss to ourselves. In other words, we subsidize the butter we import from them because we subsidize the maize we export to them so that they can produce the butter to export to us. What kind of business is that, Sir. [Interjections]. Hon. members opposite may be a little worried about it, but they must not run away from the facts. If hon. members are going to say that we did not import any butter from Finland let us get down to the facts and find out from where that butter did come. I do not think the Minister will deny that some of that butter came from Finland.

According to a reply to a question this afternoon, we have at the present moment an official overseas looking for 5,000 tons of butter. Mr. Chairman, we should be an exporting country of butter.

Is this a second reading speech or a question?

This is a new item on the Estimates. This sum of R42,000 represents the loss on the importation of butter and cheese. We want the fullest possible explanation from the hon. the Minister as to why we had to import butter and cheese. Why should a country like South Africa, with her agricultural economy, import butter and cheese? Why was it necessary for the South African Agricultural Union—I do not want to quote from this document—right back in 1960 to warn the Minister of what was coming? Nobody will know better than you, Sir, that a dairy cow is not something that can be produced in six months. You cannot change your dairy production over six or 12 months, Sir. By the time you have produced a dairy cow and it is in production, and you get the profit from that cow in the shape of fresh milk, butter milk, cheese milk or whatever it may be, you have invested capital on a long-term basis in that cow. You have invested much more than capital in that cow: you have invested in the whole organization of your farm. The Minister has been well aware of what has been coming over the last two to two and a half years. Yet he tells us without a blush this afternoon that there is no loss on the importation of butter and cheese. And immediately afterwards he asks us to vote R42,000 in respect of losses suffered on the importation or butter and cheese. We want the fullest information. I hope, when the Minister gives it to us, it will not be necessary for us to drag it out of him bit by bit over a lengthy period. He must tell us precisely what is behind this because we are determined to have the full facts to see whether it is not possible to take some remedial action to prevent a recurrence of what we see in front of us to-day.

It was in reply to a question of mine this afternoon that the hon. the Minister, who is acting for the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing, said rather facetiously that there was no question of any loss on the importation of butter. We have been warning the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing in this House over the past two years quite apart from the warnings issued by the South African Agricultural Union and the N.A.U. and the Dairy industry as a whole. Last year when he dropped the price of butter fat by 2 cents per lb. we warned him that there would be another shortage of butter in South Africa.

You were worried about the surplus.

I never complain about a surplus. You try to find in Hansard where I have ever complained about a surplus. That is a challenge.

Your colleagues did.

You see, Mr. Chairman, that is the sort of thing you get from that side of the House. They are not interested in the plight of the farmer.

Only last month in this House I said to the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing that the drop in price was going to affect us. I told him that last year and what did he say then? He said: “You cannot disregard the question of supply and demand; we have too much butter and if I keep up the price we shall never get rid of our butter.” I warned him that if he dropped the price we would not be able to feed our dairy herds adequately. I told him that many dairy farmers were already producing on a marginal loss and not a marginal profit. I told him that big dairy herds were already being sold by people who were producing industrial milk. I warned him that the farmer who was producing butter fat could not make it pay and that the farmer who was producing milk for condensing purposes and cheese milk was just working on a margin of profit, that he was just managing to pay his way and that he would also go to the wall in due course, if the hon. the Minister did not see his way clear to give him a reasonable price. I told him that he was not giving us a reasonable profit or any profit at all and that he had not accepted the recommendations of the Dairy Industries Control Board. I told the Minister that he was using the Dairy Industries Control Board to keep down the prices of the producer. That Board was brought into being to protect the producer and not to penalize him. I pointed out that the local producer was being called upon—I must admit that it was not the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services who said this, but who is going to reply this afternoon in an acting capacity for the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing—to subsidize the consumer. But the question of price fixation of the product of the farmer is a question of Cabinet responsibility. The Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing did say at the time that in relation to this question of price fixation he had to view the whole question as a whole. Because we embarked on a campaign of “eat more butter; eat more cheese”, for which the producer of this country had to pay, there was an increase in the consumption of those products with the result that we had to send a man overseas, at our own expense, to find butter that we could import, which we actually had to subsidize in this country. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us what proportion of this amount the producers will be called upon to pay. The Minister must also tell us who is paying the full costs of this importation. The Manager of the Dairy Control Board is overseas at the moment. The Dairy Control Board is actually paying all the expenses in connection with the importation of this butter. In other words, the producer is paying it. That is all wrapped up in this question. Once again I want to say that this Government is selling out the producer by keeping down his price, by not giving him a fair price so that he can afford to feed his animals. If anybody needs to be subsidized in relation to his feed it is the dairy producer. He cannot afford to feed his stock, Sir, because the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing says: “I must keep the price down whether you are making a profit or suffering a loss, just to make sure we do not get too big a surplus so that we will have to export; I am not prepared to give the dairy farmers a profitable price because if I do they will produce more dairy products”. We had to import cheese last year. That is wrapped up with the question of butter; the two go together. Pedigree cattle breeders are also wrapped up in this; we are all affected. The man who produces good dairy stock will not sell his breeding stock if the producers of dairy products cannot sell his good bulls or good heifers to those who produce industrial milk. We want a full explanation from the hon. the Minister of why this Government will not give the producer a reasonable price so that he can make a living; so that we do not have to advertise: “Eat more butter; eat more cheese” and then have to subsidize the importations from other countries while we ourselves cannot afford to feed our stock in this country.

Mr. Chairman, as you know, I am acting this afternoon for the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing who cannot be present.

The main point of criticism we have had from the Opposition is that our local prices for dairy products are such that the farmers of South Africa cannot produce dairy products and that that accounts for the shortages. That, Mr. Chairman, is a very vague and broad statement. In that case the price of dairy products must have been too low for years because surely this is not the first time that we have had shortages in this country and that we have had to import. Prior to 1958 already we had to import dairy products. Nor is that the only example of when it was necessary to import agricultural products. I want to remind the Opposition of the sort of business they did when they were in power. After the war they sold South African maize so cheaply abroad, while we were in short supply here—by virtue of their greater love for countries abroad than for South Africa, to use their own argument—that they had to import a much poorer type of maize than the South African maize from the Argentine at a much higher price to meet the needs of South Africa and they had to subsidize that maize to the tune of millions of pounds. One would imagine this afternoon that this was the first time in the agricultural history of South Africa that losses had been suffered on importations from abroad. Let me give the House the information I have here. We all know, Sir, that the past few years have been abnormal years of drought. The past four years have been some of the most uncertain years in agriculture that I have ever known. Even this year nobody expected that such a large part of the country would be drought-stricken.

We realized in 1958-9 that in times of surpluses South Africa should enter the African markets. We created export markets for ourselves in Africa. We entered into an agreement with the Federation, for example, that even if we should experience a drought with the result that we could not produce enough for local consumption, we would nonetheless supply them so that it would not be necessary for them to import from other countries when we would possibly run the risk of losing our export market there. Africa is our first and best market because it is on our doorstep. Consequently a considerable percentage of our importations had to be imported because we had exported some of our own products to African countries in terms of agreements. I considered it to be in the interests of South Africa not only to build up markets when we had surpluses but to try to retain those markets throughout. And we could import at prices which did not make it impossible for us to retain those markets.

