I just want to inform hon. members what the business of the House will be next week. We shall proceed with the discussion of the Votes. The Prime Minister’s Vote will come up for discussion on Wednesday. Immediately after the Prime Minister’s Vote the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ Vote will come up for discussion. During the rest of the week we shall discuss the Vote, and Monday week the second reading of the Bill, of which my hon. colleague has just given notice, will be taken and the Bill will then be dealt with in all its stages.

Yesterday there was a discussion here on a specific book, a book entitled Selma, which cropped up repeatedly in the speeches made by the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Orange Grove. I have not read the book. I glanced at it briefly this morning and it become very clear to me why the hon. members for Houghton and Orange Grove have suddenly become so morally indignant in this one particular case about the sex and the violence which is supposedly being proferred in this book. I saw that the book gives an account of the so-called freedom march of the Civil Rights Movement, and it became clear to me that the objection on the part of the hon. members was not a moral one, but in actual fact a political one. The Civil Rights Movement which has been held un to us here in South Africa by the Press which supports the hon. member for Houghton as a kind of holy crusade, is now being described in the book in its true colours, and the picture being painted is not a pleasant one. It is everything but a picture which will sustain the image of a holy crusade.

Do you believe every word in that book?

I have not read the bock but it is very clear to me now why this objection is being made. It does not arise from moral considerations but is being mooted because this book paints a picture of that Civil Rights Movement as it is in reality. I am not at all certain that the hon. member for Houghton has read the book. I think she merely read the commentary made by the Sunday Times on it. I shall not challenge her to tell me whether that is so. I have admitted candidly here that I did not read the book: I have not had the opportunity of doing so but one can nevertheless get at the essence of a book by paging through it and glancing at the chapters which are of importance. I shall let the matter rest there, but I just want to tell the hon. members for Houghton and Orange Grove that they cannot make the country believe that they have suddenly blossomed into guardians of the morals of South Africa.

The hon. member for Houghton also spoke yesterday about the position in regard to passports and visas. She did not finish her speech but it was very clear to me that her grave consternation was due to the fact that a certain Prof. Gwendoline Carter has recently been refused a visa to come to South Africa.

In fact I never mentioned her name.

I am not a mind reader but I know very well why the hon. member for Houghton was so excited. The hon. member for Yeoville has also, on a certain occasion, told the Press that he is also of the opinion that Prof. Carter should have been granted a visa. It is true that the hon. member for Houghton did not mention it in her speech, but she did put a question in regard to the refusal of a visa to Prof. Gwendoline Carter. I do not know for what reason the hon. the Minister of the Interior refused the visa, but I want to read a passage from Die Vaderland of the 30th August this year (translation)—

In Die Vaderland there is a report of a speech which Prof. Gwedoline Carter delivered at the North Western University, on 4th November, 1964, where she said inter alia that—

That is the great advantage!

And those are the friends of the hon. member for Houghton.

But Prof. Carter went even further in that speech, and said, referring to America—

I tell you it is a pack of lies.

That is what Prof. Gwedoline Carter says she is doing. With all her activities in America she is proving that she is an active mischief-maker against South Africa, an active enemy of South Africa, but that is not all. It is by chance so that this hostility on the part of Prof. Carter towards South Africa goes hand in hand with an obvious friendship with the hon. member for Houghton. I want to quote to you what Prof. Carter said in that speech. She said—

Remember, “we” are the people who are arousing suspicion against South Africa—

Those are the people for whom the hon. member for Houghton wants to take up the cudgels so that they may be allowed into South Africa. That is the role which those people are playing overseas and the hostility of those people coincides with their friendship with the hon. member for Houghton. I leave it to the judgment of the members of this Committee to decide what meaning must be attached thereto.

That is why I can understand very well that the hon. member for Houghton will have objections to other people who are coming to South Africa and to whom she referred yesterday, because it is very clear that those people who are coming to South Africa are not the enemies of South Africa and do not cause trouble for South Africa overseas, and for that reason too will not be the friends of these friends of the hon. member for Houghton who are perpetrating these actions against South Africa. That is why she will inevitably object to them. She referred to Major Bundy who is coming to South Africa for the International Symposium on Communism. The hon. member said he had been discredited in his own country. It amazes me that the hon. member for Houghton can regard that as a disqualification, for can one imagine a person who is more discredited in the eyes of the White voters of South Africa than the hon. member for Houghton, who ascribes her own greatest qualification of discreditability in South Africa as a disqualification for other people. [Interjections.]

Since she has referred to the Symposium on Communism and the persons who are going to participate, I just want to mention a few names of persons who are going to appear there. There is Nathaniel Weyl, a former Communist who has for years already been participating in the struggle against communism, and who, together with Prof. Possony, inter alia, is the writer of several works, such as The Geography of the Intellect. There is a Mr. Luis Manrara, chairman of The Truth About Cuba Committee, and an eminent professional personality in Cuba, who had to flee when Castro took over. There is Prof. Possony, who was one of the witnesses for South Africa at the international court case on South West Africa, a man of the highest academic calibre and the writer of a number of books such as A Century of Conflict, and Lenin, the Compulsive Revolutionary. There is Maj. Edgar Bundy, writer of Collectivism in the Church, and recently of another book, How the Communists use Religion. There is Prof. Dr. Nicolas Nyaradi, Minister of Finance in the last cabinet in Hungary before the communistic take-over, who is at present at the University of Bradley in the U.S.A, and a member of the Task Force on the Conduct of Foreign Relations of the Republican Co-ordinating Committee of which ex-President Eisenhower is the chairman. There is Mrs. Alexander, who is attached to an organization in New York and who trained persons in the struggle against communism, and then there is Madame Suzanne Labin, an expert in the field of communistic propaganda, who has already acted as lady chairman at symposiums on communism in Europe.

Now I know, as we saw in the Sunday Times, that the big boss of the hon. member for Houghton has spoken, and that is why she too must now get up to sow suspicion against the symposium. [Time limit.]

I was not going to intervene in this debate again, but I really cannot allow the rather venomous attack on me to go unanswered. I think it would be a very good idea if the hon. member for Innesdal learned at this stage of his rather advanced political career to attack subjects on merit and not a personal basis. I do not know what impression he thinks he makes on anybody, but it may be among the more feeble-witted supporters he has in this House.

On a point of order, is the use of the word “feeblewitted” allowed?

I said “more feeble-witted”. At any rate, as far as Professor Gwendoline Carter is concerned, the hon. member is quite right in his assertion that I no doubt was going to mention her had I had sufficient time. I had indeed intended to raise the case of Dr. Gwendoline Carter and the absurdity of this Government denying a woman of her calibre a visa to enter South Africa. Sir, Dr. Carter is the head of Africa Studies at North-western University in Chicago. She is one of the most highly regarded workers in the field of African studies in the whole of America. She has had many years of experience in that field, and she has paid many visits to South Africa on previous occasions. She has written probably the most authoritative book on South African politics that anybody has written. After many years of concentrated study of the politics of this country, she has written a tome called The Politics of Inequality in South Africa, which in fact gives chapter and verse of the organizations of all the political parties in this country on a purely technical basis. I imagine that there are many members of the Nationalist Party who would learn something about their own party organization if they read that book. I challenge the hon. member for Innesdal to say that he has ever read one book that Dr. Carter has written. Of course he has not.

Yes, I have read that book on politics in South Africa.

I asked the hon. member this because he is quite prepared to pronounce upon a book that he has never read at all, this disgusting little book Selma, which he now says of course is simply an exposé of the civil rights movement in America. It is just a disgusting little book, but the hon. member is prepared to stand up there in defence of a book he has never set eyes on. So I do not think one need pay very much attention to him. [Interjection.] The book is available. I hope the hon. member for Orange Grove will lend this little book to the hon. member for Innesdal for the week-end so that he can have an enjoyable week-end. It is just his cup of tea. I can see him having a whale of a time with that book. [Interjections.] Anyway, as far as Dr. Carter is concerned, I personally am not prepared to accept a report in a newspaper of a speech purported to have been made by Dr. Carter. I have written to Dr. Carter, because I also read this article, asking her whether she could send me the full typescript of this speech, which she delivered in November, 1964. I believe Dr. Carter has been to this country since then, so why this suddenly should be raked up as the reason for her no longer being allowed here I do not know. But I wrote to Dr. Carter for the full typescript of the speech she is reputed to have given in November, 1964. [Interjections.]

What about the Luthuli incident?

I know nothing about that at all. If Dr. Carter committed an illegality while she was in this country, which I doubt, there was nothing to stop the Department of Justice from charging her with committing an offence. There is no evidence whatsoever that any of this took place and I am absolutely convinced, knowing what I do of Dr. Carter, as a most level-headed and moderate person and a student who was prepared to come out and make a really objective examination of the theory of apartheid, if nothing else, to see whether partition or some possible alternative could exist in South Africa, that she would not ever have said the immoderate things which the hon. member for Innesdal has now quoted. As soon as I have the typescript of that speech I will show it to him.

I want to return to the question of the Publications Board. Yesterday an attack on the Board was launched by the hon. member for Kensington as a result of his stating that the Board was incompetent to do its work, and he subsequently came forward with this peculiar proof. He referred to the book When the Lion Feeds, which was taken to the Provincial Section of the Cape Supreme Court and subsequently to the Appeal Court, the majority finding of which was subsequently in favour of the Publications Board. The hon. member argued that if an equal number of Judges in the Provincial Section found against the Board and a similar number in the Appeal Court, and one were to put the two together, then one would find that this Board is an incompetent one. Now, everybody accepts that the decision of the Appeal Court, which is the highest court in our country, is final and is the correct decision, and even if ten Judges in the Provincial Section decided on a certain point in regard to various cases, and the Appeal Court only had a majority of one, its judgment is still accepted by the civilized world as the correct one.

What about the six old men in Bloemfontein, and what about the decision in the case about the High Court of Parliament?

Even the hon. member for Kensington must accept that the judgment of the Appeal Court is the correct one. In other words, the Appeal Court found that the Publications Board had been correct and that it was therefore a competent body. All that the hon. member proved here was not that the Publications Board was incompetent but that the hon. member, and I say this with all respect, cannot argue logically.

I then come to the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member attacked this Board and the whole gist of his attack was that such a Board should not exist because, he alleged, everything was so vague. He said that there were many shades of grey between white and black and that all these decisions are so difficult to explain. He intimated that this Board is therefore not competent to carry out its task. The whole gist of his argument was in actual fact that this Board is too strict in its actions, and he then came forward with this illogical statement that this Board had now passed a smutty book.

I spoke about the Race Classification Board and not about the Publications Board.

No, the hon. member referred to the book Selma here and he said that this smutty book had been passed and that this Board was therefore incompetent. But I do not want to dampen unnecessarily the desire on the part of hon. members on both sides of the House to discuss books. I just want to make this statement, that I do not think the House of Assembly is the right place to criticize the Publications Board, and I shall disclose my reason for thinking that. The Publications Board is an autonomous body and this House of Assembly granted the right of appeal to the courts against any decision of that Board. Consequently the means has been created of testing the decisions of the Publications Board. Of course the hon. member has the right to raise a matter, but one wonders whether this is the right place to do so. One finds oneself in the same position in regard to the magistrate’s courts. One may just as well come along here and attack the decision of a magistrate and say that the magistrate had been incorrect, but as you know, Sir, there is a right of appeal from the magistrate’s to the Supreme Court.

Where must one discuss a judgment made by the S.A.B.C.?

There is no appeal to the court in that case, but in this case there is a direct appeal to the courts. I think it is very unfair to attack the Publications Board in this House, in a short speech lasting ten minutes. The Board is not here to defend itself. Nobody here has read the book. A short extract is taken from the book and this allegation is sent out into the world and the Publications Board is smeared without the right to be heard. I do not think that this is the right place to criticize that Board. If hon. members have any objection, they have the right of appeal, but I do not think that the matter should be discussed here.

In regard to the Publications Board, one of the first things I want to say is that I am amazed that people should support or criticize the book Selma when they admit they have not read it. I find it most strange, and particularly the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, who said yesterday that he found very little wrong with that book although he had not read it.

On a point of personal explanation …

Order! The hon. member will get another opportunity to raise his point.

I have here a magazine which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana might know something about, because the company which I understand publishes this magazine … [Interjections.] I will deal with this magazine in a moment, but what I want to say now is this. I personally support the principle of censorship, although I do not like the method. Another member said yesterday that most of the poor literature comes from the United Kingdom and the United States and Australia. That may well be so, but there is something published here in South Africa which I believe is just as bad or worse than any of those publications coming from overseas. One of the hon. members said yesterday that the magazines and periodicals coming from overseas corrupt the morals of our population. The greatest percentage of our population is the non-Whites. I claim that this magazine corrupts the morals of the non-Whites in South Africa. This magazine is full of violence. It is called True Africa. Heaven forbid that this should be true Africa! This magazine contains nothing else but violence, cruelty, knife-wielding Africans.

Who publishes it?

Ster of Durban. This magazine shows the Bantu how to hold up banks. In the last few weeks there was an article showing them how to organize gun-running on the coasts of South Africa. In this particular issue they deal with witchcraft and in fact encourage it. They say that if the reader sends in an application they will get the lost sign of the Zodiac and this will bring them all sorts of luck. Here is the magazine. Hon. members opposite are so full of criticism of articles and books that come from overseas, but here in our very midst we probably have the worst thing of all. In the last few years we saw them ban American comics because they said they were violent. To-day if you walk down the street they will block out the revolver on a cinema poster because they do not like the non-Whites to see it. If they were to count the number of non-Whites holding revolvers in this particular issue, they would find it is something like 20. You will find a non-White clashing with the police, in this magazine. Sir, you might be interested to know that the publication figures of this magazine are 75,000 per week. I have had cases reported to me of Native servant girls reading this magazine to young White children, who have suffered from nightmares as the result. I believe that this is something which the Publications Board can look into and they should do so very quickly. If one notices the increasing crime rate, one need not look very much further than this magazine for the reason.

On a point of personal explanation, the hon. member for Port Natal said I had not read this book Selma but had expressed an opinion on the book. I certainly did not express an opinion. I did say that it appeared from what the hon. members for Orange Grove and Houghton had said that the contents of that book indicated …

But what is the point of personal explanation?

The point of personal explanation is that he charged me with having expressed an opinion on the contents of a book which I had not read, and I did not express an opinion on the contents.

I am sorry. The hon. member is making a speech now. Did the hon. member read the book or not? That is the only point at issue.

Sir, if hon. members opposite would hold their peace for a moment,

I will tell them what the point is. I do not need their help. I did not need it in the election and I do not need it now. Yesterday I said that the book raised an issue—I used the words “walging wek”. I spoke in Afrikaans yesterday. I said: “Die boek wek walging.” That is the opinion I expressed. It was not an opinion on the contents of the book. [Interjections.]

In the light of the fact that the hon. member for Mooi River intimated earlier this year in this House that he made use of witchcraft to protect his crops against hail, I do not find it at all strange that there should be a publication from Natal in which witchcraft is being promoted. As far as the hon. member for Houghton is concerned, since she has made a personal attack on the hon. member for Innesdale, and since she discussed matters which had already been dealt with by the hon. member for Innesdale. I shall not react any further to what she said but shall proceed to discuss two matters under the Vote.

The onslaught by the international power-seekers is aimed at conquering the human spirit at levelling all values, at eliminating all boundaries, including those of morality and custom, and also at the elimination of free thought, national boundaries, as well as the boundaries of patriotism. All that must be broken down. In order to succeed in this onslaught the international power-seekers are making use of a wide variety of means, one of which is the bombardment of the human spirit with pornographic and demoralizing literature, films, music and television programmes, where murder, rape and other perversities has become the daily spiritual diet of millions. To try and temper this onslaught on the spirit of the people of the Republic of South Africa—I repeat, I am not saying prevent, but temper—this Publications Board has been established, and those who try to ridicule the attempts made by this Board are associating themselves by implication with the onslaught against the people of South Africa and must therefore be included amongst the enemies of our people, and let those who are trying to promote the endeavours of the international power-seekers by these means take note of the fact that the people will never forget what they are doing.

Under passport control I also want to ask the hon. the Minister for stricter control over the issuing of visas to overseas visitors. We are aware of the fact that two gentlemen, two Americans, recently spent some time with us. They enjoyed our hospitality for quite a long time. In fact, they stayed for almost a year at Stellenbosch. I am referring to the two gentlemen, William O. Brown and Vernon McKay. Upon their return to America they collaborated on a publication and since hon. members opposite are so fond of waving books about, here is the book on which they collaborated. The title of the book is Apartheid and United Nations Collective Measures, edited by Amelia C. Leiss, prepared under the auspices of The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, New York, March, 1965.

For those who have read the book it is very clear that in toto the book is nothing less than a master plan for taking over our country by force of arms. These people were, by implication, nothing less than agents—I am talking about Brown and McKay—who, under the guise of friendship, abused our hospitality in order to obtain information on our country. May I add that these people were brought here under the so-called “friendly” U.S.A.-S.A. Leader Exchange Programme, an organization the chief motive of which is supposed to be the so-called “building of bridges of understanding”. That is an example of the kind of “understanding” where, under the guise of friendship, opportunities are utilized as a means to promoting violent attack. In the light of the foregoing I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come for stricter control over the issuing of visas, as well as for even more searching investigation of the past and the activities of prospective overseas visitors.

I want to revert for a moment again to the question of race classification and the implementation of the Act, particularly in relation to certain suggestions made yesterday. First of all I want to say to the hon. member for Parow that I support him fully when he says that the implementation of this Act requires tact, circumspection and understanding. I am only sorry that he spoilt what was an objective approach to this problem by launching an attack on the hon. member for Wynberg. I think the hon. member for Wynberg should be commended that she is able to give the time she does give to help these people who are involved in these difficulties which arise from the Group Areas Act. In the time at my disposal I cannot obviously go into detail of the 18 cases I have before me, but I want to say to the Minister that amongst them are persons who are engaged couples who suddenly found that one of them was reclassified because of some ancestry which was discovered and was unknown to that person. There are also others. There is the case of two young ladies who throughout their lives had lived in a White area. They were adopted as very small children and they lived in a White area and they were employed as White people and they have now suddenly been reclassified as Coloureds. Through shame they have not come forward until they realized that 1st October was the zero hour by which everyone should have a registration card.

There are other cases. There is a man who worked for 41 years as a White person. I put his case up to the Department. They have not been able to review it. His house has been sold in a White area and he said to me: “Mr. Murray, for God’s sake tell me where do I buy a house now? Am I Coloured or am I White? What happens to my pension?” I want to say to the Minister that I believe, and I accent what he said yesterday, that he is a human man with humane feelings. If I could misquote I want to appeal to him to-day to extend a little of man’s humanity to man in so far as the application of this Act is concerned. There are 245 cases pending for reclassification. There are 245 persons who have asked that their cases should be reclassified by the Board.

I have in front of me, Sir, 18 cases. Three of those have waited for 16 months and they still have not got a date of hearing. Nine of them have been before the board for a date of hearing for over 12 months. I received in my office a letter giving a date for hearing for one of these cases, and I was given the 5th of September, a public holiday. The notice was addressed to my firm on typed paper from some residential address in the Strand or Somerset West from the chairman of the board. Surely, Sir, that is not the way in which this Act should be implemented. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister several aspects which I think he can, in all fairness and with a more human approach, consider. I want to make some suggestions regarding improvements which can be made. I want to say to the hon. the Minister—and I say it in all sincerity—that there are many Judges who have said that there should rather be ten murderers free than one innocent man hanged. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if there is any reason why out of a Coloured population of 1,500,000, why in doubtful cases—and these are doubtful cases, that is why they are on appeal—the benefit of the doubt should not be given to the applicant. Is our whole White civilization going to be undermined if 245 people who asked to be classified as White are so classified? Is miscegenation going to run rife in this country because 245 people are given the right to continue living as White people? The mere fact that their appeals are in indicates that there are persons who have sworn on oath that these people have lived and associated with White people. There are people who have been prepared to say these things on oath, because the cases would not go to board at all unless there were affidavits in support of the reclassification. I ask then first of all, Sir, if I may put it this way, that the hon. the Minister leans over backwards to grant the benefit of the doubt to these people whose appeals are pending.

The second point I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister is this. He knows that 99 per cent, I suppose, of the cases that come before this department can be classified easily. The records are clear, there are no ambiguities, the classifications go through and they are simple and straightforward. But there are other cases, too. In one type of case the record is incomplete, and in the other type the record uses such ambiguous words as “of mixed descent”, which meant a multitude of things in the past. The hon. the Minister also knows that one cannot go very far back in South Africa to trace birth certificates. To trace one’s ancestry in this country is a grave difficulty. The records before 1900 are almost non-existent except if they appear in a family record or family Bible. Therefore. Sir, I want to suggest that, if there is still any doubt in the hon. the Minister’s mind, or the mind of the Department, he should authorize the Department to invite these people to come in with their advisers, with their member of Parliament, with their member of the Provincial Council. I must say, Sir, that I have found that these departmental officials with whom I have dealt are sympathetic, kind, and understanding persons. As I was saying, these people should be invited to come and let both sides put their cards on the table in the office. Let them put their cards on the table and there discuss the problem and see whether it can be resolved to the extent that the conscience of the hon. the Minister and that of his Department can be satisfied that these people can be given the benefit of the doubt. These cases are heart-breaking when one goes into the details. It is not a case of people “trying for White”. The hon. member for Parow also spoiled his approach by suggesting that these people were trying for White. They are not trying for White. They have lived as White people and they ask to be allowed to continue living as White people. They have been accepted as White and live in White areas. Because of his remarks yesterday, I appeal to the hon. the Minister that he exercises man’s humanity to man and gives personal attention to having these cases disposed of.

I want to add one further reason, and that is that all the races in South Africa together have to face serious problems in the near future. And the sooner we can remove points of friction, causes of dissatisfaction, so much the sooner can we find out how far we can agree in the method of approaching our problems, instead of how far we can disagree in the method of approaching our problems.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to the Publications Board because I am of the opinion that members of the Opposition have been unfair towards the Board and I would like to rectify the matter. But before beginning with that I want to refer to what the hon. member for Port Natal said a moment ago when he held up a Bantu newspaper and asked how it was possible for such a newspaper to be published. I am not acquainted with the newspaper but if it contains what the hon. member said it does, then I want to ask him whether he brought it to the attention of the Board. If he did not bring it to the attention of the Board, I want to accuse him of having neglected his duty. For if what he alleged in regard to the newspaper is true, then it is the duty of every South African to report that newspaper. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Transkei must give the hon. member for Prinshof a chance to make his speech.

The hon. members of the United Party as well as of the Progressive Party accepted in this House yesterday that there should be some kind of publications board. They called it a board of censors and if I remember correctly the hon. member for Orange Grove said that his party believed in a board of censors and on the following basis: In the first place for the exclusion of pornography, and in the second place for the exclusion of those things which constitute a danger to the State. There the hon. member for Orange Grove has already laid down an ethical norm. Since he is laying down an ethical norm, I want to tell him that sub-section 5 (1) of the Publications and Entertainments Act of 1963, also lays down an ethical norm. In the last resort it is always going to depend upon opinion. Our Publications Board is an autonomous body and hon. members on the other side of the House cannot therefore say that the considerations of that Board are political considerations. It has already been stipulated that it should be an autonomous body, so that it can be free from any influence by any person.

