I would like to know what is going to happen with regard to this report of the Pensions Committee.

With the report is a cable from Belgium reading—

Perhaps I had better read the report. There is no recommendation from the committee. [Report read.] When there is no recommendation no date is fixed for consideration.

I want to move it be sent back to the committee for consideration. I want to explain the circumstances of this rather tragic case. The man has put his case from year to year.

The hon. member can move that the report be considered now, but if objection is taken it cannot be taken now and a date will have to be fixed.

I would like to move as an unopposed motion—

In view of the cable that has arrived.

objected.

Really I would appeal to the chairman not to press that.

Objection withdrawn.

seconded.

Motion put and agreed to

I hope the House will give me a few minutes in order that I may give the details of this rather tragic case which has been fought on the floor of the House these last few years.

Will the hon. member kindly indicate what motion he is going to move?

I move—

The position is very briefly as follows. This man, while on police duty, was ordered by his superior officer, never having been on a horse in his life, to mount a horse on the wrong side. He fell off the horse on his head and has been a nervous wreck ever since. That happened in 1914. They kept him in the service for a few years. He left in 1917. Instead of retiring him under the proper section which would have given him the right to full pension if incapable of further police duty he was retired as if superannuated in the ordinary way. The result was a small pension of £112, and he should have got £219. Gradually the pension has been increased from time to time, and eventually, in 1924, the Pensions Committee said this man ought to get what he was entitled to under Section 4, because he was disabled on duty, but they did not work out the thing mathematically. The matter was taken up by the Treasury, which had him boarded and it was decided to give him £180. He has also a wife to maintain. He could not live here on that money, and he went to Belgium, where he and his wife are just able to exist on that amount, The matter came before the Pensions Committee this session, and they decided to give him £219 on the certificate from the doctor who had examined him, although I maintain the man’s health had nothing to do with the position; he was only asking for what he was legally entitled to. This doctor says he had been suffering from haemorrhage of the stomach, but was in a better condition of health. That certificate arrived after the committee had agreed to give him £219. The chairman said they wanted the matter referred back. The Minister of Finance then moved that the committee be re-constituted for the purpose of reconsidering this case. In the meantime I have a certificate dated the 25th April, 1928, from another doctor, saying the man was in a serious condition of health, but because the committee had this certificate saying on the 1st of March he was better, the committee has decided to make no recommendation. Now a cable has been received from the same doctor who wrote on March 1st, saying the man is in a serious condition. The whole trouble is about £3 a month extra. You hear of people getting bonuses and pensions of thousands, and yet this poor man is having to fight for £3 a month which he is entitled to. I move it be referred back to the committee in the hope they will give the matter sympathetic consideration.

I second the motion. I am acquainted with this case from the very first, and I can substantiate everything the hon. member has said. He has referred to the sad circumstances under which this man was injured and his health completely shattered. It will be in the remembrance of the House when this case was under discussion the other day I pointed out that knowing the condition of health in which he left the country, although the doctor’s certificate might say he was in a better condition of health than he was the previous month, I venture to suggest that in his condition of health it was quite likely that at any moment he might get another hæmorrhage and it would be a most unfair thing if, owing to a temporary improvement in health the pension recommended by the Pensions Committee should not be granted. While he was in this country his health was recognized to be shattered. He got temporary employment in various departments, but owing to the state of his health it was not always possible to keep him. It is not alone the state of his health, but the clause of the Act under which he was pensioned was not the correct one, and if he had been retired under the proper clause of the Act, he would have been entitled to this extra amount of pension the committee have now granted him. Really, as a matter of equity he was not alone entitled to that amount of money, but also to the arrear payments which he would have received had his pension been granted on the basis on which it is being granted now. It would be a most serious and unfair thing to delay this question now, and I hope the House will agree and the chairman of the committee will agree to have it referred back to the committee for further consideration.

I think it is my duty to give the House again the facts in connection with this case. Naturally the House can refer the case back, but the matter has been completely misrepresented here. I shall go through the documents seriatim. The report on the petition of Mr. Sheridan reads as follows—

1. 1. Petitioner was retired on medical grounds in September, 1917, and in terms of Section 3 of Act 12 of 1874 was awarded a pension of £112 3s. per annum.
2. 2. The injuries mentioned by petitioner were received in 1914, three years prior to retirement, and the commissioner of police reported in regard thereto as follows—

1. 3. In 1920, three years after retirement, he seems to have petitioned Parliament for leave to have his pension computed, as if he had drawn the emoluments of a head constable for three years prior to retirement. This was accepted and the pension of £112 3s. per annum was increased to £125 15s. per annum with effect from the 29th of September, 1917.
2. 4. In 1921 he again petitioned Parliament for the payment of the difference in salary drawn by him as a sergeant and what he would have drawn as a head constable from the 1st April, 1913 to date of retirement. This petition was also accepted and an award of a gratuity of £123 19s. 10d. resulted.
3. 5. The Treasury is not aware of the considerations which influenced the select committees in coming to their decisions on the two petitions referred to above.
4. 6. In 1924 petitioner again presented a petition to Parliament praying that he be treated as pensioned under Section 4 (retirement resulting from injury sustained on duty) instead of Section 3 of Act 12 of 1874 as a result of which the following item was included in the Pensions Supplementary Bill—

As a result the pension was further increased to £180 per annum.

1. 7. The petitioner’s request is that this last increase be made effective from the date of retirement.
2. 8. The medical board by which petitioner was examined at the time of his retirement, assessed his earning capacity as impaired by 50 per cent, and this same degree of impairment was arrived at by another medical board which examined him on the 9th instant.

It is not known to the Treasury whether-petitioner has been in employment outside the Government service since his retirement, but he has been in Government employ for the following periods—

Native Affairs—2-10-23—31-7-24 at 10s.

per day terminated by resignation.

Customs Dept.—22-5-22—31-12-22 at 10s.

per day, terminated on re-organization. This employment supports the medical board’s finding as to the degree of impairment of earning capacity not being total. It is recommended that the prayer be declined.

That was all before the select committee, and the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander) also gave evidence and argued the matter strongly. He thought that the percentage of incapacity of the man, which was put at 50 per cent., had nothing to do with the matter, thereafter the committee received letters from Dr. H. Loonus, and I think I had better read out what he wrote to the chairman of the select committee, so that hon. members can see what the position is. He writes—

P.S. Please, therefore, take note of this statement when the certificate of February, 1928, is handed over, and I enclose herewith a further certificate.

And then another certificate was sent, as follows—

Yesterday the hon. member again argued the case before the committee, and submitted another certificate signed by the British Consul, but the consul’s signature was only to show that that was the man he had had to do with, but the consul said nothing about the disease. This morning another cable has come, saying that Dr. Loonus, the same doctor again, would send another certificate. I do not believe it will come in time for the committee to deal with it, and if it comes it will have to wait till next year, and if the position really is as stated, it will have to be entirely reinvestigated entirely by the medical board, but I do not think it is necessary to refer it back now.

Motion put and the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, may I call your attention to the fact that an hon. member has posted a notice behind his seat. Is that in accordance with the rules of the House?

The hon. member must take the notice down.

I am sorry that I was not in the House last night—perhaps it was as well—but there are occasions when one may take it easy, and I thought last night was the occasion. In the meantime a storm arose in this committee and harsh things were said to which I wish to refer this morning. Charges were made last night about the misuse of motor-cars by colleagues of mine in former years.

No, we made no charges of misuse.

And what was worse, the Minister of Public Works made a charge against the Auditor-General of this country. As reported in the press, and the report has gone all over the country to-day, the hon. the Minister said that he had been singled out for adverse report and comment by the Auditor-General because he was a Labour Minister, and not a South African party Minister. That is a very gross charge, and my hon. friend the Prime Minister would agree with me that it is quite impossible to leave the matter there. The Auditor-General is one of the highest officers of this House and of this country, an officer of Parliament of the very highest standing. His usefulness depends entirely on his reputation for impartiality and for fairness as between the parties. When a Minister of the Crown makes a statement of that kind, it is quite impossible to leave it there. I am glad the hon. the Minister agrees with me. We must protect the Auditor-General. I may say this in regard to our present Auditor-General, who has been a personal friend of mine for years. I have known him for a lifetime, and I have never known a more impartial man who sticks more closely to the discharge of his duties, irrespective of all irrelevant outside considerations, than Mr. Roos. I do not know what his politics are. For many years I have never discussed any political question with him. I do not think there is a single member of this House who knows what his politics are, if he has any. He has one single eye to the impartial performance of his duty, and he has no doubt bumped up against more than one Government and more than one person, but he has done his work impartially and well. There are two courses open to us to-day. Either the Minister must withdraw his statement unreservedly, or if he does not, the only course open is for the Government to appoint a judicial inquiry to go into the question of the exercise of his discretion by the Auditor-General.

Why judicial? Being an officer of this House, why should not tile inquiry be from this House?

The Prime Minister will understand that if you have a select committee of this House, you at once drag in the party question. The Auditor-General is surely entitled to the fullest protection possible, and not to be subjected to a party vote of this House in a matter which involves his discretion. I do not think that would be right.

I think the Prime Minister will agree that would not meet the situation fairly. The Auditor-General has to exercise a judicial discretion and report upon the finances ad expenditure of the country, and I think he is entitled to a judicial inquiry into the exercise of his discretion if any imputation is made, such as was made last night. I would press the Government to do this, because I think the position is quite untenable as it is now. If what was said last night is true, there is only one way out of the difficulty, and that is that we ought to petition the Governor-General for the removal of this officer. You cannot allow as an Auditor-General in this country a gentleman who exercises his discretion in the way the Minister stated last night. I think we shall all agree if is a matter of extreme gravity, not only for the present Auditor-General personally, but for the public service of this country and the good functioning of our whole machinery of State.

I think you ought to move for a Committee of the House.

T would not do that.

The House is the proper body to deal with its officials.

If a Committee of this House is appointed the matter is going to be decided upon party lines, and it is unfair to ask the Auditor-General to subject himself to treatment of that kind.

That surely is a very poor opinion of the House.

Why should it be? Do not committees decide by a majority of votes? Is that not the usual practice?

Some years ago you had an inquiry, and it resulted in a very impartial report.

It is a case of an officer of the House. He is not a member of this House, and he occupies a judicial position. He holds a statutory position which is of the highest importance to this House and to the country, and the statement has been made in regard to the exercise of his functions, not by an ordinary member of the House, but by a member of the Government that commands the great majority of votes in this House. Surely it is trifling with the subject to say that this should be decided by a select committee that is conducted on party lines. I think that would be most unfair. The proper course is to inquire through a judge of the Supreme Court. At that inquiry the allegations that have been made last night an also be gone into. They must necessarily be gone into. It is difficult to make charges of that kind extending over a series of years. They depend on details most of which would be unknown to the Ministers concerned. Their private secretaries would be the only people conversant with the details. At any rate, nobody remembers all the petty details of expenditure extending over a long number of years, and long ago. It is unfair to the people who are charged. You are not likely to arrive at the right result either. Under those circumstances I think it would be far the best thing to take this matter out of the bitter arena of party politics, and let it be inquired into judicially. The inquiry into the exercise of the discretion of the Auditor-General would necessarily involve a decision on these matters, too, and the House and the country would have an impartial decision for recommendation on what has occurred in regard to these matters. I would press the Government very strongly not to leave the matter there. For the honour of the country and this House and of government in this country, the matter cannot be left there. If the Government of this country is run in the way that was imputed last night, there will be an intolerable sense of wrong spread in this country, and we must remove that feeling of insecurity in regard to the financial administration of this country. That being so, I would urge the Government very strongly to follow the course that I have suggested, and appoint a judge to inquire into these matters.

I think what the hon. member for Standerton (Gen. Smuts) said this morning is quite right, namely, that we expect of the Auditor-General, as possibly the highest officer of this House, to show, in making his criticism, and in his judgments, the greatest and most precise measure of impartiality and justice. Every one of us feels that if there is one officer outside the bench of judges from whom we can, and ought with every justice to expect that he will give a strictly judicial judgment, and will be strictly impartial towards all parties, it is the Auditor-General, and that when therefore an attack is made on him, even if imputations are made against him of not acting strictly impartially, but of showing favour to one or other, or allowing prejudice to weigh, that that ought only to be done when there is actual proof of it. So that in such a case Parliament, to whom he is subordinate, can intervene to see that everything is put on a proper basis in the interests of the country. So far I quite agree with the hon. member for Standerton. He thinks, however, that after what has been said by the Minister here, there can in this case be nothing but a judicial inquiry. Before I go into that, I wish to add the following. I do not know precisely what words the Minister used, but let me say this, that what the Auditor-General did in this case is clearly something which puts the Minister under a fairly great stigma. If it were not so, then I want to ask why my hon. friends opposite have made such an astonishing fuss, and why what the Minister has done is called malpractice, and why the machinery of the press through the length and breadth of the country has been set in motion to place him under a dark cloud. My hon. friends opposite are thus in the first place responsible for what has taken place. Now, apart from that, I come to the question whether the person or persons to make the inquiry should be judges or members of the House. The hon. member for Standerton says that, if they were members of this House it would be playing with the matter. Well, I want to say at once that I differ very much from the hon. member. This House is constituted out of the leading men from the heart of the people. It is true indeed that we are party men, but let me say firstly that I doubt if we could find one man in South Africa who is not a party man, whether he is a judge or anything else. What distinguishes a judge from a member of Parliament is only this, that, when he is on the bench and called upon to decide a case and give judgment, then he puts aside his political party matters, and he decides objectively what is right and fair. But I cannot imagine that any member from this assembly would act differently if he were appointed to decide il matter such as this. I can speak from experience. A committee of this House inquired into a matter affecting me, and I did not find the least partisan feeling in the treatment of the matter, or in the decision which was ultimately given, and I must say this, that I have the fullest confidence that, if members of this House are appointed, they will go to work, if they have to decide anything, along the same lines, and that they will act on the same basis. The hon. member for Standerton said that he knows the Auditor-General well, and that he is a friend of his. I say that I also know the Auditor-General well, and that he is a great friend of mine. I restrain myself from saying anything this morning which might in the least influence any decision to which those who may be appointed to hold the inquiry may come, but I say that I am convinced that from our midst a committee or commission can at any time be appointed that will investigate the matter with the same conscientious impartiality as we could find in any other place, and I go further and say that it is the duty of the House to do the work. If this House is not able to carry it out, then it is not able to do anything of a weighty national kind. I say again that I do not know what words the Minister used, but, whatever they were, I quite agree with the hon. member for Standerton that if the impartiality of the Auditor-General was questioned, it is desirable that an inquiry should be held as soon as possible, because we should immediately stop it at its source. I am therefore in favour of an inquiry, but then I should like the hon. member for Standerton to introduce a motion for the appointment of a select committee to make the inquiry, and let me say at once that it is an established fact that where an inquiry of this kind has to be an objective one in a way that is free of all outside political influence, the lawyers are those who are able to do it properly, and I hope that if the House decide on it, it will then consider the desirability of appealing to the lawyers as far as possible in our midst to make the necessary inquiry and bring in a report. I think that if the hon. member will move for the appointment of such a select committee, it will be unanimously agreed to, and I have not the least doubt that, with regard to the personnel of it, there will not be the least difficulty in arranging the matter between him and myself.

The Prime Minister will see that it is very difficult at this stage to appoint a select committee of the House to go into the matter. We have reached the last days of the session. The matter to be submitted to them will make it necessary for them to have many documents, to hear evidence, etc., and such an inquiry, if it is to be properly done, will take a considerable time. We cannot do it here this session, because the session is nearly at an end, and to allow the matter to stand over to the next session will not, as the Prime Minister will agree, be the right course, and will not give satisfaction. How at this stage a proper inquiry can be made by members of this House, if an impartial decision is expected, I cannot see. That is one of my difficulties, and I therefore thought that the best way would be to appoint a judge to take evidence and give a decision. It can be done when Parliament is not sitting, but if we have to sit until an inquiry by a select committee of this House is completed, we shall possibly have to sit for weeks, if not much more. In the circumstances I would suggest that the best thing would be to have a judicial inquiry. The inquiry to which my hon. friend referred was held at the commencement of a session, and the committee had time to go into the facts and give a decision. Of course, I make no implication against the impartiality of members of this House, I know that hon. members on select committees do their best to exercise their discretion to the best of their knowledge, and according to their consciences. But the nature of our institutions is such that we act on party lines, and the most important matters that come before select committees are often decided on those lines. Important matters are decided upon as party matters.

This is a matter of public importance, and it is a question of personal honour.

The Minister will see that it is not only a question here of the discretion of the Auditor-General, but that it is mixed up with the question how members of the previous Government years ago made use of motors. It is therefore not only a matter of a judicial nature but is mixed up with circumstances of political consideration, and I think that in the circumstances it will be best for the matter to be investigated as soon as possible, and I cannot see how, with the best intentions in the world, a select committee during the present session—

They can sit as a commission during the recess.

I think the Prime Minister will see that the appointment of a judge would, in any case, be better, and I hope he will still consider the desirability, and will see that an entirely impartial inquiry takes place, which both sides of the House will look to with greater satisfaction, than to the decision of a committee on which one side of the House has a majority.

I put the vote.

I did not want us to continue the bitter debate. I feel that imputations are being made which I am convinced can be contradicted. I am certain that if there is a proper inquiry, a proper explanation of the matter will be given.

I do not want to fight the matter out here. The Minister did not, I think, say that anything improper had been done. The Minister only said that something for which he had been criticized had been the custom in the past. He never said that it was improper.

It was not the practice in the past. I think I can give the assurance that that can be established. The report of the select committee is not yet out, but there is evidence before the select committee. It is not before the House, but I want to ask the question whether the finding of the select committee was reached by a majority or unanimously.

I understand that it was not a party division.

I want to urge strongly upon the Prime Minister that it will give more satisfaction if there is a judicial inquiry. It seems to me that we cannot let the matter rest where it is. The appointment of a select committee does not seem to me to be the right course, and in the circumstances I hope the Prime Minister will follow my suggestion.

I do not wish to say any more about the matter, but just to let it be understood that I do not hereby give my approval to the proposal of the hon. member for Standerton. I think that in the circumstances a commission appointed from this House will be better than getting persons from outside. It is only a question of a commission from within, or outside of the House.

May I say to the right hon. gentleman that he was not here last night, so I am afraid his information is rather incomplete, because he opened his remarks by saying that I made charges against his late Ministerial colleagues. I did nothing of the sort.

Oh yes, you did.

No. The charge was made against me of having improperly used Government motor cars in that I used these motor cars to go from my house to my office, and all I did was to show that that was the custom of the lato Government, and I quoted chapter and verse, so do not let the right hon. gentleman mix up the two. Let him leave out this question of charges against his colleagues or insinuations, because I made none. I think on one occasion—Hansard will bear me out or otherwise and I would commend the right hon. gentleman to Hansard for the source of his information and not conversations, nor the papers, and he will see exactly what took place—I think I said in the course of my remarks that I quite approved of what they did.

Taking vegetables to market?

No, not that.

Then why did you bring it up?

Because that was done.

That is a charge.

If that is regarded by the right hon. gentleman as a general charge against his Ministers, then I have nothing more to say.

Reitz?