It is said that I brought the House under a totally wrong impression with that remark of mine. I must admit that I meant it half as a joke when I said, in reply to the hon. member, that the loss was not on butter. Because his question dealt with butter. This loss of R42,400 has nothing to do with butter. This loss was on cheese and I shall explain in a moment why we have suffered that loss on cheese. This loss of R42,400 relates to the year 1962-3. It is a loss suffered on cheese. [Interjections.] It was not on butter. In a moment I shall also tell hon. members what the position is in regard to butter. The Dairy Control Board embarked on an advertising campaign throughout the country to encourage the consumption of cheese. I myself played a part in that. I organized the first cheese and wine advertising campaign in Pretoria. They even made special arrangements to teach the Bantu in the Bantu urban areas to use more dairy products because our problem was not so much a problem of surpluses than one of shortages. Periodically, however, we have had shortages mostly due, as I have said, to climatic conditions. That led to a considerable increase in the consumption of cheese. We then had to import and it was decided to import 505 tons of cheese from New Zealand. The purchase price was 21.5 cent per lb. as against the wholesale price of 24 cent per lb. The import duty amounted to approximately 5 cent per lb. that is to say 25 per cent ad valorem and it was estimated that the distribution costs amounted to 1.25 cents. The price of the imported cheese was therefore approximately 27.75 cents per lb. which meant a loss of about 3.75 cents per lb to the board. On this basis it was estimated that the board would lose R42,400 and Treasury approval was obtained on 24 October 1962 to reimburse this amount to the board and to make provision for that in the revised Estimates for 1962-3 and provision for this R42,400 was consequently made in last year’s Additional Estimates. But because the financial year of the Dairy Control Board does not end on the same date—I think it runs from 1 November to the end of October, and our financial year is different—the adjustment could not be made and the exact amount of the loss could not be calculated timeously, and that is why the amount appears here again. The profits and losses on the importation of butter or cheese to meet the local shortage will be on the account of the Government in terms of a decision accepted in principle in 1959 by the Government. In those cases where we import to replace exports to African markets the profits or losses will be on the account of the Dairy Control Board on condition that the Treasury is willing to approach Parliament for permission to compensate the Dairy Control Board for those losses to an amount equivalent, at the most, to the import duty the Dairy Control Board has had to pay on the importations during that season. That is what appears on these Estimates. In the 1958-9 season, for example, 787,980 lb. of cheese were imported. The amount exported to African markets was very little, namely 45,000 lb. The loss on the imported cheese was R13,632 during that year. That loss was allocated in such a way that the Dairy Control Board had to pay R1,266 and the Government R12,266. During that same year 3,919,000 lb. of butter were imported, and 3,144,000 lb. of butter were exported to African markets. The net profit on the imported butter was R38,474. We made a profit on that butter and that was the reason why I said we did good business. It was divided as follows: Of the amount of R38,474 an amount of R30,866 went to the credit of the Dairy Control Board and the Government received R7,608. The argument that the dairy farmer is actually being mulched is without any foundation therefore because here is the proof that when there has been a loss the Government has carried a much greater percentage of that loss than the Dairy Control Board but when there has been a profit the Government has taken approximately one-quarter of that profit and three-quarters of that profit has gone back to the Dairy Control Board. That is my reply in connection with this R42,400.

What the hon. Minister has said in regard to the import and export of butter and cheese has nothing to do with this item here. But the hon. Minister has said that the amount of R42,000 here has nothing to do with butter, but only with cheese, but it says here “Loss on the importation of butter and cheese”.

I know it says “cheese and butter”. It is the “cheese and butter” account, but this loss was really on cheese not on butter.

Do I understand from that that it is a joint account?

Yes.

And if importation takes place, it takes place on a joint account?

Yes, but they know how much butter they import and how much cheese.

But why then this item here?

You are not going to change the name of the account because you only import cheese or only import butter.

I am not concerned with the bookkeeping system and what title they may give to this particular transaction. If they call it “cheese and butter”, and the hon. Minister is prepared to say that there was no butter involved in this, but only cheese, then the position arises that we know it now ex post facto, but that we are also seeking butter, and I want to ask the hon. Minister categorically whether there is anything here which is as it were taking care of the future, any possibility of the future? The hon. Minister says that the closing of accounts of the Dairy Control Board takes place on a different date from the closing date of our Estimates, in other words, there is an over-lapping. That is going to make it very difficult for us, Sir, to precisely pin down when these deficiencies do take place. But may I point out to the hon. Minister that so far even as the cheese importations are concerned, we have a taste of our own in this country and South Africa did not like the cheese that came here, and we have a taste as far as our butter is concerned, and we did not like the butter. I do not want to criticize the butter manufacturers in other countries, but they do not like ours. But the fundamental fact is that there was no need to import any of this as far as we are concerned, and that is our point. We want to know why it is that in the policy of the Minister he allowed this shortage to take place, whether it is a question of cheese or butter. The fact of the matter is that we do import butter and we do import cheese.

I did not deny that we import butter from time to time.

Let us hear what the Agricultural Union said in their report for 1962—

There is the crux of the matter. The Minister had been warned that surpluses are sporadic, and he should go to the Book of Judges and have a look and find out how Joseph dealt with the surpluses in the seven good years. He did not have to import his corn. He laid it up and stored it, and the point is that we are called upon now to pay R42,000 for butter that was imported and for cheese that was imported and we object to having to subsidize the importation of these commodities, when clearly what is necessary is that we should keep our own agricultural community in a healthy economic position so that it is unnecessary to embark upon this kind of transaction at the same time when our farmers are saying that the year 1962 was probably the blackest in the history of the dairy farmers of South Africa for the past 20 years. Because the two things are complementary, and we would like to hear from the hon. Minister how a recurrence of such a position as we have before us to-day will be avoided.

The Opposition is shouting because butter and cheese have been imported on which a loss of R42,000 has been suffered. The hon. the Minister has already pointed out that we have an export scheme which we cannot carry out in certain seasons and that when there is a shortage we have to import butter so that we can maintain that export scheme on a constant basis. This afternoon, however, there is a cry because of the supposed shortage but during the past two or three years the Opposition has only raised one cry and made one charge. It is of no avail the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) challenging me to show him where he had said it—I did not specifically mean that he had also said it but I take it that he is a member of the United Party and that he stands by his party. I did not know there was another member, namely the member for Pietermaritzburg, who differs from the United Party. I am quite prepared to take up the challenge and to prove that the Opposition have always complained about surpluses. Here I have the Hansard of 10 February 1961. The hon. member for Gardens was speaking on the motion he had introduced, and he said this, col. 1105:

I leave a few sentences out and then he said the following—

I must take it that they are pleading for an increase in price this afternoon. He continued—

Surely this amount of R42,000 which the Government is paying for the importation of cheese and which we are asked to vote is a subsidy. He went on—

What I am trying to prove, Sir, is that there have been complaints throughout about the surpluses; that consumption should be stimulated and that the Government should pay subsidies so that consumption could be increased. I come to the next year, a year later, to 16 February 1962. The hon. member for Gardens (Mr. Connan) who acted as the main critic of the Opposition on agricultural matters said the following (col. 1220)—

What is the point?

Then the hon. member for Gardens refers to the fact that butter is being exported at a loss. There is no objection to that, the objection is to Britain not taking enough of our butter at that loss. Now that we are importing butter we are told that we are subsidizing Finland who is buying our maize at a price cheaper than we can produce it. I think it is childish to argue like that, Sir. We must appreciate, and the Opposition knows it, that our climatic conditions change from year to year. We also know that we experienced a very severe drought last year and that our production was of necessity not as good.

Your policy is completely wrong.