They are bound by very wide norms.

They might be bound by very wide norms, but they are quite independent of political parties and other influences. Now we have the position that the United Party members accept the following: There must, in the first place, be a Board. They also lay down an ethical norm in terms of which one has to determine what must come in and what must go out. The body must also be autonomous. And now one wonders what their objection to the Publications Board was. The only objection one can find, is that they have objected to the ability of the Board. What else can it be? I now want to ask the hon. member whether this is so. Is his objection in reality directed at the ability and the bona fides of the existing members?

No, my objection is to the very wide norms which have been laid down by the Act itself.

But surely one cannot do anything else? If the hon. members were able to establish their own Board, the norms would have been just as wide. That is why the criticism of the hon. member must necessarily be directed against the ability of the Board. Now I just want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove this. I do not know whether he has considered all the members of the Board.

Yes, I have.

Well, one could not find a more eminent panel of persons in South Africa. I have the fullest confidence in that Board and believe that they examine the publications to the best of their ability.

I admit that there are also good members on the Board.

The hon. member admits that. What is his object then? Surely they are doing their work to the best of their ability then? It is a matter of opinion. In regard to When the Lion Feeds we have seen now how there may be a difference of opinion between four Judges. There is a difference of opinion between different people as to what comprises ethical norms, and therefore there will always be a difference of opinion when a person does not allow this book but does allow that one. It is absolutely unavoidable.

It must be so; otherwise the Board would not be necessary.

The criticism was that there is no uniformity. The criticism was that one book is being allowed in South Africa while a similar book is being rejected. But do hon. members on the opposite side not realize that this Board can only come into operation when officials, or Police, or members of the public, or other bodies, bring a publication to the attention of the Board. In other words, book A can perhaps be brought to its attention and banned, while a similar book is not brought to the Board’s attention, and that book, book B, is then allowed in South Africa. The hon. members come along here and say that there is no uniformity because, although the two books are precisely the same, book B is being allowed, whereas book A is not being allowed. But the hon. members know just as well as I do that this kind of criticism is unfair, because the Publications Board may never have seen book B, or may never have had its attention drawn to it. Now the hon. members come along and launch a general attack on the Board. They mention the play Virginia Woolf for example and ask how it is possible that the Publications Board refused permission for the play Virginia Woolf to be staged while the Board allowed the film version to be screened. But there again hon. members are being unfair towards the Board. That hon. member ought to know that there are various possibilities for the film having been allowed and the play having been rejected. I shall furnish him with one example. The Board told the theatre people that if they removed certain things from the performance it could be staged. But because the theatre people refused to have those things removed, the play was never staged.

All they had to do was eliminate the “wolf”.

On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, 20 cuts were made in the film. After 20 cuts had been made it was acceptable to the public of South Africa. That is why I say that the criticism being made in this House is both unfounded and unfair.

I now come to the book Selma. I have not read it myself. But I do know that the Board gave its attention to the book, and that the Board, which is an autonomous body, allowed the book to be released. I now want to refer to the court case about which hon. members had such a great deal to say. On page 148 of the legal reports, Chief Justice Steyn had the following to say—

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the reasons were, but there is one possible reason for Selma being allowed. But the hon. member gets up in this House and states that Selma is being allowed and that he would like to know how it is possible. The hon. member has suggested that there is a political motive behind it all.

Now I want to tell the hon. member that I have a suspicion that the hon. member would not like the book Selma to be circulated in South Africa for the simple reason that in South Africa it has always been maintained, particularly by the hon. member for Houghton, that the actions of the non-Whites in America … [Interjections.] Just a moment. Give me a chance. It is being maintained that the actions of non-Whites in America arise from the pursuance of an ideal, an ideal of human rights and so on. This book unmasks those people. This book brings those people, who were halfway on the road to heaven, back to earth again. It proves to its readers that there were clerygymen who misbehaved on the Selma march. I have a suspicion that hon. members on the opposite side do not want the book to be distributed here because it demonstrates the consequences of having an integrated community. And hon. members on that side of the House are aware that their partnership policy, as well as the policy of the Progressive Party, will lead to an integrated community. If that is so, they are afraid that the people in South Africa will see what the consequences of such an integrated community are.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Where in my speech did I say that I wanted this particular book to be banned?

You suggested that by asking how it was possible that such a book had been allowed here. You mentioned the book as an example. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is not here, because I should like to ask him for some assistance. He apparently has knowledge of the publication of a book that is being referred to to-day as most undesirable, and perhaps he could have helped us. But he is not present, and I will not pursue it further.

I have no desire to detain the Committee, but I should like to say a word in regard to what the hon. member for Omaruru had to say about my speech yesterday. I understand that the hon. member has had legal experience. He quite misunderstood what I had to say about the judgment in the Cape Supreme Court and later in the Appellate Division. There was no criticism whatsoever of those courts. None whatsoever. The hon. member should read the judgments and then he will understand. The Judges were not called upon to decide on a point of law. That is what they are there for. They are there to decide on law. But in this case they were not called upon to decide on a point of law. I can give the hon. member the judgment. In the extract which I read the Judge made it perfectly clear that what they were called upon to do was to express an opinion on morality which was different from the opinion of the board. That is the position. And they should not be called upon to do that. Therefore he said that it was a pity that the Publications Board did not give their reasons for banning the book, because then they could have dealt with the matter. However, Sir, that is by the way. The important thing is this: What I emphasized yesterday was that the procedure was wrong. The hon. member for Houghton gave the suggestion later—in reading from a constructive book which has been written on this subject—that there should be some sort of appeal from the Publications Board to a body of people.

I suggested three Judges.

Well, I do not think Judges would be any different from ordinary people of standing. When you have the board’s opinion, that should not necessarily be final. But to say, after you have had an opinion from the Supreme Court, that you are now going to the Appellate Division, that is what is wrong. Having got an opinion from a majority of the Supreme Court of the Cape they should have been satisfied. As I expressed it yesterday, if you can find one Judge of standing in South Africa who says, “According to my moral standards this book should not be banned”, you should be satisfied with that I will be satisfied with that, whatever the Publications Board says. In other words, Sir, we should say to the members of this Publications Board: “Before you can become a member, you must make a study of John Milton’s Areopagitica on the freedom to publish.” That was published 300 years ago and the principle still holds good.

Mr. Chairman, we had quite an interesting debate yesterday afternoon, and we have had an interesting debate this morning. Quite a number of the matters raised, of the arguments which were put forward, particularly those from the other side of the House, were quashed so completely by those hon. members on this side of the House who replied, that I do not consider it worth while replying to everything. However, for the sake of greater clarity I want to say something in regard to the statement which I made, i.e. that the Publications Board is an autonomous body. Apparently this gave some hon. members the impression that because the Board was autonomous, it was so autonomous that it did not fall under the authority or jurisdiction of anyone, and they asked why it could not therefore be discussed under the Interior Vote?

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that the Board was established as a result of an Act of Parliament. Previously we have had the Board of Censors in the place of that Board. When the present Minister of Finance was still the Minister of the Interior, the Board of Censors sent their recommendations to the hon. the Minister, and the hon. the Minister was the deciding factor. He decided whether he agreed with or rejected the recommendations for allowing or banning the work. When this Publications Act was introduced it was referred to a Select Committee of the House before the second reading. That Committee considered the matter properly and went into all the aspects. It arrived at the decision that it would recommend to Parliament—and Parliament accepted their recommendation—that deciding authority and power, which in respect of the old Board of Censors, was vested in the Minister, should be amended. The reason for that was that under the old dispensation the possibility of political censorship had been both implied and created. They preferred the Board to be an autonomous one, and if there was dissatisfaction at the Board’s decisions, then a court—and not the hon. the Minister—had to decide. A court had to have the ultimate controlling authority. While the matter was before the Select Committee the hon. members on the opposite side felt very strongly about this principle. They wanted a court. And now, since yesterday, I have heard that they do not want a court as the highest authority. I do not want to be the Minister to have to return to the old dispensation, which was an impossible one.

Amongst other things this book Selma was discussed here. I am not going to question the bona fides of the Board, as some members did by implication. I think that it is both wrong and unfair to do so. I repeat that the Board has a particularly difficult task. The hon. the Minister has no power to influence the Board in its decisions. When a report appeared in the newspapers—I think it was in the Sunday Times—which was in the same vein and which used the same expressions as those used by the hon. member for Houghton and also by the hon. member for Orange Grove, stating how terribly pornographic and morally bad that book was and what a detrimental effect it could have, and that it had been passed. I asked the Publications Board whether it would provide me, as Minister, with a report in which was indicated how it had come to that decision. I have that report here in my hand. The Board also furnished me with a copy of the book. I only received it the night before last, and I have not yet had an opportunity of reading it. I now want to inform this House that I am satisfied that this Board, in considering whether or not this book should be passed, took all the aspects for and against into consideration before arriving at their decision. In other words, they fulfilled their duty. With the principles guiding them and the various views which they pooled, for these people do not necessarily all think alike, they decided that this book could be published.

Now, Sir, since this is the decision the only other step which could then be taken is the following. A member of the public could pay his R2 and request the Board to reconsider this matter. If not, he could go to court. He could first go to the Supreme Court and subsequently to the Appeal Court, if he has been unsuccessful. He could apply there for the decision of the Board to be put aside and for the book to be banned. Whether the procedure to be followed is of longer or shorter duration does not matter. It is so stipulated in the Act and that Act has been properly scrutinized here in the House of Assembly, and that is how the Act reads to-day. The same applies to the hon. member for Port Natal. His point has also been replied to already by the hon. member for Prinshof. That is what he ought to do. Because, Sir, not every single book is submitted to the Board. In the first instance the Board scrutinizes only books which have been submitted to it. Now, by whom are the books submitted to the Board? Books can be submitted to the Board by the Department of Customs and Excise. Their officials go through the books when they enter the country and those officials decide whether or not the books are admissible. Those books which they decide are admissible, and in regard to which they have no doubt, are free to come in. Those which they are doubtful about, or those which they decide should not come in, are immediately held back there even before they come in. The books about which they are doubtful are referred by them to the Board. It is only a small percentage of the large number of magazines and publications which goes to the Board. Most of the paperbacks and all other books and publications are stopped at entry by the Department of Customs and Excise.

Are they stopped before they are submitted to the Board?

Yes. Under a separate Act.

Is it not the case then that the Customs officials really act as censors in the place of the Board?

Yes, consequently there is, in terms of our laws, more than one censor. I discovered last night that we lay the blame at the door of the Publications Board for every possible book which the hon. member there or I, or any other hon. member, thinks should not have appeared here. That is wrong, because 90 per cent of those books may perhaps never have been before the Board. In terms of the law the Department of Customs and Excise are the first censors. It is only those books which they are doubtful about and which they refer to the Board to examine, read and decide on which fall into those categories in regard to which we may hold the Board responsible for its decisions.

The second category of books and publications which come before the Board, are books which private individuals may submit. These are books which for argument’s sake, have been allowed in by Customs and Excise and which have come into the hands of a person. Such a person can say that he really thinks that this sort of thing should not be allowed. That person may, after having paid, I think it is R2, per book, bring that book to the attention of the Board and the Board can then come to a decision in regard to it.

I then come to the third category of books. Any importer or book dealer or any private individual can, provisionally, submit a copy of a book he wishes to import to the Board. He has decided that he would like to obtain possession of a certain book here in this country; he wants to import the book for circulation here. He can then ask the publishers for a copy and before incurring any expense in importing the book on a large scale he can submit a copy beforehand to the Board for approval.

And if Customs withholds that book?

No, if he merely asks for a copy, the Customs will not withhold it. Is he not giving them notice in advance? He requires a permit to import that copy. It was alleged here that people incur major expenditure to import books and that they then have to wait a long time before the books are released. It is not necessarily so that this should happen every time.

I wanted to say a few words about Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf. The hon. member for Prinshof stated the position very clearly in this regard. I did not see the play, but because the matter was raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove, it occurred to me at once when he was speaking yesterday to tell him that he should not blame me and state that we did not want to allow the book in here. What we are concerned with here is not Virginia, but the “wolf”, and I immediately called to mind the hon. member! In any case, the reply has already been furnished and I shall let the matter rest there.

The hon. member for Houghton said here yesterday that in her opinion we were acting too unconcernedly and without restraint in refusing passports to people wishing to leave the country and in granting visas to other people wishing to enter the country. In general I just want to say that when application is made for a passport to leave the country there are definitely a few cases where the Department of the Interior does not have at its disposal the essential data to enable it to come to a balanced and fair decision as to whether or not it will grant a passport. In such cases it necessarily follows, for reasons which I shall mention in a moment, that if we want to do our duty we must obtain, from whatever Departments may have that information, the necessary particulars which we must have at our disposal before we can consider the case, and that sometimes gives rise to delays. When considering whether to grant or refuse applications for visas and/or passports, there are three things in particular which have to be taken into consideration. In the first place one must ask oneself to what extent the interests of the people, the interests of our country are concerned in this matter. One must ask oneself whether the interests of one’s country and people could be harmed. But one is not only concerned with one’s own country. One must also ask oneself whether the relationships between one’s own country and the country to which the applicant wants to travel will be promoted or prejudiced. One must ask oneself whether the granting of a passport would not perhaps embarrass the country in question.

One has to deal with another aspect as well. It is not only a case of wanting to protect one’s own country or another country, it is sometimes also one’s duty to protect certain people against themselves and refuse them permission to do certain things, and it is for that reason that we do not grant all applications. I just want to mention the statistics here. These statistics include all races except Indians. During 1965 we received altogether 106,995 applications for passports; of that number approximately 106,800 were approved and 166 refused. In other words, slightly more than one out of 1,000 applications were refused. In 1966 there were approximately 50,800 applications; approximately 50,700 were approved and 105 were refused. In other words, approximately two out of every 1,000. In the case of the Indians there were 8,052 applications in 1965, and 1,030 were refused. In the first six months of 1966, 50 applications were refused, and those applications were refused for good reasons. If I had the time I could explain to the Committee the reason for there being an increase in the number of refusals of applications by Indians for passports to leave South Africa, but I can assure hon. members that the applications were refused because it was not in the interests of South Africa to allow them to leave this country. The methods of action against South Africa sometimes vary; they sometimes shift with the result that one race group is affected to a greater degree perhaps than another race group. One must then act with greater circumspection and go into the applications thoroughly to determine whether the intentions of the applicant are honest and straightforward.

What about my specific question in regard to the refusal of passports to non-White students wishing to pursue postgraduate study courses abroad?

Yes, I shall reply to that now. These general tenets also apply to students wishing to go overseas in order to study. The hon. member may perhaps think that the persons who have been refused passports are very decent and prominent people, but the information which becomes available to the Department of the Interior, may perhaps indicate that they are not really such decent people. If people are refused applications for passports, one regrets, particularly the hon. member, their being placed in a position where they have to choose which of two courses they are going to pursue: They must either make application for permission to leave the country permanently or they must reconcile themselves to the refusal. In other words, they must choose between their South African citizenship and submission to the Government’s decision. The hon. member for Houghton states that she is concerned about this and that it grieves her that that community to which the applicants belong, or the country as a whole, may suffer as a result of the fact that prominent and good people who are perhaps able to obtain high qualifications overseas are refused passports. She points out that the services of these people are then lost to South Africa. Mr. Chairman, if a person’s citizenship means so little to him that he is prepared to exchange it for the privilege of continuing his studies abroad, then I wonder whether such a person, even if his application were not refused, will ever have enough love for South Africa to enable him to render his best services to this country. I doubt it very much. I think that he would then, with or without learning, signify very little to his community and to the country.

I also want to reply to the last appeal made to me by the hon. member for Green Point in respect of race classification. I want to repeat what I said yesterday, i.e. that I shall go into the matter and shall try to clear the backlog which he referred to as rapidly as possible. However, I cannot accept his suggestion that I should, for humanitarian reasons, give the applicant the benefit of the doubt on a large scale. It is by virtue of my experience that I cannot accept that suggestion. If I get the chance to discuss this matter privately with the hon. member, I shall be able to furnish him with more particulars. Many of the problems which we have to try and overcome today are due to the fact that there was a time when the applicant too often was given the benefit of the doubt. We were too lax; we did not apply the principles which I have already mentioned strictly enough. We believe that it is better to investigate each borderline case according to its merit and to introduce the machinery in order to do it sooner, rather than to let things take their course. If one introduces that principle here, then one is cutting a switch with which one may at a later stage perhaps receive a severe thrashing.

Yesterday I furnished the hon. the Minister with a list of suggestions in regard to what books should be banned and what books one should be allowed to possess. I just want to ask whether the Minister has had time to go into it?

No, I have not had the time to go into that. I have it here on me; I shall give attention to it. The hon. member for Houghton also said that she would furnish me with certain publications by Professor Kahn. I shall see what material of a positive and constructive nature one can take out of that, for I am set on trying to improve matters. I do not believe that the person is there for the sake of the Act; the Act is there for the sake of the person.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 18,—“Public Service Commission, R1,642,000”:

I want to take the hon. the Minister to task over this particular Vote. Although he is a new Minister in this portfolio, I still think that a little censure here is most certainly called for. You see, Sir, this morning, while the Minister’s Vote was under discussion, the report of the Public Service Commission for 1965 was put in our boxes. Sir, this is not good enough. We have had this sort of thing happening before, and if this had not been brought to me I can assure you I would not have known that the report had in fact been published for 1965. This is particularly serious at this time because the Public Service, like commerce and industry, is going through a bad time. They have not got enough hands to do the work. This report is a very important document. I have not had time to read it but the very first part deals with the question of a conference of heads of departments which has just been held. We have not had the opportunity of going into this report, but let me just read to the Minister the theme of this conference; this is what the report says—

The report gives a list of the papers which were read at the conference. How can we make a contribution towards helping the State to obtain the necessary manpower when we have this sort of report made available whilst the debate on this particular subject is in fact in progress? I want to repeat that this is not good enough and I want the hon. the Minister to give this House the undertaking that we will get these reports in good time so that they can be investigated and so that we in the Opposition can do something about prodding the Minister and making sure that the Public Service Commission works as it should in fact work. It is obvious that all is not well with the Public Service Commission. One reads reports to that effect in our newspapers every day of the week. Let me just refer to one or two of them. Here is a heading from the Sunday Express of the 28th August, 1966: “Public servants upset by lack of redress.” They are backed up in this by the Public Servants’ Association who say that especially junior people with grievances are having the utmost difficulty in having their grievances redressed. I believe that this is one of the major reasons for the resignations from the Public Service. Sir, if you are not going to conduct the Public Service properly, if people are not going to have the right to air their grievances readily, how are you going to have a contented and efficient Public Service? Sir, I could go on and quote lots of things but I would like to mention something which arose from a speech made in this House by the hon. member for Hillbrow. A person writing to the Natal Mercury in Durban on the 31st August, compares a public service commission advertisement for a professional officer with an advertisement calling for applications for an ordinary post—

Then I quote from an advertisement by the Rhodes University in the Natal Mercury of 23rd August of this year—

Sir, these are some of the reasons why they cannot get the people they want in the Public Service, because they are not prepared to pay them. It is obviously much more advantageous for a man with that degree to take up a post as a night watchman because he would start at the top of the grade and get more than he would get if he worked for the full period and qualified for the maximum salary as a professional officer. These are the things which the hon. the Minister must go into and do something about. He is not going to get the people he wants unless he does so. We have discussed these angles here year after year; it is not something new that is being raised. I have heard these things raised in this House ever since I have been here, but nothing is being done about it. That is the tragedy. I sincerely hope that this hon. Minister will put his shoulder to the wheel and do something about it for a change to see if we cannot get our Public Service in proper working order.

The third point I want to raise is one which might give the hon. the Minister a little feeling of nostalgia. It refers to a former senior clerk in the Department of Water Affairs. This gentleman received payments or bribes—call them what you will—amounting to R8,000 over a period of a number of years for favouring people with cartage contracts. Sir, I want to know what has been done about inquiring into this. I have seen no notice in the newspapers that a departmental inquiry has been held; I have heard no results of any inquiry that might possibly have been held. If this is allowed to go on in the Public Service, it is obviously going to create unrest and dissatisfaction. Here we find that a man holding the position of senior clerk collected R8,000 in bribes over some eight years. He received these bribes in amounts of R30 and R40, and he paid income tax on it. He took these bribes as part of his job. He did it quite blatantly. He admits paying income tax on it. Have you ever heard of such a thing, Sir? As far as I know there was no inquiry. The honest public servants have had no proof to show them that crime does not pay. There has been no inquiry whatsoever, to the best of my knowledge, from within the Service. [Time limit.]

I have listened to the hon. member for Umlazi. It appeared to me as if his approach to the Public Service was somewhat negative. One gained the impression that there most probably was general dissatisfaction within the ranks of the Public Service. I think one should consider the matter somewhat more realistically and more level-headedly, especially if one is one of the older members of the Opposition. It is a fact that the Public Service is one of the foundation stones on which order and development in any modern state rest, but this order and development in turn entail new requirements and create novel problems, and the Public Service has to keep abreast of the country’s development and has to plan its own development and in so doing has to seek the maximum and optimum utilization of the available man-power. On a closer inspection of the precautions this Government wants to take, it becomes very clear to us that it is this Government’s earnest intention to utilize the available man-power for strengthening the Public Service with the least amount of disruption of the activities outside the Public Service—in the other spheres of our national life. If we consider the variety of training schemes to which one can draw attention in this connection, this becomes very clear indeed. We have for instance the so-called inductive training in which new officials are orientated for careers in the Public Service. Since 1957 1,000 people have been trained in this regard annually, then there is functional training. Every department is intent on training its officials according to its particular requirements and functions, and they are encouraged to do so and receive assistance to enable them to do so. We also have the training of supervisors which is aimed at making officials familiar with the principles of supervision. Since 1957 approximately 7,000 such people have been trained. Then there is also provision for the training of work study officers, and this is a course which is unique of its kind locally and which is even offered to representatives of large semi-Government and private undertakings and to the staff of neighbouring states. Finally there is managerial training which was introduced in 1963; it was established for the training of senior officers so as to give them a better understanding of the principles of management. Since 1963 approximately 500 people have been trained. In order to provide in these essential needs there are also the three and four year diploma courses offered at the technical colleges in Pretoria and Cape Town which make provision for the training of technicians in a variety of fields. Furthermore provision is also made for the training of accountants, auditors, clerks, administrative staff, and for officers of the Department of Inland Revenue and of the Deeds Office. In order to be able to render financial assistance to these people there is the Public Service Bursary Scheme for which an amount of R282,000 has been provided for this year, an increase of R5,000 on the provision for the previous year. This Public Service Bursary Scheme was established in 1956 for the purpose of training needy and/or promising young people to fill professional posts in the Public Service or teachers’ posts in the Department of Education, Arts and Science by granting them bursary loans. It is very clear that this Government is in earnest about making our Public Service a real foundation stone on which order and civilization and development in this country can rest. It has become essential that we should not create a negative image of the Public Service amongst the general public, but that our very aim should be to inspire our young boys and girls to enter the Public Service where provision is made for their training, so that we may rest assured that we have officials in our Public Service who are thoroughly trained and who are familiar with the problems in this country and with the conditions under which we are living.