Yes, Reitz was another, but the point was that my going between the house and the office was being used by me as an example of its having been the practice of the late Government right through the piece. The others were definite charges—Reitz using the car to Port Elizabeth to hold a political meeting and the case of carting vegetables to market by Mr. Burton. That was a charge, and if the right hon. gentleman desires this to be inquired into by a select committee, such as he suggests, I have no objection personally, but what I do want to make perfectly clear is that the whole burden of my speech last night was to show that what I had done had been done by the colleagues of the right hon. gentleman, and was perfectly legal, and in their case was passed by the Auditor-General. In view of his having brought up this other aspect of the question, I do not propose any further to deal with that aspect of it. I had intended to; the right hon. gentleman is perfectly correct when he says that what I said last night with regard to the Auditor-General warrants an enquiry, and I join with him when he says that such an enquiry should he instituted, and the other matters that I have to deal with, I will not deal with on this occasion, but reserve to bring before the Committee of Inquiry, for which I hope the right hon. gentleman is going to move. It is perfectly correct—an inquiry is not only warranted but imperative, for the sake of the Auditor-General, of Parliament, of the public service generally and the public interest generally.

Don’t you think a judicial inquiry—

Whitewashing?

No; the right hon. gentleman fears, and it is a stricture on Parliament, that such an inquiry will not give an impartial judgment. If you can think of a worse insinuation than that—they are impartial; we cannot be. If you will permit me to use such an example, although the report is not actually before the House, my information is that the Public Accounts Committee in considering this very question of mine—

The Public Accounts Committee has not reported.

But may I anticipate this—it is a perfectly impartial report they are going to present to this House—perfectly intuitive, of course.

I think it would be better if the committee did not discuss the report at all now, or refer to it.

The right hon. gentleman has referred to an inquiry where he was on the carpet, so to speak, and he was perfectly satisfied with that committee. He very generously said he accepted the impartiality of the other side. Can you not be equally generous? Or is their political bitterness so deeply ingrained that nothing good can come from this side? I am prepared to state that hon. members on this side are of equal integrity and honesty in their desire —their equal desire—to do what is right. [Interruptions.] Why not: why object? If the right hon. gentleman subscribes to these sentiments, why does he object to an inquiry by this House? The Auditor-General is an officer of this House, and reports to Parliament. He is under nobody else’s supervision. This body, and this body alone, controls, and has anything to do with, the Auditor-General; it is not this body which has to inquire; they have to get and to weigh the evidence and to come to a conclusion on the evidence. The Prime Minister is perfectly correct—that the only inquiry that ought to be instituted, and I personally subscribe to that, is a select committee of this House.

I am sorry that when the Minister spoke he did not make use of the opportunity to moderate the language he used last night. This would have been a very suitable opportunity. When he got up I thought he would have done the generous thing. I made no imputation against this House. I know that on a point of honour any side and all sides of the House would do the best thing. If I were concerned in a matter of honour, I would submit myself to the other side of the House, as to this side, without the least compunction and hesitation. This is a different matter. We have not to deal with a member of this hon. House, but with a public servant. Our machinery is necessarily of a party character, and we should not use our machinery in a matter like this. I ask the Prime Minister what will be the position of the Auditor-General if the commission reports with a majority and a minority report? It would be an impossible position. You would have a decision by a political body, because we are political, and we are a political body, and you would place the Auditor-General, whose honour is at stake, and to whom honour is everything in the matter, in an impossible position. I do not think we would carry the matter further in discussing it in this House. I hope the Prime Minister will consider it carefully; in view of what has been said in this House we must follow up the matter. This high officer is entitled to look to this House for protection. He has served the country for a long time, and in a short time will retire from the service of the House and of the country, and we do not like a servant like that to leave his great career behind him with a slur cast upon him. We ought to give him every opportunity of vindicating himself.

What is really the point which is going to be enquired into?

The charge made by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs last night. I do not know whether the Prime Minister was here. I was not—

I presume that, as the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs referred to me personally, I would be in order to refer to that.

Quite different.

When the Minister said he was going to withdraw the statement he had made I thought he was referring to the statement that the only reason for referring to him was because he was a Minister in the Pact Government. The Minister has not denied that. That was a statement he made in the course of the debate, and it is perfectly free for every hon. member to refer to it. I am only sorry that the Minister has not withdrawn it. I rose last night on account of what the hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel) said, and on account of what the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) said. He made a charge against me and others that we had used the motor services of the Government on all occasions for our private business. In his reply the Minister left the impression on the House that I had cost the Government £170 odd simply for running from my office in the Union Buildings to the club.

You forget the Grand Hotel.

My hon. friend proceeded to say that I had used a Government car on several journeys of a long character, and that on a couple of times the vouchers showed that I had gone to Irene. I think if he will have the vouchers looked into he wilt see that I went several times to Irene, which is the residence of the late Prime Minister, but whenever I went there on a private visit I was charged with the use of motor-cars. I daresay it will be found that on one or two occasions I visited Irene on Government business to interview the then Prime Minister. The Minister also said that he has a voucher for my use of a motor-car from Cape Town to Somerset Strand. I had forgotten the matter until a member called my attention to it. I was then Minister of Agriculture, and I now remember going to the Strand at the request of the local people to open a poultry show. Does my hon. friend think that I went there on my private business? He also referred to my using a motor-car to proceed to Stellenbosch, but I am certain I did not use the Government motor service, unless I travelled in an official capacity. I felt this matter so much last night that after the House adjourned I wrote the following letter to the Secretary for Agriculture; the then Secretary for Agriculture is, unfortunately, no more, but his chief assistant secretary is now Secretary for Agriculture—

My reason for writing this letter was that the House and I understood from what the Minister said that I was in the habit of rushing from my club to the office on my own private business in Government cars. He made a great point of these visits to the club, as if I had proceeded there for the purpose of securing the necessary refreshment, which, at my age, it might be considered necessary that I should have in order to fit me for the performance of my duties. When in Pretoria I stayed at the club and Grand Hotel, and whenever I and my private secretary—having been absent on public business—arrive by train at Pretoria, naturally, a motor-car was waiting at the station to take us to our residences and to the Union offices. I think when an investigation is held the Minister will find that the statement I have made is correct. I consider it is most unfair to me that the insinuation should have been made, notwithstanding the statement I have made, that I have knowingly and willingly caused the Government to incur a heavy expenditure on my purely private business and on motor-car trips not associated with public business whatsoever.

There was the Minister’s accusation about your burning vouchers.

I did not want to refer to that. The Minister, unfortunately, did say it, but I think he said it in the heat of passion. I gave the Minister full credit for incurring his expenditure on motor-cars believing it was in accordance with the general regulations of the service, and that he had agreed to pay the surcharge made by the Auditor-General. Under those circumstances, I think the Minister’s position was one that needed rectification in the direction indicated by the Auditor-General. I agree that an inquiry of the fullest possible nature should be made, but the Auditor-General is not the Auditor-General of the House of Assembly, he is the Auditor-General of the Union, and an officer of Parliament, which includes the Senate, and if you have an inquiry, it should not be restricted to this House alone.

I want to express my extreme regret at saying what I did to my right hon. friend last night. We do say these things occasionally when we get heated, and sometimes things said in a joke are taken seriously. I would hand the hon. member over my private correspondence with a feeling of the utmost security. I hope he will forget the remark. I must join issue with him, however, on one point. I made no charge against the right hon. member nor any of his colleagues of having improperly used motor-cars, with the exception of Mr. Burton and Col. Reitz.

Are the charges true?

They are true. I still maintain those charges. I am not referring to the right hon. member who has written a private letter to the Secretary for Agriculture.

I have not written a private letter.

... to be laid before the Minister with the request that the statement shall be drawn up by Mr. Cilliers. I do not want to get drawn off on that. I want to object to the terms of reference he has given to Colonel Wil liams, namely, that I have made a charge that the right hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) used cars purely for private business. The whole question turns upon the propriety of using these cars from the office to your house. That is the question. The charge against me is that I did wrong in using a. Government motor car to travel from my house to my office, and I used the illustration of the right hon. gentleman’s use of motor cars to prove that that is what they had been doing. It is not right for the right hon. gentleman in his letter to talk about purely private business, because unless Colonel Williams can hear all the facts as they occurred in this House, he will entirely misunderstand what the right hon. gentleman is driving at.

If I was a resident of Pretoria and I used the car day by day to go backwards and forwards between my house arid my office, I should consider it entirely private business, not associated with Government work.

That is just the point. Colonel Williams will not know that. On that specific illustration of the right hon. gentleman I will cite the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. Duncan) who was then Minister of the Interior who day after day used a motor to go from his residence to his office in Pretoria. I have the records here. He lived in Schoeman Street. If that is what the right hon. gentleman regards as using it on private business, he is out of court at once, and my contention is correct and proven. I want it thoroughly understood that a letter like that is not likely to extract the right information. What he should do is to ask Colonel Williams if he ever used a motor car to go from his house to his office and not pay for it. That is what he has to ask Colonel Williams and my hon. friend and colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, to sanction a statement upon, not on the general terms of purely private business.

I just want to clear up what the complaint against the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was. There was not the least question that the Minister had used the motor for private purposes, the whole complaint was that he used it from his house or from the station to his office. There was not a single other complaint. I can unfortunately not refer to the report of the select committee, hut the fault which was found with the Auditor-General—

The hon. member must not refer to the imputations against the Auditor-General.

I only want to point out what the complaint was, against any person whomsoever in connection with what was done in the past, and if it was done in the past then according to that opinion it is necessary to repay every penny of expenditure incurred in that way in the past, and that is not the case. In the past all the Ministers, except the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) used motors, and not a word was said about it by any official whatever. Now in the case of the Minister of Posts a fault is found. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Nel), who is a member of the select committee, knows well enough that there was no other question before it, except the fact that the Minister of Posts motored from his house or from the station to the office in Pretoria. That was always done in the past, but in the case of the Minister an objection was made, and they are now using it to attack the present Government.

I do not want to pursue this subject except to say that as far us I understood the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. J. F. Tom Naudé) I do not agree with his remarks regarding what happened in committee.

The hon. member cannot discuss what happened in committee. The committee’s report is not before the House.

I said that I did not propose going on with that discussion. I should like to get some information from the hon. the Minister as to what his present views are on the question of automatic exchanges. We know that previously his view was that he was not going to deal with automatic exchanges in this country, because he felt it was going to affect the amount of employment amongst post office officials. I would like to ask him whether he has any evidence whatever that the institution of automatic exchanges in Port Elizabeth and Pietermaritzburg has affected any employee of the Government; and whether it is probably true that the fact of specially skilled men being necessitated for automatic exchanges widened (he field of employment? As far as one can see, far from doing anything to help the post office to improve the position of its telephone business, if he will refer to the Auditor-General’s report, page 259, paragraph 27, he will see that he is not only not going to do anything to instal automatic exchanges, but he is spending £2,253 in order to change buildings which were rearranged for automatic exchanges so that they cannot in future be used for automatic exchanges, but will have to have manual exchanges put in their place. In the tender journal of April 5th I noticed that the post office accepted two large tenders for manual exchanges—one at East London, costing £12,720 and one at Kimberley, costing £7,135. So I take it the hon. the Minister is maintaining his previous attitude that there are not to be any automatic exchanges installed in South Africa. There has been a rumour during the last two weeks that he has given definite instructions that no private automatic exchange is to be allowed to be used in connection with any Government exchange, thereby not only preventing in his own department the installation of any automatic exchange, but preventing any private corporation from using automatic exchanges, because they would not be allowed to be connected with the central exchange.

There was a statement the other day that it would not be allowed.

The Minister has not made a statement and I cannot believe that he is using his power, as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, to prevent private individuals and private cooperations from using the most efficient kind of exchange that is known to-day. I would ask him whether he has any further reports from competent officials on the question of automatic exchanges. The postmaster general has, I understand, been in Europe for some time on official business, and perhaps the Minis ter will tell us whether he took that opportunity of asking the postmaster general to inquire into the working of telephones in Europe and, if so, what is the result of the postmaster general’s inquiries. In view of the Minister’s attitude in this matter, it may be useful to give the House some information as to what has been done only within the last two years in connection with automatic exchanges. I find that in Great Britain, exclusive of the London area, 45 automatic exchanges have, during that period, been installed. As indicating the extent to which this principle is being applied in Great Britain. I may mention some of the principal places, namely Southampton, Swansea, Sheffield. Brighton. Edinburgh, Leicester, Chesterfield, West Hartlepool, etc. In all, outside of London, there are 45 exchanges which have been completed and installed within the last two years, in addition to the automatic exchanges which were in action before that time. As regards London. I suppose, with the exception of New York, the biggest telephone area in the world, the whole of the London area is being changed over from manual to automatic exchanges, and, in addition to that, every other dominion, beside ourselves, is developing the automatic exchange system, and South America, Egypt, and various other foreign countries, Switzerland, Japan, Belgium, France, Germany, every other modern country, one may say, is changing from manual to automatic exchanges. [Time limit.]

I do not think my hon. friend (Mr. Stuttaford) need have gone as far as South America for examples. The Minister has not even consulted his colleagues, because I find in the Brown Book, where provision is made for capital and betterment works expenditure, the railway department has an item here in Cape Town—automatic telephone exchange, £10,120. Then, at Naauwpoort, an automatic exchange is to be provided, and also at East London and Johannesburg. As far as I can see, we have one Minister following one policy and another Minister following another policy in this matter. There does not seem to be any co-operation between the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Minister of Railways and Harbours. It runs right through the whole of this Brown Book. What is my hon. friend going to do here? Take Cape Town, where the railways are going to spend £10,120 on automatic exchanges. Is my hon. friend going to refuse to connect up? If he connects up the automatic exchanges of the railway department, how’ can he refuse to connect up the automatic exchange of a private individual? I think a statement appeared in the paper the other day that such was the intention of the department. We ought to get some information with regard to this matter. The Minister will see that there are other officials who do support the automatic exchange system, and who see it is to the benefit of the country.

I would just like to remind the Minister that these automatic exchange telephones have been working in Durban for some years. I have had considerable experience of them myself, and I have always found them very satisfactory, and most of the people in Durban, so far as I know, are fully satisfied with them. As regards the fear that the Minister seems to have that the girls who work at the present exchanges would be discharged, that is the only reason, so far as I can find, why the Minister objects to the automatic system. In Durban, when the change took place, all the girls got situations elsewhere, and not one was worse off, and I am sure the Minister could easily arrange for that being done for the girls in other places. Several Government departments are using the automatic exchange, and are thoroughly satisfied with it. We find in the report of the Railway Board that the automatic telephone exchanges at Bloemfontein and at the precooling plant at Cape Town “are giving good service.” I do not think it is fair that the Minister should take advantage of his position and the power his position gives him to stand in the way of progress in a matter like this, simply because of some little personal fad or feeling that he has. These exchanges are being used all over the world because they are found to be better, less expensive on the whole in working, and more satisfactory to the public than the old system. Why should this country be kept back simply because the Minister has a personal whim? The Minister ought to be ashamed of himself. He ought to show that he is open to reason and to new ideas, and that he wants this country to go ahead with other countries, and I hope he will change his position and policy.

These town people here have all the conveniences, but we, in the back country, have no conveniences. In my constituency there are people living 100 miles from the nearest telephone or telegraph office. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) brought in the electrification scheme in Cape Town, which is going to cost a tremendous amount of money. If that had been spent in the back country—

The hon. member cannot discuss that now

I am discussing that we want telephone lines in Namaqualand. Our needs are far more pressing because we have no telephones there.

You have a loud speaker there.

We have a State diamond diggings, but there is no telephone connection with the nearest town.

You cannot have both.

Oh, yes; the diamonds will pay for themselves in any case. The people over there are never satisfied. I think the Minister must close his mind to that side, and give us what we want in the country, because we are deprived of all conveniences.

You are getting them.

We might get them one day—when we are dead.

A telephone won’t be much use to you when you are dead.

These people have their telephones, and now they want something better. They will want to turn it on like they turn on a hot water tap. On the platforms they criticize the Government for spending money, and yet they are clamouring for more every day. They are like a bucket that has no bottom to it. They must at least be consistent.

We want value for the money we spend.

They get far more value than the money they spend, but the Government does not get value for it. It is some private individual who pulls the strings to make his property worth more money. I would like the Minister to look at the backveld, where people are deprived of everything.

They save money on the automatic telephones.

They may save money in ten years’ time, and where shall we be then? On the electrification we were also supposed to save We are dropping money on it. I ask the Minister not to listen to that side. It is the backveld people who are the backbone of the country, who slave year in and year out to supply these people with food.

I agree with the hon. member to the extent that I would like to see as many country telephones constructed as possible, but if you are going to have many of them, you must have the greatest economy in the working of the department. It is because this automatic telephone system is not alone more suitable and expeditious, but because it is also much more economical, that it is being urged. I sympathize with the hon. member when he says he does not want telephones when he is dead. If he did, he might cause a great deal of trouble to the department, because they would not know along what line of communication to transmit the message. We have heard of such things as lines fusing. My hon. friend knows perfectly well that if he wants to get telephonic communication throughout the length and breadth of the country, which is so very essential, money cannot be better spent than in bringing farms into closer communication with business centres, and in introducing automatic telephones. When I was in Western Australia, I was much interested in the automatic telephone system there. In the hotel in which I was staying, if I wanted to get into communication with anybody, you could do so practically instantaneously by just turning the dial of the telephone. If the line happened to be engaged you at once got a signal to show that was so.

It is a much more economical system. I do think the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) must be ill-advised I am sure he is reading from, not last year’s ready reckoner, but Brown Book. I would like to congratulate my hon. friend the Minister, because if the Minister of Railways and Harbours Were here it would" lead to such serious differences as to lead to more serious consequences— for the Minister to be a party to the railway department being allowed to devote money for the construction of automatic telephones because they find them necessary for the better discharge of their business and more economical, and the Minister to say that he will refuse such to other public businesses and undertakings. I would never have expected it in a Cabinet with collective views. I would never have expected that in ordinary political decency the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would allow in the railway department what he would not allow private businesses to take advantage of, and that he would be so churlish as not to allow them to do so.

I really cannot understand the Minister’s retrograde policy. He is looked to by his admirers as one of the hustling type, one who wants to see things done, one who is up-to-date. When the present Minister of Labour was Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, after investigation and consultation with experts, he decided and commenced to construct automatic telephones in the large centres, a policy which one would naturally expect.

Then the present Minister came in, and without consulting his experts he changed the whole policy. The money spent on the buildings intended for the installation of automatic telephones has been wasted. The capital cost of the installation has been considerably reduced, and with the single exception of South Africa, every country in the world has adopted this system.

Rubbish!

The Minister has sanctioned the installation of the automatic system for domestic purposes in his own post office, and the system has been adopted on the railways and by various municipalities. The Minister must have heard of an historic person called Rip van Winkel, and his attitude reminds me of the time when the spinning wheel was introduced into England and people opposed its introduction, as they thought it would cause a great deal of unemployment. The community is entitled to have a good and substantial reason for this unbending—I might say this obstinate —attitude of the Minister. I now have a personal matter to ventilate. I asked for a telephone extension between my farm and the farm workshop about 150 yards away. I am told this will cost £4, which seems to me wholly unreasonable, and when I suggested that I might have the connection made myself, I was told that that is not permitted.

It is an absolute monopoly.

It undoubtedly is. Will the Minister investigate the matter and see if a more reasonable charge can be made? I am citing my case, but the Minister will appreciate that the principle is of general application.

The policy of the Government has been to try to keep the people on the land. Farmers sincerely appreciate what the Minister has done to meet us in the matter of telephonic communication. Lines are being built to a very large extent, but I urge on the Minister to try and reduce the charges. Some of these charges are impossible. I say you could bring them on a par with the charges that are being made in the towns. I think it is not fair to charge, for instance, the firm of Jagger and Company £5 for the use of their telephone per year, when farm telephone lines are being charged £15 to £20.

How do you know that is the charge? I don’t know myself.