If this policy is wrong, I can at least say that we have a policy. But what policy will that side of the House follow, because when we export it is wrong, when we import it is also wrong, and when we introduce a stabilization scheme it is also wrong. Surely they cannot have it in all directions. They cannot criticize us when there is a loss of R42,000 on butter we had to import in order to be able to keep the export markets we had built up constant. We want to keep the market constant by continuing to export even when there are seasonable shortages. Surely that is logical. I cannot see any reason why the Opposition should be opposed to that. I want to ask this question: If the prices were to be increased—we must assume that from the arguments of the Opposition—and we were again to have over-production, which will probably happen, because that has been the experience in the past, and we should again have to export at a loss, what will the attitude of the Opposition be? We shall again have the complaint we have had over the years, Sir. I want to conclude. As far as this matter is concerned the Opposition has no policy. I think it is essential for South Africa and for the farmers that we retain the export markets we have created at a certain price level where the consumption it also fairly high locally. If it becomes necessary for us to import a certain amount to augment our supplies so that our local market will remain constant and so that the consumer will not suffer any shortage, and losses are sustained, I also regard those losses as a contribution by the Government to the consumer in order to keep the prices within limits.

The hon. member for Somerset (East) (Mr. Vosloo) who, I admit, does not always talk nonsense, has advanced the most ridiculous argument this afternoon that I have ever heard in my whole life. If I have to use the same logic in my argument I will have to argue that if you want to build up your exports—we know we are trying to build up a stable dairy industry and a stable export market—you must continue to expand your export market at greater losses in the form of subsidies and that we must import still more cheese at a greater loss. What kind of an argument is that? What is the position according to the hon. the Minister who is acting to-day? Let me just say in passing that last year when the Agricultural Vote was under discussion under the Additional Estimates, the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing was not here either. This side of the House then objected to it and said it was discourteous.

Where is he this afternoon and where is the Leader of the Opposition? They are at the same place.

This side of the House said it was discourteous on the part of the Minister not to have been present when his Vote was under discussion, and we repeat that to-day. The hon. acting Minister says we are living in a country which suffers droughts periodically and that the past four years have been difficult years for agriculture. In that case we should like to say that the time has arrived for the Dairy Control Board and the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing to see to it that the production which is carried over by the Dairy Control Board to the next is done in such a way that they will have the necessary supplies when there is a drought. This is not a case of maize being exported at a loss to feed the stock of other countries so that we can import butter at a loss. This is a case of importing dairy products at a loss, irrespective of the question whether it is butter or cheese, or whatever the dairy product may be. The Government cannot advance the argument that if you want to stabilize an industry, irrespective of what industry it is, whether it be the agricultural industry or not, you must export the product to keep the market constant and import it at a later stage because you have exported too much. To show you how ridiculous that is, Sir, you might just as well argue that you should export even more to keep the market even more constant; then you are importing more and you must pay subsidies in all directions. We have the right to say that we are not inclined to pay this R42,000 for the importation of butter. We imported it last year and we did not need it, as the Minister has admitted. I do not know whether we required all of it this year. I have not seen those figures. We on this side of the House object to a Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing setting about its business in such a way that an item has to appear year after year representing an over-exportation of dairy products so as to keep our market constant with a consequent loss on the importation of that product to meet the demand.

We are sorry that the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is absent. We know what the circumstances are but we are very critical of behaviour of this nature.

I thought the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) would at least have understood that type of economy. (Laughter.) The hon. member need not laugh. Although he has a doctorate he may perhaps learn something from a practical farmer. When you are busy building up an export market, or when you have built it up and you have entered into certain contracts to deliver certain quantities, and you go through a short period when you are short of a small quantity, even as far as your local consumption is concerned I take it that the hon. member, with his doctorate and all, will cancel that contract and lose it, because it will be a mistake to suffer a small loss on the small quantity you have to import. No, Sir, I do not know how that hon. member got his degree, but what he is advocating here is definitely not agricultural economics. I think the principle we are following here is a good one. I also want to tell the hon. member that we are busy building up a meat export industry at this stage and there may be times when we shall have to import more from Lobatsi and from Bechuanaland in order to fulfil contracts. I do not see anything ridiculous in that. To me as a farmer it seems to be a good principle.

In conclusion I want to say that the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing cannot be present this afternoon because he is opening the Goodwood Show. We know he has been invited there and we also know that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is there. We think they ought to be there. I think, therefore, that it is really unreasonable of the hon. member, in these circumstances, to suggest that the Minister is not showing the necessary interest in his Department and that objection should be taken to his absence. I take it that the agricultural show cannot change its dates to suit the debate we have in this House. I think the hon. member for East London (City) ought to be ashamed of himself for having made such a petty remark and for having suggested that the necessary interest is lacking. I know it is not relevant, Sir, but I think the hon. member for East London (City) owes the Minister an apology.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Somerset East suggesting that the dairy farmers are getting satisfactory prices for their dairy products. When he first spoke he suggested that our price in this country was satisfactory and compared well with the price in Canada and Europe. He said that the price the consumer had to pay was too high and that therefore consumption was dropping. I may tell him that the price to the consumer both in Europe and in Canada is very much higher than in South Africa, and that the producer gets a much higher price than in our country. And if he wants to deal with industrial milk—and he is dealing with industrial milk, because the hon. Minister told us in his reply that this item of R42,000 deals with cheese and not butter, that makes it even more to the point what I am going to say just now. The intake of milk at any of the cheese factories or any of the factories where milk is dried, the condensed milk factories, is of very great importance to many farmers and the price paid by the condensaries or cheese factories is lower in the Republic than in Canada or Europe. I am rather surprised that he is satisfied. But he did not answer the point and neither did the Minister, when I pointed out that the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing last year in a debate in this House did not refute the allegation, when we discussed his Vote, that the price was not economic, and the figures produced by the agricultural unions, especially organized agriculture, in respect of milk prices proved that they are working on a very small margin and in many cases the producers of industrial milk came out on the wrong side—he did not refute the allegation that they were not making a profit. What he said was that there was a surplus in this country, and so to get rid of that surplus, he had to keep down the price. If we were to export, he had to see to it that the price was kept down, and so we get back to the old basis of supply and demand. He said that, in the Free State and he was not very popular at the meetings when he said that last year, and, Mr. Chairman, the hon. Minister did not accept the recommendations of the Dairy Industry Control Board which made certain recommendations in relation to milk, and as far as fresh milk is concerned in the northern parts of the Republic he has only given us a maximum price for milk and there is no guaranteed price.

Coming to this question of R42,000, the hon. Minister says that it is in respect of cheese and not as shown on the Estimates here for butter as well. Well, that makes it even worse, because if they exported too much last year and then had to import last year at a loss (and again have to import this year), it shows very bad management, very bad control, because cheese is very much easier to store than butter. It is much more difficult to store butter over a long period than cheese. So I think the Minister put up no answer against the case put up to him. We pointed out to him that it was a seasonable surplus and that such a surplus should not be used to depress the price to the producer and our markets in this country should not be used for the producers of other countries, when the producers of dairy products in the Republic can produce all that is necessary, and have done so for many years. Depressed prices during the last two years and bad handling and the keeping down of prices to a fixed maximum, although the cost of production has risen during the last few years, have been the main reasons why there was a shortage of butter and cheese last year, and why there is a shortage also this year. I say that the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing is responsible for this loss, and it is bad management and bad handling of the whole marketing situation.