I should like to convey my thanks to the two speakers who participated in the debate under this Vote. In particular I want to thank the last speaker, the hon. member for Rissik, for the explanation given by him in regard to what was being done in the Public Service. He knows what is happening in the Public Service. The hon. member for Umlazi is not quite as well-informed but in this field he has only been a leader for a period as short as the period for which I have been Minister of the Interior. The hon. member for Rissik, of course, represents a constituency which abounds with public servants. I am one of them and he is my Member of Parliament, if I remember correctly.

Did you vote for him?

I think South Africa may consider itself fortunate to have a Public Service like the one we have. It is true that we would have liked to have a larger establishment, particularly in view of the expansion of activities, but under present circumstances we cannot compete with the private sector for manpower, and we have never been able to do so except in times of unemployment. In times of a labour shortage the State has never yet succeeded in drawing people to the Public Service by means of higher salaries in competition with the private sector. But what we are able to do—and that is the main task the Public Service Commission is setting itself—is to increase the efficiency of officials, so as to endeavour streamlining activities within the Public Service. The hon. member for Rissik mentioned several examples in this connection. The hon. member for Umlazi only mentioned one example here. He said that it would appear as if nothing was being done in the Public Service to attract people to it. He also mention the case of an employee in the Department of Water Affairs who had embezzled money. He said this official had received bribes over a period of years without the knowledge of his employees. This came to a considerable amount. That man was a Section 3 official under the Water Act and did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that as soon as something was suspected the matter was placed in the hands of the Police. All aspects were examined. I am told that this case is being heard in court at present. Therefore it cannot be said that there has been any neglect on the part of the Department or the Public Service Commission, because the Commission was in no way concerned with that official. The members of the Public Service Commission are present here to-day, but I have made a note of that report which appeared in the Press and the charge which was brought in the form of a letter. One may expect it to be difficult where one is dealing with so many thousands of officials, but we see to it that no delay arises at the Public Service Commission in order that public servants will not feel that their case is not receiving the necessary attention.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 19,—Government Printing Works, R5,123,000, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 23,—Commerce and Industries, R8,882,000, and Loan Vote J,—Commerce and Industries, R29,509,000:

The Minister’s portfolio makes him responsible for the economy of the country, and under that Vote of course, where we discuss his policy, there are a very wide range of headings that we can discuss. His activities range from the duty of doing what he can to encourage production to the other extreme of imposing restrictions of all kinds. As far as these restrictions are concerned, of course we know that he is not solely responsible for applying them. His other colleagues also do so. There are restrictions like import control, price control, building control and credit control, and between them these Ministers are responsible for all of those things, but this Minister is in charge of economic affairs of the country and so he is up to a point responsible for what is done, even if he does not administer all these controls. But between them they have got the economy of the country to-day into something very like a straitjacket. This is the Minister who tightens one string and loosens another string and who has the whole economy of the country in a state of uncertainty as to how far for how long these restrictive practices are going to continue; because all these things I have referred to are restrictive measures. Take, for example, the question of import control. What is happening in regard to import control? We know that quite recently there was a relaxation announced in import control, and we know that import control has been responsible for a very substantial reduction in imports in the past seven months. The figures appeared in the Government Gazette a few days ago, showing that there was a reduction of some R162,000,000 in imports and that had it not been for the fact that it was necessary to import R17,000,000 worth of foodstuffs, the imports would have been down by another R17,000,000, in which case imports would have been reduced by merely R178,000,000. To what extent is that having an effect on our economy? We do not know. It is said, and the Minister will be able to say whether that is correct or not, that full use is not being made by importers of the facilities now available for importing consumer goods. It is said that whereas a year ago they were urged by the Minister to reduce their stocks from six months’ to four months’ stocks, they have now been told that they should try to increase their stocks again to six months but that that is not being done; and of course it is not being done presumably due to the fact that they cannot afford to do it. In other words, the advice of the Minister to take advantage of his relaxing of import control is being negatived by the actions of his colleague the Minister of Finance, who applied a credit squeeze which makes it impossible for them to get credit to increase their stocks. I wonder whether the Minister can enlighten us as to how these two things are being balanced. Because if it is true that the Department of Commerce and Industry thinks it is now necessary that their inventory should be increased and that for that purpose they have relaxed the import control provisions while at the same time the credit squeeze makes it impossible for that policy to be carried out, it only indicates that it is another example of the conflict which exists from time to time between one Government Department and another in dealing with the affairs of the country. One of the things which is interesting is the big drop shown in the table here in regard to the importation of machinery and transport equipment, a drop of some R87,000,000. Again one is not au fait with the details but I think the Minister will be able to enlighten us as to what extent that drop affected the drop in the importation of capital equipment by the private sector of the economy. I do know that there has been a very strict control over the importation of capital equipment, and I want to know whether that control has been selective enough. I know of cases where people have wanted to either replace or extend their factory equipment purely for purposes of efficiency or to increase extent of production, and they have been told that they can get a permit provided they can get three years’ credit from the suppliers overseas. I can of course conceive the conditions under which it is necessary for the Government to make a stipulation of that kind, but it appears to me that under present circumstances this is going too far. I wonder to what extent that is being relaxed and to what extent proper selectivity is being exercised in the granting of these permits, because if you are not very careful and make sure that standard industries are permitted to keep their plant up to date or to extend it in anticipation of what they believe will be the needs of the country within the next few years—and, after all, they are responsible people who know what the market is likely to be—it simply means that in a few years’ time there will be a shortage in these particular lines. I think the question of import permits for industrial equipment is one to which the closest attention should be given by the Minister himself, to make sure that the position is being properly watched, because all these restrictive factors are in themselves basically undesirable. It may be that the position arises where certain steps have to be taken to restrict this or that, or to control this or the other matter. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Constantia will forgive me if I do not follow him. I want to put the case of the Northern Cape. In speaking about this it is necessary for me to say that at least seven or eight of my colleagues in this House have agreed that I should raise the matter because it is of such great importance. It is a matter which has been raised here more than once. It concerns the establishment of the third steel factory. The hon. the Minister will recall that we have often made representations to him, but the reason for raising the matter once again at this stage is that we are aware of the fact that an inter-departmental committee has been appointed for investigating the entire matter. Now we want to plead that this matter should be brought to the notice of that committee through the channels we are following, namely through the Minister, so that it may know what strong claims the Northern Cape may lay to the establishment of a third steel factory there.

There are many facts which count in the favour of the Northern Cape. In the first instance we all know that virtually all the necessary raw materials are available there. There are rich resources of manganese, iron-ore and dolomite. We know that there is one factor which is lacking, namely coal in that vicinity. To convey coal there presents no problem for hundreds of trucks on their way to the coalfields of Natal to fetch coal for export purposes pass through every day. Consequently trucks are available. The question of tariffs is the problem. We know that much more coal than ore is required and we know that the quantity of coal conveyed makes it so much easier to follow that procedure. But we repeat that all the other basic requirements, not only the raw materials, are to be found in that vicinity. We also know that it has been said that a policy of decentralization should be followed. As regards our industries, it seems obvious that the ideal step would be to bring the Northern Cape into the picture at this stage, particularly if we consider that decentralization will be accompanied with bringing a factory closer to the market for its product. After all, to convey the manufactured product from Kimberley to Cape Town means conveying it for a shorter distance than conveying it from Johannesburg or Pretoria to Cape Town. It will be to our advantage to have a factory closer to this area. We think that the Northern Cape has made out a very strong case in this connection.

However, we are also bearing in mind the fact that water supply is of great importance. We know that the wall of the Vaal Dam is being heightened and that the Oppermansdrif Dam is being constructed, but it is necessary to construct weirs across the Vaal River for storing a tremendous quantity of water. I am thinking about one engineering firm which made a survey that a single weir would supply more than enough water, and there are also other places where such weirs can be constructed. This will not be water which will come from the Vaal Dam but from the Free State and other places. Therefore also from the point of view of the water supply we think a very strong case may be made out for a steel factory in the Northern Cape. We know that coal is a very important factor, but the question has arisen in our minds whether new methods of manufacturing steel in which coal will not play such an important role cannot be considered at present. I am no technician but I have been told that the Germans have the Krupp-Renn process which consumes less coal than the method followed at present. We are asking whether there is not a new method in which coal does not play such an important role.

Why do you not ask for a different form of generating power?

I appreciate that suggestion. Let us also point out that even if we were to make a start there with the pre-refining of that ore it would already constitute a major step in that direction which would be welcomed by the Northern Cape, especially where new railway tariffs are such that much of the ore to be exported at present has to be conveyed at a very high tariff. We will welcome that because in the past overseas buyers came to buy our best ore which was conveyed to the coast at a very cheap tariff. If it were possible to pre-refine the ore there it would be possible, of course, to convey it at a very high tariff which would also be in the interests of the Railways. If prerefining was to be undertaken at Kimberley or Warrenton or Postmasburg even Iscor would benefit as a result because a large portion of that ore would be residual products which could be further processed at Iscor. In mentioning these things we are doing so to emphasize the claim of the Northern Cape to industrial expansion. We grant the country its economic development, but the question of what should be done in the Northern Cape arises. Thereby new sources for promoting the economy of the country will be created to an increasing extent. Now we find it a great pity that all the requirements for steel production are present there, and yet we cannot get it. However, that is what we are pleading for. [Time limit.]

When my time elapsed I was talking about what might be called the negative side of the Minister’s activities, and I was about to come, on the other hand, to his activities in improving the productivity of the country. We would like to hear from him just what his Department is doing to increase the production of the country. We know of course that his Department is heavily involved in the establishment of the so-called “border” industries, but whether that can be regarded as increasing the productivity of the country or whether it is merely a question of altering the siting of factories is a matter one can have doubts about. I doubt whether it really contributes much towards increasing the total productivity of the country. The Minister is continually encouraging people to increase the exports of manufactured goods and there is an increase in the figures published in the Gazette, but that will be dealt with by another hon. member on this side and so I will not enlarge upon it. But there are other directions in which the Minister’s Department can encourage increased productivity. For instance, what about electricity? We all know that the original Act compelled Escom to sell electricity at cost. They could not sell it at a profit or at a loss. That makes it impossible for them, very often, to supply electricity to certain undeveloped areas. But the Electricity Act was amended some time ago so as to allow Escom, where it was satisfied that the supply of electricity would lead to the development of a particular area, to supply electricity. It gave Escom the right to establish undertakings and to sell electricity at a loss for a certain time with the object of developing such an area into a viable economic unit, after which the normal charges would be paid for electricity. We have heard very little as to what use has been made of that provision. I have always regarded it as a very important weapon in the hands of the Minister, but we have heard very little as to what use has actually been made of it. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us in how many cases he has authorized Escom either to initiate undertakings or to supply electricity from existing undertakings to areas which could not afford economic charges but which, as the result of getting electricity, were likely to develop to the stage where they could pay economic charges.

There is another factor, too. The Natural Resources Development Council has presumably, as far as I can understand, more or less disappeared and has been swallowed up by the Department of Planning. That body was a very useful body to the Minister in considering economic development in different parts of the country. They served as a very useful link between all the various development organizations in different parts of the country and the Government, and in helping to develop schemes and plans for the development of new industrial areas. I wonder what link the Minister has retained with the Department of Planning, because quite obviously he, through the various bodies and links, is in much closer touch with the actual facts than any planning body is. I wonder, too, to what extent the Planning Council or its experts who are paid high salaries in the Department of Planning are making use of the Minister’s Department, and to what extent does the Minister of Planning consult with the Minister of Economic Affairs in order to devise plans for the development of the country. Generally speaking, what we want to know from the Minister is, first of all, how far are these present restrictions going to be retained, to what extent is import control going to be relaxed, what results has he had from the relaxation so far, whether proper use is being made of the available permits, and what practical steps his Department is taking to improve the productivity of the country, which is one of the two major factors in keeping down the cost of living.

This afternoon we found that because the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs had acquitted himself so well of his task, virtually no criticism was expressed by the hon. member for Constantia, that frontbencher of the United Party, who actually had to criticize the Department of Economic Affairs, i.e. the work done by the hon. the Minister on behalf of our country. He merely asked a few general questions to which the hon. the Minister himself can give a better reply than I can do, but at the outset he made one statement to which I want to refer in brief, namely the statement that all restrictions were basically unsound. That, of course, is not the case, Mr. Chairman, because our entire life, from the lowest to the highest, consists of restrictions. Naturally it all depends on how those measures are applied. Let me refer to import control for instance. Import control definitely has its advantages and it is only introduced when it is essential to do so—especially for protecting our country’s reserves of foreign exchange—but the effective application of import control has meant a great deal to industrial development in our country. In point of fact, import control has advanced the industrial potential of our country to an unprecedented degree. As I have been saying it naturally depends on its application, and we on this side of the House can only say that it has been applied in such a manner that our country as a whole and our industries in particular have derived great benefit from it. However, it is a known fact, of course, that import control is not applied with a view to protecting industries. That merely is an additional advantage which one achieves. The hon. the Minister said repeatedly that import control was not there for the protection of our industries, because for that one had import tariffs and in the long run import tariffs were a much better and much sounder method. But we cannot get away from the fact that the sound application of import control, which is a restrictive measure, has meant a great deal for stimulating our industrial development and for advancing its potential.

The hon. member for Constantia made a further point by stating that the question of credit restriction by the Minister of Finance and the request by the Minister of Economic Affairs to stock a six months’ supply instead of a four months’ supply were really in conflict with one another. That may be, Mr. Chairman, but what the hon. member has not borne in mind is the fact that if one limits one’s industrial development in such a way that it does not develop as rapidly as it would otherwise have done, capital becomes available as a result because any increase in the turnover of a factory or of any undertaking requires more working ’capital and if that expansion is taking place at a slower rate, which is the aim of credit restrictive measures, then it means that more working capital becomes available for instance for the acquisition of essential raw materials, increasing the stock of raw materials to last months longer and also as regards the acquisition of spare parts.

The hon. member also spoke about the Natural Resources Development Council. I just want to point out that this Council performs an important function, and we on this side of the House can only hope that its function in its new form will not decrease in value but will increase progressively. I want to praise the work being done by that Council and want to refer to it in glowing terms.

The hon. member also referred to exports. On that I should like to dwell somewhat longer. On the one hand we hear pleas that the Government should do more in the way of promoting exports to countries abroad but on the other hand the Opposition opposes certain indirect measures applied by the Government for the promotion of our exports. Now I want to refer in brief to what the Government is doing in the way of promoting our exports. The Government’s contribution to Safto amounts to more than double the contribution made towards Safto’s total income by the members themselves. If the Government is to contribute more it would mean that additional taxes would have to be levied. The position is, however, that at present a producer has such a ready market in South Africa under the prevailing boom conditions that he finds it profitable to sell on the local market instead of exporting. It is of no avail to spend large amounts of money for promoting exports if production under present circumstances simply cannot supply enough for executing large orders. That is the position to-day. Consequently there should be adequate correlation. The Government has an active foreign trade service and participates in trade shows on a large scale. We have had the experience that as a result of the measures taken by the Government our exports have increased considerably in recent years. This is particularly true of manufactured products. The export of manufactured products increased by 24 per cent from 1958 to 1964. The figure for 1964, the latest year for which particulars are available, was 5 per cent. But the Government is aware of the necessity of progressively increasing our exports. That, however, can only be effected within the framework of a wide economic policy and within the framework of available production.

Hon. members opposite often criticize the policy of border industries. If one examines what the position is, Mr. Chairman, one finds that the border industries which have been established make a considerable contribution towards the export of manufactured products to countries abroad. When the United Party was still in power—it was the former member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) who said it—only three decentralized factories were established. This side of the House came along with a definite policy of decentralization. Now hon. members opposite say that this side of the House has taken over their policy of decentralization. I should just like to point out that they did not have any policy of industrial decentralization. They hardly had a policy of industrial development. But let me concede that they did have a modest policy of industrial development. However, they had no policy of industrial decentralization. All that was done, Mr. Chairman, was to allow a decrease in wages in certain decentralized areas. But that does not constitute a policy of industrial decentralization. All over the world a policy of industrial decentralization goes hand in hand with the granting of a large number of concessions. I am not aware of any concessions granted by that side of the House during its regime, apart from allowing, after a fierce struggle, lower wages to be paid in certain decentralized areas. Mr. Chairman, I can quote you statements made by members opposite in which they said that the development of border industries was doomed to failure. I should like to quote to you from a report, a fact paper by the Trade Union Council cf South Africa of April, 1966, in which they pointed out that the total investment in border areas amounted to R296,000,000. They stated as follows—

They continued by saying—

I also want to point out that the former member for Jeppes, who used to be the main speaker on economic affairs on that side of the House, is the chairman of the Netherlands Bank and that inter alia the following was stated in the August, 1966, edition of that Bank’s Economic Bulletin—

Just before the lunch adjournment, the hon. member for Florida addressed the Committee and indicated that import control was a form of protection. I do not know whether the Minister will support him there, because the hon. Minister knows that under the General Agreement of Trade and Tariffs (Gatt) import control is not supposed to be used for protection. Then again the hon. member went on to tell us that we here had had no policy in the past so far as decentralization of industries is concerned. The hon. member is a new member in this House and he should not come to the House without knowing his facts, because it was this party which introduced the Bill in regard to the Natural Resources Development Council and does the hon. member know that under this party we started Zwelitsha, Fine Wools, the Masonite industry and other examples of decentralization of industries. The hon. member when he comes to this House should know his facts.

Mr. Chairman, I want to support what has been said by the hon. member for Constantia and that is that we have a difficulty with this hon. Minister in knowing the policy of his Department, or the policy of the Government, because we find many contradictions. We find the hon. the Minister of Finance telling us to go slow, we find the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs telling us to get a move on. We find the Minister of Economic Affairs telling us that so far as the Rand Triangle is concerned, we have no need to fear. The hon. the Minister on the 9th August, speaking at Vereeniging, said—

I agree with the hon. the Minister, but the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration on 29th August said that influx control would never stop the flow of African labour to White urban areas, that it was only a negative measure. He agreed that industry must be sent to the borders, away from the Reef area. Who is right? Oan the hon. the Minister resolve this difficulty with the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, or is the Deputy Minister right and the Minister of Economic Affairs wrong? You see, Sir, we have this difficulty that the Minister of Economic Affairs also controls import control, and while import control may be necessary at certain stages, one of the factors to control import control is the importation of machinery and the import of computers; here automatic machinery, important machinery required for automation is very strictly controlled as far as importation is concerned, and for some time the leading importers of computer equipment have been unable to get the requisite amount of such equipment because the Government has said that owing to the financial position of the country such equipment could not be imported, or only in restricted quantities. On the one hand we have been told by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration that we must go to the borders, and we are told by the Minister of Economic Affairs that we must become more efficient, and if we are going to have a lower proportion of non-European labour in our main industrial cities it will be necessary to get more automatic equipment. I hope that the hon. the Minister before the Committee Stage is finished to-day will tell us whether we must listen to the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration or whether we have to listen to him. It is quite clear to us that important members of the Government are speaking with two different voices, and that difficulty has to be ironed out so that commerce and industry can have some degree of certainty before there is any expansion. It is very difficult to plan for the future if you do not know where you are going to place your population. The hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs holds a very important position in that regard and we would like to know whether the new Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is speaking with authority or whether he is just imbued with new ideas. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to another factor and that is the question of the promotion of trade. The hon. the Minister knows that if he is going to reduce the cost of living, if he is going to stop the inflation spiral, one of the methods is to ensure greater productivity. Greater productivity is essential. The hon. member for Florida made the point that it is no use talking of greater markets unless there is greater productivity. I submit to the hon. the Minister too that not only must we have greater productivity but there must be improved quality. We must ensure that anything that goes out of South Africa is of the best quality. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister in the course of his reply whether he intends to take any steps through his Standards Bureau to ensure that our South African goods that are manufactured for export are of the best quality, because nothing can do our markets greater harm than the export of goods which do not attain certain standards so that they can compete in the outside world. It takes a lot of time to establish a market and much longer time to re-establish a market. If we lose a market through inferior goods, through shoddy material being exported, then to recover that market at a later stage takes a good deal more time.

And when talking of markets, Mr. Chairman, I would like the Minister to let us know whether he has considered a common market for Africa. We have the new States which are getting their independence, Bechuanaland, Swaziland and Basutoland, to use the names we know them by. These three territories are going to get their independence. Is it the intention to have a common market? Does the Minister think it to be advisable to have a common market? Is it considered advisable in the foreseeable future to include a country such as Rhodesia and the Portuguese territories in such a common market so that we can develop our trade, we being the main manufacturing country on this Continent? Does the Minister foresee that not only do prominent South Africans invest in farms in Swaziland, but that also industrial interests establish industries there? Is it going to be encouraged or discouraged? The hon. the Minister will appreciate that once you start having an economic influence in a neighbouring territory, you establish a market and you help to increase and strengthen the bonds between your two countries. I suggest that the time has come when the Minister should give serious consideration to the development of markets in the neighbouring territories. These neighbouring territories are countries which will look for the establishment of industries by other states. If South Africa does not establish them, overseas countries will establish them. I submit that the hon. the Minister should give encouragement to South African industries to establish industries in those territories. If other countries do so we will have the problem of those new countries, having established new industries, wanting to share in our markets, and if the Minister intends that South Africa should have a sphere of influence in those neighbouring territories, surely it is in the Minister’s interest to see that so far as possible South Africa is there first. If South Africa is not there first, can he then complain if in a year or two Japanese companies start industries in Swaziland, or German companies or French companies, or Portuguese companies, or Dutch companies, or American companies? [Time limit.]

I should like to request the attention of the hon. the Minister for what to my mind is one of the most important facets of his Department’s activities, namely the marine industry. As regards the remarks made by the hon. member who just sat down, I should gladly like to leave that to the lively imagination of the hon. member for Vereeniging and on that score he need have no fears about the future.