I know the proportion is very small. I say we are being charged far more proportionately for the use of our telephones on the backveld than firms in town. I will urge on the Minister that, while they are doing everything in their power to meet us and having as many telephone lines as possible, the platteland is not getting its legitimate share of those lines.

In view of the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition, that the subject matter of my motion is to be fully inquired into, I wish, with the leave of the House, to withdraw my motion.

With leave of committee, amendment proposed by Mr. Nel withdrawn.

I agree with the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) that the more the telephone system is extended over the country, the better, but I would say that were the farmers of this country to be asked to choose, I think they would sooner bear the ills they have in regard to rates and have the money expended in connection with further extensions, because, though a certain number of people would like to have lower charges, there are a large number of people who, if you make those charges too cheap, will have no opportunity of being connected up. After all, the department can only spend a certain sum of money. Last year they spent £170,000 and this year £115,000. I do not think you can say the charges are excessive in all the circumstances. The department has done a great deal. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet knows that nine-tenths of the farm lines are party lines, so that whatever the charge, it will be divided over six, seven or ten persons. The main thing to urge on the Minister is that he should economise in every possible direction and see how much money he can possibly get to increase the farming lines throughout the country. Take the case of an outlying farm, away from railways, the advantage of a telephone is realized, especially so far as women are concerned. They are not only enabled to get the news, but they are able to communicate with one another and it has been found in the United States that the telephone has been the greatest stimulus in bringing and encouraging people to remain on the land.

I just want to call the Minister’s attention to an injustice in connection with the delivery of post bags. As he knows, an agreement was entered into between the Railway Department and the Postal Department, that railway lorries should take the post bags in my division with them, and deliver them. Now definite routes have been fixed for the motor lorries, and the people have to pay a fixed amount per mile for the transport. I think there is not a single division where an area of such a size as my division is served by motor lorries. It is only a matter of one department paying another; the money circulates between the departments. Why then must the people pay extra for the transport of post bags when they live on the motor lorry route? It is unjust towards the people, and I would like the Minister to give his attention to the matter.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.21 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting.

I was asking the Minister for all the motor lorries in my division to carry the post. I consider it terribly unfair for motor lorries to go through the district and the people to have to pay privately for the carriage of post bags. I hope, and trust, the Minister will give his serious attention to the matter. I think it is unfair for us to have to pay for the motor lorries to carry the post. Another matter is the question asked by the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) with regard to telegraphic connection. I just want to say, “First give my division telephonic connection, and then think of the rest.” Just imagine, there still are in my constituency several neighbouring villages which are not connected by telephone, considerable towns like Kuruman, Vryburg and Schweizer-Reineke. Four years ago I got a little bit—I have been pleading for five years. I got 20 miles four years ago, 15 miles extra two years ago, and now possibly I shall get another 15 miles. If it goes on like this I suppose that I shall have to sit in Parliament for 20 years before Kuruman and Vryburg are telephonically connected. If the Minister wants; me to sit there for another 20 years, he is very kind, but is it fair to the constituency. There you have the magnificent extended Bechuanaland, a territory of thousands of square miles which is awaiting occupants. Can we expect people to go and live there if there are not means of communication? It makes it impossible for the people to go and live there with their families. Every year we vote money for telephones, and I shall continue doing so, but the department enquires into which pay the best without considering the needs of the country, or the needs of separate districts. Those that pay the best, according to anticipation at any rate, get the preference. I say this is a very unfair principle. My extended division has a magnificent future, but it requires means of communication. Even if it fails to pay the first few years, but in future it will pay splendidly. I believe the Minister knows our part. He was one of the Ministers who visited it and could see what magnificent and very promising country it is.

I would just like to mention to the committee that while I had the honour of being in Ministerial charge of the Posts and Telegraphs Department, the then postmaster-general was very keen to introduce the automatic telephone system in various parts of the Union, but to do it gradually, and at that time he had installed an automatic telephone system in the general post office at Pretoria, which is working, as I understood, very well. I do not know to what extent the automatic system has been introduced, but I think in one or two towns in the Union it has been tried. I understand that the Minister when questioned about the matter, about a year ago, said that his objection to it—the only objection he gave, as far as I remember, was that it would displace a number of the telephone operators. I happened to raise the same point with the then postmaster-general years ago, and he said every one of these girls would he absorbed in various branches of the post office, and there would be no unemployment created. If that is the case, it seems to me that the Minister’s objection falls away. He may have some other objection. I do not know. He has not told us, and I hope he will tell us exactly what has taken place with regard to the automatic telephone system, because the reasons that were put before me at the time seemed to me to be very strong in favour of introducing that system. When I was in London last, I was told that the system was a great success, and I have not heard authoritatively to the contrary. I would be very glad if the Minister would kindly tell us what has taken place in those centres where the automatic system has been introduced, and whether he still thinks it is wise, where a new installation takes place, to adhere to the old manual system. I do not know whether it is the case, but when I met one of the London post office officials, he was most enthusiastic about the automatic system, and he said, “Your people in South Africa surely are not less intelligent than our people in England.” I said, “Certainly not. We regard ourselves as probably a little more intelligent, but we have in this country the coloured people and the natives, and it is just possible that it may be thought inadvisable to introduce the system because the coloured people and natives, who use the telephone to an increasing extent, might be unable to work the automatic system.” That seems to me to be the only reason why the introduction of the automatic system in our country should not go ahead, but I hope the Minister will give us a full statement with regard to the matter, and I hope it will be possible in the interests of all sections of the population and the interests of economy to introduce the automatic system more generally in South Africa.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet (Mr. I. P. van Heerden) and the hon. member for Namaqualand (Mr. Mostert) put their finger on the spot in regard to this question of automatics. Let me say straight away that to say that last year I gave as the sole reason, or, we will say, the most important reason, for not introducing automatics that it would displace wage earners, that is, the telephone operators, is incorrect. My hon. friend caught me wrongly last year, and the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) caught me wrongly also. That was one of the reasons, but it was not the only reason.

It was the only reasonable reason.

It is no good giving reasonable reasons to the hon. gentleman. He would not understand them. That is only a joke. Don’t you start getting on your high horse [to Mr. Jagger], because if you do, look out. The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet and the hon. member for Namaqualand, in casting about in order to create an atmosphere on the part of the department and on the part of this House for the extension of farm telephones, unconsciously put their fingers on the real reason why you cannot have automatics in this country. I want to say straight away, as I said last year, and as I have said wherever I have dealt with this subject, that I am an engineer, and no engineer will lightly dismiss any improvement, either mechanical or electrical.

Are you the only one?

No, not the only one. That is the sort of thing that obtrudes itself when a man is trying to explain. I will endeavour to ignore the hon. gentleman. As an engineer, I am naturally desirous of seeing improvements both mechanical and electrical—very keen on it— but, at the same time, one must not make that sort of thing an obsession. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) will appreciate that when you are in Ministerial office, when you have to take a bird’s-eye view of the whole country and of all the ramifications, then you have to shape your policy accordingly. Let me say to the House that you must not regard manuals as out of date. Manuals are also up-to-date. They are also improving, and they are equal to-day in efficiency and in some cases superior to any automatic system you can have.

Stockings have been improved.

But you wear them still, or the ladies do. The capital cost, which is borrowed money, is as two to one; it is twice the cost to instal an automatic exchange, for an equal number of lines or subscribers, as it is to instal a manual exchange, and in point of fact what has given rise to the agitation on the part of my hon. friend over there and is reinforced by the propaganda of manufacturers’ agents whose only intention and desire are to make money out of the sale of these installations [interruption]—

Exactly. They seem to think they are going to get their telephones cheaper; let me tell them they are not. The agitation from the hon. member over there emanated from Cape Town with the object of having substituted in Cape Town a new automatic exchange in place of the present manual one. The cost of the installation has been put to me as being over £120,000, because it means a new subscribers’ apparatus as well as an exchange. The cost of putting in an automatic exchange in’ Cape Town is more than the whole of this year’s farm lines’ programme. It is borrowed money —having to carry its interest. It would supply no fewer than 3,500 miles farmers’ lines.: If I supply automatic exchanges I cannot supply farmers’ lines.

And they will be a dismal failure.

interjected a remark.

Every penny expended by this Government in capital expenditure is subjected to the adverse and carping criticism of hon. members on the other side.

That is what we are here for.

Nothing else apparently. My only fear is that the country will realize, it to that extent that there will not be sufficient of the Opposition left to put up a fight, but that is by the way. I would rather be increasing manuals at half the cost. I would rather pay the money in wages than in instruments, and that is where the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) misunderstood me. The country’s prosperity depends more on the hard-earned and well-spent wages of its people.

interjected a remark.

The difference in the cost of operation is very little indeed. It is something; it is cheaper to operate automatic telephones because there are fewer people working. Postal experts in London state that automatics can not be run as economically as manuals unless you do away with 50 per cent. of the operators.

You can absorb them in other parts of the service.

That means that there are vacancies there and that you have still people in the country who can fill those vacancies. The difference in the cost is so slight that in no part of the world where automatic telephones have been introduced is the automatic cheaper. I reiterate, as I stated last year, we are the cheapest country in the world, with the exception of Norway, despite the fact that we have far-flung boundaries and the cost is being met at the end of the lines. I have a comparative statement prepared of costs which proves that conclusively. It is based on 900 calls. In Johannesburg the tariff is £9—that is our tariff per annum for 900 calls. In London, where they have to some extent introduced automatic exchanges, it is £11 15s., and there you have a highly congested population of millions of people—five times as many people as there are Europeans in the whole of South Africa. In Sydney, where they are entirely automatic and where they have a highly concentrated population equal to the whole white population of the Union, the charge is £9 13s. 9d. They are 13s. 9d. more than ours, and according to the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) and the hon. member for Dundee (Sir Thomas Watt) they are cheaper.

That is not the point. We want to know how much will be saved in South Africa by the Post Office in running them in South Africa. I do not want to know of foreign countries, The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS: I am showing my hon. friend that the saving is so small that it is not worth turning girls adrift for.

You do not turn them adrift.

The hon. member for Dundee will remember quite well—at one time during his term of office every telephonist was in permanent employ. There was no such thing as a temporary telephonist in those days, but when they decided on the policy of automatics they took new hands on as temporary, or as subject to one month’s notice. If there was no likelihood of automatic telephones displacing the girls, you would have thought that they would have placed the girls on a permanent basis. They anticipated displacing the girls. The postal engineering experts in London have definitely stated that, unless they save 50 per cent, of the human factor, they cannot make automatic telephones pay. I was very pained to see that at the congress of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of South Africa it was argued that the introduction of automatic telephones was just the thing for the countryside and for the people. Persons who argue like that either are deliberately misleading the country or they do not know the facts. You cannot introduce automatic telephones in the country-side, as an automatic exchange cannot pay unless it has 1,000 subscribers, and you cannot have automatic exchanges unless you have power plants. How many country exchanges have power plant? As to the question of efficiency, do they argue that automatic telephones are better than up-to-date manuals; that is impossible. I defy anybody to dial a three figure number under 7 seconds. The average manual service in Cape Town and Johannesburg is 3 seconds tor service and 3 seconds for release.

Send someone out to a telephone box and try it now.

Any member can try it and he wilt get an almost instantaneous service. The argument is not fair to us and is not fair to the girls. It has been stated that the automatic system is being adopted in all the leading countries in the world, but it is most significant that America—the home of the telephone—has not got any automatics. If automatics were so cheap, efficient and easily worked, why on earth has not America scrapped all its manuals and installed automatics? This is all the more significant because of the fact that American telephone exchanges are privately owned, the companies competing against one another and naturally they would explore every avenue of cheapening the service.

The reason may be the inconvenience due to the change over from the one system to the other.

The same reason would apply here. I am not arguing that automatics are bad, but that they are not so much better as to warrant a change. An hon. member mentioned Brighton and London, but the “Daily Mirror”—one of the leading papers in England—contains page after page pointing out the inefficiency of the recently installed automatic telephone exchange at Brighton. Automatic exchanges have only just come into being in England and they are in the experimental stage in London and Brighton where they are giving a great deal of dissatisfaction. This is the sort of heading you get to articles in the “Daily Mirror” dealing with automatic telephone exchanges: “Exchange that excels in supplying wrong numbers breaks down”; “This Dud Phone— Brighton Supplies Visitors with Endurance Test. Press Button and—.”

Will you read extracts from other papers which actually deny that.

The "Daily Mirror” of March 24th has an article headed “Phone that does the impossible. System surpassing its own mistakes. Mystery results.” Another article in the issue of March 3rd has the caption “Phonlo lost tempers. Quicker to talk to New York than London.” This is the sort of thing that we are asked to experiment with in South Africa with our limited population at the risk of losing capital and causing unemployment of our boys and girls. Another article is headed “Many victims of Dialosis. Affliction that is due to automatic phones. Firm that sent a wire because it was quicker. “These are comments in the “Daily Mirror”.

In the comic press.

I do not want to decry the automatics. They are in the experimental stage, and apart from any other consideration, we have no right to put South Africa to the inconvenience and expense of trying experiments, and in the process, if not actually discharging employees, certainly closing up avenues for employment. My friend says what about the Railways? I am very sorry indeed that unfortunately I have not control over all the telephones in the country. It is foolish for us to have dual control over one sort of service.

Why don’t you alter it?

I am trying to do so.

We don’t want you to interfere with Durban.

Then you are very shortsighted. I do not want to interfere with Durban, I would not take the Durban telephones as a gift. The hon. gentlemen who represent Durban know quite well that the Durban Corporation, after deciding to have automatics, decided not to have them on account of the capital expenditure involved.

They are extending them.

You have only got some automatics in Durban just as we have some in Johannesburg, and we are finding the running of the dual system a considerable nuisance.

They are all right in Durban.

I am only too anxious to have telegraphs and telephones under one control. The hon. member himself, when he was a Minister, must have seen the expense and overlapping due to the railways running their telegraphs and telephones and the Postal Department running theirs. An absurd situation arose on one occasion, and it is typical. The post office were running telegraph lines on the same poles in one place as the railway, and the Telegraph Department and the railway both sent out a gang at the same time to repair the same fault. I say that is foolish, and the principle must be unsound. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) sees an absurdity in my insisting on private branch exchanges not being automatic if connected with our central exchanges, and the railways being connected. That is not so. The railways it is true are introducing automatics, but they are purely domestic. They are not connected with our ’phones. The public gets into touch through the ordinary system. I will tell the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) that I have not the slightest objection to his having an automatic exchange system in his business.

You could not stop me —you would like to.

No, I would not mind.

You have no objection to our joining up?

Yes, I have. The installation of all private branch exchanges connected with our central exchange is paid for and run by us, and we have to meet all the difficulties. If we allow automatic private exchanges to be instituted all over the country two dangerous situations will arise. One would be that just as the fancy seized them, people would pull out their manuals or ask us to pull them out, and put automatics in, thus doubling the capital expenditure. The Cape Town City Council, without my knowledge, were installing an automatic exchange system connected with tour exchange. Of course, we are going to allow them to go on, because they were accorded permission, but they will find they have to pay infinitely more than it cost them before under their own manual system. It is a singular thing that the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) has never seen fit to introduce automatic exchanges into his business, in spite of his impression of their value and virtue. He never thought it sufficiently cheap or efficient or effective. They have always had permission, up to now. It is only recently that the circular prohibiting them was issued. The other anomaly is that you have dozens of representatives of dozens of different systems of automatic exchanges in this country at the present time trying to get people to buy them, and you will have in one office one system and in another office another system, and we should have to carry the burden of adjusting all these systems to one another. I think that is highly undesirable.

I see you have it at Bloemfontein.

I know nothing about that.

What about Port Elizabeth?

Port Elizabeth and Maritzburg are quite successful, but we have not had them in being quite long enough to test them thoroughly. Something was mentioned about it having been introduced into the Cape Town post office. The history of that is that we had it in Pretoria, and it was not satisfactory, but owing to the fact that we have arrived at such a state of congestion that our board down here is practically full up, we had to look round for anything and put anything in, so we cut off the various officers from the central exchange and put in this automatic system. It was not operating up there, and we are not too much in love with it down here, but one is a fool if he does not use anything he has got in time of pressure. We had a little automatic exchange at Camps Bay, and we were inundated with complaints about that, but I am not going to condemn automatics for that reason. The automatic system is largely in the experimental stage, but there is one final and conclusive argument why we should not at this stage introduce it into this country. The march of science and accomplishment is so rapid and so great that by the time you could get the automatic system installed, we might find that some entirely different system was taking its place. With the results of telephoning across the Atlantic by wireless and other ways, I think we would be well advised to hasten slowly in the matter of making changes.

I think the Minister claims that his department is a progressive one. I wish he would exhibit a little more of that progress on the south coast of Natal, in connection with his post offices. That part of South Africa is increasing in popularity, and the populations of these seaside resorts are increasing to great proportions, and for two years the people living on the south coast have been complaining of these out-of-date post offices which they have got. As an example of what I mean, take the case of Winkelspruit, which has a population of something over 900. The post office there is a wood and iron building, ten feet square. When the Minister takes into consideration that it is situated in a subtropical climate, and having regard to the small space there is in the office and that most of the post offices are presided over by European girls, you have only got to have one perspiring native to go in there on a hot day to poison the atmosphere for half an hour. It is not right, and I am sorry to see the Minister smiling.

I was not laughing at you.

I think the Minister ought to give some attention to this. He is the head of a big revenue-earning department, and the public are entitled to a better service than they have now on the Natal south coast. The hon. member for Natal Coast (Brig.-Gen. Arnott) and I interviewed the Minister and pointed out these disabilities. I do not say that every post office on the south coast is in that position, but I do urge that it is time that the obsolete post offices were abolished. The Minister, when we interviewed him, was impressed and realized the great disability under which the public are suffering. Another point I wish to bring to the Minister’s attention is in connection with farm telephones. In my constituency for the last twelve months or more the farmers have wanted an extension of this system, and the Minister’s reply to their appeal has been that there was no material. That sounds paradoxical, considering that we have heard the Minister of Finance tell the House that he has a huge balance. Why is there a shortage of material? In these days of progressive agriculture, when a telephone is part of the equipment of an up-to-date farm, there are hundreds of farmers wanting telephones, and they cannot get them. We are entitled to be placed in touch with the telephone system. It is part of our business, and yet we have the Minister, who boasts about the progress of his department, saying that he has not got the material.

It is very droll to see hon. members opposite like the hon. member who has just sat down come here pleading for more telephones on the countryside, and accusing the Government of not spending enough on this service. This Government has, during its short existence, built thousands of miles of farm telephones, and now the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) talks as if our Government had neglected its duty. He is advocating farm telephones, but his colleagues opposite are asking for automatic telephones, although we hear that automatic telephones cost about twice is much as ordinary ones.

Hon. members asked for automatic exchanges, not automatic telephones.