I am merely rising to try to correct certain members of this House who are definitely misunderstanding the position. I refer to what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) said at the beginning of his speech, namely that we had exported maize at a loss to a country and that we subsequently imported dairy products after the animals who had produced those dairy products had been fed on our maize. I just want to bring the actual facts in connection with the losses suffered on the exportation of maize to the attention of the House.

Order! The hon. member must not say too much about maize.

No, Sir, I just want to explain that the loss on the maize we export is merely a bookkeeping loss and not an actual loss because we are selling that maize abroad at a price which is substantially higher than the production costs in this country. In 1962 it was 45 cents higher than the production costs and in 1963 it was 80 cents per bag higher. By exporting maize, therefore, we are strengthening our economy. I just wanted to make sure that hon. members did not gain the impression that maize exportations meant a loss to the country. They constitute an asset and they also provide the Railways with increased revenue.

I hope you will allow me to react to what the hon. member for Somerset East has said, Sir. He argued that if you made 20 cents on a bag and you subsidized it to the tune of 60 cents, you still make a profit. I do not want to go into that because I know you will rule me out of order. The hon. member for Somerset East said he did not think I had a degree in economics, but I understand he has been unfortunate and has not obtained a degree at all. But he will not get one in economics either. I want to point out that the same amount, namely, R42,400 which is shown here appeared in last year’s Additional Estimate as representing the loss on the importation of cheese. If last year’s production was the same as that of this year, and the contracts were the same, as far as weight and value were concerned, I can see the sense in the hon. member’s argument that if you are building up an export market and your production has been constant up to a pound of butter, and your exports have been constant, and the climatic conditions have been constant, and the shortages have been constant, you will again arrive at R42,400. The loss on the importation of cheese last year was R42,400 and it is the same this year but the production has been much higher this year. If the production has been higher and the Minister has any brains he will see to it that a greater supply is kept in the country to meet temporary shortages and not budget for the second year in succession for a loss of R42,400 on the importation of cheese. That is only talking cheese, and we are sick of this story.

I did not want to reply but because the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) said this was talking cheese and because he referred sneeringly to the Minister who had no brains and the Department, I want to, reply to him. Had the hon. member listened he would not have talked such nonsense. I stated explicitly that the amount which appeared on these Estimates was the same amount which appeared in the Estimates last year. I gave the reasons why it was not possible to dispose of this matter and why it appeared again in the Estimates. It does not represent identical losses suffered in two years. It represents the losses suffered in one year, which for certain bookkeeping reasons, must again be submitted to Parliament for approval. That is the only reply I want to give because I think the hon. member is under the impression that it is merely a coincidence that the loss on the importation of cheese this year is the same as last year, but he misunderstands the position completely.

To say that only production has anything to do with price, that if you increase the price you increase agricultural production, and vice versa, is surely not true. When the price of maize was reduced last year the production increased immediately. I want to go further and also reply to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood). He said the dairy production was higher in all countries than here. It may be that more is paid in some countries, but I also know that there is hardly a comparable country in the world where the cost of living is as low as here. Had he listened to the figures which I mentioned he would have known that this cheese was imported at 21.5c, wholesale, whereas the wholesale price was 24c in this country. Import duty, transportation cost and distribution costs accounted for the additional costs, of course and that pushed up the price of that cheese to a level higher than that of our export agreements and that caused the loss. I hope it is clear now.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 41.—“Defence”, R10,023,764,

I appreciate the difficulty of the Acting Minister of Defence, and I want to express our pleasure at the news that the hon. the Minister is making good progress and we hope to see him back here soon. But I want to ask a question about the second item in regard to the manufacture of munitions and the ex gratia payment to Broderick Engineering Works Ltd. Could the Minister give us some information in regard to what is covered by that item and what caused the ex gratia payment to be made, what type of munitions we are dealing with here?

Then, with regard to the first item, the contribution to the Defence Special Equipment Fund, where an additional amount of R10,000,000 is now being asked for, I want to say that one appreciates the statement made by the hon. the Minister of Finance when introducing these Estimates that his Department would supervise expenditure on these items. I trust that with regard to this particular item also, such supervision has been carried out. If there is one item of expenditure which comes before Parliament and where we are asked to approve of a globular sum every year, and in regard to which we have no information, it is this item. It is a necessary fund approved of by the House, but we are being asked to add another R10,000,000 to the large amount already voted. I think defence expenditure is a matter in regard to which the Treasury must live up to its reputation as the watchdog over finance. I would like to have some information as to why this increase is necessary, in so far as it can be given within the scope of national security, so that we may know what is involved in this item.

The information in connection with the second item is as follows: It is in regard to an ex gratia payment to Broderick Engineering Works Ltd., of R23,764. This particular firm tendered for the production of rocket launching equipment on condition that certain castings would be obtained from other firms. It appeared subsequently that castings would not serve the purpose and the firm itself had to manufacture the component parts from solid pieces of metal which pushed up the price of the completed rockets above the tender price. Because the firm financed the increased costs of the rockets itself it sustained a considerable loss. Representations by the firm that the Department should compensate it for the additional costs were after thorough investigation by the Tender Board and on their recommendation, approved by Treasury. Does that satisfy the hon. member?

With regard to the other matter, there is effective Treasury control over expenditure. The hon. member will probably recollect that last year the amount of money for this particular Vote was allocated out of loan funds. This is an additional amount being allocated out of revenue. I cannot give any particulars in regard to the purchases because the hon. member will realize that that is not a matter for public debate in this House.

The Minister’s reply in regard to Item 2 is perhaps acceptable in so far as the merits are concerned. These things do happen and in an intricate urgent job like this there can well be such occurrences where in fairness to the tenderer some financial adjustment has to be made. But that answer in this particular case stresses the other point I raised, namely the necessity for the closest scrutiny of defence expenditure. These contracts very often have to be carried out very urgently and one knows that under such conditions one cannot always take precautions to see that every little part of the specification is adequately covered. Therefore it is all the more necessary that some independent scrutiny is applied to protect the military people from their own enthusiasm. That is very important from the taxpayers’ point of view, and that is why I ask that the Minister of Finance will see to it that that precaution is taken.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 43.—“Immigration”, R1,869,000,

Under the item “Assistance to Immigrants” an amount of R144,000 interest-free loans is being written off. I should like to know why this amount is being written off. I should also like to know whether the Minister can tell us whether any further amounts will perhaps have to be written off in future or whether the Government has perhaps changed its policy in regard to loans to immigrants. I also have an idea that there were immigrants who came to this country in the past and left the country and that that is the main reason why this amount has to be written off. I should like to know whether I am right in my assumption.

Mr. Chairman, I can tell the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) right away that we do not finance any immigrants who come to South Africa and then decide to go home. We do not give them anything.

In regard to this item of R144,000, originally the State-aided immigration scheme included a maximum contribution of R60 per person by the Government, plus an interest-free loan of R60 per person repayable over two years. So we gave a grant of R60 and an interest-free loan of R60, but it soon became apparent that most of the immigrants were just not able to bear the burden of loans in addition to their other commitments which they had when they arrived in the country. They had to buy furniture and clothes and books for their children, etc. After investigating the matter very fully, the Government decided that the loan scheme would be withdrawn on 31 October 1962, and the contribution was then increased to R120. In other words, there was then an out-and-out grant of R120 per person. It was decided towards the end of last year that we would write off the loan still outstanding for the following reasons: (a) The rapidly dwindling rate of recovery. I can give the committee some of the particulars which motivated the Government in deciding to take this step. I found that during 1963 the Department had an opportunity of studying the circumstances of these people who had availed themselves of these facilities offered under the loan scheme, and who were called upon to repay such loans, in some cases amounting to as much as R500 per family. I made an analysis of the outstanding loans and it revealed the following. The total amount of loans was approximately R172,000 and the amount recovered at the end of September last year was R39,000, and the balance outstanding was therefore R133,000. The amount collected during the period 1 April 1963 to 30 September was R13,000, or an average of just over R2,000 per month. Out of a total of 1,380 immigrants who were granted loans, only 101 had repaid their loans in full. Approximately 648 have made no payments at all.