It is true that in recent years people have been reaching out towards the moon to an increasing extent. On the other hand, Sir, we have been experiencing a growing interest in the development of marine life or the marine industry over the past ten years. It is only natural that that should be so, because oceans cover 71 per cent of the earth’s surface and with the present population explosion all over the world it is the most natural thing for mankind to look to the oceans to an increasing extent as regards its natural resources. Particularly in respect of one facet, namely the fishing industry, South Africa has not lagged behind in the past number of years. The fishing industry in our country has developed to such an extent that it is the second largest in the southern hemisphere at present. In South Africa at present approximately 1,500,000 tons of fish is being taken from the sea annually. In the past 20 years the tonnage of our catches in South Africa increased by more than 13,000 per cent. That shows us what the present magnitude of this industry in South Africa is. Particularly here in the Western Cape it is one of the most important sectors in our economic life at present. Now I immediately want to say that we have received a great deal of assistance from the State over the past ten years and that is particularly true as regards the fishing industry. The State has not neglected this industry over the past number of years and important measures have been taken for stimulating this industry and for giving it more scope. I want to mention a few of the important measures in this connection. I am thinking about the legislation adopted in this House in 1963 in respect of our territorial waters. To my mind that was an important step if one considers it from the point of view of this important industry. In the second place I want to refer to our conservation methods, our methods of conserving and protecting this industry. In this respect too South Africa has not lagged behind in recent years and the State has taken ingenious action for protecting and stimulating our industry. I want to mention a few examples which to my mind are important factors and which emanated from the State for the protection of the industry. Here I am thinking about the proclamation of reserves in which it is prohibited to catch particular species at the present time. I am thinking about the closed fishing seasons which coincide with the spawning periods. I am thinking about the minimum sizes of fish which may be caught in the various sections of this industry. I am thinking about the control which is being exercised over fishing tackle and fishing methods. This morning I read in the newspapers that the Yates Commission had presented its report. At this stage I have not yet had the time to peruse that report, but that report too constitutes an important step by the Department for protecting and controlling this industry, particularly in the vicinity of the Cape Peninsula. In the third place I am thinking about the work which is at present being undertaken by a body such as Viskor. This corporation was established in 1944 and the idea at that time was that Viskor should develop into a dynamic organization, one which would give guidance particularly in respect of the fishing industry. It is true, however, that this body has remained relatively small over the years when considered against the relative growth of the industry. A few years ago, three or four years ago if I remember correctly, important measures were taken for adapting Viskor and all associated organizations so as to obtain a larger degree of coordination and more purposeful planning in respect of this industry. This was an important step which was initiated by the Department of the hon. the Minister. Here I also want to refer to the development of our fishing harbours, particularly during the past five years. We experienced a time in this country when we appropriated amounts from year to year for the important development of our fishing harbours and when we did not have the people, particularly not the engineers, to utilize those appropriations. Several years passed in which the money we appropriated in this House was not always utilized to its fullest extent. In recent years there has been a drastic change and for that I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his Department as I represent a constituency on the West Coast which includes the important fishing complex on that coast. Within a few miles of one another three important projects have been tackled by the Department, namely the development undertaken at Saldanha, the new harbour on which work is at present in progress at Sandy Point and the important project for clearing the mouth of the Berg River.

Over a short distance of a few miles in this area the State is at present doing excellent work so as to bring about progress also as regards this facet of the industry. I want to refer to another measure which was taken recently, namely the increase in fees for loading fish onto foreign vessels in harbours. These fees were increased drastically and preliminary indications are that this measure will have an important effect, a protective effect for our industry. In this way I can continue to mention numerous other examples of support given to this important industry by the State in recent years.

Nevertheless it is true that certain bottlenecks were created in the past number of years in the process of developing this industry. Certain problems arose in this industry. In the light of those problems I want to address this important and friendly request to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. Has the time not arrived at this stage in the development of this industry for a commission of inquiry to be appointed for making a thorough investigation into all hitches, bottlenecks and—please note—new possible points of growth in this industry? I want to emphasize that the State has done important work, but if we make a closer analysis of this industry we come to the conclusion that we have reached a stage in the development of this industry—also as regards its wider set-up, not only the fishing industry itself—where we should have a commission of inquiry from the State for giving more attention to and investigating certain aspects of this industry. In passing I want to mention a few of these bottlenecks. In the first instance I ask myself whether at present our measures of control in respect of this industry are still effective in all respects. Here I want to mention a small practical example in respect of our profitable lobster industry. If one nowadays should pay a visit to the smaller harbours on the West Coast, such as Eland’s Bay, Lambert’s Bay, etc…. [Time limit.]

I do not propose to deal with the argument of the hon. member who has just sat down in connection with control of our fishing harbours but when he talks about further control I would remind him that his party, when it came into power in 1948. was the party which was going to abolish all controls, and every hon. member who has so far spoken on the Government side has been talking about further control.

I want to develop my argument in connection with the establishment of markets in the neighbouring territories and the development of possibly a common market in Africa. Sir, the Minister will agree with me that South Africa is the main industrial country on the Continent of Africa; it has the main industrial influence; it has the advantage of being close to its potential markets, but South Africa must grasp this opportunity now not only of developing those markets but ensuring that those markets are held for all future time, because if those markets are lost it will be difficult to find markets further afield. The cost structure of industry in this country can be lowered if our production can be increased. The Minister knows that from his experience in industry. If we are going to reduce our cost structure then we must increase our markets, and if we are going to increase our markets, not only must we develop our internal market but we must develop our external markets, and our external markets lie near at hand. I hope that the Minister will tell us what plans he has in mind to develop our external markets, particularly in territories which are contiguous to our borders. We have a sphere of influence which can be developed to our advantage and to the advantage of the people concerned, and I hope the Minister is going to give us some further information as to what the prospects are of developing those markets which are contiguous to our boundaries.

Then I go further afield. The difficulties up North will not always be with us, and I am concerned at the paucity of trade representatives on the African Continent. We have a certain representation in Portuguese East Africa, but what about Rhodesia, Zambia, Tanganyika and other territories to the north? There are difficulties but the Minister knows that we are trading with those territories. Earlier in the Session I put a question to the Minister as to the amount of trade that we were doing with various other territories. The Minister replied that it was not in the national interest to disclose the figures. I accept that; I accept that there are these temporary difficulties at the present time, but in spite of all the protests by our friends in Tanzania and Kenya and Zambia, they still find that there are certain products which they must get from South Africa. We must move further afield. I do not think we can be satisfied with our trade representation overseas. The members of the staff are doing the best they can. I have been overseas from time to time and seen our various officials. I do not know how they manage to do the amount of work that they do; they are very much under-staffed. I would like particularly to make reference to our representative in Hong Kong. There we have a representative who has shown outstanding initiative and has done a considerable amount to develop South Africa’s trade but there are other countries where our markets require development. I wonder if the Minister is right in placing our Minister for Trade in Switzerland, in Berne. Surely the Minister of Trade should be either in Geneva or in Zurich. Berne is the administrative capital but the trade is in Zurich, as the Minister knows. Then we have our representative in Germany. It is very difficult indeed to cover all the territory. Sir, we can expand our markets considerably if we can get better representation. We have the first-class example of the tobacco industry. Surely if a South African, as the result of his drive, can so develop the market that he has a foothold in markets all over the world, it js not impossible for other industries to make similar progress.

I have no doubt as to the ability of South African industrialists to make an impression on the outside world, but I hope that the Minister will help them. Sir, you see, everything is concentrated on the colour issue. Unless you establish a border industry then you are not doing the job. We on this side are not against the decentralization of industry and we have never been, but we are against decentralization purely for ideological reasons. That is our complaint. We find that industries are established in a place like Hammarsdale and what is the position? Some had more employees when they were in Durban than they have now in Hammarsdale, and have an automatic plant. A proportion of the staff is living in Durban and goes to Hammarsdale during the week and then goes back to Kwa Mashu for the week-ends. The Government has indicated that the whole purpose in establishing an industry at Hammarsdale was to provide work for the local inhabitants. I am glad that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is here. I hope that the next time he goes to Hammarsdale he will go on a day when the weather is fine. Last time he went there it was raining. He can then see the conditions under which the workers live. The conditions of the workers in Hammarsdale are not a monument to this or any other Government. I hope that when the Minister considers the establishment of border industries he will realize that the two primary considerations are the health of the workers and housing for them, because they cannot be efficient if they are inadequately housed. They cannot be efficient if their conditions of living are unhygienic, when they are virtually living in slums. We find that the worker works in a fine factory during the day and at the end of the day he goes home to a squalid tin shack. Sir, those are the conditions which obtain in Hammarsdale. The Minister will tell us that he has been doing something …

He told you this morning.

Yes, I know he told us this morning, but that is not the answer; that is not a satisfactory answer.

Of course it is.

It shows shocking bad planning and lack of foresight; it shows an inefficient Minister, inefficient co-ordination and an inefficient Government. If you are going to establish an industry, surely you plan your factory and your housing altogether. When the United Party Government planned Zwelitsha, we planned the factory and the housing at the same time.

Are you now referring to Sophiatown?

The hon. the Deputy Minister must not use the Sophiatown argument; that is a totally different matter. We are not talking about the past; we are talking about what this Government is doing. As far as the planning of border area industries is concerned, I submit that if you want efficiency from border area industries, you must ensure that the people are properly housed as soon as you put up your factories instead of waiting for several years while the position deteriorates until you eventually have slums. Hammarsdale is a public scandal. [Time limit.]

I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister and his Department one aspect of commerce which is frequently lost sight of, and that is our small dealers. I trust the previous speaker will not hold it against me if I do not go into his speech in detail. If we refer to small dealers, we have to do with someone one finds everywhere; one finds him in rural towns; one finds him in remote communities and one also finds him in the cities. Although the small dealers operate in the same field as the chain stores, the two are frequently directly opposed. Where the chain stores and the large dealers have an eye mainly to larger profits and higher dividends, the small dealer and his family form part of the community he serves, and his business is frequently his only means of earning a livelihood. I am sure we shall not argue about the function of the small dealer. He fulfils an essential function. One sometimes finds communities that are so isolated and where the business field is so limited that the profits are negligible and minimal. If we looked to the large dealers to serve those communities, they would be neglected badly. The small dealer’s monthly accounts represent a large percentage of his business. Many of his clients cannot afford to buy cash. The problems of collecting and bad debts form part of his daily burden and make his life miserable. The path of the small dealer is not strewn with roses; on the contrary, it is rife with obstacles, some of which are placed in his path deliberately by the larger capital powers. They indulge in attempts to usurp and destroy the small dealer. In his uneven struggle I think the small dealer may justly demand that the Government and the State apply some restraint to the methods employed by his competitors. We pity those communities where the small dealer is forced out altogether and where the communities are left to the mercy of the large dealers. I fear the large dealers will not show much mercy. Let us consider some methods employed by the large dealers and the chain stores to make life difficult for the small dealer. Let us take a popular article, for example coffee, which one may buy at 20 cents a pound from a producer. We find that that pound of coffee which may be bought at 20 cents a pound at the factory, may be bought at 15 cents a pound in the large dealer’s shoo. News of something like that spreads like wildfire through a town and people rush to that shop to buy that coffee at 15 cents a pound, because they have to pay at least 30 cents or 25 cents a pound for it at other places. The chain store owner knows that once he has the client in his shop, if he can expose him to all the temptations in his shop, that client will buy much more than only that pound of coffee. The loss of 5 per cent he incurs, plus his collection costs, will soon be made up by the profits on the other articles bought by the client once he is in that shop. It is actually merely a trick used by the chain store to draw the client away from the small dealer’s shop, and to make life even more difficult for him by doing so. I believe we can do much to remedy this matter if we provide that where any person or any shop sells an article at a price lower than cost price, that article shall be offered in unlimited quantities. If the coffee I have mentioned is sold at 15 cents a pound while costing 20 cents at the factory, why cannot the small dealer also go to the chain stores to buy his supplies of coffee there? But these people are too clever for that. No sooner do they notice that the small trade is beginning to avail itself of this price advantage, than the quantity of coffee sold to any one person is limited to only 2 lbs.

There is another aspect which is fatal to the small dealer, and that is the price policy adopted by some producers in respect of the people who buy from them. This policy is applied throughout, i.e. from a bar of soap costing a few cents to a lorry costing a few thousand rands. To illustrate this point, I want to take the motor trade as an example, though it may be applied in equal measure to any other commercial article. In the motor trade we have what is called the “major dealers”. They are the dealers who are concentrated in the cities, and who sell more than, say, 100 units a year. As things are. these undertakings already have the advantage of being situated in areas with a large concentration of people, which makes it possible for them to build up a large turnover. But now the factory comes alone and supplies vehicles to these “major dealers” at a price which is 24 per cent lower than the price at which the factory sells those vehicles to a man who has a motor trade business in the rural areas. This has far-reaching results. The public soon gets to know that a certain vehicle may be bought more cheaply from the large undertakings in the cities than in their own towns. If people want to buy a motor vehicle, their natural reaction is then to go and buy it in the cities, because they can get the vehicle cheaper there. And remember that these are the businesses which, as I have said, already have a large turnover. In this way the motor vehicle dealer in the small towns loses ground rapidly, and will disappear eventually. As I have already said, this is something which is not found only in the motor vehicle trade. When the directors of large chain stores, for example, place orders with factories, the size of their orders compels a lower price. This does not apply to the small dealer who buys in small quantities. The 24 per cent or even 5 per cent less that the large dealer pays as a result of the size of his order. is just what the small dealer needs to make his business run smoothly. I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see to it that the manufacturers will not have two prices for people buying from them. Whether a person buys 1,000,000 bars of soap from a manufacturer or only 100, the price should remain the same in both cases. [Time limit.]

I am sure the hon. member for Mossel Bay will not hold it against me if I do not spend much time on the matter he has raised. If he was making a plea for the retention of the small dealers in our smaller towns, we are in full agreement with him. But I must say, it is a long time since I heard of coffee at 15 cents a lb. In fact, I must have been very young at that time. But I want to speak about promoting our trade abroad. Earlier in this debate the hon. member for Florida suggested that our local markets were absorbing so much of our trade goods, that it was not actually necessary any longer to seek many more trade channels abroad.

He never said that.

The hon. member himself is manufacturing on a large scale. Now the fact of the matter is that a factory anywhere in the world produces most economically if it works in more than one shift. Encouraging more factories and greater industrialization is justified only if existing factories are already working to full capacity. In many places in the world factories are not working only one shift for 24 hours, but up to three shifts for 24 hours. In our country we are wasting labour and machinery because we are not utilizing them to their full capacity. Anybody involved in production will know that one can produce more economically the more one goes in for mass production. Apart from the fact that our factories are not yet working to full capacity, there is also the customs protection we afford to our domestic industries, protection which is quite high in some cases. That should no longer be necessary if we can now produce in this country on a basis equal to that abroad. Because we can do that, we are in a position where we can compete with the rest of the world, and for that reason we should expand our trade abroad, something for which we need more than only 23 overseas trade representatives. Those are all the trade representatives we have throughout the world to-day. In Africa we have only three, namely one in Angola, one in Mozambique and one in Rhodesia. Compare that with Australia, which has 23 trade representatives on the Continent of Africa. It hurts us to see Australia, which is situated thousands of miles from here, snatch the trade from under our noses. And yet we are talking about a Common Market for Southern Africa. At the moment other countries are stealing our trade on the Continent of Africa. Wherever one goes, one sees foodstuffs, materials and textiles put on the markets in the north by Canada and Australia. Although we are still gradually expanding our trade representation, we as yet have only two in Asia, i.e. one in Japan and one in Hong Kong. We are not represented in any of the other areas. There is no reason why we should leave those areas to Australia and New Zealand to develop for their own benefit. Surely we have a duty towards our commerce in this country. Let us consider our imports and exports. During the first five months of this year our exports totalled R200,000,000 less than our imports. Gold is excluded from this amount. That is of course by no means a sound state of affairs. It would be a sound state of affairs if our secondary production were adequate to cover our imports. Gold could then take care of our foreign reserves. In addition, the figure I have mentioned is affected by strict import control. In fact, the value of our imports over those five months decreased by R100,000,000. If the imports had maintained the rate of last year, our unfavourable trade balance would have been even greater, perhaps in the region of R300,000,000. That is a state of affairs which is not as sound as it should be. As I have said, we have few trade representatives in the East. That also applies to South America and to the African Continent. Let us try to expand our trade representation even further, so that we may provide the necessary incentive to our manufacturing industries to work at a higher tempo. We should try to swing the trade balance so that it is more in our favour. Surely the gold mines cannot provide an ever-increasing share in our export.

I now want to refer to the production of containers, particularly of bags. Here I want to make a very serious appeal to the Minister. Our supplies of jute are virtually exhausted, and in addition the price of jute is very high. The new trend is now to manufacture containers from plastic materials, and not only from solid plastic but also from woven plastic. We should give serious attention to seeing to what extent containers can be manufactured from plastic in this country. I have a lengthy memorandum here in which the possibilities of using woven plastic are set out. The assurance is given that we can manufacture bags from woven plastic at two-thirds of the price of jute bags and paper bags. Paper bags are even more expensive than jute bags. We are already manufacturing solid plastic from our own raw materials. We can develop this into a local industry. Here we have a material which is much more stable with regard to its prices than jute or other fibrous materials. I did not want to bring along samples of these materials, but I do want to make a serious appeal to the Minister to give attention to the production of containers. This also concerns wool packs, which are manufactured from paper at present, at a higher price than that of jute. I have no objection to that, of course, because we cannot obtain jute, and its price is also very high at present. I think it is now R190 a ton. That market is in any event very capricious. But as I have said, it is possible to manufacture a container from plastic which is just as effective and which also costs a third less than jute containers and paper containers. The hon. the Minister and his Department should therefore see to it that the necessary research is undertaken in this regard, so that we may find an alternative for jute and paper. [Time limit.]

We are very grateful for the developments we have observed in our country in recent times. At the same time we are aware of the fact that these developments give rise to certain problems. We are therefore grateful that we have a Minister and a Government who will never hesitate to face up to those problems and to find solutions to them. In fact, the Government has foreseen those problems and has taken the necessary steps to meet them when they do in fact arise. In this regard one of the cornerstones is the decentralization of industries, in particular decentralization in the sense of establishing industries on the borders of Bantu homelands. Now the hon. member for Pinetown comes along and says that the Government is carrying out this decentralization of industries from ideological considerations only. I have never heard of greater nonsense than that. When industries were concentrated around our cities we saw that it would result in a greater flow of Bantu labour to those cities. Hence the border industries. We are continuing with that. All of us can appreciate that if we had not taken that course, there would have been a greater flow of Bantu labour to our urban industrial areas. The Government will not try to evade any problems arising from border industries. Within the framework of its policy the Government will see to it that the flow of Bantu labour to our urban industrial areas is kept even at first, and that they will then be drawn back by the industries in border areas. Hon. members on the opposite side may laugh, but I want to point out to them the full consequences of this policy of the Government.

There is in fact no single factor that will play a larger role in our economic life than the announcement of the Orange River Scheme. The completion of this scheme will eventually mean so much to us in the economic field that I want to say something further with regard to it. I just want to tell the Minister that we should take care that this vast natural resource will not be brought to naught in future. Here, too, the establishment of border industries is of great advantage to us. The Herschel homeland represents an area of 500 to 600 sq. miles of the catchment area of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. This area is situated in a region with an exceptionally high rainfall, namely in that part of the mighty Drakensberg range which is known as the Witteberg. The inhabitants of that homeland are fully dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood. Despite all the precautions that have been taken, the situation has arisen in this homeland that conservation farming simply cannot be applied successfully. In the light of investigations that have been carried out, we know that it is imperative that 20,000 of those Bantu should be taken out of the agricultural sector as soon as is humanly possible. They may be settled along the borders of the Orange River. We know that this homeland is rich in water resources, and for that very reason it lends itself to the establishment of light industries. We are in the fortunate position that the South Eastern corner of the Free State is very well supplied with rail and road communication lines. There is also adequate electric power. There are also many other favourable conditions which I do not list at this point. If we consider the sediment carried by the Orange River and the contribution of the Herschel homeland in this regard, then we appreciate that it is in fact this policy of the Government, namely the establishment of border industries, which will enable us to draw 20,000 Bantu from the agricultural sector there, and to find room for them in secondary industries within their homeland. It is obvious that all the Bantu of that homeland cannot make an existence in agriculture, and it is therefore understandable that some of those people should infiltrate the South Eastern and Eastern Free State. By developing border industries in the South Eastern Free State, we can help to draw those people back, people who are actually citizens of the Herschel homeland. I just want to say once again to those hon. members on the opposite side who think that the policy of border industries is based on ideological aims, that we believe that this development holds the solution to many of our problems in South Africa.

I should like to tell the hon. member who has just sat down that we on this side have always stated it to be one of our principles that we believe in the industrial development of our country whether it be within industrial areas, or in border areas or on the platteland, as long as such development take place along the lines of sound economic principles. The hon. member also referred to the Orange River project. I do not think this is a matter into which we should, as the hon. member has been doing, introduce politics. It is a project which has been on the planning boards for many many years and is, furthermore, a project which was partly conceived by a prominent member of this party, i.e. the late member for Albany.

But I rose in order to query a mysterious amount on the estimates, i.e. the amount of R450,000 under sub-head K, “Financial Assistance to the Local Film Industry”. We know that it is the policy of the Government to subsidize the local film industry and to try to establish a growing film industry in this country. Basically that might be a good idea but this is one instance of where there should be no mystery about where this huge amount of the taxpayer’s money is going. Earlier this Session I asked the hon. Minister to which companies this huge amount went during the last financial year. I also asked him how many companies received assistance. In reply he gave the name of six different film companies, amongst them Kavalier Films Ltd. But then he stated that on business principles it was not considered advisable to furnish separate figures in respect of every individual undertaking. Why not, Sir? I believe that some of these companies are being subsidized to the extent of R150,000 or more each. Why cannot we know which films are being subsidized and which will be subsidized in future by this huge subsidy which has been increased from R350,000 to R450,000? Which business principles have to be honoured in a case such as this, that we should not know how much each individual firm is receiving? I do not, of course, want to say anything against this one particular firm. Kavalier Films, except to say that it has an interesting history. Previously it was known as Jamie Uys Film Productions, a firm which was taken over by Kavalier Films. We find that the chairman of this company is a Mr. Schalk Botha, a director of Santam Insurance Company as well as certain other companies. The vice-chairman of this company is Mr. Hennie Marais, the Transvaal manager of Bonuskor. Well, if this company can produce such good films that it is worthwhile subsidizing it then I say let us do it. But what we should like to know is the basis on which certain companies are chosen for such large subsidies. Kavalier Films have as a company been in the field only a very short time. So we would like to know how much this particular company is due to receive out of this subsidy during this financial year. You see. Sir, subsidizing films from an economic point of view is one thing but to subsidize it in order to build a Nationalist or semi-Nationalist empire is another matter. There may be hon. members opposite who have budding ambitions of becoming new Louis B. Mayers or Samuel Goldwyns. There may even be budding Frank Sinatras on the other side! The hon. the Deputy Minister for Bantu Administration and Development, for instance, may have visions of becoming another Wallace Beery. But I think one should look deeply into the way in which this money is being spent. I deplore that hundreds of thousands of rands are placed on the Estimates, whilst we are not being told how much individual film companies is going to get.

There is another matter in respect of which I should like to have a reply from the hon. the Minister. At one time it was stated that State-assisted film features or films were against the provisions of GATT. South Africa is a signatory to this agreement. Such a statement appeared in the Press sometime ago. Is it correct? Is there the possibility that signatory countries might oppose the public exhibition of subsidized films in their respective territories? These are matters in respect of which we and the country as a whole are entitled to an answer. I regard this provision of nearly R500,000 in the light of the Minister’s reply as ominous, just as I consider any attempt by hon. members on the other side to hide where the money of the taxpayer is going as an ominous feature in our economy.