Yes, automatic exchanges, but we understand it will cost £120,000 if an automatic exchange is established in Cape Town, but as soon as hon. members read in the newspaper what is happening in London, then they must suddenly have it in Cape Town as well. We have a telephone service as good as it can possibly be, and the exchange works very well, and I have never yet found, when I take up the receiver, that I do not get a reply almost immediately. It happens sometimes at busy times that we have to wait a moment, but everyone will agree that we are almost immediately replied to, and I want to compliment the Minister on his good telephone staff. It is my principle whenever I use the telephone to speak Afrikaans, and, although it is difficult for the English ladies who sometimes attend to the telephone to understand the difference between “twee” and “drie”—it seems difficult for English ears to distinguish between the two—I want to point out how good the Afrikaans telephone service is in Cape Town. I compliment the Minister on it. I say that, if it is true that the automatic telephone takes seven seconds for a reply, and our existing system only three to four seconds, what on earth do we want to introduce the new expensive system for? I say that it is much more useful to spend the money on new telephone lines on the countryside, and I want to urge upon the Minister to think more of the outside areas of the country than has already been done. For the last four years I have pleaded for more telephone lines in my district. I am in the same position as the hon. member for Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer). The Minister really must construct more telephone connections in my division, which is a stretched out area adjoining the Kalahari. I am even worse off than the lion, member for Bechuanaland. He gets 15 miles more telephone lines every year, and last year I did not get a single mile, and it is constantly said that there is not enough money, but if we have to wait for telephones in my district till there is enough money, then we can wait for ever. The Opposition says that we spend a lot of money, and that the expenditure is piled up every year. The Government must not allow itself to be frightened by the chatter of the Opposition, let them say that we are increasing the expenditure, and spending too much money. It makes no difference as long as we have surpluses, and use the money for the development of the country.

I want to call attention to what appears to be an anomaly in the postal rates. We have three different scales of charges, one for inland letters, one for the United Kingdom, Egypt, Palestine and British possessions, and one for foreign countries. The idea of the difference between the United Kingdom and the foreign countries’ tariffs is that there should be some preference given to possessions within the empire. The charge for a letter for the United Kingdom, Egypt, Palestine and British possessions is 2d. if not over I ounce, whereas in the case of foreign countries the charge is 3d. There is a preference there, but a little lower down in the scale there is no preference at all, because the extra charge for additional weight in the case of letters to the United Kingdom, etc., is 2d., whereas in the case of overweight on letters for foreign countries it is 1½d. It follows that for a letter for the United Kingdom, etc., which is above 3 ounces, the postage payable is higher than if the letter was sent to a foreign country. I do not think that is intended. It seems to me it is a reasonable thing that you should have preferential rates within the empire, so I think the Minister should take this into consideration. It would be only consistent with what I suppose is the basis of our charges if this preference were maintained right through the scale

I am very glad the Minister has taken up the attitude he has this afternoon in connection with automatic telephones. I can assure him that in any case he is supported in it by the countryside. We must not run after every novelty in our country. We had an example in the electrification of the Sea Point railway. It is a white elephant; and I think everyone will be glad when it is broken up. Our telephone service is good, and we can let automatic telephones wait. The countryside is continuously asking for more telephones. I want to support the hon. members for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and Bechuanaland (Mr. Raubenheimer). My district is also a very extended one, and my people are 150 miles removed from civilization. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort said that the telephones will relieve the loneliness of the farms, but the farmers do not mind loneliness so much when they are alone with nature, but in many cases it is of vital importance. Sickness comes suddenly, and the doctor is possibly hundreds of miles away, and if there is no telephonic communication the patient may die before a doctor comes. In my constituency there is malaria, and it often happens that people are laid up and there is no telephonic communication with the doctor. Now the hon. members for the Peninsula come and ask for automatic telephones. Let us wait a bit. Perhaps the system may be improved, or new inventions discovered, but let us first give telephones to the countryside. We want to attract people to our country, and there is only room for people here on the countryside; industrial development does not yet require more people. Why is there no inrush of people from Holland, England, Germany and other countries? Because there is only room on the countryside, and if those people have to go to an undeveloped area where there is not even a telephone, then they refuse to go into that wilderness. The telephone is a civilizing agent in the country, and we must assist the countryside. Then there is another point, namely, the price of telegrams. I think the Minister should reduce the rate from 1s. 3d. to 1s. for twelve words, or possibly for fifteen words. I think he will find the department will pay, and that the people will make more use of it, just as has occurred in the penny post. I noticed that someone recently said that the time will come when more telegrams than letters will be sent. That may be so. Another matter is the abolition of night telegrams. We appreciated it, and in the faraway districts it assisted people, and I hope the Minister will reintroduce it. I want, however, to say that he is doing much for the farmers. Numbers of farm telephones have been constructed, but he must remember the long lines to the utmost ends of civilization. They must come first. The man who goes as a pioneer to those parts should be preferred to the man living in populous parts. The far-off districts to-day get a hundredth part of the capital which is spent on telephones, and I do not think that is fair.

For many years past I have been voicing the views of the members of the oldest service organization, that is, the Postal and Telegraph Association, and they have asked me to bring certain grievances which are seriously felt by them to the notice of the House and of the Minister. They are very disappointed at the decision of the Cabinet to do nothing in the case of the post office learners. There was a long debate in the House on the subject, and now it has been definitely turned down by the Cabinet. These men are leaving the service disappointed. The Minister told me that 24 males and 11 females in one class, and 19 males and 12 females in another, have left the service. They have been holding on in hopes of something being done to remedy their very serious grievances. I see from the “Postal Herald” that two men from the central telegraph office have resigned from the service and are going to Rhodesia. I very much regret to say that the feeling between the executive (and the men they represent) and the Minister has grown so bad that it seems to me it is necessary that it should be mentioned in order that more friendly relations should be established. I cannot understand how this has come about; and the Minister may be able to tell me. The complaint is made that the Minister interferes too much with the detailed working of the department, instead of leaving it to the head of the department and those under him to arrange, and there has been a serious disturbance of the ordinary rule about discipline. I am told that in a large office the Minister intervened in a matter, and the result was that discipline was so affected that the supervisor was going to report on insubordination bordering on violence, but was advised by the superintendent to withdraw’ his report.

What is the name of the office?

I am not in a position to give the name.

I have not heard of that.

The discipline was so lax [statement repeated].

That is rubbish.

This is the oldest service organization, and it is well organized. These matters are thoroughly sifted, and what they bring to the notice of the House is seriously thought out. As to the matter of promotion, the Minister has held them off at arm’s length; why I do not know. There is a post office departmental committee, a very useful institution, a sort of Whitley council, doing splendid work. The Minister is aware of the negotiations. The maximum mark was agreed to in March, 1927, and the Minister repudiated the agreement shortly after the joint sitting. [Letter read from acting Postmaster-General.] The association wrote back to say that they would be glad of an opportunity of discussing the matter with the Minister, and he absolutely refused to give them an interview.

Absolutely.

I am afraid that the Minister whom I knew, when he sat here as a democrat, has become an autocrat. I think he is not doing himself justice.

That is not fair; do not repeat parrot cries.

I am nothing but fair in this House. When the Minister asked for alternative suggestions, they courteously asked for an interview, and he said he would not meet them. That is the work of an autocrat. Surely every member is entitled to see the Minister. Why should the Minister take up that attitude with regard to a powerful well-behaved organization like that? They very much object to certain appointments where people have been brought from outside the service for promotion over others. [Cases quoted.] The worst case is that of Mr. Foley, the director of training and education, a man who has never been in the service, who was promoted over men who could teach him his job. They feel very sore about a man at Simonstown who has been, if it comes to that, practically degraded to make room for Mr. Foley, who was a solicitor, who was brought into the service by the Minister, and was welfare officer for some time. The other man had completed 35 years’ service, and holds first-class certificates. There is dissatisfaction and irritation right throughout this organization. I do not want to get any rise out of the Minister, nor do him any harm; he has no truer friend than myself; I raise the matter because the post office happens to have been in my constituency. The way the Minister is going on with this organization is going to lead to absolute ruin, as far as the postal department is concerned. They are not agitators, but sound hard-headed men, who only want to see the department go ahead, but they see certain things going on there which is making their gorge rise. However unpleasant the duty is, I intend bringing their grievances to the notice of Parliament.

I was very sorry to hear what the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) said this afternoon, supported by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk). They are like myself, born in South Africa. No greater eye-opener I saw than when I went to London in 1891, and I recommend them very strongly to go and see something of the world on the other side, so as to broaden their views. They are far too narrow-minded. They should go there to learn and to get their eyes opened. Now let us come to calmer waters. I want to repeat that Johannesburg is the hub of South Africa. We people who have been living there for 30 or 40 years claim that it is high time not only that we should have a new post office, but that it shall be on the site of the existing post office. The other day I had to walk very nearly to the railway station to get a very small parcel.

Somebody has to walk sometimes.

The Minister apparently does not indulge in walking very much.

Oh, yes, I do; but I am going to ride a bit more now.

I would urge the Minister to follow the many good points of his predecessors, and not the few bad ones. The Johannesburg post office is quite out of date, and should be replaced by a new building on the same site as the present one, as the centre of Johannesburg radiates from the post office and town hall.

The hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane) has complained that for the last 12 months he has not been able to get a farm telephone, but my complaint is that my constituents have been waiting for these conveniences for the last three years. The method of the post office authorities in this matter is not the correct one, as they leave one district in the cold for two or three years. They canvassed the districts of Ladybrand and Clocolan about three or four years ago to ascertain how many farmers would take telephones. At that time very few farmers made application, so the department neglected the district, and whenever a local farmer asked for a line he was told that three or four years ago he had the opportunity of applying for a telephone, but did not take it. That reply, however, is not quite fair. Districts which have been applying for telephones for a long time should receive them. When the Government carne into office farmers were not so fully alive to the value of telephones as they are to-day. We are thankful for the mercies that the Government has shown us, but we desire more farm telephones. At the same time, of course, the Minister has not all the money to spend on farm telephones that he would like. With regard to rural post office boxes, farmers are charged the same price for boxes as people who live in cities and make much greater use of them than farmers can possibly do. That is not quite fair, as many farmers do not go to their post office boxes more than two or three times a week. If the rent is reduced, the Minister will have no difficulty in letting all the rural post office boxes. A further point. The facilities for the conveyance of South African produce by post at a reduced rate should be extended to South-West Africa. Recently one of my constituents sent a parcel of South African produce worth 2s. to Windhoek, the postage being 2s. 6d., but if the parcel had been sent to Cape Town the postage would have been 6d. only.

I support the plea for the extension of rural telephones. It is admitted that they pay not only directly, but also bring a large volume of traffic to the main telephone lines. I would like the Minister to place himself in the position of farmers cut off from post offices and towns. Most of them cannot afford motor-cars, and cannot easily move from their places, and really have very few amenities at all. I think their claims are very strong, and it would not involve any additional cost to the taxpayer, because they are prepared to pay the full charges associated with the construction of their lines. That being so, I think the Minister of Finance should be prevailed on to make provision for the necessary money.

I want to say a word with regard to public works. You have construction under the Union Government, provincial administrations and railway administration. I think anyone who looks at the position will see that there is a tremendous amount of overlapping. Each department has construction work to be done, and sends to the place an inspector to find out what is necessary. Then all the impedimenta of the works are sent there, and then there is inspection later on. I will point out one special case as an instance. Some time ago at Nelspruit the railway administration was constructing a goods office at the end of the railway yard. A hundred yards away from that the Union Government was constructing an addition to the post office, and two hundred yards away the provincial administration was adding to the school. That meant that three different engineers had gone down prior to the construction, and all the necessary implements for three buildings went at the same time, and after the works had been completed three inspections had to he made. There must be a tremendous waste of money when that kind of thing happens. We can learn a lot from the Portuguese in that regard. They have a sort of co-ordinating officer in the Mozambique province—a Minister without portfolio, whose sole business is to see that there is no overlapping by the departments. Our railway department, for instance, will build a bridge and no notice is taken of what possible development in land settlement will take place a few years hence. If they would inquire from the Lands Department, the Labour Department or the Agricultural Department to see if there was going to be a settlement within that area within the next two or three years, and the reply was that such a settlement was intended, they could construct a dual bridge that would carry both railway and vehicular traffic. We should be able to save a lot of money that way. If the public in this country grouse at one thing, it is the tremendous expense in our public works. The public is also under the impression that “palm oil” passes sometimes. I do not say it does, but the public have very good reason to believe it does. Some time ago I had occasion to bring to the notice of the authorities the building of a school. That does not fall directly under the Union administration, but it comes under public works. A principal’s house cost £460, and the general estimate of members of the public who had gone into the cost of the material and work was that the profit on that building was £200. If there is a profit of £200 on a £460 proposition, it is a bit thick. Supposing I am wrong, and there was a profit of £150. It is still too much. I hope the Minister will bring this matter to the notice of his colleagues to see if we cannot do away with this overlapping in our work. [Time limit.]

I am very glad the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Hood) has raised this question, and I hope the hon. the Minister will take it to heart, and discuss it with his colleagues. This is a question which has impressed itself very strongly upon me when I have been in office. In the Cape Province we have a few bridges of the character referred to by my hon. friend. Near Cookhouse on the Cookhouse-King Williams-town line there is a railway bridge which is of great advantage to the travelling public over the Fish River. The Railway Department, as the hon. member said, has an objection to constructing a dual purpose bridge. I can well understand that in parts of the country where there are many trains passing backwards and forwards every day—

I meant a dual line, not the same track.

There are many places in this country where for years and years, except when extraordinary and unexpected development takes place, trains will be running once or twice a day over bridges of this character. They are rather expensive to construct, and very little extra expense would make those bridges suitable for rail and road transport. Many of the rivers are rather deep, and it is very difficult in rainy seasons to find a fordable drift. In those cases cheap cement causeways are not suitable. If my hon. friend would get a meeting between engineers of the public works and the railway, it would be possible in many cases to take existing bridges, and in the case of new railways constructed in sparsely populated districts, to make provision to see that they are both for road and rail transport. There is nothing so unhinges agricultural development as to be unable to get produce to market owing to flooded rivers.

I want to call the Minister’s attention again to the question of automatic exchanges. There is an impression that the introduction of automatic exchanges would be a boon to the smaller places where the ordinary telephone exchange closes so early that people cannot use their telephones after a certain hour. Take, for instance, the Ceres district. I think the people there are under the impression that if an automatic exchange was installed they would be able to use their telephones at any hour during the night. If it is not practicable to have an automatic exchange in these small places, perhaps the Minister will explain why. At Ceres there are a number of party lines. Quite a number of farmers there are connected to the telephone by party lines, and some of them think that if automatic exchanges were introduced, they would be able to use their ’phones at night, which would be a very great convenience. I would join in the appeal which has been made to the Minister to consider the extension of telephone lines to the sparsely-populated areas, where the people have had a very hard time. In some parts of my district they have been suffering very severely owing to the prolonged drought. These people are in dire straits, and though it is quite possible that a telephone line to some of the more remote parts may not pay in the near future, I want to make an appeal to the Minister, and the House and the Government, that these people, after all, are taxpayers, they are doing pioneer work, they are making a living there, and they are producing something for the good of the country as a whole in a very arid area. These people have to live very frugally in order to exist at all. They have very few amenities, and I would appeal to the Minister to consider whether he cannot give to these people, who cannot ask for railways or a regular post, because the expense is too great, telephone lines, the expense of which is not so great. I specially plead for telephone lines down the Tanqua valley districts, Sutherland and Ceres, and along the Fish River from Sutherland in the direction of Calvinia.

There is one point in regard to these party lines that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister, The position to-day is that you have 10 subscribers grouped on one line, and that line is connected to the nearest exchange. These 10 subscribers are usually neighbours, and very close friends, and you get a tremendous lot of gossip going on on these lines, not business discussions, but talking one to another, and that goes on half an hour at a time. There is a great deal of complaint from the merchants in the town in which the exchange is situated, and from others who are trying to get into business touch with people on these lines. I know that a trunk call has precedence over any other call, and I would like the Minister to consider whether it would not be possible to give any call which goes through the exchange precedence over these private discussions, shall I say, on these farmers’ lines. It is a source of complaint from all over my area that we cannot get into business touch with these party lines, because of the perpetual conversations going on. I know it is a drastic suggestion to make, but I think it worth considering I noticed that in April last the Minister gave an address in Johannesburg and discussed the charges for telegrams and touched on the question of overseas cables. If I read his remarks aright, he was proposing to go into the whole matter of the costs of overseas cables. I want a little information on that point. We have very cheap week-end and deferred cable rates. I wonder if the Minister could tell me what his department is getting out of these week-end or deferred cables and what the cable companies are getting out of them, and how much it is costing, comparatively, to receive, transmit and deliver so many words from the cable end and how much it is costing us in South Africa to send a similar number of words a similar distance.

We are losing money.

Could the Minister let us have the figures?

I do not know whether I can give you the exact figures now. It is a matter which is engaging our attention at the present time.

It does not seem right to me that we should be paying higher rates than overseas users are doing.

Referring again to the automatic exchange question, the Minister has pointed out that he is an engineer himself and therefore appreciates the beauties of the automatic exchange, and in that respect I suppose he might be called the Parliamentary expert on the matter.

No, concurrently with you.

No, I don’t pose as an expert in this matter, except from the financial end of the question. I would ask the Minister what evidence he can produce from other engineers, more particularly post office engineers who have studied this question, against the automatic system. The Minister, I know, has the full reports of the English engineers on the matter, and he has reports of his own engineers strongly recommending automatic exchanges, and I have yet to learn of any post office engineer of standing who has turned automatic exchanges down. I would like to suggest to my hon. friends from the Platteland that they should not allow this question to get mixed up in a controversy between town and country. It has got nothing to do with the question of extending the country telephone lines. As a matter of fact, the Minister, I think, will agree that those exchanges handling short lines in the urban areas pay very much better than the country lines, and the more you can make the urban area exchanges pay, the greater the possibilities there are for extending the lines into the country and to the farms. There is nothing the urban areas like better than to extend the telephone system into the country, especially the farms. It is quite clear that, commercially, it is a great advantage to the town for the farmers to have telephonic communication with the towns. They not only get into touch with the towns to sell their produce, but they also get in touch with the towns to buy their requirements. The towns are heartily in sympathy with the country as regards the extension of telephones to them. I would next deal with the question of the capital cost. That is a matter which is evidently rather worrying the Minister.

It is—very much.

I do not suggest that, as a rule, small matters of money ever worry the Minister, but in this case the capital cost seemingly has hit him hard. I would point out to him, and he will remember if he calls to mind the Australian report, that the Australian report deals entirely with the question of capital investment, and it is proved very conclusively there that the whole of the capital cost, every depreciation that can be properly charged to the installation, the whole of the interest, and the whole of the capital cost and interest on the buildings in which the exchanges are housed, all these costs are taken in and it is then proved conclusively that there are very large profits made over the manual exchange, taking the working of the manual exchange as against the automatic exchange. I do suggest to the hon. gentlemen from the country districts that it is out of these profits that you are going to make it possible to go on extending the telephonic system into the country. Instead of the automatic system impeding the extension into the country, it is going to add to the possibilities and increase the rapidity with which telephones are extended to the country. Now the Minister puts up the question of capital in another sense. He says, “You cannot expect the Minister of Finance to put up all this money.” Nobody suggests that in the flash of a moment the whole of the telephonic system of the country should be changed to automatics. It is going to take years and years. Other countries have been doing it for a great number of years, and they are only now—-I was going to say on the fringe of changing over from manuals to automatics, and therefore the annual demand for capital is not going to be anything like the proportion which the Minister suggests. I would say in that regard the Minister entirely misunderstands the position that the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce took up with regard to the Cape Town exchange. The Cape Town Chamber of Commerce knew that there was going to be a new building erected on the parade, and they understood, and I think rightly, at the time, that the intention was to transfer the telephone exchange to that new building.

Yes, that is correct.