Does that include children?

Yes, the loan is so much per person. I also found that only a few were making regular payments, so that I was faced with the position that the Department would have to start dunning these people. Letters were being written to them threatening legal action, but the results were disappointing. Then I also found that the high administrative costs and the work involved in continuing to recover loans was far too big. In our Department we actually had to set up a separate section to look after these loans and to write letters and see that payments were made. Then the point that really decided us was this, that immigrants who had settled in South Africa before 31 October 1962 were immediately placed at a financial disadvantage compared with those who immigrated after that date. I think that was the deciding factor as far as the Cabinet was concerned, that the people who came after 1962 got a grant of R120, whereas those who came before got a grant of only R60 and a loan of another R60. I had the figures worked out and it was decided that this amount of R144,000 which was outstanding should be written off in the circumstances. I think the committee will agree with me that it was probably the right step to take.

I wonder whether the Minister will give me some information about two items, “F” and “G”, the first being financial assistance to immigrant organizations, contributions and grants-in-aid. Can the Minister give an indication of which organizations these are, and what the quantum of assistance is, and whether his Department has any representation on the executive committees of these bodies; and in connection with “G”, assistance to immigrants, where there has been an increase of R1,659,000, can the Minister tell me whether this arises, and in what way it arises, out of the increase in the number of immigrants …

Order! The hon. member can ask for reasons, but he cannot suggest reasons.

I am sorry, Sir. I wish to know why this amount was increased.

Mr. Chairman, would the hon. the Minister explain exactly what is involved in this R144,000 in so far as those immigrants are concerned who have paid back their loans? Are they going to be given back the money they repaid?

Of course not.

The position is that if you were good enough to repay the loan it is just too bad for you, and if you were bad enough not to repay it that is just your good luck?

Yes.

That is an extraordinary state of affairs.

To get back to the R144,000, listening to the Minister one comes to the conclusion that the majority of immigrants who come out here have failed to repay these loans. While we would like to assist people coming to this country and are increasing the loans, would it not be a wiser policy, instead of handing out cash, to assist them in some other way? We find that the Social Welfare Department does not hand out cash liberally, because cash is spent very easily. Cannot some other means of assistance be devised?

There is only one point which rather disturbs me in connection with the hon. the Minister’s reply. My question was whether immigrants entered this country, obtained loans and then left the country. The Minister replied “No, if an immigrant comes here only to leave again we do not give him money”. I should like to put it to the Minister that when an immigrant comes here he is certainly not going to give the Department any indication that he is going to leave again, with the result that a loan will be given to him. The question which occurs to me is how many persons actually obtained loans from the State and thereafter left this country without re-paying those loans?

The question the hon. member asks is whether if an immigrant has come to South Africa and he has received a grant from the Government, and after being here for a while he decides to go home again and he has spent that money, what steps can be taken to recover it from him? That is a matter I had to consider very carefully and I came to the conclusion that it was no use asking an immigrant to give me a guarantee that he would remain in South Africa. I do not know what sort of guarantee he could give me. It may interest the committee to know that I went into the Australian scheme on this very question, and I discussed the matter with the Australian Ambassador to learn what they did there, where they also had a State-aided scheme. He told me that they had come to the conclusion there was nothing they could do about it, and that they would simply have to take a chance that the immigrant would be satisfied to stay. It was just bad luck if he decided to come here to have a holiday at the expense of the State. I can assure the committee that the percentage of immigrants who do that is negligible; it is really not worth bothering about.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) asked a question in regard to the R18,000, financial assistance to immigration organizations. My reply is that there are two organizations, Hansa which operates in West Germany, Switzerland and Austria, and Sam-organ, which operates in the United Kingdom. We give them a subsidy of R30 for each adult and R15 for each child. When the Estimates were framed originally it was estimated that these two organizations would recruit and bring to South Africa a total of 1,350 immigrants during the current financial year. It now appears that that figure will be in the vicinity of 3,100 immigrants. Therefore provision has to be made for an additional amount of R46,500. However, the Republic will pay about R8,500 less by way of membership of I.C.E.M., and the increased contribution of R120 per person towards the passage costs of immigrants now also covers the cost of the specified services which I.C.E.M. renders to immigrants. The amount of R20,000 which was placed on the original Estimates will therefore no longer be required for this purpose. These combined amounts will mean that the additional sum required under this sub-head will only be R18,000.

The hon. member has also asked me whether the Government has any representation on these bodies. The reply is “no”, we have no representation on these bodies. They are absolutely independent. We simply give them this grant of R30, for an adult and R15 per child and they arrange the passages for the immigrants.

It is cash on delivery.

My colleague says it is “cash on delivery”: They have to deliver the immigrant and then we give them the subsidy.

The hon. member also referred to sub-head G, R1,659,000. This amount is made up as follows: Contributions towards cost of passage of immigrants R408,000; assistance in respect of accommodation R78,000; payment of customs duty on the effects of White immigrants from African territories, R1,173,000. That is the main item. The actual number of immigrants to the Republic during the current financial year has exceeded by far the number on which the Department originally based its Estimates. For example, it was thought that not more than 13,000 immigrants would apply for contributions towards passage costs. The indications now are that there will be more than 18,000. The number requiring accommodation has also increased accordingly. Immigrants from territories in Africa enjoy special customs concessions, but the Department of Immigration has, of course, to reimburse the Department of Customs and Excise for these rebates. Constitutional changes in countries to the north of the Republic have contributed to influence immigration to the Republic and there have been considerably more immigrants than we expected. The additional amount required actually amounts to R1,741,000 but there are savings to the extent of R82,000 under other items of this subhead and, as I have said, the immigration from countries to the north of us has grown to such an extent that our original Estimates are far below what we have actually had to pay. As hon. members know, the only assistance which is given to immigrants from the Rhodesias is that they are entitled to bring their effects, their furniture, their motor-cars, their caravans into South Africa without customs duties, but we still have to pay those customs duties to the Department concerned.

Can the hon. the Minister tell us how many of the 18,000 immigrants came from countries to the north of us and how many from Europe?

I cannot bind myself to an exact figure but I can say that the ratio is roughly 50-50, half from overseas and half from Africa.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 44.—“Coloured Affairs”, R1,092,000,

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister for some information in regard to the footnote which reads, “Includes provision in respect of Coloured Education in Transvaal as from 1 January 1964”. Can the Minister explain to me whether that is in respect of buildings or is it in respect of teachers. How is that figure arrived at?

Order! The hon. member can only ask for the reasons for the increase. He should not suggest the reasons.

With respect, Sir, I only read the footnote and asked the Minister for an explanation.

The reason is that no provision was made for this service in the main Estimates, and additional provision is therefore applied for to cover the salaries of teaching and other staff of Transvaal schools for the period 1 January to 31 March.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 45.—“Community Development”, R69,000,

Will the Minister kindly give us the explanation for this very, very large increase in sub-head F, “Expenses under Group Areas Legislation”. Will the Minister please explain to us what that means and why there is this large increase of R54,600.