Because I represent the territory of Walvis Bay in this House, I should like to associate myself with a plea made earlier for the protection of our fishing-grounds along the west coast of our country. I should like to bring certain facts to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and I want to begin by reading a brief report we received last week from one of the captains of our boats fishing along our coast. This is what he wrote—

We have the position there that a record tonnage of more than 6,000 tons of frozen fish were transferred in the port of Walvis Bay during August. On 19th August no less than 15 large ships were busy transferring frozen fish in Walvis Bay. Of those ships 12 were Spanish and three South Korean boats. It is estimated that approximately 100 foreign boats operate between Cape Town and Walvis Bay and they are exhausting the fishing-grounds there. It is estimated that more than 500,000 tons of frozen fish are caught by these boats in our waters every year. It is further estimated that approximately 6,000 tons of frozen fish are transferred to foreign ships in Walvis Bay every month. We have had a reliable report to the effect that Russia is building an enormous factory ship of 45,000 tons, 630 feet long, in Leningrad. The name of the boat is the Vostok and in addition to this vessel they are also building 14 glass-fibre trawlers to provide it with fish, and it is intended to send this factory ship to the neighbourhood of Walvis Bay as well.

In 1963 we approved an Act here, in terms of which the Government was authorized to prohibit foreign boats from using our ports if they should violate the 12-mile limit or if they should catch protected fish such as pilchards and rock lobster. Some South American countries have extended their territorial waters up to 300 miles. Russia herself has a 12-mile limit and so have we at present. We know only too well that the Government is doing its best to try to avoid our fishing-grounds from being exhausted. The major problem is what one is going to do about the matter. One of the speakers suggested earlier that the Government should convene a conference with these countries in order to discuss the matter and to see whether some arrangement or other can be made in connection with quotas, for example. I must say I do not expect much of such conferences. I am not very optimistic as far as they are concerned. But what I do suggest may be considered is that the 12-mile limit should be extended considerably. Then one may ask what will happen in case that limit is not recognized by another country and if that country fishes within the limit of, say, 200 miles to which our fishing-grounds have been extended; what course will we have then? The course I suggest is the same course we have at present, viz. that we may close our ports to countries in case they violate the territorial limit. If we extend the fishing-grounds by law and if they break that law we will then have the right to do so. We will then have the right, internationally, to close our ports to those ships which do so. I must concede, however, that one will not be able to prevent the large boats from continuing their activities, but we find that at least 80 per cent of the boats are of the smaller size. They cannot operate successfully without using the ports in the neighbourhood. We have obtained the assistance of Angola recently in that they have extended their territorial limit up to 12 miles as well. I think we should obtain their assistance in this connection as regards their willingness to close their ports also to ships violating their territorial limit. I therefore want to suggest that this matter be considered by the Minister.

I am sorry I cannot assist the hon. member for Omaruru in his request. It is certainly a very great problem, as he says. It is much too great a problem for me and I leave it to the Minister. I am also on a quest for information, but I should like to say in passing that I think the request of the hon. member for Orange Grove is a very reasonable one. Why are we here in Committee on the Estimates? We are here to elicit explanations and information from the Minister. When a large sum such as that mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove is in question, surely he is entitled to full details. Why should we have to wait for the Public Accounts Committee? Why should we not have it now? That is why we are here. That is why we have a Parliament and why this House has gone into Committee. I sincerely trust that the hon. the Minister will give the hon. member for Orange Grove the information for which he has asked.

My second quest for information is whether the Minister can give us some information on the progress of the company law commission, and when they are expected to report. We know that from time to time there has to be a revision of the Company Law. That is necessary. With new methods of financing, new developments and new operations in business, it is necessary to revise our company law. We should like to know what progress is being made, and of course we commend the Minister for appointing that commission.

My third quest is a much simpler one. I want to refer to this remarkably fine report of the Bureau of Standards on the subject of the metric system of weights and measures. The Minister will recall that when we sat on the Decimalization of Coinage Commission we had the good fortune to have before us a similar report on the decimalization of coinage by the Bureau of Standards. Now we have another report on the metric system of weights and measures, and I should like to make the theme of my question to the Minister the final recommendation of this Commission or Committee. It is “that a decision for or against the changeover, based on South Africa’s interest, should be made as quickly as possible so that the cost, inconvenience and uncertainty be kept to a minimum, and while the Republic’s expanding economy is still young”. They ask that a statement should be made—if not a decision, at least an interim statement by the Minister. They expect that to be done. Now, I am not rising to say that we should adopt a system of metric weights and measures. One cannot just do that. When we discussed decimal coinage in the beginning we said that when you decimalize your coinage you have to have a D-day. But you cannot have a D-day when you introduce a metric system of weights and measures. That is quite impossible. It has to be a gradual process. I hope the Minister will tell us whether he accepts this report, which is certainly a very valuable contribution, and what his plans are. so that the country will know. This report is now about 16 months old. I think it is time that the country knew what the intentions are. I am very impressed by the personnel of this Committee; some of the information they give is very remarkable indeed. They do mention the British system that we have at present. It is very easy to ridicule the British system of weights and measures or the American system, but it has an historical background. I should like to mention only one contribution on the British system, made by the hero of my youth, the great Lord Kelvin. He called this system “the absurd, ridiculous, time-wasting, brain-destroying British system of weights and measures”. Lord Kelvin was the doyen of physicists of his day. He was the man to whom everyone looked for guidance. This report surprises me because we are now getting support from the people I thought would be ultra-conservative, the engineering profession. I am not speaking of electrical engineers, but mechanical and civil engineers especially. They have always felt that they could remain on the British system because it was more convenient, but they are now coming round and are supporting the changeover.

I should like the Minister to tell us in addition how it will affect our exports; in other words, to which countries are we exporting now and which of these countries are using the metric system of weights and measures. Many of them are. Someone told me the other day that the majority of the countries to which we export, excluding Britain, use the metric system of weights and measures. In addition to that, we find that the British Government itself has decided to adopt the metric system of weights and measures and their plan is to make the changeover in a period of 10 to 15 years. I think there are certain businesses and professions in the country which could introduce this system almost immediately. I want to give the example of the medical profession. It seems quite absurd that at this stage the learned medical profession should be giving prescriptions in scruples and drams, when the medicines we are importing to-day are usually made up in packets of grams. I think the medical profession could set an example. Pharmacists, I think, would be glad to co-operate. That could be the start. The Standards Institute in Great Britain has given a lead and the Government is co-operating. I mention Britain, and of course America, but especially Britain because it is our best customer, and we should try to co-operate as far as possible with our customer.

In Britain the Government has appointed a joint committee of businessmen, industrialists, and Government officials, to co-operate to prepare a timetable and decide the manner in which this can be done. The Standards Institute in Britain is also giving a lead. But what has inspired me to take this matter up at all is that I have been reading this discussion that took place amongst engineers. Engineers have great difficulties because of screws, spanners, and other tools that are, naturally, based on the British system. It is found now, I understand, that of spanners coming into this country the ratio of metric spanners to British spanners is about four to three. There is, in other words, a movement in that direction.

Now, I am not going to talk about education. As hon. members know, in education the metric system has been taught for many, many years. We have in South Africa four systems of weights, but we teach as a rule the metric system and our own system of weights and measures. In Britain, 60, 70 and more years ago they thought of introducing a metric system of weights and measures. They were quite serious about it. They fixed a time and then changed their minds. On one occasion, in a vote in Britain on a proposal to have the metric system of weights and measures, it was defeated in the House of Commons by only five votes. They got so near to introducing the system. I think that to-day, with our trade becoming international, we should take a step forward. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, during the Budget debate the other day the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said, in concluding his reply, that he foresaw a further 25 golden years for the development of our country, once this period of controlled expansion had passed. On that occasion he also said that the Government had many projects which were still awaiting development. I presume that in order to shape the industries in our country, and with a view to the even growth of our secondary industries, we shall also place the emphasis on South Africa’s existing foreign trade as well as on the development of new markets. In that field. Sir, I presume that we shall think primarily of those states in Africa with which our relations are best at the moment, and which in actual fact present a natural market to us. Here I am referring specifically to the Portuguese territories in Africa, namely Mozambique and Angola. That is apart from Rhodesia. I notice that there was a further decrease of approximately R100,900,000 in our imports during the first five months of this year. I presume that decrease was attributable primarily to the introduction of import control. I also note that during the same period South Africa’s exports increased by R31,100,000. I presume that is attributable to the fact that South Africa is succeeding in finding more and more overseas markets for its products. The context in which we should therefore probably see these figures, is that South Africa will soon be importing more, so that there will not be a decreasing trend but an increasing trend.

Mr. Chairman, what I find most alarming is that in addition to the decrease in imports by South Africa, there has also been a decrease in our imports from African countries. The decrease in respect of those five months was from R43,900,000 to R41,800,000, which represents a decrease of R2,100,000 over a period of five months, as against the comparable period last year. I am referring to the entire Continent of Africa, Mr. Chairman.

On the other hand our exports to African countries increased from R55,400,000 to R72,900,000 over the same period, which represents an increase of R17,500,000. That means that in the course of one year, in respect of a period of five months, our trade with Africa decreased by approximately R2,000,000 on the one hand, while on the other hand—in respect of exports—it increased by R17,000,000.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I presume that that took place despite the attitude adopted by our Government, that we should under all circumstances prefer to trade with countries in Africa in the first place, and that when import control measures are introduced, they should affect other markets before affecting the exports from African countries to South Africa.

If I look at figures furnished by the I.D.C. in particular with regard to our trade with foreign countries, then it is notable that our trade with Angola, for example, represents only approximately R1,500,000 a year. There was even a small increase of about R150,000 in the period 1963-4. South Africa’s total imports from that territory is approximately one-thousandth or .1 per cent, as against its total imports for the year 1964, which represented approximately R1,500,000,000. I therefore see the possibility of more trade with other countries in Africa. In the first place I am thinking of a territory like the Portuguese bloc in Africa. Here we have to do with relatively undeveloped areas, areas with fairly large populations. Angola has a population of 4,800,000, of which approximately 300,000 are Whites. It is an area which is rich in natural resources and which would readily trade with us. Establishing that trade will be possible only if the Government, more than any other concern, goes out of its way to promote it, because many major problems face the private entrepreneur who ventures into that territory, either to trade or as an investor. In the first place there is the traditional tightness of the Portuguese market, something which was found insurmountable by many industrialists in the past. In the second place, and from a purely practical point of view, there is the vast language difference. Any industrialist who wants to trade with a foreign country or who wants to invest money in that country, should be able to carry on a conversation with his potential customers or with those with whom he wants to trade. It is also customary that he will apply for assistance particularly to the legal profession in those countries. Now it so happens, Mr. Chairman, that as far as I know there is not a single firm of attorneys in the entire Angola in which any of the partners can speak English. I visited these territories very intensively in the past number of years. This very language problem is a virtually insurmountable obstacle to the investor or tradesman who wishes to acquire access to that market. Then there is the vast difference in our Companies Law and our form of taxation.

I consequently feel, Sir, that where this is a new and still largely undeveloped market, and where it also offers South Africa a potential field of investment in respect of partnerships with Portuguese groups, our Government may perhaps do more to ensure that there in particular, as against a country like Rhodesia, where the official language is English and where trade customs correspond with those of our country, our trade representation will be much stronger. In this regard I want to ask in particular that when our trade representatives are appointed in those territories, they should acquire a working knowledge of Portuguese as soon as possible. I feel that that is the only way in which they will get access to the traders and inhabitants of those countries. I feel that they should acquire a very thorough knowledge of the trade customs and in particular of the legal systems of those areas as soon as possible after their appointment. South African investors or traders will then at least be able to find good points of contact there when they venture into those territories. In view of the improved communications that have been established in the past year, particularly between that territory and South Africa, I feel that if our Government went out of its way even further to see to it that our trade representation there was very strong—which must be regarded as an investment for the future—South Africa would have an unfilled field there. In the first place it would be able to invest in a well-disposed territory, and in the second place it would be able to build up a sound industrial partnership.

When the hon. the Minister speaks of 25 years of prosperity lying ahead, I think he is also seeing it against the background of the industrial development that may take place in South Africa. In these documents before us we read about shares in the Industrial Development Corporation that are being taken up again, and of which an amount of R4,100,000 is intended for investment in the aircraft industry, in the Atlas Corporation. The thought that occurred to me—and I think it is occurring to many in our country—is that in the past we allowed the unfortunate trend to develop in the motor industry in South Africa, that dozens of models of motor cars were allowed and that it is now difficult to correct that position with a view to the eventual establishment of an industry producing motor cars in which the percentage of South African parts is as high as possible, and that we should therefore not allow this trend to develop in the aircraft industry—the industry of the future, particularly in the southern part of Africa. When the investigation being carried out at present by the directors of the Atlas Corporation are eventually completed, I shall be grateful if they will concentrate on designing a type of aircraft which will be typical of South Africa and the southern part of Africa. I have tried to collect statistics relating to the use cf light passenger aircraft in South Africa. It appears to me as though the average registration totals approximately 178 a year. Just as the improvement in the South African Airways services had the result that the South African public became more air-travel conscious, I believe it will eventually also become apparent that there is a tremendous potential, not only in respect of passenger traffic, but also in respect of goods transportation by light aircraft in South Africa. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope that the hon. member for Vasco, who has just resumed his seat, will forgive me if I do not pursue the same line as he has. The only comment I should like to make on his speech is that it has been a reinforcement of the plea made by the hon. member for East London (City) for greater trade representation by South Africa in other countries on the African continent.

The hon. member for East London (City) also referred to the need to investigate the possibility of manufacturing containers, such as grain bags and wool packs, from woven synthetic material, in view of the fact that the jute supplies of the country seem to be running low. As far as wool packs are concerned, it seems to be the position that the stocks of fast-top packs—and it is for fast-top packs that most farmers’ wool presses are to-day designed—are exhausted, and that only a limited stock of loose-top packs made of jute are still available. It seems as if at least 30 per cent of South Africa’s wool clip this year will have to be packed in paper packs.

Now, Sir, the paper pack has admittedly the advantage over the jute pack of not containing loose fibres, something that was always the wool buyer’s objection to the jute pack because it contaminated the wool. But it also has certain disadvantages, among others that it cannot be sewn up again like a jute pack. Cases have occurred where these paper packs have burst and this entails repacking at the expense of the broker because of the fact that they cannot be sewn again. Also, during the course of handling, when hooks are put into the paper pack a hole remains, which was not the case with the jute pack where the fibres closed up upon removal of the hook.

Although the question of the slipperiness of the paper packs has now been overcome,-and they are no longer glazed, yet these other disadvantages do remain. And over and above that is the disadvantage that they are more expensive than the jute packs. At the moment the price to the brokers of locally manufactured packs, which in themselves in the years gone by have at any rate been much more expensive than the imported pack, is something like R1.78 per pack. On the other hand the price of the paper pack to the broker is R2.05. Now, this price is equalized to the producer—to the wool farmer—at R1.97. So it is clear that, as far as price is concerned, the jute pack is carrying the paper pack at the moment. I wish to put a question to the hon. the Minister in this regard, and I think it is important because of the low margin of profit that the wool producer is working on. When our stocks of jute packs are exhausted, as they apparently will be next year, and if paper packs are going to be used next year, can we anticipate a price rise because of the higher price of the paper pack? Will there be a rise in the price of packs?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to turn now to the question put to the hon. the Minister by the hon. member for Constantia when he asked the Minister whether he had yet made use of the powers granted him under the Electricity Act of 1922 and reaffirmed by the Consolidating Act of 1958, which empowered him to authorize Escom to charge consumers in particular areas lower prices than Escom itself would be able to charge. Escom is bound by the terms of the Act, namely that in any particular scheme the cost of the transmission line itself, the interest and redemption costs, have to be covered by the charges to consumers on that line. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that his failure to use the powers given him under this Act has resulted in adverse effects not only on agriculture but also industry and commerce in at least one of Escom’s undertakings. I am referring, Sir, to the Border undertaking which serves the area north-east, north, and north-west of East London.

Now, Sir, the position there is that the main generating station is at East London. There is a subsidiary station at King William’s Town, and from King William’s Town the main transmission lines are spread out over a considerable distance, rather like the open fingers of a hand. But the trouble is that there are no link lines joining the ends of those fingers, in other words, joining the ends of the transmission lines. That means, Sir, that there is no ring system there. Under present circumstances Escom itself cannot complete the ring because the areas between the points of the fingers, the ends of the transmission lines, are sparsely populated, and therefore the inhabitants of those areas cannot afford the high cost of a transmission line which would cross those areas. I would like to mention two of these lines particularly; one from King William’s Town to a point some five miles west of Bedford is at least 100 miles long. It passes through a number of small towns, the towns of Alice, Fort Beaufort, Adelaide, and Bedford; the other stretches down from King William’s Town through Grahamstown down to Port Alfred and Alexandria. Because of the fact that there is no ring system there, if there is any interruption whatsoever in supply from any point west of King William’s Town that whole line is out of action. It can very easily happen that there are interruptions in supplies, apart from the fact that it is necessary for the Electricity Supply Commission to undertake maintenance on the line at fairly regular intervals.

I want to say immediately that when the Electricity Supply Commission does have to undertake maintenance operations, they certainly undertake them with the maximum efficiency and expedition. But apart from normal routine maintenance operations, there is also the effect of natural factors such as, for example, very high winds, particularly in the winter time, which put the line out of action on occasions, lightning strikes in the summer time, which again puts sections of the line out of action, and I think it is worth noting that these lines run for a great part of their distance through the Ciskei. Whatever the future of the Ciskei is going to be, to my mind that definitely increases the risk of those lines being sabotaged. It has already happened on one occasion in the past at the height of the P.A.C. and A.N.C. agitation some years back that a disaffected gentleman from Fort Hare and two of his companions sawed off one of the wooden poles on which the line running through Fort Beaufort to Bedford is carried, and that line was out of action for a very considerable time. Once this happens, once the line is put out of action, then everything dependent on electricity to the west of the point that is put out of action, comes to a stop. The machines of farmers who use electricity, items such as citrus packing plants which operate on a conveyor belt system in the small towns, etc. come to a standstill. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down will pardon me if I do not follow him in two respects; the first is the matter he has just dealt with, and the second is his reference to me on the previous occasion when he followed me, that I was supposedly such and such a member of the Broederbond, and I do not know what else.

Perhaps an opportunity to cross swords about that will present itself later.

In the first place I want to ask the Minister, following upon what was said by the hon. member for Vasco and because I am also intensely interested in our trade with the African states—I notice from the latest report of the Department of Commerce and Industries that our exports to territories in Africa increased considerably in the period January to May, 1966. compared with the corresponding period in 1965—whether he will not take the House into his confidence and tell us something about our trade with the African states.

Secondly, with reference to the hon. member for Pinetown, who gave the impression in respect of our overseas markets that the Government is to be blamed if our exports are not always as desired, I want to point out that that is quite erroneous and quite wrong. In this regard I want to make a cordial appeal to our industrialists to appreciate that they themselves have a great responsibility as regards exports, and that they should take it upon themselves, should take the initiative themselves, to try to find markets abroad; and once they have found the markets, they should very meticulously, particularly in view of the image that should be presented to the world abroad, in view of our trade with and our exports to foreign countries, carry out their orders to overseas firms in order not only to retain the markets we hope they themselves will find on their own initiative, but also to expand those markets continually. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown that the Government may lead a horse to the water, but that it cannot make it drink. I am convinced that I am interpreting the Government’s attitude correctly if I say that if the firms themselves took the initiative—and I may testify to firms that are in fact taking the initiative with excellent results; there are several of them in my own constituency—they would always find the Government most sympathetic to assist them in overcoming their problems and in expanding their export markets. But I want to emphasize that the firms themselves should play a special role in this respect, and I want to make a cordial appeal to them to bring to this role a spirit of dynamic enterprise in order that our exports may shoot up.

In the third place I want to point out that the United Party has frequently expressed conflicting points of view in this House; there is nothing extraordinary about that, but if there is one thing in respect of which the United Party has lately been running into difficulties, then it is the question of border industry development in the Republic of South Africa. If one consults Hansard one is surprised to see to what an extent the United Party has blown hot and cold about border industries. I just want to refer to the previous member for Jeppes, who was the United Party’s main speaker in this House on those matters. On 18th May, 1964, he used the following words in this House with regard to border industry development—

referring to border industries—

That same year the then member for Jeppes said that border industries would compete strongly with industries in the decentralized areas, because they would produce more cheaply, but only a year later the hon. member for Yeoville, still speaking on the assumption that border industries should be stopped, said that these border industries would push up the cost structure in the Republic of South Africa. You see how the United Party is blowing hot and cold. On the one hand they say that it will push up the cost structure; on the other hand they say that the border industries will produce much more cheaply. I found it most interesting to hear the hon. member for Orange Grove and also the hon. member for Pinetown say this afternoon that they have now accepted border industries. We are therefore making a great deal of progress, but only after the United Party has blown hot and cold so many times.

I want to say the following with regard to border industry development; there is a very fine saying: “Wisdom is to know what to do next: skill is knowing how to do it and virtue is doing it.” Measured by this simple and very old maxim. I may say in all honesty that I find no wisdom in the United Party as regards this important national matter; that I find no skill in them, and that I find less virtue in them in this regard. They will find that this side of the House will display not only the wisdom to know what to do next, but also the skill and the virtue to carry it out, because we are determined to carry out our border industry development wisely under all circumstances, come what may. In my opinion the centralized industries, particularly on the Witwatersrand, must of their own free will do everything in their ability to restrict their Bantu labour to the minimum. They must realize that if they are not prepared to do so of their own accord, particularly on the Witwatersrand, but also in all other centralized areas, then it will become the duty of the Government to take serious action in this regard, once again cautiously and wisely, but most definitely in some way or other. I am referring to the Witwatersrand because 55 per cent of the Republic’s industries are centralized there; 56 per cent of all the Bantu labourers are centralized there.

The facts as regards the distribution of employees on the Witwatersrand, where my constituency is situated, are as follows: On the East Rand, if the figure in respect of all races is taken as 100, there are 29.4 Whites in private industries as against 69.3 Bantu; that means 2.4 Bantu to a White. On the West Rand there are 20.1 Whites, 78.4 Bantu, in other words, almost 4 Bantu in the industries there as against I White. In the Central Rand the figures are as follows: 31.4 White, 60 Bantu, i.e. 1.9 Bantu to every White. Surely this has two implications: It shows, firstly, how industries in those centralized areas have become dependent upon Bantu labour. Secondly it shows how essential it has become to decentralize industries and how urgent the need for border industry development has become.