They understood further there was going to be a new exchange, and the only thing they requested the Minister to do was that if he was putting in a new exchange, he should put in the most modern form of exchange, the automatic exchange. That was the position the Chamber of Commerce took up, that is the position I think every business man would take up, and that is the reason why I take up that position. The Minister puts up another objection, and that is that he does not like to go in for automatic telephones because, in a very short time, there will be new developments and the automatic telephone of to-day may be obsolete in 10 years’ time. That argument is a most weak argument. If it had been applied in the days when we first started motor traction in the post office, no Minister of Posts would have spent a penny of capital on motor cars, because they were going to be improved. What is the Minister going to do with the aeroplane question? It will only be a few years’ time before it will be the most natural thing for our posts to be carried by aeroplane. In a country of our wide spaces, it is bound to come in a very few years when the question will arise: cannot a great many of the mails be carried by aeroplane? Is the Minister then going to take up the position, “I cannot possibly invest in aeroplanes because, owing to scientific achievements and the rapidity of scientific changes in aeroplanes, I dare not touch an aeroplane because a better one may come out next year?” The whole argument is weak. It is the weak argument of the man who is never going to progress and will always be behind his competitors in other countries handling the same business. My hon. friend suggests that the same argument might have been applied to the electric tram. The same argument might have been applied to railways. Look at the enormous quantity of labour that could be employed in this country if we went back to the ox wagon. There would be an enormous demand, especially for the unemployed whites on the land to-day. The argument is so weak that really it does not require knocking down. It will fall down of its own emptiness. Then the Minister came back to the question of unemployment. I ask the Minister whether he discharged any single telephone girl because he instituted the automatic exchange at Port Elizabeth. [Time limit.]

Yes.

I wish to say a few words in regard to a matter raised by the hon, member for Cape Town (Castle). I have here a document which is a reprint of an article in the “South African Postal and Telegraph Herald” of April 28th, and it is headed, “The Amazing Vagaries of Mr. Madeley.” One is astounded at the statements made here. The facts are briefly these: An agreement was entered into between the postal employees and the Minister’s department in regard to promotion. That agreement was solemnly signed by three delegates for each side. You would have thought when the terms had been agreed upon so solemnly, and after full deliberation, that if those terms were to be departed from, one side would consult the other side, and that there would be a conference; a discussion of the proposed variations of this solemn document. What happened? The Minister, without doing this, simply repudiated the document. Undoubtedly these people have legitimate grounds for complaint. This document has a sence of humour which appealed to me. I wish to read the concluding paragraphs. They refer to a speech the Minister made, reported in the “Rand Daily Mail” of the 8th March last. The report states—

Really, the Minister has changed very much; he is a changed entity. He was, at one time, a great socialist and democrat and the professed champion of the rights of the oppressed and the distressed, the Danton of the Labour Party—l’audace encore l’audace toujours l’audace—which the late Mr. J. X. Merriman translated as “brass, more brass and still more brass,” and might less elegantly be translated as “cheek, more cheek and more damn cheek.” I remember when my hon. friend was occupying those benches, one of bis annual theories was about the Administration’s Ebenezer Road cottages; this was when Mr. Burton was Minister. The hon. the Minister, then only plain Mr. Madeley, member for Benoni, exclaimed and declaimed, “I had referred to this matter three years ago, I referred to it last year, and I will refer to it this year and every year until an alteration and change are brough about.” The Minister, for the last four years, has been silent, and his voice is no longer uplifted in the cause of the oppressed and unhappy occupants of the Ebenezer cottages.

I have got to the motor car stage now !

Yes, and the Minister does not deign to look any longer to the occupants of the Ebenezer cottages. With regard to this agreement with the postal officials, which was simply turned down by the Minister, it discloses a very unsatisfactory condition as to the services. The Minister said that at all times he would be accessible. If you have complaints, come and see not the Minister, but your friend Walter Madeley.

I still say so.

Not lately. The Minister now says suppliants must write to him and come to him through the proper channel only. Experience has proved to the Minister that he cannot listen to and investigate every individual complaint. The facts disclosed in this document require, from the Minister, a clear and unequivocal explanation why he has deviated from the terms he has entered into with these people under a solemn contract. This is a very influential body, which has very careful regard to what they say. Simply to repudiate the agreement is not what one would expect from a great “champion of democracy.” Then I would like a few particulars with regard to an appointment the Minister has recently made—the Government nominee on the board of the wireless company. Government has the right to appoint a director on that body, and Sir Jeremiah Wilson is the Government’s nominee. The latter has gone on leave, and a gentleman by the name of Forsyth has been appointed. I am informed he is the secretary of the Commercial Employees Union. I would like to know from the Minister whether he has any other qualifications than that for being appointed to that important position? What particular qualifications had he to be put into this very important position, for there is no doubt a director of this body is in a very important position—also with regard to confidential information. He may comply with the requirements necessary for the position, but on account of the slender information we have with regard to him—that he occupies this position and a position in the Labour party—the public is entitled to know why the Minister appointed him.

The public?

Yes, the public, who find the money. It is not a secret matter. The Minister is wrong if he thinks it is within his patronage. It is a public appointment.

Exactly.

Mr. Forsyth is, I understand, from the paper, an employee of Messrs. E. K. Green and Company, bottle-stores. That does not mean he is not qualified to carry on this position.

Then why mention it?

Because I think it my duty to communicate such facts as are within my knowledge. I should have thought another officer of the department would have been appointed—a man who had some experience in postal or telegraphic work.

I am very glad of the strong stand the Minister is taking up on automatic exchanges. We hear the plea every year for automatic telephones, but the Minister has pointed out that the cost of them is al out double that of the present system, and that it is not reliable. I cannot understand how hon. members opposite can urge such expenditure being incurred.

They are cheaper to work.

They may be a bit cheaper, but the capital expenditure is much larger. The present system is a good one. Hon. members opposite say that the system does not operate quickly enough, but I say it operates very quickly. My experience is that is works as quickly as one can expect of a human being. I am very glad of what the Minister has already done for telephones on the countryside. When we came into power there were only 4,000 miles of telephones on the countryside, and to-day there are 11,000 miles of farm telephones. Last year another 3,500 miles were built. But now I want to call the attention of the Minister to Vanwyksvlei, where a little more can really be done in the way of telephones. It is a large extended area and there is a great need for more telephones. Then I want to point out that we have a cheap telephone service, but trunk line conversations are very dear. When I want to talk to Loxton I have to pay 5s. 6d. for three minutes, and if I want another three minutes it costs 11s. Then I think the telegraph rate of 1s. 3d. for twelve words is too high and it can easily be reduced to 1s. The department is not short of money, they had a surplus, and I hope the Minister will meet us. Then I want to call his attention to the terrible state of the Prieska post office. There are already two clerks there suffering from bad lungs, and the post office is a very unhealthy place. I should be glad if the Minister of Posts will give his attention to the building of a suitable post office.

I would like to say a few words regarding the appointment of a Government director on the board of the wireless company. It must be extremely disappointing and discouraging to the postal staff that for an important appointment like that the Minister goes outside the service. Here was an opening for appointing one of the senior men.

Wilson was outside the service.

He was an old post office official. If a man in the service had been appointed, it would have given him a Status which would have caused satisfaction.

You know there is a salary attached to it.

I dare say a member of the Minister’s department could spare time to sit on the board, and I expect the status would have been more appreciated than salary. I doubt if the man appointed has seen the inside of a post office, except when he goes to it to post a letter. Is it to be wondered at in view of happenings of this nature there is serious discontent in the service? I do not think the Minister has been fair, for the appointment should have been reserved to members of the service.

What has it to do with the service !

It is wireless

Oh, get out.

That is not the way we make appointments in the business world.

It is not a service matter.

Don’t talk in that fashion. It is unfair to go outside the service and to give a bottle store keeper the job. What qualification or training has he for it, except from a political point of view? It is really nothing but a job, and it is not astonishing that the post office people are thoroughly discontented over the matter.

The hon. member has enunciated a most extraordinary doctrine, namely, that when vacancies of this nature occur in connection with the wireless, broadcasting, airship or aeroplane company upon the boards of which the Government has a director, the appointment should be confined to the service. If I had appoint somebody from inside the service, one of the first men to criticize me would have been my hon. friend.

Oh, no.

I advise my hon. friend—although I do not expect he will follow my advice—not to be led astray by any will-o’-the-wisp that comes alone. Unconsciously, but nevertheless really, I am afraid he adopted an air of superiority.

Nonsense !

The man I have appointed has Labour sympathies—Labour right out and out.

Is that the reason?

I expect in the hon. member’s opinion that is one of his disqualifications. The hon. member said he is a bottle-store keeper. What is the difference between being behind the counter of a bottle store or the counter of a linendraper’s shop as a qualification for representing the public on an undertaking like this? Would the hon. member claim that he has special qualifications?

I have never made any claim.

But you would resent very keenly indeed the implication that because you are a storekeeper you had not the qualifications. I appointed this man first of all because he is a bureaucrat in regard to wireless, and I think that they require watching. We have to know exactly what is going on. He is a Government director. When you put a director on a board you do so because you have confidence in him to give effect to your policy. That is why he is there.

Why not send a policeman?

To some extent that is why he is there.

Why are you suspicious?

I am not suspicious at all. When the Wireless Act was passed the late Government included in it a clause empowering them to appoint a director. They had to have somebody to watch the public interest on the board of the company which is going to control communications between us and other parts of the world. Mr. Forsyth’s main qualification, however, is that of superlative honesty.

Have not the others any honesty?

I do not suggest that for a moment.

They are only worrying because he is a working man.

I have just said so. The hon. member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) says: “Put on a public servant, anyone, it does not matter who he is, but you must not appoint a man who happens to be in the Labour movement”.

I said nothing of the kind, but a public servant connected with the post office.

Anybody will do, but I have used my best judgment and put on the best man I know. I believe the interests of the public are in the safest hands when I appointed Mr. Gordon Forsyth as temporary director for the Government on a wireless company.

Are you going to renew the appointment of Sir Jeremiah Wilson?

When the time for the new appointment comes along the matter will be considered on its merits. It is still an open question. Somebody else altogether might be appointed. There is nothing derogatory to Sir Jeremiah Wilson. He has gone away for a well-earned holiday for six months, and I had to put somebody in his place. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Papenfus) has reintroduced one of the matters brought up by the hon. member for Hanover Street (Mr. Alexander), that of the Postal and Telegraph Association. In order that the Opposition might enjoy the position, they and my friend there have deliberately stated that I have become, if I have not always been, an autocrat. I want to say that right from the beginning I have sensed hostility on the part of certain officials of the Postal and Telegraph Association. I still take up the position that I have done all along, that any man may knock at my door and come in provided I am not engaged on something else. I am still as accessible as ever to anybody, but I am not going to admit to my counsels and inside my office or in my hom any man who deliberately sets out to insult me. My hon. friend here has taken precisely the same attitude with the same people. Surely the speech made by the president of that association at Durban is still fresh in the memories of hon. members on that side of the House.

I thought you were going to deal with it.

No, I never said I was going to deal with it. I have not oppressed that man in any way whatsoever. He is still where he was, and when his increment was suspended as is usual when the conduct of a Government servant is being inquired into by the Public Service Commission, I restored it at once. That man left that court as free as he went into it, despite the fact that he went out of his way deliberately to insult me in the most public manner possible, with all the press present and concentrating their attention on it. That man insulted me, and I will not have him in my office until he has apologized. That is the position I take up. The hon. member talks about promotion committees. I offered that association a thing that no other Minister has ever done, and that is direct representation on those promotion committees. They have a watching brief to-day, but I offered them direct representation with voting power even on the central promotion board which finally makes the recommendation, and they refused it. Can any Minister go further? Is that undemocratic? You are accusing me of taking up a stiff-necked attitude with regard to these people.

Why did you refuse them an interview?

Because they insulted me, and I will not have them insulting me.

You are super-sensitive.

I have generally proved myself long-suffering and kind. I am kicking over the traces now. There might have been something to be said for it if I had been the only man to experience that kind of thing, but my hon. friend before me had the same experience and refused to meet them until they apologized.

Why punish the association?

I do not want to punish the association. At first I felt sore because I had approached these people in order to have good feeling with them. I was going to go so far as to refuse to attend any of their functions, but when I was up in Johannesburg an invitation was extended to me, and I regarded that as holding out the olive branch, and was only too eager to take that olive branch. With regard to having gone back on the agreement, what happened was that the acting Postmaster-General had arranged for a conference between representatives of the post office and the association, at which they might come to some agreement upon the matter of promotion. They came to a tentative agreement subject to my approval. That carried with it a certain marking system giving, amongst other things, up to 30 points for seniority. I said I could not accept that system of marking, because I foresaw the probability of men of superior merit to others being hopelessly beaten by seniority marking. The total marks that could be received for merit were 75, and for seniority 30, so that a man of only average merit, namely, 50 marks, could beat a man with much higher marks for merit by means of his seniority marking. That told against the older members very largely. After a considerable amount of discussion with the Postmaster-General I reluctantly agreed, but with the proviso that the first time it was practically demonstrated that it worked out as I suspected, I would revert. Singularly enough, the very first batch of recommendations that came up proved conclusively my contention. I had 14 applications from the Free State for particular posts, the top man in merit, viz., 75 points, was actually put at the bottom, below a man who received 50 points for merit, because he was, comparatively, a newcomer in the service. I say that is bad. We have laid down, rightly or wrongly, that the main guiding principle for promotion is to be merit. Merit first, and if you have equal merit for any two men for one post, or even a slight difference in merit, as long as it is not too much, then and then only shall seniority count. That is the principle that is laid down now and I am not going to depart from it. That is the history of my apparent tearing up of the agreement.

Who decides in regard to the merit?

We have several promotion committees in different parts of the country. There is a system of marking laid down. On that the promotion committees make their choice from the applicants under their aegis, and send it on to the central promotion board. The central promotion board weigh up the whole lot and make their recommendation. In regard to the charge which has been made against me of dictatorial overriding of recommendations, I may say that during the whole of my career as Minister I have only once overridden the Public Service Commission’s recommendation. That was in regard to C—, who, I was satisfied, had been passed over wrongly, who was senior to the four recommended, whose qualifications were at least equal to any one of the four, who, I believe had been somewhat pushed back or kept back in the public service because of his political convictions.

Was he a Labour man?

No. I deliberately overruled the recommendation of the then Public Service Commission, and I believe I was quite right. That is the only occasion, and that is the small foundation upon which this huge superstructure has been built up, that I am an autocrat and override the recommendations of the Public Service Commission and the Promotions Board.

Are you still a socialist?

Oh yes, very much so. Do you know what a socialist is? I do not want to deal further with what the hon. member for Newlands (Mr. Stuttaford) said in regard to automatic exchanges, except that it is a very fallacious argument that he has tried to bring to bear upon my hon. friends who represent the platteland, that the more you extend your telephones in the urban centres, the more money you can spend in the countryside. That is not so, because the profits do not go to capital expenditure. They become deposited in the general public purse.

You are quite wrong.

An important point has been raised by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) and the hon. member for Victoria West (Mr. du Toit) and that is the suggestion that we should cheapen telegrams. I have been and I am giving most earnest consideration to this question of cheapening telegrams. It has been suggested that we should knock off the surcharge of 3d. and reduce the charge to 1s. for 12 words. I have considered that, but I cannot agree to it for this reason; that I do not believe one extra telegram would be sent in consequence of knocking off that 3d., while we would be surrendering all that revenue. I would rather, If I could, make a substantial reduction in the charge for telegrams, or increase the number of words for the same charge. Something like £60,000 would be sacrificed in revenue if we knocked off the 3d. If you could reduce the charge for telegrams to 9d., I believe we would get such a tremendous increase of traffic as to more than make up the difference, but then comes the question that we would over-congest our lines and again it means a huge capital expenditure.

Split the difference.

No, no.

Can’t you make it a penny a word?

A suggestion has been made that I am inclined to consider very favourably. Of course, when I talk like this, it does not mean that I am actually going to reduce the charge. A system is in vogue, I believe in America, where you allow the address to be telegraphed free. This is under consideration by us at the moment. Of course, it means a surrender of revenue. We are exploring the whole thing and, if it is possible, I am going to introduce this change. My hon. friend, the member for Ceres (Mr. Roux), wanted me to give an assurance in regard to the automatics not being able to be worked in the country, and he wanted to know what I meant by the furnishing of power. You have got to have ringing current and electric current in order that you may actually send the speech along, and you must have something to do it with. Usually you have a small motor generator in the towns and your batteries have to be charged. In the country places you cannot send any batteries to be charged at some central point. I agree with all the hon. members who have argued in favour of having farm lines in the country, and when hon. members are urging me to do this, they are only trying to convert the converted. We have over 20,000, but that does not satisfy the needs of those who still want them. I am going into that question. Because people did not appreciate the benefits in anticipation of telephonic communication when the canvassing was going on is no real reason for turning them down now, three or four years afterwards. I am going to issue an instruction that that must be ignored. I am intending, with the money at my disposal, to spread these lines as evenly as we possibly can all over the country, always remembering that the man who has a right to the biggest consideration is the man who lives miles away in the backveld, cut off from civilization. These are the people. That is very funny, is it not, Berea? You are living on the Berea.

I am not listening to you at all.

Then comes the important question raised by the hon. member for Barberton (Mr. Rood), the overlapping in construction because of so many different authorities controlling. I entirely agree with him. It is a thing I realize. There is overlapping in every direction. For instance, the railways have their architectural staff, staff of supervizing engineers, and they build their railways. The Public Works Department has a staff of draughtsmen and constructing engineers, and they turn out their drawings and build their buildings. The illustration the hon. member has given, although it is not likely to occur again, does show how much overlapping there is. The Public Works Department should control all the public works and buildings in the country. They should be centralized under the one authority. We should build all the roads, too. Why not? Can you advance any sensible argument against it?

Yes, leave it to the local authority.

Do not make a fetish of the local authority. That is not the be-all and end-all. You can reduce your staff, your supervizing costs and your constructional costs if the one authority is doing all the building in the country. That brings me to the point of the railway bridges. I entirely agree with the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt), and it will interest and please him to know that the Minister of Railways and myself have had frequent discussions on this question. When we build a railway bridge over a river the probability is that it is going to be a road bridge, and you might just as well, at a little extra cost, build a wider bridge which will give you a road and a footpath as well. On one of the occasions when I was using the motor-car which was so much referred to last night, I took a tour through Zululand and Natal, and I saw a railway bridge in one place and the road coming right up to it, and then deviating off to another place; a complete waste of money. These are considerations which are going to get further consideration, and I hope that the ultimate result will be that I, as Minister of Public Works, will be controlling the whole activities of the State in a constructional direction. The hon. member for Ladybrand (Mr. Swart) referred to the tremendous discrepancy between the rate by agricultural parcel post to South-West Africa and the internal rate, that the difference was 2s. The explanation is that we have no agricultural parcel rates in South-West Africa. We tried it, but it turned out to be a failure, but we will always be prepared to consider it. The hon. member (Mr. Nathan) brought up this question of the Johannesburg new post office. There is no doubt about it that Johannesburg’s new post office, or extended post office is long overdue. There is tremendous congestion, the building is old, its design is bad, and it does not fit the job at all. When you start to consider this you have to consider it in the light of the tremendous cost involved, and also the disability. The hon. member wants me to rebuild the post office, to have the new one in Johannesburg on the same site as the old one. You cannot build a new post office on the old site. That is impossible. It does not lend itself to another storey. You cannot have the postal and telegraphic work, and, at the same time, have building operations going on. I went up there not long ago to explore the whole position with the acting Postmaster-General, the Secretary for Public Works, the chief architect and the whole crowd who know, or pretend to know, anything about the question.

You all agreed with me?

No, we did not agree with you. We came to the conclusion that the best point is where the present Government garages are. We have to extend the telephone exchange there. That has reached its capacity. We have to extend the building to do that—not for automatics.

Where is the garage?