The reason, of course, is that there has been a greater number of proclamations and that more valuators have had to be appointed as well as more revision courts. We anticipate that for valuators, for example, an additional amount of R24,000 will be required, and the rest for revision courts.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 47.—“Justice”, R253,000,

Will the hon. the Minister explain the large, substantial increase under sub-head E, “Miscellaneous Expenses”?

With regard to subhead B, “Subsistence and Transport”, will the hon. the Minister tell us whether this includes the subsistence and transport paid to the Press Commissioner, the hon. Mr. Justice van Zyl?

The CHAIRMAN: Order! The hon. member can only ask for the reasons for the increase.

May I ask the Minister then to explain why this item is so much higher than the amount originally estimated and to whom this subsistence and transport allowance is to go?

I want to reply first to the question put to me by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell). The reason for this increase in the expenditure of the Department is simply that there has been an expansion of the normal activities of the Department. It has nothing to do with the matter which the hon. member had in mind.

As far as the question of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (South) (Mr. Plewman) is concerned the position is that the increase is made up as follows: Uniforms for messengers, extra expenditure arising from transfers and small items of expenditure, R15,000. This is due to the fact that more transfers had to take place than the Department thought would be necessary. The functions of the Public Service messengers of the court also entailed increased expenditure in respect of the hiring of premises, and then there were also other smaller items of expenditure. As a result of the fact that more motor-cars, etc., were attached, premises had to be hired to house those things because, as the hon. member knows, they remain in the custody of the messenger of the court and we must take steps therefore to see that no damage is done to this property.

Will the hon. the Minister please give us an explanation of the very big increase of R45,000 in sub-head M. There is a saving consequently the net increase is less. The total increase however is R45,000.

We are dealing here with an item of expenditure which cannot be assessed in advance. One year the expenditure is less and the next year it goes up. The estimate is based on the present level of expenditure. The increase is attributable to the larger number of cases which are dealt with by the State Attorney, but that is not the whole story. The rest of the story is that there has been a change of policy as far as the accounts are concerned. There used to be a special account into which advances were deposited from time to time and the final accounting was only done when the case was disposed of. Hon. members know that when the State Attorney refers a case to an attorney, at, say, Kenhardt he receives his fee of one-third from that attorney in the same way as ordinary attorneys. That amount used to be deposited into a special account, but this special account was done away with some time ago, and these amounts are now deposited and accounted for as and when they are received.

Will the hon. the Minister please explain the last remaining item on this Vote, sub-head L, which has not yet been explained, and give us more details as to the additional R100,000 for “Casual Interpreting and Reporting, including purchase and maintenance of mechanical recording equipment”. How much of it is for the purchase of new equipment and how much is for casual interpreting?

The explanation for this increase is as follows: It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain the services of White interpreters because of the attractive posts which these people are able to get outside the Public Service. It is very difficult to get hold of interpreters and to retain their services, and special arrangements have to be made from time to time to engage interpreters. As far as the Department is concerned, mechanical recording of evidence has been resorted to more and more, and this expenditure was incurred in connection with the purchase of mechanical recording equipment. The operation of these machines, which is undertaken by contractors, has brought about ever-increasing expenditure which unfortunately is simply unavoidable.

Will the hon. the Minister indicate, in relation to what he has just said, into which of the courts this recording equipment is to go. I want to know whether it is going into the magistrates’ courts as well as the regional courts.

Order! That is a matter of policy. The hon. member can only ask for the reasons for the increase.

May I ask in which courts the money is going to be spent.

No, the hon. member cannot ask that either.

I will tell you privately.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 48.—“Prisons”, R578,000,

I shall be grateful if the Minister can give us the reason for the additional amount of R7,000 to be voted under sub-head E, “Miscellaneous Expenses”. The original estimate was R19,000 and the revised estimate R26,000.

This amount is made up as follows: R5,000 is in respect of a claim which was settled by the State Attorney in connection with an assault upon a prisoner by a member, and then there is also a sum of R1,100 which represents another claim which was also settled by the State Attorney.

Can the Minister tell us what the reason is for the large increase under sub-head A?

The salary increases, as the hon. member knows, came into operation as from 1 January 1963. Part of the increase is attributable to salary increases, and salary increases ranging from R16 to R80 per annum were also granted with effect from 1 January 1963 to 2,580 permanent members and 201 special non-White members. Those are the reasons for the additional expenditure.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 49—“Police”, R2,897,016.

I am referring to subhead B. I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister will explain to the committee the circumstances which gave rise to the ex-gratia remissions and payments to an estate and to an insurance association.

The explanation is as follows: Sergeant Brand, a detective in the diamond division was a passenger in a vehicle driven by the late Mr. Frans de Bruin, manager of a diamond mine at Bell’s Bank, while they were investigating a diamond case. The vehicle was involved in an accident and Mr. de Bruin was killed and Sergeant Brand was seriously injured. The loss suffered by the State as a result of the hospitalization of Sergeant Brand, who was injured in the course of duty, amounted to R1,591.53. Sergeant Brand instituted a claim against the estate of Mr. de Bruin in connection with the injury sustained by him in the accident. In view of the fact, however, that the late Mr. de Bruin had been very helpful and was in fact assisting Sergeant Brand at the time of the accident in combating diamond smuggling, the Department was not disposed to allow such a claim to be instituted against his estate and it was then decided to abandon the claim. The State Attorney reports that he will be able to settle the claim for injury on payment of a sum of approximately R1,000 and the Committee is therefore being asked to vote a total sum of R2,600.

As far as the second case is concerned the explanation is that a collision took place between a police motor vehicle and that of a certain Mr. S. Wolf of Keetmanshoop on the road to Mariental, South West Africa. After considering the available evidence the State Attorney expressed the opinion that the blame rested entirely on the driver of the police vehicle, and although the claim had already become prescribed the State was not prepared to shelter behind this section of the Act. We could, of course, have refused to pay as a result of the prescription of the claim. An ex gratia payment of R1,816 was therefore authorized, and this amount will be paid to Mr. Wolf’s insurers.

Will the hon. the Minister be good enough to give the reasons for the increase of R50,000 under sub-head K, “Detained Persons.”

I wonder if the Minister is in a position to give us the reason for the additional amount to be voted under sub-head E, “Secret Services”, where there is a substantial increase of R75,000.

I hope the hon. member is not asking for details because then it will no longer be a secret!

This increase is due to the fact that there has been an accelerated tempo, as the hon. member probably knows and as he will hear again from me in later debates in this House, in combating subversive activities. As far as the increase under sub-head K is concerned the position is simply that the original estimate was too low. The amount of R50,000 is made up as follows: Maintenance of persons in custody, R40,000; medical expenses in respect of detainees, R10,000. There was an under-estimate and the position is now simply being brought into line with the facts. If hon. members look at the report of the Department of Prisons they will see that there has been an increase in the number of prisoners, and that fact naturally influences this figure.

Can the hon. the Minister give us some indication of the reason for the increased amount to be voted under sub-head G, “Medical Services”. An additional amount of R203,000 is being asked for.

The details in this case are the following: Hospital expenses, as far as members of the Force are concerned, R45,000; hospital expenses in respect of White women and the families of members of the Force, R35,000; medicine in respect of members of the Force, R60,000; medicine in respect of their wives and families, R40,000; to medical practitioners (members of the Force), R18,000; to other medical practitioners, R5,000, making a total of R203,000.

I am very curious to know to what sort of advertisements reference is made in sub-head D.