I believe that industries in centralized areas have to give serious attention to three very important matters, firstly to mechanization, secondly to automatization, and thirdly to computerization, particularly on the Witwatersrand, but also in all our centralized areas. I also believe that the Witwatersrand complex is most suitable for highly capitalized, mechanized industries producing high quality as well as high-priced articles. I believe that Bantu labour-intensive industries should above all not be established in densely populated areas, but more and more in less densely populated areas; in other words, in border areas. I think the time has come that we should undertake long-term planning in this regard to establish our industries where the best use may be made of our available labour resources and also of our available material and natural resources. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Primrose has just been talking about export markets and what local producers should do in order to develop those markets. The position is that in order to develop export markets overseas, we must be able to produce in this country at such a cost and in such volume that we can compete. Let us forget for a moment about the political angle. There is no doubt about it that as far as our fish and our fruit are concerned—and, of course, our gold—we really have no competition because these industries are highly organized. But, Sir, the Government has its part to play and industry will play their part. Sir, it was very interesting to listen to the hon. member talking about border industries because he represents a constituency which is an industrial constituency to a great extent. He can correct me, but as far as I know Primrose that is the position. The hon. member is like the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, who has spoken about removing the Bantu from the highly industrialized complexes of our country to border area industries. The hon. member has explained how we should set about it; how we should mechanize to cut down on the number of Bantu employed in our industrial complexes. Sir, let me put it to the hon. member this way. When an industrialist transfers his industry to a border area, does he think that that industrialist is going to do away with his mechanization? Does he think that that industrialist is just going to employ Bantu in their raw state? He will naturally introduce mechanization into his industry in that border area. The position of the Bantu will therefore not be improved by transferring the factory to the border area. When we talk about border industries and the effect of such industries on the country as a whole, we must think of the dying mines and the effect in those areas and we here in the Western Cape have to think of its effect on the growth of industry as far as we are concerned. The advantages which border industries receive when they move to these border areas are substantial. They get assistance in the provision of basic services. They get assistance in housing their White employees and they get increased depreciation allowances. Moreover, they get an allowance in so far as Railway rates are concerned. There is differentiation as far as wage scales are concerned and in this way they compete on an unfair basis with the big industries in our country at the present moment. To a large extent border industries are still a dream, and if they are going to come it will still take a long time. The Government has now, I have noticed, changed from a border industries policy to decentralization. We agree that decentralization is a sound policy but originally the idea behind the border industries was to move industries to the borders of the reserves.

But I want to leave this matter and pass on to the assize section of the Minister’s Department, and in this connection I particularly want to refer to the special tankers used by the S.A. Railways. The policy of his Department is to see that petrol company tankers are equipped with meters so that the purchaser of the petrol can be sure that, if he buys 5,000 gallons, he will get 5,000 gallons. Petrol, however, is a high-rated commodity these days. The Railway Administration, therefore, retains the right of delivering petrol over the 30-mile area. It is not that the oil companies will not do it for them. These companies are, in fact, prepared to do it. The S.A. Railways have, however, built road tankers which sometimes go by rail and road, and sometimes by road direct to delivery points. I understand that these petrol tankers are assized, although I do not know whether that is done by the Department of Assize. The receiver at the delivery point, however, does not know how much petrol he gets from such a tanker, because these tankers have no meters on them. Oil companies, on the other hand, are forced to have meters. It might be said that the S.A. Railways do not take any responsibility for the quantity of petrol once a tanker has been filled and sealed. But I disagree with that. In my opinion the S.A. Railways, the moment they take delivery of these tankers, they become the agent of the petrol company concerned. The S.A. Railways must see to it that these filled tankers are delivered to them intact, and they in their turn should see that it is delivered intact at the delivery point. They should, in other words, deliver 5,000 gallons if they have received 5,000 gallons to deliver. But in actual fact they really do not know what is in the tank. They are not sure and, what is more, they do not take any responsibility. Therefore, I think the Minister should insist that these tankers are fitted with assized meters. Moreover, he should go into the question of whether these tankers are in fact assized and, if so, who is responsible. Most country petrol dealers in the Cape are affected by this matter. So I should like the hon. Minister to go into this matter and to see to it that these tankers are assized and fitted with meters.

The hon. member for Primrose quoted what happened a year ago and what the attitude of the United Party was as regards border industries. That was the position a year ago. Now, one had hoped that by this time they would have come up with a more positive attitude as regards this matter. I, therefore, listened attentively to-day to what they had to say about this matter. So far four speakers on their side have referred to border industries. The first was the hon. member for Constantia. He said that he doubted whether border industries would help to increase productivity. Then the hon. member for Pinetown elaborated on that. In the first place he reprimanded the hon. member for Florida, and claimed that the United Party was the father of decentralization. He went further and said that his party supported decentralization. He said that it was a very fine thing, as long as it did not have ideological aims. Then the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to this matter and said that his party had always been in favour of any form of industrial development, whether in border industries or not, as long as it was founded on sound economic principles. He was followed by the hon. member for Salt River, who referred in general to the advantages enjoyed by industrialists who settle in the border industries, and who finally said that it would be many more years before border industries would come into being. But I should very much like to know what the real attitude of the United Party is as regards border industries. It seems to me as though there is a vast lack of policy on the other side as regards this matter. My constituency is a border industry area, and I should, therefore, like to know what to tell my people there about the real attitude of the United Party. I, therefore, want to know whether the United Party is going to co-operate with us and whether they support border industries. I want to know whether they will support us in this, so that we may secure the White man’s future in this country. Or are they going to fight it? We should like to know. But perhaps they will have to go into committee before they can tell us what they intend doing. The magazine Time also had something to say about border industries, namely in that shocking article published about the late Dr. Verwoerd. As regards border industries, this magazine states—

Now I want to know what the attitude of the United Party is in this regard. Border industries are no longer only an idea. They are already in existence. Unprecedented economic powers are already at work, and those powers will forge ahead and will roll ahead without anything being able to stop that process. Now I want to know whether the United Party is going to co-operate. Border industries are going to be the crux of our economic development during the next ten years. We should, therefore, like to know what the United Party is going to do. As for myself, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister as well as the permanent committee acting within his Department for the excellent work they have done with regard to the development of border industries. In fact. I think these people are surely the greatest authorities on decentralization in the world. Initially the best was taken from other countries, and then applied here with the necessary improvements and adjustments.

Here I want to refer to the factory plants that were erected and let. They were a great success, and people who previously never had the prospect of becoming industrialists because they did not have adequate capital, are industrialists to-day and are making excellent progress. In the past the United Party complained about the high outlay costs of border industries, but I want to ask them, how expensive are border industries really? With what do they compare border industries in order to arrive at a comparative figure? Yes, we know that border industries cost money. At the same time, however, their advantages are already evident. The money invested in border industries by the State is returned with interest. In Pietersburg, for example, there is a border industry that has grown to such an extent that a third of the money it received from the Government has already been repaid to the Government in the form of income tax. There are also many other advantages. Our fathers used to say that water begets water and money money, and that is true in this respect, too, and we find that industries are begetting industries. In Pietersburg, which is only a small area compared with the rest of the country, we made a survey covering 15 months up to 30th June, 1966. We found that during that period the industrial undertakings increased by 38 per cent. The number of Whites employed increased by 32 per cent, Bantu by 34 per cent and Indians and Coloureds by 42 per cent.

What are the figures?

I shall furnish them later to the hon. member if he wants them. Over that period wages increased by 46 per cent and at present total R1,500,000, and that in a place like Pietersburg. On the other hand, the ratio of White employees to non-White employees remained constant. At present it is 1.5. The total number of Bantu employed in those border industries is 2,205 at present. That means an increase of 36 per cent for those 15 months. Extend that to the rest of the country and you will see what an economic upsurge there is.

That is if border industries spread throughout the country.

They will spread throughout the country. I do not have the necessary figures available, but I believe the hon. the Minister will be able to furnish them. The value of factory buildings alone increased by R2,500,000 in those 15 months. These are only a few figures in respect of what has taken place in Pietersburg alone. Border industries are there; they have come to stay.

There is an aspect I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, however, and that is after-care for those industries that are established. Where Government expenditure is envisaged in an area, whether in buildings or in anything else, and when goods for use in that area are specified, the specific goods manufactured in that area should receive attention. They should be included in the specifications, so that the manufacturers will then be in a more favourable position, by means of tenders, to compete and perhaps obtain that business. That will mean that certain industries which are at present finding it hard to make an existence, will then be better off.

I do not intend following up the matters raised by the hon. member for Pietersburg because I want to deal with a matter which has been raised by the hon. member for Vasco and by the hon. member for Primrose, neither of whom, I am sorry to say, is in this Chamber at the present time. I want to support them in a matter they raised with the hon. Minister, i.e. the matter of our markets in Africa. It is true that, whereas in the past we have been concerned mostly with the export of minerals, we have to-day in many industries reached a point of production where local markets are saturated. Thus it becomes increasingly necessary that we have to find export markets for our products. Recently I was surprised to learn that with the advancement of the timber industry in this country our lumber millers now find themselves in a position where they can easily satisfy the requirements of the South African market, and that they have to look for an export market if they want to maintain a reasonable price for timber in South Africa itself. If that is so, and I have it from the timber millers themselves, then the question of the African market becomes an important one. But the hon. member for Primrose left it at that while the hon. member for Vasco quoted certain figures from the latest report of the Department of Commerce and Industries. But a pattern, and an adverse one at that, has been evident in Africa now for a number of years. This is not something sudden. The deterioration of our trade in Africa is not something which has suddenly happened. Let me remind the hon. the Minister that in 1963 our imports from the African continent amounted to R79,000,000 against exports of R107,000,000. leaving us with a favourable balance of R27.6 million. During the following year, however, our imports were R90,000,000, our exports R113,000,000. leaving us with a less favourable balance, i.e. of R23,000,000. The position during July, 1964, to June, 1965, is that our imports have risen to R109,000,000 and our exports only to R116,000,000. That means that our favourable balance has within a period of 24 months been reduced from R27,000,000 to only R7,000,000. The latest figures seem to indicate that we have gone over to the debit side as far as trade with the African continent is concerned. We have gone into the red. But let me go further and exclude from these figures those countries in which we have trade representatives, i.e. in Angola, Mozambique, Malawi and Rhodesia. If we do that, we find that our imports during 1963 from the rest of the countries in Africa were R40,000,000 against exports of R18,000,000, leaving us with a debit balance of something in the region of R22,000,000. This particular debit balance has grown to R35,000,000 during the year 1964-’65. These are definitely not healthy figures. When I raised this matter earlier in the Session with the hon. the Minister of Finance he seemed to take up an attitude almost of despair. When I asked him what his attitude was towards the African market he asked how we could trade with people who wanted to boycott us. So I asked him whether any attempt was being made and whether the Government had any plan. He then said, “not officially”. But if nothing is being done officially, is anything being done unofficially? Has the industrialist to paddle his canoe himself or is he going to get some support from the Department? Figures in the estimates which we are now discussing do not reflect any plan for expansion. They do not reflect any planning for an increase in the number of trade consuls, for instance. I am sure that the hon. Minister of Economic Affairs does not share that defeatist attitude, and he might therefore give us some indication of what can be done. I appreciate, of course, the difficulties of getting into these countries, and it may well be that one has to go to the Chamber of Industries to see whether we cannot do something through those channels, with support and encouragement, of course, from the Government. But something should be done to develop our trade in these markets, markets which should be ours. Let us face the position. With the expansion anticipated by the Minister, our need for markets is going to be even more urgent in the near future than it is at present already. Therefore, I should appreciate it if the Minister could give us some indication of his intentions in this regard.

Another matter I want to raise relates to our guano islands. From the figures available, and from the reply given by the hon. the Minister to a question put to him earlier this Session (see col. 1662 of Hansard), it seems to me that the production of guano is not as satisfactory as it might be. I have had the opportunity of visiting the guano industry in South-West Africa, on the coast north of Walvis Bay up to Cape Cross. The return on the money expended there is a very profitable one. Consequently one wonders whether the best use is being made of these islands in South Africa and to what extent the erection of platforms, as is done in South-West Africa, might be introduced here to ensure a more ready collection than is the case at present, the collection now being from a rather uneven surface. At the same time I must concede, however, that the return from sealing under this particular Vote is not such a bad one if compared with the returns received from the sealing industry in other quarters. The provision for these guano islands is being increased from R176,500, which it was during 1965-’66, to R193,000. In regard to sales, I do not know what the figures are in respect of the 1965-’66 season, but for the two years before that the sales figures were R196,000 and R182,351. The sales were, in other words, not very much higher than the cost involved in maintaining these islands.

I now want to come to another matter—a matter in respect of which I believe the Minister can be of assistance. This is the prevention of a good deal of unnecessary and unhealthy speculation taking place in shares relating to concession or grants or permits in the fishing industry in particular. One comes across the most rife dealing amongst the public on rumours that there will be a change or an increase in grants or additional grants in so far as these permits are concerned. Therefore, I wonder whether the Minister should not give serious consideration to the question of publishing in the Gazette, or otherwise, or even of laying on the Table of this House, such variations as there have been in permits, grants or concessions in connection with the fishing industry over, say, the last five years. When new grants are contemplated the widest possible publicity should be given especially to the tender aspect. This should be done in order to avoid rumours which could lead to considerable loss on the part of interested people, people who might perhaps be given the whisper that such and such a company is going to get an increased quota, and then they buy shares from unscrupulous individuals with the result that they suffer considerable losses should that concession not be granted. The Minister should devise some means whereby these dealings should be laid bare and thereby more healthier conditions will be created in so far as the fishing industry is concerned.

If there is one matter on which we are all in agreement, then it is the matter which has now again been raised by the hon. member for Green Point. I am referring, of course, to the necessity for expanding our overseas trade, and particularly also to giving more attention to our trade with African States. This afternoon the hon. member for Green Point asked the Minister whether he had any plans in that regard. But if a miracle occurred and the United Party came into power, do you think conditions as regards our relations with African States would improve?

Yes. certainly.

If that hon. member can give me such an assurance, he himself is surely the greatest miracle of the century. If ever there was a matter in which the Government and commerce and industry should co-operate and advance hand in hand, then it is the development of those various markets, and. now is the time to do so. It is wrong to demand that everything should come from the Government, because our tradesmen and particularly our industrialists also have a great responsibility. They too have to come forward and take the initiative themselves to see to it that their products are brought to the attention of those countries continually.

Considering the speeches made here this afternoon, there is one Minister who should feel fortunate, because I really do not know what he has to reply to. So far there has not been a single point of criticism on the way the hon. the Minister manages his Department. The hon. member for Kensington asked for information as regards the amount of R450,000 we have to vote for our local film industry. I am convinced that the Minister will supply him with the necessary information. At the same time I hope and trust that as our film industry in the Republic is in its infancy, hon. members of the Opposition will give the Minister their full support so that this film industry may be expanded, just as we also did with other large undertakings, like Sasol, Foscor and others.

That is the very reason why we want to know how the money is being spent.

Has money ever been spent fruitlessly by this House? Or have you perhaps not always had the opportunity of discussing it? No, I want to plead with the hon. members of the Opposition not to chase up hares unnecessarily. If the hon. member for Orange Grove is afraid that will not be awarded a part in that, we could always make him the budding Donald Duck of the film industry.

But I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. The hon. member for Pinetown referred to the hon. member for Florida and asked him whether he did not know that there was such an agreement as GATT. Now I should like to ask the Minister whether he cannot give us any information as to how much progress has been made with the so-called Kennedy round. Will these negotiations be of any value to the Republic of South Africa? I want to ask the Minister very frankly whether the present GATT agreement is still in the interests of the Republic, whether we should retain that agreement, and whether the time has not come to relinquish it, or is the Minister not prepared to make a statement in this regard?

Then I also want to ask the Minister the following. In the Republic there are at present three refineries refining petrol. There are two in Natal and one in the Cape. Are all three of those refineries designed to refine the same type of crude oil, or do they have to process different types of crude oil deriving from various parts of the world? If it came about that we were so fortunate as to discover crude oil in the Republic, could that oil be processed in any of those refineries, or would costly alterations have to be made in order to process that oil? Perhaps the hon. the Minister can say whether they expect to find the same type of oil here as in other parts of the world. Can we use these three refineries, and can the costs of converting them be restricted to a minimum?

If we look at the Vote of the Minister of Economic Affairs, one asks oneself whether this Minister and his Department have governed this country of ours properly and in a sound fashion. Have they had regard for the basic requirements imposed on a department of economic affairs? Have those been met? If one considers the growth and the development that took place over this period, one finds that the most important thing in economic growth is sound planning, and we want to submit to-day that the Minister gave thorough attention to-that. We have a steel industry and a motor car industry. We are working on a tractor industry which can meet all our requirements. We are engaged in the development of a shipping industry. We are working on the establishment of an aircraft factory. This Government is going out of its way and is doing everything in its ability to find oil in the Republic. I do not think it matters, but it will surely be the most joyful day for everybody in South Africa if it can be announced that oil has been found in the Republic. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Brakpan has referred to the role which he felt the hon. member for Orange Grove should play in the film industry. I feel that as far as the hon. member for Brakpan is concerned, he would do well in the technicolour lighting section of that industry. [Interjection.] The hon. member also referred to the part the private sector could play in regard to our export drive, and I believe that the private sector is aware of the need, because many chambers of commerce and other similar bodies are encouraging an exchange of trade missions which will ensure an interest overseas in our products.

But I want to deal with another matter, in regard to weights and measures. I want to refer the Minister to an incident which took place in Durban in regard to the assizing of scales, with particular reference to dispensing scales. In terms of the assize regulations it is customary for us to send our scales for assize at a set period in the year, and my firm did just that. The scale was sent to the Assize Office for testing. It was returned condemned. I was not unduly surprised about that, because it had given good service for 10 years, and I felt that ordinary wear and tear had probably affected its accuracy in some way, so I sent the scale to a company which undertakes repairs. In due course it was returned to me with an account which indicated that 2½ hours had been spent in repairing the scale, I was surprised to see that the labour charge was R5.40 per hour. I am willing to wager that none of the officials in the Minister’s Department receive such remuneration, but nevertheless the fact was that the scale was repaired, it was re-submitted for testing and was passed as satisfactory. I was quite happy and was prepared to leave the situation there, until in conversation with some of my colleagues I found that a strange pattern was developing. Firstly, my immediate neighbour said that his scale had been rejected, and then I encountered others whose dispensing scales had suddenly been declared unfit for use. It created quite a hiatus in Durban because the wholesalers who sell dispensing scales found that they were unable to meet the demand for new scales because so many had been condemned. On enquiry I was told that of 80 dispensing scales submitted for assize, no fewer than 41 had been rejected. Now I am prompted to ask what caused this sudden change, this sudden need to reject so many scales? Was it some laxity on the part of the Department in the past, or was it over-zealousness in the Assize Department? In the years I have been associated with the assizing of scales I have never come across such an experience, and I wondered whether this was a local phenomenon confined to Durban or whether the practice had spread to other parts of the country. I would like the Minister to tell us what the position is.

Then I want to refer to the definition of ‘‘sell” in the Weights and Measures Act. The section was amended in 1960, and in order to make my point I just want to refer to the definition—

It is my contention that in the past certain provincial councils, municipal bodies and other people have been regarded as not falling within the purview of certain sections of the Weights and Measures Act and that it has not been necessary for them to have their weights and measures assized. I raise this matter because I regard it to be in the interest of public safety. It has been my experience that dispensing scales in dispensaries in provincial hospitals and other types of clinics, and also those used by medical practitioners in private practice, who do their own dispensing in terms of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, have not been assized. I feel that if a man in the Central Provincial Stores is using a dispensing scale to manufacture a large volume of a stock mixture, and ultimately a small bottle of that stock mixture finds its way into an outpatients’ department at a hospital where for a nominal fee the patient has been entitled to receive medicine, this particular transaction falls within the definition of “sell” in terms of this Act. I feel, too, that in so far as a medical practitioner who dispenses his own medicine is concerned, this particular transaction also falls within that definition. I understand that in certain cases there has been a change in the activities of some of the provincial bodies, and I have had occasion to visit dispensaries where I have been gratified to hear that scales are now being assized, and that somewhere higher up an instruction has been given that balances have to be assized. I was gratified, because one dispenser told me that when the instruction came through they had to reject their scale of their own accord because it was so old that they realized that it was not accurate. I feel that this is something which definitely affects public safety, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to ensure that all people who use measuring appliances which fall under the purview of this Act and which also fall within the definition of “sell” are in fact complying with the law as it stands.

Apparently the hon. member for Durban (Berea) has had so much trouble with that scale of his that I do not regard it as being my duty to give him any further trouble in that connection. Consequently I shall proceed, if he will pardon me, to convey my personal thanks and that of my constituency, through you, Sir, to the Minister as well as to his Department of Commerce and Industries for the good work done by them in our country as a whole and without any doubt in my constituency, Wonderboom, with special reference to the border industrial area of Rosslyn where various kinds of industries are operating most successfully and are making their contribution towards the further promotion and perpetuation of our country’s prosperity. In order to show how well things are indeed going, allow me to quote a few statistics which show how low our unemployment figure is. In a country such as this, and in countries with a comparable economic structure and stage of development, it is normal to find an unemployment figure of 2% to 3% of the total labour force, but what do we find here? We find that at the end of June of this year only .97% of our total labour force was unemployed. At the end of July this figure was only .93% and according to preliminary figures for the end of August this figure will once again be only .93%. I mention this so as to prove that things are really going very well with the Department of Commerce and Industries, that Department which has to deal with providing employment opportunities in our country in co-operation with the public sector, the State, the large employers and agriculture. And that is so in spite of the fact that we have had to endure absolutely uncontrollable and unpredictable climatic conditions. I am referring, Sir, to the dreadful drought during which literally thousands of entrepreneurs from the agricultural sector entered the free labour market.

But. Mr. Chairman. I have not risen to address the House for that reason. I have risen to tell this House how it astonished me that hon. members opposite dared to discuss industrialization. I am saying this, Sir. because every endeavour by this Government as well as by its predecessors, the National Party Government of the twenties, for promoting and perpetuating industrialization was opposed by that side of this House. Shall I mention the examples? You are aware that the establishment of Iscor, which is the basis of our steel and related industries, was opposed by that side of this House. You will recall that Sasol, the basis of our chemical industry, was opposed by that side of this House. You are aware that Foskor, the basis of our fertilizer industry, was also opposed by that side of this House. This afternoon you heard the hon. member for Primrose proving with chapter and verse how the establishment of border industries was opposed by that side of this House. And now they actually come along this afternoon and have a great deal to say about industrialization. The hon. member for East London (City)—he is not present in this House at the moment—suggested that our factories should work two or three shifts. These are factories about which he has never concerned himself, because that side of this House was not in favour of establishing factories here. That side of this House wanted this country to be dependent on overseas countries for manufactured products. We were to be a source of raw materials which had to be sent overseas to be refined and processed, and then we had to buy the manufactured product back at three, four or ten times that price. We had to buy those products back from the overseas countries to which hon. members on that side of this House were so attached. And then they have the audacity to speak here about industrialization, they who never co-operated in that respect. Then the hon. member for East London (City) comes along and says that our factories should work two or three shifts. Now I ask the hon. member how he is going to staff those factories? The industrial growth which was stimulated and created by this side of the House, has been such that we have not yet been able to succeed in finding sufficient manpower to staff our factories adequately for even just one shift, and that in spite of a very dynamic, progressive and clearly defined immigration programme. Now the hon. member wants two shifts. If two shifts have to be worked, the factories will have to compete for additional labour on the free labour market. Higher wages will have to be paid. And a rising wage curve is a factor which contributes towards inflation. Inflation again is that element of growth about which hon. members opposite had a great deal to say earlier this session.

I shall quote statistics from the same source as that used by the hon. member for East London (City) from which it will appear that our net inflow of immigrants in the first five months of this year amounted to 14.298 persons. But the hon. member pleads for two or three shifts in each factory. Surely that is unrealistic, and the hon. member knows that. Why then is he doing so? He is doing so because he is hoping to catch a few votes, votes which he badly needs.