In Von Brandis, your own constituency. We have a nice piece of ground there. We have to extend the telephone exchange buildings, and while we are doing it we may as well make a proper job of it and house the telegraphs. The telegrams can be handed in at the central point, as they are to-day, and sent up by tube.

That is outside the commercial centre.

I am sorry, but they will get used to it. It is the best we can do. Of course, that is not going to be done next week.

When?

You must not ask me that. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. van Niekerk) also said something about the night telegrams. We found the night telegrams caused such tremendous congestion at night that it was a sheer impossibility, and we had to go back to the old system. I may say to the hon. member for South Peninsula (Sir Drummond Chaplin) that the postage rates to which he referred are fixed, as he knows, at an international convention. Some years ago the charge for the empire was the same as for inland, and then was raised to 2d. all round. By the time we again went back to the penny inland, various changes had taken place between various parts of the empire, and there was not a uniform rate of a penny. The inland rate was reduced to 1d., leaving the empire rate at 2d. I will go into it and see if I can do anything; I do not know if I can. With regard to the requests of the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie) and other hon. members for rural telephone extensions, that will have my most serious, earnest and immediate consideration, but that does not mean immediate construction; do not put that construction on my words. As far as is humanly possible, the money that is allocated is being spread evenly all over the country for rural telephone extension. With regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Umvoti (Mr. Deane), the question of post office accommodation is a burning one all over the country. Everywhere I go I am convinced as soon as I see the place that that, particular post office does not fill the bill. The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Buirski) says: “Hear, hear”, but the post office there is a king compared to that at Umvoti and other places.

Post offices are queens, not kings.

Are they females, like ships? The whole question of post offices is a difficult one and involves much capital expenditure. We want to go as fast as we can, but we must go as slowly as the money allows. I take the worst cases first. With regard to Winkelspruit, I can assure the hon. member I will go into it, and get the Postmaster-General to go carefully into it and see what we can do to relieve the situation. With regard to the question of the hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson), I understand we are losing money with this terminal, both wireless and cable company.

The only remark I wish to make with regard to automatic exchanges is that the Minister said there were none in America, but he is misinformed. I have not the particulars, but I certainly read about these automatic exchanges there. If the Minister thinks they are good enough for America, will he have them in South Africa?

I am interested.

The Minister has the vote for aviation under his control. I would like to know whether his officials are taking up the question of surveying landing grounds. It seems to me that these grounds will have to be provided all over the country, and his officials might get in touch with the municipalities and that these should definitely set aside, on municipal land or wherever they can in near proximity to their town, landing places, because that is one of the great difficulties that will arise as civil avaition develops. The other point I would like his Department to deal with is the question of training pilots and aviation mechanics. I would suggest that the cheapest, most economical and efficient way of getting this done is to give some form of bonus, if you like to call it so, or an inducement, to any aviation club that is prepared to produce qualified pilots and aviation mechanics, because I am perfectly certain that within a very short time South Africa will be wanting all the accommodation it can get for aviation owing to our extremely divided country and vast spaces. The question of pilots will be a serious one. If we could induce aviation clubs to turn out as many pilots as possible we should have our South African personnel at hand when the necessity arises, instead of having to import them. Therefore, I urge on the Minister to concentrate on these two points.

I wish once more to plead with the Minister to consider the case of some of the former employees of the postal department. In 1908 certain men at the request of the then Government took their pensions—I think there are only about half-a-dozen now—and they received one year’s service which was added for every six years of service. In several other cases two years were added. These men feel they have a hardship, and they tell me that when pensions were being reconsidered they received a little consideration, but some time ago they were cut off again.

Is that not a matter of finance?

No, it is the Minister’s own department. Then I asked the Minis ter a question last year with regard to the gardens at the Union Buildings, Pretoria, into which he promised to go. The Minister has made a somewhat unfortunate plunge into the realms of trade by advertising that the department was prepared to sell the new Union flags to members of Parliament. When a flag is offered for sale and we buy it we expect at least to receive a flag and not what we have received from the Minister’s department—something painted on bunting. Is that the way a tradesman would treat the public?

Is the subsidy of £8,000 to civil aviation to be paid to the new company which is to run an aeroplane service between Johannesburg and Durban? What is the meaning of the item “payment to South-West Africa for diversion of radio traffic, £3,000”?

Will the Minister make a declaration in regard to disciplinary matters in his department? At a very early stage of his ministerial career he made a pronouncement which was interpreted to mean that members of his department could not only participate in conferences of trade unions, but that he did not care what civil servants said. According to Hansard he stated that public servants have perfect freedom to say what they like. At that period the Minister took the view that he had nothing to fear from the public service, but what happened when Mr. Turner, president of the Postal and Telegraph Association—taking advantage of this latitude—made a speech at the annual conference of his association in Durban? When the Minister expressed that very catholic doctrine I pointed out the danger to which he was exposing the public servants who would misunderstand what he meant and possibly take advantage of the Minister’s declaration, and the Public Service Commission would then be bound to take notice of their infringement of Section 20 of the Public Service Act which makes it an offence for members of the service to publicly comment on the administration of any department of the Union. The Minister rather derided my warning and took a light-hearted view of the situation. Mr. Turner makes a number of comments, and it seems to me that his speech was confined to matters relating to treatment of members of the association. He was remonstrating against the Minister’s attitude towards members of the association, towards promotion, etc., and made some severe comments, but I cannot see any insulting language throughout the speech. Had I been in the Minister’s position I should have felt that I was severely criticised, but not insulted. Mr. Turner protested against the Minister’s intervention in promotion matters which I think he was entitled to do, as they are supposed to be regulated by the Public Service Commission.

He made a general statement that I was generally interfering.

He mentioned the Minister’s interference with promotion. I think he spoke more in sorrow than in anger. He was mourning that a Minister who was supposed to be imbued with democratic principles should have trodden those principles underfoot and imported a totally different policy into the administration of the department.

If you had been Minister would you have allowed it?

If I had made such injudicious speeches as the Minister has made I should have been bound to take my gruel and to admit that I was only getting what I deserved. If I had been the inoffensive man and had been treated so unkindly by an official, I should have remonstrated with him, but not refused in a very autocratic manner to allow the man in my presence because he had insulted me. Can the Minister specify what the insult was? I would not support any public official in indiscipline, but I think the Minister goes too far when he says he was insulted by Mr. Turner, who spoke to a selected audience.

No, he spoke to the press.

Members of the society and the press were invited. How does the Minister reconcile the general warning he has issued under circular No. 500 with the previous light-hearted view of what the duties and obligations of the members of his department were in regard to this question? A general warning is conveyed in that circular “Attention is directed to the serious consequences attending any infringement of section 20 of the Public Service Act”.

The acting-postmaster general gave a general warning at the request of the Public Service Commission.

Under what particular administration do these people stand? The Minister tells them they are free to say practically what they like, and immediately they avail themselves of that very wide permission, the Minister is not only a party to their chairman being prosecuted, but he completely bans the association from any discussion of its difficulties because he maintains the chairman insulted him.

The hon. the Minister has developed too thin a skin. There is absolutely nothing in the criticism in that speech that deals with him personally. Surely the Minister must learn to distinguish between criticisms of his actions as a Minister and a personal insult. There was nothing personally insulting in that speech. The man was not charged with libel, he was charged with commenting publicly, and even if a public servant were publicly to praise the Minister, it would be an offence under the statute.

I did not institute those proceedings.

The only publicity about the thing was that reporters were present. That has been going on for over 25 years and the Minister and I have often spoken together at similar meetings with the press present. Of course, a new departure may be made, but I think the Minister is losing his sense of humour as well as the thick skin he ought to have. Take this matter of promotion. The Minister invited their co-operation.

I did not invite their co-operation.

The acting postmaster general said “I am in receipt of your letter in which you ask for an opportunity for your association to discuss the question of seniority with the Minister. The Minister regrets he is unable to arrange the interview, as suggested.” He cannot suggest there is anything but what is absolutely proper in the request. There is a misunderstanding about this thing which can only be cleared up by a personal interview, and surely the Minister is not going to say that because the president may have publicly commented upon him, he is going for ever afterwards to refuse to see the accredited representatives of the service. What have they to do with these speeches. Supposing the president of an organization says something the Minister does not agree with, has the whole organization, that has been in existence for over 25 years, a strong good organization and a real good trade union—

Oh !

Is the Minister denying it? It is one of the best unions in the country. It has the highest percentage of membership, even higher than branches of the Labour party. This organization has certainly a higher percentage of membership than any other public service organization. It is a serious thing that the Minister should not be in touch with the executive organization of the men in his department. I would suggest that he put aside this personal matter and let them come and see him. If the Minister will get back some of the thick skin he used to have when in opposition and recover the sense of humour which he has lost, it will be better. I think he has still a sense of humour in matters that do not concern his position. Let his private secretary write to these people and say: “Send your representatives on, and let us have a conference and all your difficulties can be settled by; discussion.’’

I want to supplement what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Town (Hanover Street) (Mr. Alexander) by pointing out that the Chairman of the Postal and Telegraph Association, when he commented upon the matters affecting the promotion of officials, referred particularly to the case of Mr. Thomson. He certainly put the case vigorously, and said that Thomson was unprovided with any certificates “except his birth and marriage certificates,” that is certificates of competency, for work, I suppose, he was referring to. I believe the chairman made that very severe remark about Mr. Thomson. But I understand that Mr. Thomson, head of the telephone department, has himself not been particularly successful with that association which is represented by the telephone employees. They have complained in regard to his administration on the telephone side, and actually an enquiry was ordered either by the Public Service Commission, or some authority having the right to order an enquiry.

I ordered that enquiry.

I understand that that enquiry has not yet completed its work, the magistrate of Bellville having been appointed to look into the matter. I believe the association suggested that the Minister’s choice had been made over the heads of many competent men who held certificates, men whose names I mentioned in the House when the appointment was made. It has now been pointed out that Mr. Thomson’s administration of the office hat disclosed his mismanagement and temperamental unfitness. Another very burning question has been the position of Mr. Foley, who, as we know, was a gentleman who was brought into the department by the Minister, and I believe the Minister, in justifying his appointment, on one occasion mentioned that he had been a solicitor at Benoni, but his devotion to the Labour cause had resulted in his business “going to the devil” and it was to make up to him, in part, for this sad circumstance, that the Minister appointed him as welfare officer. The Postal and Telegraph Association is a very strong body that can do most of the “welfaring” for its members, and there was really ho pressing need for the appointment of this gentleman at all. So experience has proved. This gentleman has proved to be almost redundant and, in order to provide for him against possible eventualities after the general election, he is put on to the permanent staff as head of the training and education branch. We have this curious anomaly. He is the one man whom one would have expected to know least about telegraph and postal work, and yet he is put in charge of a department which has not only got to do with the curriculum for the classes, but he has really got to teach the postmasters, who have under their control the classes at the various big centres, where the young men are qualified for their post or telegraph work. We have an attorney lassooed at Benoni and brought in with no knowledge of postal or telegraph work, and brought from that strange place to teach the young idea how to work. In order to make room for Mr. Foley a change was made which entailed a great hardship upon an officer who has a very meritorious record behind him, a man who has been loyal to the service, to the Department and to the Minister. He has been transferred to a postmastership at Simonstown and taken out of the administrative post in which he has qualified himself by years of study and devotion to duty and in which he took a pride. Then we have the case of Mr. Scheffer. This gentleman, I understand, was allowed by the Minister to have personal interviews, a privilege not accorded to other candidates, and so succeeded in impressing his claims and merits upon the Minister that he got promotion over the heads of people who were better qualified by certificate and length of service. I do not think the Minister could tell us, for instance, that Mr. Scheffer was the choice of the promotion committee. In the case of Mr. Foley, a large number of men were caused to recede in their promotion, or, in any case, to be disappointed of the opportunity of taking up a very coveted appointment. The occupant of that appointment at the time Mr. Foley was waiting for it was a man with long service and without a blemish to his record, and yet, without any sort of explanation, he is moved out of that appointment, transferred to Simonstown and Mr. Foley brought into his place. Then there is the question of the office learners, and that is a very serious question. Twenty-five per cent, of these young men who joined the service under a definite promise of the grade of salary that they would be paid, had the grade reduced owing to the depression that set in in 1922. At that time the Minister of Labour took up their case and he maintained that it was a gross injustice to these young men, but when he became Minister in charge of the Department concerned he was unwilling to redress that injustice and the present Minister seems to be carrying on that bad tradition. I hope he will realize that we cannot afford to lose good men of that kind. They are men whose whole interest, patriotism and feeling is in the country of their birth, and the Minister should set about to see that we retain these people. There is another question, and that is the reorganization of his entire department. The “Rand Daily Mail” says—

Before a long-winded bloke starts speaking, I want to congratulate the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on the way he fills his post, and in which he has come to the assistance of the farmers with farm telephones, and I want briefly to ask him to provide the following places with telephones. They are people who absolutely need telephones, so that they can telephone between the various villages and the railway station at Koopmansfontein, I want also to advocate building the line there as soon as possible, because the north-west in the past was one of the most cruelly neglected parts of the Union. This is the area which in future will be the best stock country in the Union. I want the Minister to have telephone lines constructed from Kuruman to Geluk via Kamden, also a line from Struggel to Khossies via Bretby, then a line from Olifantshoek to Rooival via Gamayana, and one from Winton to Dedeben, and finally a line from Sutton to lower Dikatlong. They are also far-off parts of the country, and the people have no communication with the rest of the world. I hope the Minister will consider it favourably, and certainly have those necessary connections constructed without delay.

I have listened to the statement of the Minister with regard to the post office at Johannesburg, and I hope the people of Johannesburg will be consulted as to the removal of the post office from the present site

I am not going to move the post office: I am going to move only the telegraphs —the operating side of it.

I am glad to hear that. I would like to know is he going to alter the present site to suit the convenience of the public? I am sorry he is going to defer it. There should be no delay. It should be done at, once. I see no provision for it in the loan vote. I do not suppose it will cost more than £20,000 to put all the requirements of the post office on the one spot where it is at present. It is well worth the money. If the Government, were not satisfied with the progress in Johannesburg, and if they had not thought the proposition of a new station was a sound one, they would not have gone on with the work.

I hope the Minister will revise his attitude towards the Postal and Telegraph Association. We remember the attacks made on the hon: member for Cape Town (Central) (Mr. Jagger) when he was Minister of Railways, and he took up a definite attitude in regard to the N.U.R.A.H.S.

He refused to receive trades union deputations on principle.

I never refused to see anyone who came along.

The Minister’s attitude seems to savour of punishing these people for remonstrating against appointments which were wrong in their origin. To show how unreasonable the Minister has been, I want to indicate that this has caused so much bewilderment to members of his department that they have been obliged to write to the Public Service Commission to ask what their position is in this matte—whether they are prevented from commenting on any departmental matter in their service magazine, and whether they may not comment on matters of this sort at meetings of the advisory council or at meetings of their own society. In reply, the Public Service Commission wrote that the duty of interpreting the Public Service Act was no part of its functions. In other words, these poor unfortunate officials are not to be allowed to know what offence to avoid committing, until they have committed an offence. That is an unreasonable attitude.

Reorganization does not go so far as the hon. member or the people who made the comments think it does. I am only proposing to give effect to the recommendations made by a select committee of the British House of Commons, which, however, are not to be put into force. The recommendations are very strong in favour of a practice that obtains in practically all European countries to-day— that the engineering side shall be under the direct supervision of the chief engineer, and that the purely postal staff shall be under an officer under the Postmaster-General, who himself will not be affected, but who will be the supreme chief of the whole concern. I think that will avoid a considerable amount of overlapping, correspondence and waste of time and money. I do not propose to deal any more with the Turner case. I am tired of it.

Cannot you give it a guide?

I propose to do no guiding anywhere. I want to reply to the hon. member for Cape Town (Central) with regard to the £3,000. I explained it last year. We had a wireless station at Walvis Bay and one at Slangkop, which overlapped to a considerable extent. We were getting the wireless information practically at the same time as the Walvis people were getting it, but we dare not transmit it to the people for whom it was intended. We found there was a delay in some cases of two days. That extraordinary position came about under an arrangement previously agreed to between the Postmaster-General and the Administrator. A lot of revenue was being lost, and it was decided to place the matter on a more satisfactory basis. I went up to South-West Africa, and we agreed finally that all messages that could be trapped by Slangkop would be, and seeing that the revenue hitherto derived by South-West Africa from their messages had passed into the general revenue and been looked upon as a regular source of income, we guaranteed them for three year £3,000 a year, and then the amount should taper off as they were allowed still to continue their own domestic messages which were increasing in volume. With regard to the £8,000, that is a subsidy for the Aeroplane Company, which has been floated and registered, and I am now setting inquiries on foot to see when they are going to start operations. We want to give them a reasonable time. This £8,000 is to be paid monthly, and not in advance. It goes on as long as it is thought desirable, according to circumstances. The hon. member for Cape Town (Harbour) (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) raised the question of the Pretoria Union Building gardens and the Cape Town Government House gardens, Groote Schuur gardens, and so on. He wanted to know the cost. The figures are at present in my office. The figure for Pretoria is five thousand and some hundreds of pounds for the annual cost of upkeep. In addition to that, we have free labour from the prisons. I do not like it, but without it the cost will be increased. The Cape Town gardens cost roughly about the same figure, five thousand and six or seven hundred pounds per annum. With regard to retired men, defence force experts are inquiring and surveying land and grounds at the present time.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.8 p.m.

I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to the case of Mr. Foley, Mr. F. W. Foley. Mr. Foley’s life was not always a sad one. He is said to have been a bright youth, and he is described as being of an agreeable, pleasant and genial disposition, and, being a man of some parts, he decided to take up the law, and was doing, I believe, fairly well, when by some evil genius he was persuaded to move his office to a constituency known as Benoni. At Benoni, I believe, he did fairly well for a time, when he decided to join the Labour party. From that moment apparently his business began to languish, and eventually disappeared altogether.

The hon. member should confine himself to the vote.

This is the appointment of Mr. Foley to this department that I am referring to. He was then offered an’ appointment as welfare officer at a salary in the neighbourhood of £400 or £500 a year. As a welfare officer there seemed very little fare for him to look well after. There were no people in distress or trouble who required his attention. It was therefore decided that Mr. Foley should have some appointment more commensurate with his ability, and where he could be more assured of regular employment, and it seemed that the best employment there could be given him was as technical instructor and general supervisor and O.C. training department. This is what is required of the manager of the training department: He has to exercise general supervision over the training of the youths who are training for postal appointments; he is responsible for fixing the standards and for setting up curricula and also setting efficiency tests for examinations. They decided that Mr. Foley, with his legal training, was just the man for the job, and although he had had no previous experience, I understand, he was offered this appointment. This appointment was held by one Mr. Warren. I do not know Mr. Warren, but I understand he was an official in the postal service of something like 35 years’ standing, but the important point is this, that he was in charge of the training, and in order to fit himself for the training of these beginners, he had himself gone through a seven years’ course. Obviously, if Mr. Foley was to become O.C. of the training department, Mr. Warren must be got rid of. Mr. Warren, in view of his 35 years’ service, and seven years’ training as a technical expert, was on the administrative side of this department, and as there were no vacancies, the only thing was to get rid of Mr. Warren in order to make room for Mr. Foley. These are the facts before me, and I am asking the Minister to say how far these facts are correct, or how far they are incorrect, and if they are correct, what is the reason for them? Mr. Warren is removed from his appointment, for which he is regarded by the whole of the staff as being pre-eminently suited, and he is removed to a second-class postmastership at Simonstown. Removing an officer in the postal department from the administrative side to the post office side is regarded as an act of degradation—it is really a reduction in status. Instead of serving the country in the efficient manner and effective way which his experience would enable him to do, he is more or less sweeping out the office at Simonstown and doing the odd jobs which a postmaster in a small office has to do. This is carrying out the policy adumbrated by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (North! when the Government first took office that the first thing to be looked after was jobs for pals. Give jobs to your pals by all means, but don’t knock one pal on the head in order to put another pal in his piace. Why has Mr. Foley been taken into the service, what were his qualifications for the post of welfare officer apart from his genial disposition, why was he removed, why was he given the appointment as training officer, what qualifications has he got as training officer, and is it at the back of the Minister’s mind to put Mr. Foley on to the permanent staff and to work him on to the permanent staff on a £500-£600-£700 a year basis, having had no experience of the public service, and having done nothing as far as one can gather except be a member of the Labour party?