These are advertisements in connection with recruiting campaigns to induce people to join the Police Force. These advertisements are so attractive that if the hon. member sees them he will feel obliged to join the Police Force himself.

Vote put and agreed to.

Expenditure from Loan Account:

On Loan Vote A.—“Miscellaneous Loans and Services”, R2,340,000,

Will the hon. the Minister explain what Item 8, “Account for Recoverable Advances” refers to.

Uniforms are issued by the S.A. Police to recruits, trainees in the College, and in many cases also to members already serving in the Police Force. The issue is made out of the Standard Stock Account, and the cost is recovered in monthly instalments, which are determined by the Commissioner and approved of by the Treasury. The result of this is that a considerable amount of capital has to be taken out of the Standard Stock Account and used for the purpose of advances. The Treasury has now decided that as far as the accounting in respect of the issue of uniforms is concerned, the Standard Stock Account must be compensated fully at the time of the issue of the uniforms and that it must be compensated by means of funds which are specially made available for the purpose of recoverable advances. It is estimated that an amount of R220,000 is needed to supplement the Recoverable Advances Account to give effect to this.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”, R60,660,

This particular Loan Vote contains a large proportion of new items. There are 26 items altogether of which 21 are new items for which no provision has been made previously. One is struck by a somewhat unusual feature of this particular Vote, particularly in regard to the new items with which I want to deal specifically. In the case of 23 of the items which we are being asked to approve of this afternoon, very small token amounts are provided for, when they are compared with the total amount which Parliament is being asked to approve for expenditure on these new services. These new items, as far as one can judge from the figures before us, will involve an eventual expenditure of some R10,500,000. But the amount which we are being asked to approve of to-day as a first token expenditure on those items is approximately only R800. It does appear that it is, to put it mildly, a somewhat unhealthy way of obtaining parliamentary approval for major works which have not been submitted to the House previously, which Parliament has not accepted in principle and on which Parliament has not committed itself as regard any expenditure at all. Added to that we have warning notes accompanying a very large percentage of these items which states that the cost given is based on incomplete information and may be greater. I want to refer to just a few of the new items by way of illustration. On page 25 for example, provision is made for work at the De Wet Nel Technical High School at Kroonstad.

May I interrupt? Do you want particulars with regard to these items?

Yes, I want particulars but I also want to raise the whole question of what appears to be to some extent the utilization of a back-door method in order to obtain parliamentary approval for these new items.

It is the usual thing.

It is becoming somewhat unusual having regard to the extent to which it is now being used. We have raised this particular feature in the House before, and it is now becoming the normal practice whereas before it was an abnormal one. Sir, all these items are put forward as urgent items, and that is why the House is being asked to-day to approve of these token votes. Take the De Wet Nel Technical High School at Kroonstad. An additional amount is to be voted here for additional toilet facilities at that high school. The amount asked for is R35,000, or rather that is the revised estimate of the total cost, and we are being asked to-day to vote the token sum of R1. The total amount to be expended this year is R50; R49 is to be met from savings on other services and the House is being asked to approve of R1. But in approving of this token amount of R1 we are in fact approving of an expenditure of R35,000. One can accept that there are times when there is a measure of urgency in providing adequate toilet arrangements, but it is difficult to appreciate that a sum of R35,000 is necessary to deal with that as an urgent matter in a school which apparently has not yet been built. Then, Sir, we go on to the next item, and this one is even more startling. I refer to the Tom Naude Technical High School at Pietersburg and the Commercial High School there. Between these two items the House is being asked to-day to vote a total of R100, but in doing so Parliament will be committing itself to an expenditure of R2,125,000. That is what these two items will cost by the time the work has been completed. There is a warning note here, applicable to both items to the effect that these are approximate estimates in the absence of full particulars, because the scheme itself has not been finally worked out. It is an approximate figure that can well be increased. I want to make this point clear, Sir. In dealing with these new Votes we are not objecting to the various items themselves. As far as one can judge they are all well-merited schemes. But what we are objecting to is this particular method of getting Parliament to approve of this tremendous expenditure. The urgency of the matters does not seem to be such as to warrant the amounts appearing in Additional Estimates of this sort. Many of these matters could well have waited for the Main Estimates. This might well be a convenient method of quietly tucking away as much as possible of an embarrassingly large surplus which the hon. the Minister of Finance himself is finding difficult to digest. There is another important feature to be noted, Sir. A very large proportion of these additional costs is being met from unexpended loan funds which the House was persuaded to vote last year. When you total the amounts that are being met from unexpended loan funds in other directions you will realize, Sir, that the Opposition was completely justified last year when we maintained that the taxpayer was not only being very heavily overtaxed but that there was ample justification for them to giving substantial relief to the pensioner group and to make greater provision for other important social services. This side of the House pleaded for the pensioners on that occasion, as you will remember, Sir. But the Minister then could not find the cash! Here is another example, Sir, on page 27—“Border Control Posts”. The Government has taken care to say that this is only the first portion of the services. The figure that we are asked to approve of is R3,500,000 of which R1,153,000 is to be spent this year and R1,152,950 is going to be met from under expenditure on other services. The total amount the House is asked to provide under this item in these particular Estimates is R50. Yet by its approval we are committing Parliament to an expenditure—and a first instalment only—of R3,500,000. You have a similar example on page 26 under Defence. There, may be justification for this case because the urgency does exist. There we have an amount of R140,000 to provide housing for the Coloured Corps and R760,000 for additions, alterations and improvements to defence establishments. Although one accepts the urgency in those cases and supports these provisions, the total expenditure we are being asked to approve of to-day to cover an expenditure of R900,000 is only R100. Of the R900,000 which is asked for R217,000 is to be spent this year and of that amount R216,900 odd is to be met by the diversion of loan funds provided last year for other services. Other services for which we made provision last year and which the Government did not use fully either because of the lack of manpower or the lack of material or for some other reason. [Time limit.]

I wish to refer to item (9), Indian Affairs on page 24—University College for Indians—Temporary accommodation: Second portion. The cost as already approved is R10,000. The revised estimates amount to R125,000 with a footnote reading “The original estimate was a nominal figure in the absence of details of requirements”. The revised expenditure for 1963-4 is R28,000 of which R17,999 is to met by savings from other services. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister could explain this amount in view of the fact that these are only temporary premises. This is temporary accommodation that is being provided in view of the fact that a new university college is to be built at a later date.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to explain two items on page 26. Firstly, item (16) Milnerton Radio Station—Conversion of former S.A.B.C. building. There seems to be a mystery about this. What building is this? To what is it to be converted and why? Secondly, item (20) Water Affairs—Worcester: Purchase of and renovation of a property to serve as an office for the Controller of Reconnaissance. I wonder whether the Minister would be good enough to tell us what a Controller of Reconnaissance is, or does, to justify this expenditure.

I want to turn to page 27, to the last but one of the items dealt with under the heading General. I refer to the item “Various Centres: Border Control Posts: First portion Engineering Services”. We are asked to approve a token expenditure of R50. But we are in fact asked to approve of a first expenditure of R3,500,000 for border posts. When the hon. the Minister replies will he explain to us what the term “Border Control Posts” implies? What is the urgent necessity for this sudden increase in expenditure in that direction. Is it a matter of defence? Is it part of the defence system that could well be debited to the defence of the country?

The hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) has raised a point which has been discussed on many occasions before and that is with regard to the way these Estimates are drawn up and presented to Parliament. In the many years that I have been here, both when I was sitting in the Government benches and in Opposition, this matter has been raised in very similar terms, and if my memory is correct, this matter has also from time to time been referred to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and it has been found in all these many years, and I presume for many years before I came here, that this system which we have now is the best we can think of and at any rate cannot be improved upon to any extent; otherwise this matter would have been dealt with in the past. I know the difficulty that matters come up here for the first time and you approve a Vote for R1 and in actual fact it may mean R100,000, but in the bookkeeping and the auditing of our accounts there seems to be no other way to do it. The hon. member has my sympathy, but unfortunately this is the way in which it has to be done.

As far as the other points raised by him are concerned, I will try to answer them. The first was in regard to Kroonstad, “De Wet Nel Technical High School: Additional toilet facilities”. On account of unhygienic conditions which constituted a danger to the health of the students, it was necessary to take steps. I am quiet sure the hon. gentleman is not taking exception to this. I do not know why he is so concerned about the hygiene at Kroonstad. The position seems to have been pretty bad there, and seeing it was bad I was called upon by the appropriate Department and we had a look at it; we found that this was an urgent matter and that we had to do it immediately and we could not wait till the Estimates for the next year were presented. So we tackled the matter immediately and I hope that the hygienic conditions at Kroonstad will be considerably improved by the efforts of my Department. The hon. member also wanted to know what the position is in regard to the Pietersburg Commercial High School. This high school is accommodated in the old air camp at Pietersburg, but now the air camp is required by the military for the Department of Defence, and we have to provide alternative accommodation as soon as we possibly can. The new school buildings must be ready for occupation by the end of 1964. With the development in our defence system, as the hon. member knows, considerable activities are going on at Pietersburg. The buildings that this school occupies were buildings belonging to the Defence authorities previously, they then handed them over to Education until such time as they would require them again. They now require these buildings urgently and we have to find alternative accommodation for the Pietersburg Commercial High School. It is a matter of great urgency.

Then the hon. member referred to Item 21, the sub-head “Border Control Posts”. Arising out of the Commonwealth Relations Act No. 41 of 1961, and the subsequent agreement with Great Britain on the control over the movement of persons between the Republic and the High Commission Territories, it has been decided to establish 35 border control posts. This is also work which is urgently required and cannot be postponed until the Estimates for next year are passed, and it is necessary to provide for this in the Additional Estimates. I personally think that this is a very necessary provision. As Minister I am not responsible for it although I agree with the hon. Minister of Justice who is actually the begetter of these posts—I am merely acting as his agent. But I think hon. members will realize—I am answering now on his behalf—that these posts are very necessary to control the passage of people between the Republic of South Africa and the adjoining territories. As hon. members no doubt know various precautions have had to be taken and are being taken. This is part of the precautions which are taken between any two countries in the world, but were not taken between South Africa (when it was the Union) and the adjacent territories in the past. But now with the Commonwealth Relations Act of 1961, it has become necessary for us to take these necessary steps and precautions. It has also become an urgent matter. I think that everybody realizes the necessity of this provision and the hon. member will realize that it could not wait.

The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) asked about the temporary accommodation at the University College for Indians. It was necessary to provide additional accommodation, in view of the diversity of courses of study offered and the increasing number of students. This required more buildings for the new faculties, as well as an increase in the number and size of the classrooms. The amount of R10,000 provided originally was intended to equip certain buildings as laboratories, but in the meantime it was decided to offer certain additional courses from the beginning of this academic year, and additional accommodation had to be provided for this purpose, and so the amount was increased from R10,000 to R125,000.

In reply to the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel), in regard to the conversion of the former S.A.B.C. Building at Milnerton, the power cable to the existing radio station at Kommetjie is in such bad condition that it will have to be replaced without delay and at considerable cost. The former S.A.B.C. Building at Milnerton, which is now Government owned, can be converted economically to suit the purposes of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Due to certain technical and administrative reasons it is also preferable that the radio station be transferred from Kommetjie to Milnerton. This radio station also forms an important link in the Republic’s land and sea communications that it is necessary to carry out the proposed conversion as soon as possible.

The hon. member also asked about the renovation of an office at Worcester for the Controller of Reconnaissance. As a result of the decentralization of the Division of Reconnaissance under the Department of Water Affairs, it was decided to establish an office at Worcester. As suitable State-owned accommodation was not available, it was decided after due investigation to purchase a property adjoining the existing boring depot for this purpose, and here we give the costs entailed. But the hon. member is not interested in the costs. He wanted to know who this official was, and what he does. I do not know what he does. I am merely acting as the agent of the Department of Water Affairs. He is an officer of the Department of Water Affairs who requires a building from which he can do his reconnaissance work with the greatest efficiency and to the satisfaction of the head of his Department, and I am there to see that all the facilities are provided, and I have carried out my duty.

I wonder whether the Minister can tell us something in connection with Item 21, “Cape Town, Acacia Park, R250,000”, and what the plans are there.

It is intended to make more provision for officials who come to Cape Town. Acacia Park is there for Members of Parliament and public servants who come down for the parliamentary session. With the prevailing housing shortage it is practically impossible for our officials to obtain accommodation while they are in Cape Town. The hotels are full and flats are almost unobtainable. Members of Parliament and officials have to struggle very hard to get accommodation, and if they do get accommodation they are charged such high rentals that it has become necessary for my hon. colleague to introduce a Bill to protect them. We also want to protect them by providing adequate accommodation, as far as it is possible to do so, to those officials who are obliged to come here for the session.

I hope the hon. the Minister will give me the assurance that he will provide a better type of accommodation there than exists at present.

I must say that our tenants there, as the result of the facilities we provide for them, can surely be counted amongst the most satisfied tenants in the whole of the Republic. They are more than satisfied. The hon. member is the first person I have come across who is really a sort of prophet of Baal in that family; he is the first one who has struck a discordant note in regard to the accommodation there. With the exception of that hon. member, practically everybody is highly satisfied with the facilities which we provide there.

I rise to inform my colleague that he cannot be familiar with the latest additions at Acacia Park, otherwise he would not have made the comments which he did here. I think a word of congratulation should be extended to the authorities concerned for these latest additions which have been made at Acacia Park. I think they are well worth a visit by some of my colleagues on both sides of the House.

To-morrow the Press will report a split in the United Party!

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote “C”.—“Telegraph, Telephone and Radio Services”, R1,600,000,

I should like to have information in regard to Item 2, the loan to the S.A.B.C., where there is an increase of R300,000 from R3,878,000 to R4,178,000.

The amount which was actually voted for the S.A.B.C., as hon. members will remember, was R34,000,000, according to the original Estimates. But now it happens that sometimes the personnel of the S.A.B.C. succeeds in getting the apparatus from overseas sooner, and this R300,000 is simply due to the fact that the S.A.B.C. has succeeded in expanding faster than was originally anticipated.

Part of the original loan was free of interest. Is this R300,000 also going to be given free of interest for a definite period?

For the first ten years interest is payable, but no redemption is paid over the first ten years. It is not free of interest; it is free of redemption for the first ten years.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote M.—“Education, Arts and Science,” R82,001,

I wish to ask the hon. the Minister the reasons for Item 3, “Loan to the National Film Board, R450,000”.

May I reply on behalf of my colleague? The hon. member is aware that a new undertaking was started here, and the amount of R8,000 is simply required to launch this new undertaking and to cover the expenditure for the period stipulated here.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote P.—“Coloured Affairs,” R379,000,

I think this item, “Coloured Development Corporation (Section 15 of Act No. 4 of 1962)” requires some explanation.