But. Mr. Chairman, it is not only in this respect that he misleads this House with half-truths. He told us that our imports exceeded our exports by R220,400,000. That is correct. That is the figure given here. But what the hon. member failed to tell us was that our exports over the same period exceeded the figure of the previous comparable period by R31,100,000. In other words, Sir, he told us that our imports, too, had decreased by more than R100,000,000 over that period. But he did not tell us what that implied, because what happened was that our local industries were able to provide—if not to the full extent, then partially—in those requirements which had to be imported in the previous year. If one halves R100,000,000 one gets R50,000,000; add R30,000,000 to that and that gives one an additional achievement of R80,000,000 in comparison with that of a year ago, which is an excellent achievement. I want to give the hon. the Minister, his Department, our industrialists and our entrepreneurs the honour for that. But that the hon. member for East London (City) did not tell us. He left us here with the impression which he wanted to send out into the wide world, namely that our commerce and industries were being badly administered and that things were going badly with this particular Department. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, we have seen in the Budget that by comparison the big business engaged in heavy industry are, or have been, paying relatively less in taxation. The burden has been lighter in those big businesses. If this leniency is intended to encourage the growth of South Africa’s economic structure, then the Government’s plan can be defended on that basis. For, Sir, the economic expansion of South Africa must continue while the growth of our population continues. The Industrial Development Corporation has played, as we know, a very large part in the development of our industries. And we know that the I.D.C. supports the principle of decentralization. There are hon. members on the opposite side who have attacked this side of the House for not supporting decentralization. I cannot understand them, because the I.D.C. has always supported the decentralization of industry, and we see that dating right back to the year 1940 when the U.P. was in power. In those areas where industries have developed since 1961, we see at least 45 factories or industries have been or are being established or extended, representing a total investment by all parties of a sum of R45,000,000, and they are employing 12,800 Bantu. When these factories or industries are complete, their total value will be approximately R62,000,000, and they will be employing some 17.800 Bantu. Now, Mr. Chairman, there is no need for me to say what a very important part, the I.D.C. has been and is playing in the development of our industries. What I want to say is that the area closest to the Bantu homelands as they call them—or Bantustans—namely the East London-King William’s Town complex, what is termed the border areas, areas bordering on the native territories. It is surprising that over the years the Government has spent such a little of its time on the border areas, or should I say the Eastern Cape and Border areas. What is disturbing to us on this side of the House is that in the past, possibly due to lack of planning or because of bad planning, the industries have been concentrating too much in certain areas. To-day we find them running into difficulties due mainly to the lack of water, which is the backbone of South Africa’s industries. I believe that the commission appointed recently to investigate the very subject of water supplies will recommend the decentralization of South Africa’s industries. Two areas where we have the stage so beautifully set are the Eastern Cape and Border. They are so beautifully set, not because of our good management but because we have a very consistent rainfall. We have plenty of water there, we have made provision for that over the years. We have such an abundance of black labour, that you could almost concentrate the whole of Africa’s industries there and we would be able to supply the labour required.

Thus we believe that if the Government is sincere as regards the border industries, then they had better get on with the job and stop talking such a lot. The Government should concentrate on the Eastern Cape where, as I have said, we have the stage so beautifully set for these industries. In Natal the same applies. Also in Port Elizabeth. And even here in the Western Cape. We stand for industries anywhere in South Africa, provided we have the water, the resources and the labour. But we See the fault, the folly of the Government in concentrating industries too much on certain areas of the Republic, and in doing so they are running into great difficulties.

I want to mention, Sir, that in the East London-King William’s Town area you can almost count the few industries and factories there on my one hand. But go to other parts of the country and the industries are overcrowded, and they are having difficulties due to lack of water. I can mention some industries that have come to East London only recently, but they are very few and small. There is the Renault engine plant involving a sum of R2,000,000. There is the Italian Plastics plant, coming shortly, involving an amount of R1,500,000. There is the extension to the Johnson and Johnson factories involving an amount of R1,000,000. There is also the Cyril Lord Industry at East London and the Good Hone Textile factory at King William's Town. As I say. Sir, you can count them on your one hand.

My appeal to the hon. the Minister and the Government this afternoon is to seriously consider using its influence to promote industrial development in the Eastern Cape and Border. We will welcome it. We only hope that in future, with all the talk we have heard here in this House, the Government will now cast its eyes to the east, where we can provide for industries and all other development they might wish to bring to the North Eastern Cape and Border.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that hon. members can expect me to reply fully at this stage to all the questions they asked me. This debate on my Vote has now lasted almost four hours, and if I have to reply fully to all the questions I shall probably need another four hours. I want to spare hon. members and myself, and therefore I shall only go into a few of the essential matters raised here.

A characteristic of this debate is that it has in fact failed to take any definite course. I am accustomed to a few fundamental matters being touched upon during previous debates under this Vote, and to our having the opportunity then of conducting a few fundamental discussions. A characteristic of this debate is that it has in fact failed to result in any great fundamental points being raised, but that it has resulted in a number of requests and questions, mostly for the purpose of information, which came from hon. members on both sides of the House.

The first matter touched upon here, was the one raised by the hon. member for Constantia and it concerned import control. It did not only concern import control, but also all other forms of control. The hon. member for Constantia wanted to know how long we would continue having these various forms of control. I cannot give him a reply as regards credit control or rent control. But as far as the control on the importation of goods is concerned, I can tell the hon. member and his colleagues on that side that this Department has as small a liking for control measures as I expect those hon. members to have. It is not only because of the physical impossibility of implementing control measures properly, but also because of the economic undesirability of a too great and too strongly controlled economy. But there are abnormal times when one has to introduce control measures. There have been times in our history, times such as the present, where one had to introduce import control for instance to achieve certain economic objects. The hon. member for Constantia will remember that particularly in the second half of last year we were faced with the problem of diminishing foreign reserves. At times the situation caused a great deal of concern. We were forced to introduce measures in order to re-inforce our foreign exchange. We were successful. The high level of our foreign exchange reserves is proof of our success. At the same time I must admit that we have been fortunate in also having had in that period a great inflow of foreign capital, which contributed towards these reserves soaring to such a high level.

Now the hon. member will ask me what our plans are, whether we still intend implementing import control strongly and for a long period. My reply to that is merely that we cannot see into the future. We believe that we are living in times in which it is to South Africa’s advantage, yes, essential for South Africa, to have strong reserves. We are living in dangerous times and it is absolutely necessary for us to see to it that our foreign exchange reserves are as strong as possible. But that does not mean that we are only relying on foreign reserves, since such exchange only serves as a means for purchasing essential goods. It is for that reason that we have in recent times, when the opportunity presented itself, relaxed this import control, particularly with a view to building up and re-inforcing our country’s reserves of essential goods.

I can give the Committee the assurance that all our plans for the future, as far as our foreign exchange and our reserves are concerned, and as far as our import control is concerned, are aimed at saving our foreign exchange as regards things we do not need, in order that the money we have may be used for those essential things to which the hon. member for Constantia also referred. Where essential goods are concerned, we generously grant import permits because, Sir, we realize the necessity for building up stocks of essential goods in South Africa.

The hon. member for Constantia, and I think the hon. member for Pinetown as well, referred to certain supposed inconsistencies in the financial and economic policy of our country. They said, for instance, that where I. on the one hand, promoted import by means of relaxing import control, the Minister of Finance, on the other hand, made it so difficult to obtain credit that it was difficult to make use of these import facilities. These two lines of conduct are not quite inconsistent with each other. The Minister of Finance placed strong control on credit in order to restrict inflationary conditions in this country. My Department intensified import control to a certain extent to prevent too many industries from being established in the country, which would also be inflationary. In those respects we cooperated. Now we notice that there has been a downward trend in imports in recent times. Hon. members are asking me whether that can be attributed to the action taken by the Minister of Finance. My reply to that is yes, that it can to a certain extent be attributed to that. But the downward trend in imports, especially of machinery and of railway equipment to which the hon. member for Constantia referred, can for the most part and in the first instance be attributed to the tremendous imports there have been in respect of those articles during the previous six to twelve months. The country was virtually satiated as regards those articles. That is the first reason. The second reason was that our committee for the establishment of new industries was very strict in regard to granting permission for the establishment of new industries. Some industries were postponed: quite a number of industries were asked not to start. There was strict supervision as regards the approval of new industries so that it was not necessary to import capital goods of that particular nature.

I want to assure the hon. gentlemen once again that where it concerns the import of essential goods into our country, we shall always grant the necessary permits. Where a person is creditworthy, we are even prepared to arrange with banks for the extra credit he must have for the import of those essential goods.

The hon. member for Constantia also asked a certain question concerning productivity. That is an important mater. Let me say to that that it is in the first place not the duty of the State to promote productivity within an industry. To a large extent the duty of the State lies in the education it provides, the training of its people by means of its schools, its technical colleges and its universities, through which it raises the level of productivity. The duty of the State also lies in the training of managers of factories to a certain extent. It is the duty of the State to establish an infra-structure, i.e. the outward circumstances such as railways, telecommunications, roads and so forth. Through those means attempts are being made at promoting the productivity of industries in general. But the promotion of productivity in an industry is in the first instance the duty of that industrialist, of the labourer, and of the manager himself.

I am glad that attention is being given to productivity at this stage, and hon. members know that the inflationary conditions in which we find ourselves can to a large extent be attributed to too much money and a too high demand in the first place, and to too little productivity in the second place. The spending of the people was more than its production. If we want to combat the inflationary conditions in our country, we should at least do so in a twofold manner. The first step is the one the Minister of Finance has taken, namely the curtailment of money. Through those means the demand is diminished. The second step is one which should actually to a large extent come from the public itself, namely increased production. That is the duty of the worker, of the labourer, of hon. members and myself, because all of us are labourers, too. That is the duty of a manager in a factory. He must arrange the management and organization of his industry in such a way that he may utilize the manpower at his disposal in the most productive manner.

I am glad that the Bureau of Standards is to hold a congress shortly to discuss the problem of productivity. I want to express the hope that our businessmen will to a large extent participate in the congress by having discussions and consultations with one another so as to find methods and means through which the businessman himself can lead his industry towards greater productivity.

The hon. member for Constantia asked me about the Electricity Act, namely whether use has even been made of the section of the Act in terms of which I am allowed to sell power at an uneconomic price. My reply is no, I have not. In the first instance, Sir, such a thing cannot be done without compensation. When we sell electricity obtained from the Escom system to some area or other at an uneconomic price, that loss has to be recovered elsewhere. It either has to be recovered from that same area when at a later stage it becomes productive and paying, or by means of a grant by the State. The reason for this section not having been used as yet, is the present crying shortage of manpower at Escom. It is almost unable to carry out its normal duties in respect of its economic sectors. It would therefore be wrong to tax its manpower position even further by causing work to be done at this stage in sub-economic and uneconomic spheres.

The hon. member also asked me about the Natural Resources Development Council. He wanted to know whether that Council still maintained liaison with me and my Department. Formerly that Council came under the Department of Commerce and Industry. At the moment it comes under the Department of Planning. It will soon be converted into a council with another name, namely the Resources and Planning Council. It will then come under the Department of Planning. It will have a wider scope and more extensive powers. The liaison between my Department and that Council will lie in the fact that my Department will have very strong representation on that Council. In other words, there will still be close liaison between my Department and that Council which will mainly consist of representatives of departments concerned with those matters.

The hon. member for Pinetown touched upon quite a number of very interesting matters, and I shall not go into all of them. In the first place he pointed out an inconsistency which is supposed to exist between State Departments, such as the one which is supposed to exist between me and the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration, who supposedly said that all industries should move away from the Witwatersrand or from the Southern Transvaal. The hon. the Deputy Minister most definitely did not say such a thing. The Government’s intention with its border industry policy is certainly not that all industries should move away from the Southern Transvaal to the border areas. Surely that cannot and will not happen. It would be unnatural to expect such a thing, but the intention is that we cannot allow the Witwatersrand and Southern Transvaal to develop at this rate in the future, because if it has to develop at the rate it has during the past year, we shall be saddled with problems, not only of an ideological nature, but also of a social nature, of a technical nature, of transport and of w?‘er. The idea is just this: that where there w:’l be normal progress in those areas, those industries making use of Bantu labour to a large extent, will be moved to the borders of the homelands. Surely the hon. member will understand that one’s chemical industry, for instance, which is completely capital-intensive, in which very few people work in proportion to its production and its capital investment, should be established in the White areas themselves. But if one has, for instance, an industry where the ratio between White and non-White workers is one to six, a non-White labour-intensive industry therefore, that is the type of industry which simply has to be moved to the borders in terms of the principle that the industry goes to the labour and not the labour to the industry. The hon. member says that it is an ideological matter. Now, let it be an ideological matter then; it is at the same time an economic matter as well. We on this side of the House are happy to be able to implement an ideological principle economically.

Political economy.

The hon. member is absolutely correct. That is the most sensible remark I have heard from that side of the House today. All economies have a political purpose. And the reason for hon. members on that side fighting us and saying that our policy is ideological, is that they, too, have an ideology which they want to be implemented. Our ideology is that we want to concentrate as few non-Whites as possible in our major urban areas. It is apparently their ideology to concentrate as many non-Whites as possible in the major urban areas, because they want cheap Black manpower in the urban areas; that is a quite different ideology, but nevertheless an ideology.

The hon. member for Pinetown and one of the other members asked me a very interesting question about trade with African states, about the possibility of establishing a common market in Africa or in Southern Africa or in South Africa. As regards trade with African states, I want to say in the first instance that it goes without saying that we shall promote trade with African states in as far as it is practicable, just as we shall promote trade with any other state in as far as it is practicable. But here I want to mention first of all that we should not entertain very high hopes as regards trade with African states. Let us forget for the moment the political activities and the political difficulties existing at this juncture. We must have no illusions that we shall be able to develop a large market in the African states in the near future. In the first instance these states are poor, their purchasing power is small. To be able to realize how lacking they are in purchasing power, in exchange, in foreign exchange, hon. members should have attended a conference such as the one some of us attended in Geneva two years ago, a conference which lasted three months, where the developing countries stated their views and declared their poverty and their weaknesses to the world. They do not have much money for purchasing. In the second place a large percentage of the African states are linked with overseas powers. The old French colonies are linked with France; the old British colonies with Britain, and the old Portuguese territories with Portugal. Many of those African states have their traditional links with states in Europe and their trade is still being conducted as usual with those countries for the most part. In the third place many of these countries are receiving gifts or grants from Western countries, from America and from countries in Europe, and those grants or loans to African states are frequently subject to certain conditions, namely that they have to use that money to buy goods from the countries which made those loans and grants. In other words, they are tied loans. In the fourth place, many of these countries in Africa exist on a sort of subsistence economy. The articles they are producing are often the same as the articles we are producing: consequently there is not much opportunity for trade between them and us. We should, therefore, not anticipate that we shall ever develop extensive trade with the African states in the future or the foreseeable future. Our most extensive trade is still being conducted with the industrial countries. Our greatest market lies especially in those countries which are developing industrially: Europe, Britain. America and Japan, countries which are industrially-speaking strong and growing.

In the second place hon. members asked me what steps I intended taking, officially or unofficially. to promote trade with those countries. Surely hon. members know that most of those countries in Africa are boycotting us for political reasons. Those countries which are boycotting us have introduced import control against us. and where they are applying import control against us, they do not grant any permits for the importation of South African goods. Our goods cannot enter their countries unless they are vitally important to them. In other words, at the moment we cannot undertake trade promotion in those countries which are boycotting us officially and which have brought a system of import control into operation against us. If that boycott disappears again one day. we can take further steps to promote trade with those countries.

The hon. member for Pinetown and other hon. members asked me: “What about an eventual common market?” That is a very interesting idea. It is an idea we have already worked on and considered and about which the former Prime Minister expressed certain opinions, the idea of a common market for the Southern African or African states. We already have a common market here in South Africa. We already have a sort of common market between us and the Protectorates, the High Commission Territories. We are already a customs unit; there are no borders between us as regards the movement of goods and money: we are already a monetary unit: we have the same currency; we have the same foreign rate: we do not have any internal rates. As regards the principle of a common market, the High Commission Territories and we have made more progress than the European Economic Common Market on the continent of Europe.

Will that continue?

Yes, it is already in existence. It brings tremendous advantages to those particular states. It is a tremendous advantage to them to be able to market their products as part of ours; to have the same monetary system; to have no balance of payment problems. Other countries in Africa are continually faced with balance of payment problems, which Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland do not have at all. In other words, we have made great advances in this field, The difference between us and the E.E.C. is this: Where the E.E.C. in Europe, a growing economic unit, is heading for ultimate political unity, the reverse applies to us; we are not heading for ultimate political unity, but for political differentiation; we are heading for economic co-operation, but this is attended by the political independence of the various countries. For that reason we shall never become an E.E.C. in the same sense of the word. Now, if we want to go further than these territories, if we want to think of the Portuguese territories or of territories higher up in Africa, we are faced with the position that some of those territories are very underdeveloped. Some of them are purely primary producing territories with very little infrastructure, with very few communications. If we take Southern Africa as a whole, south of the Sahara, we find that there are territories with various standards of economic development, and I think that the idea of a common market in Southern Africa is not a realistic one at this stage. What can in fact happen is that as and when we are permitted to do so, we can enter into more bilateral agreements with the various states, and that we shall do. As the various other states of Southern Africa show willingness to do this, we shall enter into bilateral trade agreements with them with a view to closer economic linking between them and us. Out of these numerous bilateral agreements which may come into being, it is possible that a multi-lateral treaty may also result at a later stage, but at the moment the time is not yet ripe for that. We cannot establish a common market with the countries in Southern Africa by, for instance, making large grants of money to them, such as other countries in Europe are doing. We do not have such money. We need the money for our own undeveloped areas. But to those countries which want to co-operate we can be of tremendous assistance in the field of research, technically, educationally and by creating markets for them for the goods we can absorb here, but it is an unpractical idea to want a common market between the countries of Southern Africa at this stage. We must have bilateral treaties first which may subsequently lead to multi-lateral treaties.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg asked me about the sea. about our fishing industry. I listened with interest to what the hon. member had to say about our fishing industry and its attendant problems. I can also tell him that we have already decided to appoint a commission of inquiry which will investigate a’l aspects of our fishing industry. Work is still being done in regard to the terms of reference and the composition of the commission, and I hope that I shall soon be able to make it known. The idea is that where we have now developed into one of the most important fishing countries in the world, and where our fishing industry has developed to such an extent in the past years, the time has now arrived that we should draw on the experience of the past and see whether the policy we have been pursuing in regard to the fishing industry in the past, has been the correct one, and that we should seek the correct policy with the information we have at present.

Several hon. members also asked me questions in regard to the fishing industry and referred to the foreign vessels off our coasts. They wanted to know what steps we could take to keep those foreign vessels away from our coasts. It is not an easy matter, because especially when they are outside the 12-mile limit, they are in international waters, where one has no authority. It is not such a simple task to extend one’s borders beyond the 12-mile limit. But I just want to announce that we are now making preparations for international discussions with those countries fishing off our coasts. The preliminary indications are that we can expect good discussions. Quite a number of the countries fishing off our coasts have already indicated that they will be prepared to have talks with us in regard to the conservation of our fish resources, for our sake as well as for theirs, and for the sake of good relations between the countries concerned and South Africa, and also because those countries realize that if they catch too much and exhaust the fish resources, it would also be to their detriment. It is, therefore, our intention to commence shortly discussions with various countries on common policy in regard to the protection of our fish resources.

The hon. member for Kimberley (South) referred to the establishment of a third Iscor and he mentioned to us the advantages of the Northern Cape. I just want to say that I cannot but praise the hon. member and hon. members of the North-Eastern Cape in general for the tremendous trouble they are taking to put that part of our country on the industrial map of South Africa, and for the very strong representations they have already made to me in the past to have the third Iscor established in that area. If they had not been such fine fellows, I would have said a long time ago that they were making a nuisance of themselves. In regard to establishing a third Iscor. the position is simply as follows: We cannot place a third Iscor in a certain area simply to be charitable to such an area.

Then you will not place it in the Transkei?

I should like to know whether that is an official application on the part of that hon. member? We cannot place the third Iscor in an area because we like that erea so much and because we want to render a service to those fine people. Iscor has to be placed where it can function most economically. The third Iscor will have to manufacture steel, parts of which may perhaps have to be exported. Iscor must manufacture steel with which our steel manufacturing industries must compete on the world market and on the South African market. For that reason such a third Iscor must function as effectively and as economically as possible and the place where it is situated should be selected with this in mind. Steel is one of the basic commodities in our economy. Its price has to be kept as low as possible to promote our steel processing engineering industry in this country. For that reason there is at present a technical committee, functioning under the Department of Planning, which is working with Iscor and the relevant Departments and organizations to plan, on a purely economic and scientific basis, the situation of the next Iscor. That inquiry is at a fairly advanced stage. I expect that it will be possible to hand over the report shortly, and on the merits of that report we shall decide where the third Iscor will be erected. I do not know whether it will be in the Northern Cape. It may be so, but I can tell the hon. members of the Northern Cape that their representations have been considered thoroughly, just as the representations made by other places as well. The place which is to be selected, will be selected because it will be, in the opinion of our expert, the most suitable place for establishing a third Iscor.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to certain practices of the small retailers as compared with the large chain stores. I want to admit that we are saddled with a tremendous problem in this regard. One has the large chain store which offers such stiff competition to the small retailer that the latter is virtually put out of business with the result that it is increasingly beginning to disappear from the scene. On the other hand the chain store is an organization which renders great services by encouraging cash purchases and by supplying cheaper articles, and thus bringing down the cost of living. There are therefore pros and cons on both sides and it is very difficult to give a ruling. But at the moment the best solution seems to be that the small retailers should take better care of one another and themselves, that they should by means of mutual organization effect greater efficiency and greater economies in their own business concerns. I think that if the small retailer pays more attention to better service and greater efficiency and more collective buying, he will be better able to cope with the competition offered by the chain store.

The hon. member for Kensington asked me about the film industry. I shall give a reply about the film industry the next time I speak. The hon. member for Orange Grove apologized, and I shall reply when he is present. The hon. member also wanted to know how the commission of inquiry in regard to the Companies Act was getting on. I may disclose that that commission has completed its investigations and is now considering the information, and only after that will it start drawing up a report and a draft bill. We anticipate that it will be able to present its full report by the end of next year.

The hon. member also asked about the metric system of weights and measures. I can understand that the hon. member takes a great interest in that, because I remember very well the fine co-operation there was between us when we served on the Decimal Coinage Commission; his interest in the decimalization of our weights and measures is therefore understandable. The report brought out in regard to the matter, is a very interesting one. In this regard I want to announce that the Government has in principle decided in favour of the adoption of the metric system of weights and measures. However, before we go any further, I want to have further discussions with organized industry. In fact, I have been informed that organized industry has certain difficulties. Before we take any further steps, I want to have those discussions with organized industry as soon as possible and only after that further steps will be decided upon. But in principle the Government has already accepted that we should change over to the metric system of weights and measures as soon as possible.

Among other things the hon. member for Vasco referred to the aeroplane industry and he pleaded that we should not allow the same thing to happen as was the case in regard to the motor car industry, where we are saddled with a large number of models and trying to decrease their number. I want to tell the hon. member that he need not be afraid that there will be too many models of aeroplanes. There is no danger that an excessive number of aeroplanes will be built here. It is a problem to build one aeroplane, let alone a whole number of models.