I would like to ask the Minister what the position is in regard to the proposed bridge across the Orange River from Herschel to a point in the Free State. This was the subject of inquiries some time ago, and the Minister had an inspection made of several sites along the Orange River. People in Herschel are much concerned, and would like to know what is being done with regard to this.

I would like to raise a point as a question of policy, and that is in connection with the statement the Minister made a short time ago as to his policy in regard to the zoo on the Groote Schuur estate. There are an enormous number of people who are very keen on the zoo there. The matter is put on a humane basis, but I think the humanity side has been very much exaggerated. Take a lot of the animals there. The Minister will admit that most of the lions there have been born in captivity. I suppose the Minister in the course of his travels, by motor-car or otherwise, has seen the enormous number of people who take an interest in the zoo there, particularly children. If there is any question of humane regard for the animals about it, surely some of the cages might be made a little larger than they are at present. I can assure the Minister that if he abolishes the zoo there he will give cause for a tremendous amount of dissatisfaction to a very large number of people about here. I have a letter from the Mowbray Ratepayers’ Association, objecting most strongly to the Minister’s proposal to abolish the zoo there. Is it not a fact that when the zoo was taken over by the Government from the Rhodes trustees, it was a very old-established one? It has taken all these years for certain people to find that it is not humane to keep the animals there. There is a great deal of exaggeration about it. A good many people feel sore about the facilities on the estate having been curtailed, but if the Minister was to abolish the zoo, there would be a storm. If there is anything in the allegation about it not being humane to keep the animals there, the Minister can put that right. Many of us are very much opposed to the position being changed from what it was when the estate was taken over by the Government.

I do not want to attack the Minister, but only to say that the people on the countryside are very thankful for the telephones he has constructed, but I have a few complaints from the people who do the work of building the lines. I understand the Transvaal has been divided into four areas, and there is a gang in each area so that there are four gangs in the Transvaal. The areas are so large that the gangs are entirely dependent on the people who apply for the telephones, and this causes very great inconvenience. The people are paid their wages per day, according to their rank, and they must provide their own food. They sometimes go far from the villages and stations into the bleak country, and they have a very hard time. I myself saw the gang working in the district of Bethal, and then having to go to the district of Piet Retief for repairs. Then they have to be taken to the station by chance opportunities, and thence by rail to Piet Retief. When they want anything on Saturdays they cannot get to a place where they can obtain things. The foreman spoke to me, and asked me to bring it to the Minister’s notice. It will possibly cause a little expense, but I want to suggest giving each gang a light motor lorry. The people will, of course, have to look after the lorry, and it will remain Government property. Then they will be able to transport everything they require, and will not be dependent on the farmer. The farmers often have their hands full of work. Applications are often made by eight or ten farmers for a telephone. The people are very anxious to give the service, but when they come they cannot get the farmers sometimes to carry material to the place, and they lose much time. I shall be very glad if the Minister can do something for the people who sometimes have to go into the bushveld. If he will give a lorry to each gang, it will expedite the work very much, and reduce the cost. Suppose a gang needs wire, or a lot of poles. If they have a lorry they can soon go and fetch it from the station. The lorry will need some petrol, but they will be able to do much more, and it will greatly expedite the work. I hope the Minister will consider this, because the people have a very hard time in doing their work.

I would like to support what the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) has said. The Groot Schuur Estate, with the large vision Rhodes had, was handed over to the people of this country for all time, and for the purpose of making provision for a residence fitted for the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa. A sum of £1,000 a year, afterwards compounded at £25,000, was paid by the Rhodes Trustees to assist in the upkeep of a residence befitting the dignity of the Prime Minister. I can speak with personal knowledge in connection with that estate. Rhodes’ idea was to gather by degrees specimens of the fauna of this country so that the rising generations, or generation after generation, would have an opportunity of seeing them, and it was on account of that that the small zoo was established there. I maintain that when the Government took over the bequest, they took over the zoo with it. I agree with a great deal of what the hon. member said, and what the Minister himself said, that it might be advisable to increase the space in which some of these animals are confined. When the Government took over that magnificent bequest, they took over all the obligations and ideas which were in Rhodes’ mind when he decided to leave it in his will as a heritage to the nation. To remove the zoo would be to defeat one of the objects which I know he had in his mind, and would not be in keeping with the trust the Government took on themselves to support. I remember the first time the lions came there, and they were where the monument is. They were bred in captivity, and you can go past there during the day or the night, and these animals do not take the slightest notice, and are not in the slightest way disturbed by the people who pass by, or who look at them. There are admirable zoos at Johannesburg and Pretoria, and it should be the duty of the Government to extend the Groot Schuur zoo so that people living at the tail-end of South Africa should have an opportunity of seeing specimens of the fauna of this country.

I do not think sufficient attention is given to the upkeep of the Groot Schuur estate as a whole. I see £2,900 is spent on the general maintenance of the estate. Some time ago I walked along the upper contour road, and it is really appalling to see the beautifully made teak gate falling to pieces. It is indicative of the general falling away in the upkeep of the estate, which is a wonderful asset to the Union. The least we could do is to maintain it as its donor would have desired. Around the Rhodes memorial there is a shabby, mean, petty little wire fence which is quite out of keeping with the dignity and splendour of the memorial; better no fence at all, than the present one. Surely we can afford the small amount necessary for the erection of a proper railing fence. As to the so-called zoo, it is really a small menagerie which was intended to be the foundation of a proper zoological collection. I admit certain varieties of animals will not live in the open here; for instance, the springbok, which is accustomed to an extremely dry climate, but there are hundreds of other varieties that would prosper here—eland, kudoo, various antelopes, llama, zebra and wildebeest do quite well at Groot Schuur. We should have the Haagenbeck type of zoo, where ditches are substituted for fences, and not the present miserable little cages. At the gateway of South Africa we should have a representative collection of fauna without having to travel a thousand miles to see the main types of South African wild animals. The lions at Groot Schuur are perfectly happy. I have been in the cage of one of them, although I was not sorry to leave it. The Minister should not remove the menagerie, but make it the foundation of an expanded zoological garden stretching up the hillside where the animals could be kept under proper conditions. Even as it is, the collection attracts a very large amount of public notice. The Municipality of Cape Town should be brought into the picture as well to see whether it, with the Government, could not expand the present collection into a more worthy and representative one

I very strongly urge the Minister that so far from abolishing the Groot Schuur zoo, he should consider the possibility of developing it into a real zoological collection on Government lines.

If the people of Cape Town want a zoo, why can’t they have it themselves?

A year or two ago I raised the question of what was happening to the statue of Physical Energy which was weathering very badly. Then the temple at the Rhodes memorial is largely obscured by the trees. I want to ask the Minister to get experts to go into the matter of saying in what way the trees about there, which have grown to a very great height, can be dealt with carefully, scientifically and artistically, in such a way that from much more distant places than now you may get a proper view of that magnificent temple, which I am sure was the aim of the designer.

I understood the Minister of Finance to say that this is a matter for Cape Town, and that if they want a zoo they can provide it for themselves. After all, the Government makes a grant of £5,500 to the National Zoological Garden at Pretoria.

You do not want half a dozen national zoological gardens all over the country.

No, I do not want “national” zoological gardens all over the country, but I want what is already the nucleus of a decent zoological garden to be extended if possible by the trustees or the present owners of the Groot Schuur estate. It is the only one south of Pretoria and Johannesburg, and there are over 1,000 miles between the two. The Minister must not get annoyed about this; I want to see if it can be done. I know Pretoria has spent a lot of its own money, and Cape Town might do the same. I want to congratulate the Department of Public Works on the art gallery in Cape Town so far as it has got up to now. I see it is nearing completion. Would the Minister tell me whether the architect is one of his own departmental architects? I am very glad indeed to hear that he is a departmental one. I think you have there an architect showing very great promise. The proportions and general conception of that building, the lighting arrangements and everything architectural, both internal and external, struck me as being the work of a man skilful in his profession. I take it the art-gallery will be finished in the course of the next few months. Is there any hope of an extension beyond the present building? It is likely that certain funds will be made available under certain conditions. Is there any hope of that extension being carried out before the present work is completed, so that it can all be done at one time instead of waiting, perhaps, for years?

With regard to the memorial, it is not so long ago that Sir Herbert Baker was out here, who designed the memorial, and I believe he made certain suggestions to the Public Works Department when he visited the memorial. Perhaps the Minister will also say how far negotiations have gone with a view to placing a Delville Wood memorial in the middle of the avenue. I saw some time ago a design in which the Public Works Department took a great deal of interest, and I understand that has received the approval of Sir Herbert Baker. I would like to know how far negotiations between the Government and the Municipal Council of Cape Town have gone with regard to the placing as soon as possible of the Delville Wood memorial in a situation which will be worthy of the memorial and of the great cause for which it stands.

There is a great deal to be said for carrying on the two votes at the same time, but I hope most of the matters will be dealt with at one time, and that we will not have a new debate. May I dispose of the telephonic and telegraphic matter raised by the hon. member for Bethal (Lt.-Col. H. S. Grobler) and the hon. member for Weenen (Maj. Richards). With regard to the lack of transport facilities at the disposal of our gangs in the Transvaal, I will go into that matter and see what can be done in the direction he advocates. Of course, it is sheer misplacement of gangs, if they have not got means of transport to move quickly from one place to another to carry out their work. Although the hon. member for Weenen started in sarcastic vein. I hope he is not pursuing it in that way. In the first place, Mr. Foley is not without qualifications. He was not an unsuccessful, solicitor. He was drawing more in salary every year then we pay him to-day. That is true.

It is safe and clever to say those things here.

I think it is only the hon. member’s manner. I do not think he means to hurt or offend. Mr. Foley was a successful solicitor, but his whole life’s work, apart from earning his keep, so to speak, has been in undertakings such as he is doing to-day, but not on so wide a scale as he is doing to-day, because it was only part-time work, and a labour of love. He possesses the highest qualifications for such a post, I consulted long and earnestly with the Postmaster-General, Mr. Lennon, on this question, and he, like myself, was most emphatic that it was no use creating the post unless you had a man to fill it. That accounts for my bringing a man from outside.

Have you nobody in the service competent?

No, I know of none. I want to assure the hon. member and the committee that Mr. Foley has a thorough and intimate knowledge of trade unionism, and all its ramifications. He has had tremendous experience in industrial arbitration—a most useful qualification. He has, of course, from his life’s work a very thorough legal training. He has a thorough grasp of educational systems and matters, and experience of administration of educational activities. His experience in the care of young persons, such as his association with the Juvenile Affairs Board, and his experience in the management and control of sports, also an essential—

It is from my own knowledge of him.

I see you are reading it.

This is what I have put down. He possesses tact.

So does the Minister.

A wonderfully important qualification, and he has personality, an equally important qualification He was solicitor for the S.A. Mine Workers’ Union, for the A.E.U. (Benoni branch) and A.S.W. (Benoni branch).

No money in that.

No, it was a labour of love. He got nothing out of that.

made an interjection.

Don’t be unworthy. I presume the hon. gentleman was sincere when he was raising the point. Mr. Foley was chairman of the New State Areas Conciliation Board, when a unanimous decision was given. I know the unanimity was chiefly the result of the efforts of Mr. Foley. He was a member of the Brakpan Mines Conciliation Board. On the educational side, apart from his intimate personal knowledge, and as a result of it, he was on the East Rand School Board. He was chairman at the time I appointed him. He was a member of the Benoni high school governing body. I think he possesses qualifications in a very high degree indeed. My own personal knowledge of him was a sufficient testimonial to myself.

Was he chairman of your organization?

No, he was merely a humble member. He is a member of the Juvenile Affairs Board. For fifteen years he was on the controlling body of Rugby football, and he was for a similar period on the controlling body of cricket, and he has made a special study of most of these subjects.

What is his age?

He is about 45 or 46. He does not, nor do I, emphasize the fact that he served during the late war, and was a very active participant in obtaining justice for the returned soldiers. Mr. Foley possessed initially all the qualifications which, in my estimation, were required for such a post. The proof of the pudding is in the eating again, and he has proved an outstanding success. When I was in Johannesburg not long ago, I met a deputation of the Postal and Telegraph Association, and one of the things they said to me was: “When is Mr. Foley going to visit us ?” I do not think it is quite fair to keep attacking Mr. Foley in the way he is being attacked. He is eminently fitted for the post, and he is carrying out his duties to the satisfaction of everybody.

What are you paying him?

£600, rising to £700. I think my hon. friend associated himself with the hon. member for Illovo (Mr. Marwick) on the question of Mr. Warren. The statement has been made that Mr. Warren was ousted from his office and transferred to Simonstown in order to find room for Mr. Foley. That is not true; it is absolutely incorrect.

It is what happened.

It is not. Mr. Foley was appointed as welfare officer long before Mr. Warren was brought away.

Mr. Warren was appointed in 1923.

Mr. Foley was appointed welfare officer long before Mr. Warren was transferred from Pretoria to Simonstown and Mr. Foley was appointed by Mr. Lenton to enquire into all the circumstances surrounding Mr. Warren.

I think there is a misunderstanding. When he was appointed director of training and education, Mr. Warren was shifted to Simonstown.

The facts are these, and Mr. Warren will bear this out himself. I was in concultation with him, helping him to resist the demand of the educational authorities that this education should be taken over by them, but the educational authorities ultimately prevailed and Mr. Warren’s post was redundant and the choice lay between the redundancy of Mr. Warren and his transfer, and to show how sympathetic I was towards Mr. Warren; I may mention that when he was to go to Simonstown he said he had not got sufficient notice, and I at once agreed that he should have another month’s interval in which to make his arrangements, and furthermore, I allowed the transfer of two of his daughters down here so that his family should be complete down here. Surely that does not look like persecution. You must understand that everyone is liable to be transferred in the post office and those qualifications that the hon. member read out are just the qualifications that made that man a desirable postmaster. It was not done in order to make Mr. Foley director of education. Mr. Foley is not director of education. In the ordinary course of his welfare work, he is looking after the lads, the messengers, who are being educated. He is consolidating their work, generally, exercising supervisory control. That is what he is for. He was not appointed welfare officer to look after the highly-paid and highly-organized members of the staff.

Was not Warren doing that before?

He was settled in Pretoria and had nothing to do with the rest of the Union. The hon. members for Rondebosch (Mr. Close), for Albany (Mr. Struben) and for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) have raised the question of the zoo. I want to say at once that I am not anxious to dispose of that zoo, but I do not agree with the hon. member for Rondebosch or the right hon. gentleman that these animals are not incommoded by the traffic that passes along there at night. They must be. At all events, it must be an inconvenience to them, and a certain amount of cruelty. Of course, if you cage animals, whatever sort of cages you have and however big they are, if there is any element of confinement at all it is, to some extent, inhumane. They do not like it. It is not their natural mode of life, and we have to recognize that. Something must be done. Now the State cannot find what it is estimated to cost, nearly £10,000, but I want to say this, that a very strong deputation from the Publicity Association came to see me, and we discussed it from all angles, and we finally arrived tentatively at this agreement. Two or three members of the town council were on the deputation and they agreed to endeavour to influence the council in the direction of sharing in the cost on the fifty-fifty basis. If they are successful, I wil endeavour to get the Cabinet to agree to our share. I hope by these means to properly house these animals. We will push them back from the road; we will enlarge the cages; and we will do away with the lions’ cages and give them dens and so forth. I hope everything will be all right. I think there might be a happy medium between a national zoo, which is a sheer impossibility in our circumstances, and the rather attentuated thing we have to-day. We have the place and we have the surroundings, and as we can get animals that will fit into these surroundings, I see no reason why we should not get them, especially if they come in the form of gifts, and lay out the place rather as an extended park than as a zoological garden, and then we and our children and other people and their friends and children can enjoy sylvan surroundings which may be educative at the same time. I do subscribe to the sentiments expressed by the right hon. the member for Fort Beaufort (Sir Thomas Smartt) in regard to the late Mr. Rhodes, and I want to accompany the hon. member, as far as I can, into Mr. Rhodes’ mind on this question. To show how sentimentally I am inclined, I went out there to get some chestnuts so as to be able to say that I had chestnuts from those planted by Mr. Rhodes. Everything possible should be done to preserve and perpetuate his memory. You can count upon my association, support and sentiment and my sympathy. I will do everything I possibly can. In regard to the rather disgraceful state of the estate generally, that he has referred to, I have promised Mr. Harmer, who has been making representations to me, that the existing trees are rapidly wiping out the indigenous ones, to give him a day and we will go all round the estate as far as possible and go into the matter thoroughly and see what ought to be done and what will be done. With regard to the physical energy statue, we have had expert advice, and it is being followed. With regard to the vista, suggestions have already been made to the Prime Minister, and we are going into that. And now the art gallery. I am extremely grateful to the right hon. gentleman for the very kind words he has used with regard to our architect. I want to endorse everything he has said. From my own personal knowledge, we have one of the finest architects in South Africa at the head of our architectural department. He is really a brilliant man. His designs are carried out from the utility point of view, but with an air of simple grandeur which we can be honestly proud of and which sets an example to other people for their buildings. The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Struben) wanted to know whether there was any hope of the extension. I am hoping that there is hope for the extension, that we will be able to finish that extension with the aid of the trustees of the Lieberman estate. It is practically clinched now. They are contributing £10,000 and the estate is contributing another amount and their £10,000 will go towards a Lieberman wing to the art gallery to be built concurrently with the building. With regard to the lay-out of the Delville war memorial, we are in collaboration and association with the municipal council. It is going to be a beauty spot with its surroundings and its noble finish. The whole thing is going to be right through with the monument in a commanding position in the centre of the avenue. In regard to the Herschel bridge, that is the subject of negotiations between two provincial authorities and ourselves, but we cannot quite settle the site between us; that is all. My hon. friend (Maj. G. B. van Zyl) wants to know with regard to the flags. The flags themselves are built up of bunting, all the parts stitched together. I wanted to have the small flags in the centre, also stitched on in the same way, but when it came out, I found it was not so, but I could not help it. But they will last quite well, and there is no danger of their falling off. The hon. member tells me he did not get the figures of the upkeep of the public gardens at Pretoria and Cape Town. Pretoria is £5,190 and Cape Town £5,925.

It is not usually that I stand up to congratulate the Minister, but I should like to say to the Minister how much I, and I think other members, appreciate the sympathetic manner in which he has listened to the appeal in connection with the Groot Schuur estate, and the kindly assurances he has given that he will do everything he possibly can to carry out the ideals of the great giver of that very beautiful estate.

I would just like to correct one matter in regard to the financial position of Mr. Foley. It says here—

Well, this is what the official organ of the employees of the Post and Telegraphs has to say about that—.

Mr. Foley of Benoni, solicitor, whose practice, so the Minister told the House, had gone to the devil because of his devotion to the Labour party, has been appointed welfare officer.

This is in your own departmental magazine, and that is where I got my information from.

Vote as printed put and agreed to.

On Vote 32, “Public Works,” £947,857.

I notice at the bottom of page 176, an item Q—Contributions to Loan Account in respect of public works provided for in loan vote, B, £100,000; what is the meaning of that?

Last year, the hon. member will remember, the Minister of Finance stated that £100,000 was now being placed at the disposal of the Public Works Department. That was in a separate account. This year it is thrown in the Loan Account and is part of it.

I see that there is an increase on wages for statutory holidays from £1,600 to £5,100.

That is due to employees being more than we anticipated. It must be remembered that these estimates were estimated as far back as November, and things happen between then and when we come into the House.

Are these men not members of trade unions?

We had an agreement with the A.E.U. not so long ago under which they were asked to take a slight reduction under the agreed amount owing to certain privileges—just the ordinary trade union privileges.

I see on page 176, under Vote N, Contributions to the National Industrial Council of the building industry, £200. Why is that and what is that?

As employers, we contribute that amount to the National Industrial Council. It is an undertaking that the employers have. Frankly, I do not know too much about it.

And I am anxious to know a good deal more about it. I cannot see why the public works should make a contribution at all, and why should we do so to the building industry and not to various other trades?

Might I explain this? I happen to be connected with it as Minister of Labour. The National Industrial Council, for the building industry, employers and employees, levy their members so much per head per week—the employee pays so much and the employer pays’ the same; it is threepence per head—in order to run the council and to pay its necessary expenses. That is the fund with which they administer their activities. The hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Giovanetti) has just mentioned that these particular employees are artizans employed by the Public Works Department, and are not public servants in the ordinary sense of the word. They get trade union conditions the same as apply to artizans outside the service.

What I want to know is to what principle are we committing ourselves? Is this a special arrangement made by the Public Works Department with the National Industrial Council? Are there other departments which do so?

Railway-men are public servants; these are not; that is the difference.

Is this the only contribution?

From us, yes.

Is there a similar contribution made to the Industrial Council of the printing industry?

It would apply to all industries where there are artizans in the public service. They are not public servants, but they get union conditions.

In connection with the deduction that was made under the agreement the men were told they had to submit to it, whether they liked it or not. They never had an account how the money was spent, and had no control over it; they came to see me, and they petitioned the Department several times.

The employees are parties to the building agreement. They pay 3d. a week for the period at which they are at work, and the employees also make a contribution to holiday funds.

The men never agreed to it.

It is an agreement in the building trade to which these men are supposed to be parties.

The men to whom I referred have never had a penny for their holiday, and in consequence of their protest no further deductions are now made.

Can the Minister of Finance tell us when he is going to introduce legislation with reference to the payment of municipal rates on Government property?

I do not know why the hon. member is so keen on this subject. His Government was in power longer than we have been and they did not tackle the matter. I agree, however, that it is absolutely necessary for something to be done. Municipal valuations are going up, in fact the valuation of certain Government property has increased by 100 per cent. in a few years, but with all the legislation we have had, this is one of the matters to which we have not been able to give attention. It will be very strenuously opposed and we shall have to consult with municipalities all over the country. Whoever is here, whether I remain here or not, it is a matter which will have to be tackled in the interests of the country.

What is the reason for the greatly increased vote of about £5,000— which it amounts to with the supplementary vote—representing the Government’s contribution to the men’s holiday fund?

The increase is due to the enormous expansion of departmental work. We are employing three or four times more men and we are saving money.

Vote put and agreed to.

Supplementary Estimates.

Before we proceed I will remind hon. members of the rule governing the discussion on Supplementary Estimates, namely, that if the Estimates are not for a new service, but for an increase in a service, already approved of in the same financial year, the discussion must be limited to the reason for the increase. Discussions on policy will not be in order.

Vote 5, “Treasury”, £20,000, put and agreed to.

Vote 6, “Public Debt”, £50,000, put and agreed to.

Vote 7, “Pensions” £200,000. put and agreed to.

Vote 9, “Miscellaneous Services”, £5,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote 25, “Mines and Industries”, £90,500,

What is the exact position of the State diamond mines in Namaqualand?

We are making provision for the probable expenditure during the year in connection with the State alluvial diamond diggings at Alexander Bay. Some time ago the House was informed of the Government’s plans, and a preliminary amount was voted. The work is progressing and probably by the beginning of June operations will start in earnest. Some of our officials have been to the spot, and although they have not actually commenced mining operations, some rather important finds have been made. I do not think it would be wise for the House to press me for the full details, but I can only say that the results will prove that the Government was fully justified in taking the steps we proposed to tht House. It would be criminal on the part of the Government if anything else had been done. I can assure the hon. member of that.

What steps are going to be taken to protect the diamonds? There is a lot of I.D.B. going on already.

My hon. friend can rest assured that very elaborate arrangements have been and are being made, also of course in conjunction with the other people operating there, the Merensky Syndicate, who have a hundred claims there. In several matters there is co-operation. There is the important question of the safe removal of diamonds. Arrangements are being made for that to be done by Government aeroplane. Proper police arrangements for protecting the very valuable finds there have been made.

Perhaps we were kind in going on with the Estimates in the Minister’s absence. We were all longing for the Minister’s return so that he could give us a short statement on the diamond position in connection with which we are asked to vote £90,000.

I understand my hon. friend has dealt with the position. I do not know what particular information the hon. member desires.

We would like to hear from the Minister now before he takes that extra £90,000 what the position generally is. I am not asking the hon. the Minister to make any statement detrimental to the State.

The general question cannot be discussed. This only deals with Alexander Bay.

If the hon. the Minister assures me that in the interest of the State it would be inadvisable to discuss that question I will accept it.

The right hon. member will see that would be out of order.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 32, “Public Works”, £20,200, put and agreed to.

Vote 33, “Lands”, £1,400, put and agreed to.

On Vote 39, “Relief of Distress”, £100,000,

I see it is proposed to spend £50,000 on irrigation. Where are these works being carried out?

This is for flood damage repairs at Sundays River and elsewhere.

What does the term “distress” mean? Would it relate to distress caused by unemployment in other parts of the country?

As the hon. member knows provision is made both on the revenue Estimates of the hon. the Minister of Labour and also on the Loan Vote, but this refers specifically to the items I have mentioned, really flood damage and what we might have to expend in connection with the relief of distress in the drought stricken areas. It has nothing to do with the ordinary operations of the hon. the Minister of Labour in dealing with the matter. This is merely a supplementary vote. Ordinary provision is made on the vote of the Minister of Labour that we have already passed, and further provision will be made as the hon. member will see when we deal with the loan vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

Loan Estimates.

On Loan Vote A, “Railways and Harbours”, £5,550,000.

I move—

Agreed to.

Loan Vote B. “Public Works”, £600,000, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote C, “Telegraphs and Telephones”, £450,000.

I would like to ask where these farmer’s lines, £115,000, are going to be. There is also provision for extension of existing exchanges, £260,000. Where is that money going to be spent?

The money is going to be spent all over the country.

Have you not got plans?

Of course we have plans. Does the hon. member think I can carry the plans of a network of farmers’ lines all over the country in my head? I may tell him that, in the Free State alone, in the present state of applications, it will take us five years to catch up the applications that are already in hand on last year’s rate. This year it is a reduced amount. If I could build 6,000 miles of rural lines this year, I would still have another 6,000 to build. We have generally been building between 3,000 and 3,500 miles a year, the average cost working out, roughly, at £35 a mile.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote D, “Lands and Settlements”, £760,000,

I would like to have some information in regard to This vote. I see that you have for Hartebeestpoort irrigation settlement general development, £6,000, preparation of plots, £10,000 and advances to settlers, £25,500. Then there is the matter of the Karos irrigation settlement, in regard to which two items appear, one of £16,500 and the other of £4,500.

As regards Hartebeestpoort, my colleague has on more than one occasion dealt with that. There is work going on below the dam, both by the Department of Labour and the Department of Lands. We are dealing here with the scheme falling under the Department of Lands, the probationary lessees. Quite a number of people have now been passed out and they will eventually acquire plots. My colleague is satisfied that that probationary scheme below the Hartebeestpoort dam is a great success. I think all the plots are now occupied. So far as the Lands Department is concerned. I do not think they have more land available. The last batch of these probationary lessees, I believe, are now there, and the plots are now being prepared for them, but very shortly the whole scheme will be completed: At Karos a similar scheme will be started, and also at Oliphants River.

I see there is an amount of over half a million pounds for the purchase of land for settlement purposes. Is that land purchased going to be dealt with on the system of buying farms and directly settling people on them, or under Clause 11 of the Act?

No, it is all under section 11.

I would like to know something about the item development of Sundays River irrigation settlement, £10,000. For some time, things have been at a standstill there. Perhaps the Minister will tell the House what the general position of the Sundays River valley is just at present. The third point I would raise is in regard to the acquisition of land in the Kruger National Park. I thought all the land had been purchased last year. I see on the vote £7,000 for the purchase of additional land. In regard to the elephant reserve in the Addo, the Minister of Lands takes a deep interest in these game reserves and I know that a great deal has been done and we are doing our best to get the elephants to stay in the reserve. Can the Minister tell us what this expenditure of £1,400 is for and whether there is any better luck in regard to getting the elephants to be as obedient as we would like them to be, and to remain in the reserve?

In regard to Sundays River, we have just dealt with the supplementary estimates. From revenue we propose to repair the flood damage done to the canal. This is development work in connection with the Government land which we took over from the company. I think the Minister was rather reluctant to go in for an extension scheme there while the water prospects were not good. I believe he has got a good deal of surplus land there that wants clearing. As far as the acquisition of land in the Kruger National Park is concerned, the hon. member knows that this is part of the scheme under which a number of farms were acquired from private land owners in the park. We are not buying any fresh land. This is the balance of the purchase. As regards the elephant reserve at Addo. this item is mostly in connection with the water supply. Windmills were erected. It is also to complete the scheme which the Minister had in hand, and of which he gave the House some time ago the particulars.

Do you know anything about the elephants? The elephants would not stay in the reserve.

They tell me now that they have already made provision for certain water supplies, and they think that, when the arrangements are completed, they will succeed in keeping the animals there.

In connection with Sundays River, and what the Minister has said, I hope the Government, without the fullest investigation, will not attempt to extend the irrigation in connection with the land that the Government own. The one thing to make Sundays River a success is that the Government should first see that the water will be sufficient for the land already given out. I think it will be most inadvisable, until you have a year or two of experience, to extend the irrigable area there. The one thing that will make the scheme a success will be that the Government should hold their hand and not try and develop new areas which have not been brought under water.

I think I can assure my right hon. friend from the discussions I have had with my colleagues that he fully realizes that. That is the difficulty there. The water question has had the consideration of my colleague, and I can assure the right hon. member that that will be borne in mind.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote E, “Irrigation”, £261,000, put an I agreed to.

On Loan Vote F, “Local Works and Loans”, £2,139,000,

I would like to ask the Minister to explain the reduction of the loan to the provincial authorities who deal with primary education, while on the other hand there has been an increase in loans to the universities and colleges. I have no objection at all to an increase for educational purposes, but I would like it to be clearly understood that the first claim for loans should be for primary and technical education. Yet we have here a decrease in loans to the provincial administrations of £120,000, and an increase in the loan to the universities of £58,000. I would like the Minister to kindly explain why.

These apparent decreases are not of any real significance, because they are not based on what the provinces had the previous year, but on the actual requirements. Of course, we had to cut not only loans to the provinces, but other Union departments. We are voting here about £11,000,000, but the demands were for £16,000,000 or £17,000,000, and the Treasury insisted that every department should cut its capital requirements. In that way the provinces also, of course, have not got the full amount they asked for, but very nearly. As far as the universities are concerned, here we have to do practically with commitments. Every year we have had to provide a fairly large amount for the Cape Town university scheme, which is nearing completion. We have had building schemes in progress all over the Union, thus we have definite commitments, and we are providing the amnunts which are required during the year. I can assure my hon. friend that these cases are all dealt with on their merits, and taking into consideration the various needs of the various departments, such amounts are provided out of what we have available, as we can afford it.

If that is the case, why have you given a largely increased grant to South-West Africa?

As the hon. member knows, we have in the past always had a certain amount on our loan estimates for South-West Africa, but up till now—I think last year was the first time—they have been able to finance their capital requirements out of current revenue, but, unfortunately, owing to the depression in the diamond market last year they had a deficit, and they will have a deficit again this year, so that we have to provide a loan, not only for the revenue deficit, but also for reasonable capital requirements. In the amount here is included the amount we promised out of the Custodian of Enemy Property Fund. We made £200,000 available for land settlement. Now that the Angola farmers are coming in, some of this money will be required for that. We hope that when the diamond market improves, the revenue will again improve to such an extent that it will not be necessary for the Treasury to continue financing their ordinary revenue. That is a very unsound position, of course, and I have been trying to impress upon the Administrator that, in view of the present financial position, they should curtail not only ordinary expenditure, but also capital requirements.

Perhaps the Minister will tell us how far the negotiations in connection with the Angola settlers have gone, and whether this includes that amount of £50,000 which, I understand, the council of South-West Africa refused to vote the other day.

Yes, we are providing in these estimates for the £50,000 which was, unfortunately, not sanctioned by the legislature of South-West Africa, As far as the actual negotiations are concerned, the right hon. member knows that the Minister of Lands left a few days ago, and he is going to accompany the Administrator to meet these people and confer with them, and see whether the scheme can be carried through of their coming into South-West Africa. Certain plans have been made. As far as the refusal on the part of the legislature is concerned, to vote the money, probably other steps will be taken to make the amount available.

Will you debit them with the £50,000?

Yes, the arrangement is this, that they have the £200,000 which is available out of the Custodian of Enemy Property Fund. A small proportion of that has been spent. The balance will be made available for this scheme, plus a certain additional amount to be added.

I presume it would be necessary also for the Government to take steps through the Governor-General-in-Council to authorize that amount of money which the council has refused to vote for this particular purpose?

I hope the Minister will consider during the recess the possibility of the Government exercising a greater control in the direction of the building of technical institutes.

Why?

For the following reasons. We allow the local bodies to appoint their own architects. We allow them, in some instances, to settle on the design and the number and classification of class rooms; the Government has no control at present whatever. I do not think that the Public Works Department should have greater control than they have had in the past. It is also possible for the Public Works Department to provide more efficient and cheaper buildings than are being erected at present.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote G, “Land and Agricultural Bank”, £400,000,

Why is this £200,000 for agricultural loan companies given separately from the ordinary grants to the Land Bank? Won’t the Land Bank be responsible?

Yes.

Is my hon. friend correct? Is the Land Bank really responsible for that £200,000? The Land Bank is administering that £200,000. After all, the credit societies and loan societies to finance to the credit societies was the policy of this House to meet a condition of affairs which required assistance and local credit, but it would hardly be fair to charge the Land Bank with all losses on a loan of that character.

These are provided from the Land Bank funds, and it is only to show to the House that we have made provision for this purpose that we vote it in this way. They are not administered by the Land Bank. If any loss is made on this, it will be a loss on the bank, and not on the Treasury.

This amount for the Umfolozi sugar estates, if there is any loss accruing here, it is not on the bank?

This is one of the guaranteed loans. Here we have to deal with a case where we found a commitment of the previous Government; advances had to be made to these people. Unfortunately, a flood came and destroyed the mill, and we had to continue to make advances until the total is £379,000, a much bigger commitment than I anticipated, which includes the £20,000, and I hope I have finished with them now. It has been a disappointing experience. Every time we thought we had got to the end. From investigations made—one cannot be too certain— the prospects are not too bad. The mill really wants more cane to crush. It is a big and very good mill; but to be on an economical and payable basis they want more cane, and if that can be provided the prospects are not too bad.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote H, “Forestry”, £209,000,

I want to ask the Minister what (4) is, and what the nature of the work is. Why is there such a small amount for afforestation in the western conservancy? If the Minister of Agriculture could persuade the Minister of Finance to plant an extra tree for every pound of the national debt, in 30 or 40 years we would not have the need for a sinking fund, and would have the national debt paid off.

The question of the hon. member for Rondebosch (Mr. Close) is what is the meaning of the amount for the experimental station for timber. I want to point out that we formerly had a research station in conjunction with the railways, where the wood was inspected and tested, and then classified into wood for sleepers, house furniture, etc. The railways now have their own testing station, and the amount mentioned here is for the new testing station. The amount appeared on last year’s estimates, but was not used owing to difficulty in getting ground. The amount is therefore, actually a repetition. The hon. member also asks why a smaller amount is being spent for afforestation in the Western Province than in other parts of the country. The reason is that, so far more trees have been planted in the Western Province, and the department prepares a certain programme for the year, and when the programme was submitted to me I approved of it. The afforestation commenced much sooner in the Western Province. I shall go into the matter, and perhaps we shall plant more trees next year in the Western Province.

Would the Minister also tell us how the experimental killins are getting on. Perhaps the Minister would be able to tell us whether there Las been any development as far as private sources are concerned. I agree with my hon. friend about planting a tree for every one pound of the national debt.

That is not a tall order.

I would like to see us plant 25,000 to 30,000 acres a year, if not more, but before you can embark upon a scheme of that sort, you must have trained officers and you must have the plantations properly surveyed and laid out. You must have trained men, not only to lay out, hut to supervize the planting of the trees. The Minister might see whether we have not arrived at a period of time when we can go faster than in the past, provided we have young South African officers competent to supervize the work. Even in a country like Canada which is said to be so rich in timber that it could be squandered years ago, they are beginning to realize that in 25 or 30 years’ time there will be a shortage of soft wood, and if that is so in Canada, and in Australia, most of the soft woods have been disposed of, it behoves this country to go forward as quickly as it can to plant soft woods. I will not live to see it, but younger members will see that if we do not go on planting soft woods they will become very scarce.

I don’t want to disturb this happy discussion but hon. members should realize that yellow wood sleepers cost us about 9s. 6d. each compared with 7s. 6d. for which they can be imported from Australia. Yellow wood, too, lasts only half the time that Jarrah wood sleepers do. Last year I went to Duivels Kloof and one of the principal tree planters told me that they could only get about 2s. per tree. I hope the Minister of Agriculture will not allow his enthusiasm to run away with him.

Why the hon. member is understood to be an enthusiast over tree planting.

But I temper my enthusiasm with commonsense.

Vote put and agreed to.

Loan Vote J, “Native Affairs”, £2,000, put and agreed to.

Loan Vote K. “Agriculture”, £4,200, put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote L, “Iron and Steel Industry”. £25,000,

Can the Minister give us any information in regard to the item— “purchase of 500,000 ’A’ shares of the South African Iron and Steel Corporation, Limited, £25,000”?

In terms of the Act the Government have to pay a shilling a share for 500,000 “A” shares within a fortnight after the registration of the company.

Is that all the capital you provide?

No.

Have you appointed the directors yet?

Not yet. I hope to have the company registered by June 5th. A proclamation will appear in next Friday’s “Gazette.” I have left a few days ahead for the Registrar of Companies to formally register the company.

Has a manager been appointed?

He will not be appointed until the directors are appointed.

Has the Government any manager in their mind’s eye?

No, that is a matter for the directors.

The managing director is to be appointed by the Government. Has the Minister anyone in the retina of his eye?

That is rather too vague.

Has the Minister had many applications for this first issue of 500,000 shares and the £1,500,000 debentures?

Vote put and agreed to.

On Loan Vote M, “Labour”, £180,000, On the motion of Mr. Jagger, it was agreed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported; to resume in committee on 28th May.