Both the hon. member for Albanie and the hon. member for East London (City) raised the matter of bags and sacks, particularly wool sacks. They asked us to investigate plastic bags, the synthetic bag. You know, Sir, that we have been studying the problem of synthetic bags for quite a number of years. It is quite true that the plastic bag used as a grain bag is much cheaper than the jute bag or the paper bag, but for many years now we have been giving special attention to this plastic bag with a view to using it as a grain bag, and it has been found that it does not serve its purpose because it is too slippery and it cannot be stitched. There are many such disadvantages, and that is why we have as yet been unable to accept the plastic bag as the grain bag, in spite of the fact that it is cheaper. The time may arrive one day when the industry—not us, but the plastic industry—with the millions of rand at their disposal will invent such a bag which is effective, and then we shall have a look at it, but in our opinion as well as in the opinion of the people who have to use that bag, such a bag does not exist at the moment. For that reason we have decided to provide certainty for the future, and where we cannot depend on the effectiveness of the plastic bag, we must depend on our own fibres, on the phornium tenax. That is why phornium tenax is being cultivated on a very large scale and that is why the farmers’ contracts for the cultivation thereof and the purchase thereof by the State have been extended to 1980 so that there may be continued cultivation of this fibre and so that industries can be established with a view to the processing of phornium tenax into bags for our grain farmers. If the plastic bag is subsequently developed through research in the chemical industry, it will be something for us to examine, but at the moment there is no such bag. As regards woolsacks, it is quite true that the paperbag is at present superseding the hessian bag. It is more expensive, but not much more so. However, the wool farmer is in turn compensated for that in that he usually obtains a better price for his wool because the latter does not get tangled up with the fibres of the bag.

The hon. member for Salt River asked about road tankers. My reply to the hon. member is just that road tankers of the Railways are gauged by this Department. When they are filled, they are gauged—I think it is approximately four or five hundred gallons—both at the inlet and the outlet. When the road tankers arrive at the place where they discharge their load, that mark has to be untouched. In other words, provision has already been made for their being gauged and marked and for their arriving at their destination intact.

Amongst other things the hon. member for Green Point referred to speculation in shares where concessions are granted. Just as the hon. member I, too, deplore speculation in such shares. As far as our side is concerned, it can of course be made known immediately when a licence or a permit is granted. In actual fact I consider it the duty of the industrialist, and not ours, to notify their shareholders at once when they obtain a permit. We cannot take responsibility when shares rise on account of inaccurate rumours and when it subsequently becomes apparent that those rumours were not true. That is something for which we as a Department most certainly does not take any responsibility.

The hon. member for Berea spoke about the assizing of weights and measures. I just want to tell the hon. member that I shall go into that matter, namely the assizing of weights and measures for scales, also for those of medical practitioners and pharmacists. It is owing to a manpower shortage that the work could not be carried out earlier in respect of all people who own scales or measuring instruments. With more manpower we shall clamp down to a greater extent on that field as well. The hon. member for Albany referred to the electricity supply system in his area, which resembles the fingers of a hand. He raised a purely technical problem and I shall be pleased to bring up that matter with Escom.

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to reply to a few points. If there are points I have omitted. I shall deal with them on a subsequent occasion and should I not have another opportunity of dealing with them, I shall be prepared to furnish members who asked me questions with written replies.

Mr. Chairman, unfortunately I am in a difficult position now. I wanted to ask the hon. the Minister a question in connection with Iscor, namely whether the third Iscor could not be established in the Eastern Cape, but now I have received a reply. In any event, I want to make a cordial and urgent request to the hon. the Minister to review the method of determining the local content of motor vehicles in the Republic. In my view the percentage of South African manufactured parts in vehicles sold in the Republic should not be determined according to weight, but according to value. Under the present dispensation motor dealers are allowed a customs rebate of R72 per motor car and are exempted from paying import duty if 45 per cent or more of the weight of such a motor car is manufactured in the Republic. The reasons for this concession are obvious. In the first place it is regardeded as a means of checking the outflow of South African capital. In the second place it furthers our endeavour to be less dependent on the overseas markets, thus making us less vulnerable in times of emergency, boycotts, etc. Every right-minded South African welcomes these concessions. They are necessary steps in the right direction. But, Sir, if we take the weight of such parts as the basis, we do not fully achieve our object.

The weight regulations, as applied in the motor industry at present, are not very effective. In most cases motor car manufacturers have the heaviest but usually also the cheapest parts of a vehicle manufactured locally. But the lighter and more delicate parts, which are usually also the most expensive, are still imported from overseas at great expense. Although the weight of the locally manufactured parts of such a vehicle may therefore exceed 45 per cent of its total weight, the value of the locally manufactured parts is thus far less than 45 per cent of the total value of the motor car. Therefore every motor car still demands a vast amount of South African capital, and we remain dependent upon the foreign market. We are therefore still vulnerable in times of emergencies, boycotts, etc. This adverse state of affairs can only be set right if we encourage the manufacturers to manufacture the more delicate and more expensive parts in South Africa. This ideal can be achieved only if we grant the present concessions, and perhaps larger and more concessions, on a basis of value.

I believe, Sir, that a scheme in terms of which tractors will be manufactured locally, has already been submitted to the Board of Trade and Industries, but that no decision has been made with regard to it. Is this not the time to ensure that the same problems will not arise in the contemplated plan in respect of tractors?

A second matter I want to raise is the storing and stock-piling of fuel in the Republic. I was grateful when the Minister announced in this House some while ago that this matter was receiving attention, and that arrangements were being made for the safe stock-piling of fuel. It is a matter which should enjoy priority. I always shudder when I drive past the storage dumps in our coastal cities and see the large fuel tanks standing there, prominently and wide open. I want to suggest a possible step to the Minister for his consideration. Is it not possible that every farmer may be assisted and encouraged financially or otherwise to store a supply of diesel on his own property? In times of emergencies and boycotts we shall then be assured that the farming industry can carry on with its activities, while we shall have our hands free to cope more efficiently and more rapidly with any other problems that may arise.

Mr. Chairman, there are two speeches of the hon. the Minister to which I referred during the Budget debate. I should like him now to expand on those speeches and give us some further information. One of them was on the operations of certain American companies, which, he said, were bringing pressure to bear on the Government to change their policy. This was a public speech made by the Minister last year. I should like to know how these American companies are operating in such a manner as to bring pressure upon the Government to change its policy. That is the first speech.

The second speech is one which he made recently and which I found most interesting. It seemed to me the beginning, if I may say so, of a new era. He is reported as follows:

And then he spoke very optimistically of the next decade. He said that during the next decade we could look forward to a breakthrough when these Bantu, who have been well educated, would come into our industry, would be able to produce more, spend more, and transform our whole domestic scene. I should like him to expand on that and tell us in what direction the expansion will take place. I have been listening to him speak of the border industries only. As we know, our Bantu are now being concentrated in the great urban areas. We have statistics here of the great increases.

In regard to Bantu education, I should like to say that we would be getting very good dividends for the small amount of money we have expended over the years. The total estimate this year for Bantu education is R25.3 million on the ordinary current account. On our loan account the figure is R1,500,000. That is a total of between R26,000,000 and R27,000,000 for the whole year. It must also be remembered that the Bantu have to pay back the loans made to the Bantu Education Account. The Minister’s suggestion would be a remarkable development for South Africa, I agree. But I should like to contrast that small amount that we have spent with another loan account, namely the Minister’s own loan account in these Estimates. We have here in his loan account an amount not of R25 million, but R29.5 million. Of that I shall exclude the amount in respect of fishing harbours namely R2.89 million, which the hon. member for Moorreesburg has dealt with. But the most important item of all is the purchase of shares of the Industrial Development Corporation of S.A. Limited, for an amount of R26.6 million. That is a colossal sum, more especially in these times when the hon. the Minister of Finance is having real difficulty in obtaining loan money. I should like to ask one or two questions about this matter. Over the years we have become accustomed to the hon. the Minister coming to this House and asking us under the loan account to vote money to take up shares in the Industrial Development Corporation. The method of this Government is similar to the method of a Socialist country. It is a Nationalist, Socialist system. They say: We shall own an industry through a company. Well, I accept that as the system. There is, of course, the other system—the system used in the South African Railways, Harbours and Airways. Under this system of the South African Railways and Harbours we have a Minister who has all his accounts examined every year by a committee of this House. In addition, the hon. the Minister of Transport appears before us year after year, giving us a whole week explaining his accounts. Sometimes, of course, we disagree, but that is not the point. The point is that the Minister of Transport is responsible to this House. I want to come to the question of accountability to Parliament. The Industrial Development Corporation, Iscor and Escom should not be responsible only to a Minister. There should be some indication to the members of this House as to what happens to the money after we have voted it. It is contrary to the whole practice of Parliament. We have heard a great deal recently about preserving the parliamentary system, what is due to our parliamentary system, and that we all believe in the parliamentary system. But the essence of this system is responsibility to Parliament for expenditure. When we have voted the money for these shares, we shall not attend a shareholders’ meeting. We shall not know how the money is spent. As far as we are concerned, that is the last we shall know about it. We can ask the Minister questions. We shall get a statement of accounts once a year where they give us as much information as they wish to give us but we as Members of Parliament do not have a body accountable to us in regard to the money we are voting.

Sir, I should like to put up the proposition I have put up before. This is not something that confronts South Africa alone. It has confronted the British Government, and any other government which has government undertakings of this kind, and where the government goes into industry. I should like to read an extract from the report of a British Select Committee. We have had a Prime Minister in Britain who has appointed a committee to see whether they can have a committee. That is what they have been doing in Rhodesia. Now, they appointed a select committee in Britain to consider this question of accountability to Parliament. This is what they recommended unanimously:

In other words, I am not asking that we should dictate the policy of these bodies. But we should know what is happening. We should know what their aims are, their activities, their problems, so that Parliament is informed. My proposal has been this, Sir. In addition to the Select Committee on Public Accounts, where all Ministers’ representatives and departments have to appear to give account of their expenditure, and in addition to the Select Committee on Railways, we should have a select committee which would keep Parliament informed of how the money is being spent in these Government undertakings. The I.D.C. are now going into shipping. This octopus that we have, the I.D.C., controls industries in this country. It is now going into shipping. It has gone into the production of ore. It has gone into industry. I think the time has arrived … [Interjection.] The hon. member for Brakpan is prepared to swallow it all and say: We have voted the money, and now the Minister can look after it. I do not think that is the correct attitude. The attitude should be, and I want him to agree with me, namely, that when we have voted the money, there should be some accountability to this House. That is my request. I am not saying that the money is being wasted. I am not saying that they have not been acting judiciously. That is not the argument. The argument I submit is that we, as Parliament, should have this question of accountability settled and established so that we shall know what happens to the money after we have voted it. When there is an annual meeting of one of these companies, there is only one shareholder present. The shareholder is some representative of the Government. There is no other shareholder. Hon. members do not know what is happening. We have no information. There is no criticism in what I say about the manner in which these industries are being controlled. That is not the subject under discussion now. The subject I am discussing is the question of accountability.

I should like to make one final point. The hon. the Minister has come to the House to dispose of one of these companies, namely the Klipfontein Organic Products Corporation. He sold it to private enterprise. I should like to know now whether he is going to pursue that policy. Is he going to sell some of the Government industries? (Time limit).

Mr. Chairman, I shall not attempt to answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Kensington. There are two matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first matter relates to the Electricity Act. It is a matter which has been discussed for quite a number of years with the Electricity Control Board, as well as with Escom, by municipal associations of the various provinces, and also by the Joint Municipal Executive of South Africa. We have to do here with a problem which may justify amendments to the Act. In recent times, particularly after the establishment of the Department of Planning, all city councils have shown a desire to try to bring about the renewal of their urban areas. But one of the legal obstacles was in fact that the Electricity Act makes it very difficult for local authorities to undertake such renewals in areas adjoining the area of jurisdiction of the municipalities. There is namely a provision in the Act which has never been amended since its introduction, probably because circumstances never necessitated it. It is a provision that the control board has the power to issue licences in an area where Escom or a local authority supplies electricity. When such areas, mostly areas that become dilapidated, are then incorporated in a municipal area, the provision of electricity can be taken over by such a local authority only if a ballot is held among the consumers and the majority vote in favour of it. Mr. Chairman, this may seem to be a minor matter, but particularly in the vicinity of the Rand and in cities where it has become essential to incorporate areas as a result of industrialization, this matter is creating a substantial problem. It has already given rise to the fact—and in my view it will in future also give rise to it—that local authorities that also operate business undertakings are not anxious to incorporate areas and thus assist the Department of Planning and the Government in implementing the country’s policy with a view to proper planning. I want to request that the possible amendment of Sections 26 and 40 of the Act be inquired into with a view to obviating a ballot—the terms of which, incidentally, are not properly defined in the Act—when a local authority applies to take over the provision of electricity in such areas. Here I just want to add that I am not proposing any abrogation of the agreement entered into with local authorities, namely that consumers of more than 150 kilowatts will not be included in any such application.

Mr. Chairman, this provision in the Act has also brought about the development of numerous slums on the outskirts of our well-planned towns, because local authorities have to incur tremendous losses where they are prohibited from undertaking the provision of electricity, which is after all a business undertaking, and where they are prohibited from taking that undertaking into their jurisdiction. I therefore, want to ask the Minister cordially to give his attention to this matter.

The second matter I want to bring to his attention, particularly now that a factory is being established at Witbank, is something that may affect the economy of our entire country, as well as those people who received the sympathy of the entire House, no matter what their political convictions were, during the discussion of the Social Welfare and Pensions Votes. Here I am referring to our elderly people. At the moment a factory is being established at Witbank for the manufacturing of antibiotics, medicines and pharmaceutical drugs. I had hoped that local manufacturing would bring about a reduction in the cost of medicine. I have since heard that there is in any event no price control over pharmaceutical products at present. During the discussion of previous Votes, it was said, with regard to the rising cost of living, that all commodities had become more expensive. Members on both sides of the House asked for a reduction in the cost of living of the lower-income group. Mr. Chairman, I submit that one of the major items of expenditure in the budgets of our poor people is the expenditure on medicine, notwithstanding aid schemes and notwithstanding the assistance the Central Government and provincial authorities render by providing medicine more cheaply or free of charge. I want to add to that that I know of very few elderly people who do not regularly need medicine in some form or other. As this factory will, therefore, be manufacturing antibiotics, I want to ask timeously that attention should be given to a possible reduction in the prices of these medicines in the case of the wholesale trade at least, but also in respect of retailers. I should like to know, If the hon. the Minister can make the information available, whether it has perhaps already become apparent that an improvement may be expected as regards this large item, which is also costing our country money as a result of importation. With a view to the protection of this particular factory, I want to ask whether consideration has been given or may be given to measures to protect the locally manufactured pharmaceutical products against the imported products, which will give us a further saving.

Mr. Chairman, as regards these two matters, which do not come under the Minister’s Vote altogether. I should like to ask the Minister’s attention and his co-operation in getting them done for us.

Progress reported.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, the wording of this motion is somewhat woolly, but it is clear that the idea is to prohibit what is called interference in the political sphere in the affairs of any population group by persons not belonging to that population group. It is quite clear that there is reference to the Electoral Consolidation Act, 1946, and the Separate Representation of Voters Act, 1951, and to provide for other incidental matters. But one can gather from that that it must affect the two population groups which have voting rights at the present time, i.e. the White people of South Africa and the Coloured people of South Africa. From remarks that have come from the hon. the Minister and others on that side of the House, one has a pretty shrewd idea of what is behind this Bill. I only want to say that if we are wrong in our suppositions and our conclusions from this Notice of Motion, then the Government has nobody but itself to blame because we have pressed it time and time again to let us have an idea of what was happening and we have indicated how urgent this matter was becoming in view of the termination of the life of the representatives of the Coloured people in Parliament.

The word “interference” is of course one which may have many meanings, but from what we have heard from speakers on the other side it seems to us that interference here means participation and not just interfering. It is very difficult to know how you are going to prohibit that while the policy of the Government is that White people should represent Coloured people in this House. Of course it is possible that the Government has decided that Coloured people should represent Coloured people in this House, but knowing them as we do I do not think that is a possibility that need be considered at any length. Therefore I think it is quite clear that there is going to be a further deprivation of rights, a further limitation of the political rights of the Coloured people.

It is the policy of this party that there should be leadership by the White people for the non-White groups in South Africa, both the Coloured group and the Bantu group. I will refer you, Sir, to other incidental matters in my speech in regard to the Bantu group. It seems to me that it is not possible to have that leadership and that guidance unless there is participation in one way or another.

Would it not be wiser to wait and see what the Bill says?

It might have been wiser had we not been forwarned by some of the statements made on the other side of the House.

Order! I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition should allow himself to be guided by statements. We have the motion before the House and the hon. member must confine his remarks to that motion.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is tempting me, with all the authority of his office. There are these words in the motion, “interference in the political sphere in the affairs”. Now, what is “interference in the political sphere in the affairs”?

The Bill will tell us that.

Sir, the motion speaks for itself in that regard. It is quite clear that whatever else may be intended, there is going to be interference in the exercise of the political rights of this section of the population. [Interjection.] That is not a guess; it is very much a logical conclusion. We are faced with this fact, that whether we like it or not, the fate of the Coloured people—and I refer you, Sir, to the fact that this Bill is going to amend the Separate Representation of Voters Act, which defines the rights of the Whites and of the Coloured people in South Africa. The fate of the Coloured people is decided by this Parliament. Why should they be deprived of the right to reject or accept the policies of other groups in South Africa? It seems to me that this is a Bill which is without doubt going to interfere in the leadership of the White man in the political affairs of other race groups in South Africa. That is what it states, and if that is all it stated I would say that it should have been defined as the Abdication of Leadership Bill, or a Bill for the further deprivation of rights of the Cape Coloured people. Therefore we on this side of the House oppose its introduction.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear …

On a point of order, Sir, by calling upon the hon. the Minister you are declaring the debate closed, where as there are other hon. members who want to speak.

No, the hon. the Minister is merely taking part in the debate. He has no right of reply to the debate. The hon. the Minister may continue.

I submit to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I continue. If one reads the long title of this Bill, the intention of the Bill is quite clear, and I find it strange that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition found it so difficult to state his attitude in respect of the Bill, and yet said so explicitly that he and his Party wanted to oppose this Bill right at the first reading for certain hypothetical reasons, or on grounds of which they were not even convinced, and which the Bill supposedly contained; certain clauses the Bill may or may not contain. The fact of the matter is that there are actually only two principles in the preamble to which we should give attention. The first principle in the preamble is that we are giving every population group the right to decide its own political future and to determine its future road, the course and direction it wants to take, in accordance with its own character, its own traditions, its own ambitions.

Without interference from the Government?

Without interference from other population groups in their choice as regards their political future. That is principle No. 1; that is a right the Whites in South Africa have claimed for themselves throughout the years, and it is a right which is in accordance with the policy of this side of the House, of development according to character. It is therefore also a right we allow and want to grant the other race groups. The second reading contained in this Bill is that it prohibits other population groups from interfering with a population group’s political views, and in view of what has happened and of what has been happening in South Africa through the years, where all of us—and I trust that here I am speaking on behalf of the Opposition too—accept the principle of White guardianship over the non-Whites, over those who are weaker, less-developed, less experienced in politics, it has become absolutely essential, if we want to give those people the right to judge and decide for themselves, that we should protect them against those Whites who want to exploit that right, who want to use and abuse that right, not for the benefit of the non-Whites, but for their own benefit.

What group are they going to represent?

You may not ask a question while you are sitting down.

Those are the only two principles. The only deduction I can make from the refusal of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to approve the first reading of this Bill on behalf of the Opposition, is that he is saying on behalf of his Party that the United Party is opposed in principle to other population groups having the same political rights as the Whites.

That is a non sequitur.

No, it is not, because you are begrudging other population groups what you claim for yourself. But this Bill does not discriminate between the population groups. Surely it is quite clear from the preamble that this Bill seeks to create exactly the same opportunities for all population groups?

What about the Coloureds?

Secondly, as far as the second principle is concerned, the resistance of the Opposition means that they are adopting the attitude, regardless of what is in the Bill and of how limited or unlimited our rights will be to set out our attitude in respect of future policy, also with regard to those who are our wards and over whom we exercise our guardianship, that we want to reserve at all times and forever the right and the privilege to confuse and disturb those people by means of our propaganda machine and our money and our methods of influencing, and not to grant them the opportunity to decide for themselves, but that we want the opportunity of deciding for them, not necessarily what is in their interests, but what may be our interests. There you have the two basic differences between the viewpoint of the Opposition Party and the views and the attitude of the Government Party. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s resistance to this Bill is premature.

Just as in the case of the Sabotage Act.

The Opposition could have made a proper study of the Bill first, and then they could have objected to the principles contained in it during the second-reading debate, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has again come up prematurely with his resistance. He allowed himself to be guided by the hon. member for Orange Grove or by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout; he cannot retreat now, and as a result he is falling into the trap.

And what about the hon. member for Houghton?

No, the hon. member for Houghton did not guide him directly; she guides him indirectly, and in the end she will have the entire United Party with her.

Order! That is not relevant to the motion.

In conclusion I just want to say the following; I think the attitude adopted by the Leader of the United Party is founded on the fact that he does not know enough about the contents of the Bill. I therefore do not blame him, but he will be a bitterly disappointed man at the end of the debate.

I am not even going to attempt to answer the hon. the Minister’s speech. It seems to me the most obvious attempt to mislead this House as to the meaning of this Bill. We only have the long title before us, as you have reminded us, Sir. I want simply to tell the Minister on behalf of the party I represent that I have no difficulty in answering his questions. The first question which he put to the official Opposition was whether they believe that all races should have equal opportunity of enjoying franchise and other rights. My answer to that on behalf of my party is an unequivocal “yes”; we do believe that all races should have the opportunity of sharing the rights and privileges of the franchise providing, of course, they are sufficiently educated to be able to exercise the responsibilities which go with the exercise of the vote. Secondly, the Minister says that the reason for this Bill is to see that the different racial groups can decide their own destiny. Really, Sir, coming from a Minister belonging to a party which for 18 solid years while in power has done nothing but interfere in the rights of the other racial groups in this country, I find that amusing. I do not know whom the hon. the Minister thinks he is able to deceive with this sort of explanation. As far as I am concerned it does not hold water at all. Sir, I know that you will not allow me at this stage of the proceedings to trace the long and sordid history connected with the whittling down of the political rights of the Coloured people in this country. I will reserve that for a later opportunity. We have only the long title before the House. But as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, if one reads that in conjuction with the many statements made by Ministers over the past couple of years, particularly since the Provincial Council elections, and particularly by the then Minister of Coloured Affairs, I think nobody is in any doubt whatsoever as to the meaning and content of the Bill which we will be debating at a later stage. The long title of the Bill reads—

I think if one strips this of its sophistry, it is perfectly clear what is behind this Bill. By its own enactment in 1956 the Government limited the Coloured people to four White representatives in this House.

Order! I must ask the hon. member to confine her remarks to the terms of the motion before the House.

Sir, I am coming to that immediately. The fact that the Government gave the Coloured people four White representatives in Parliament immediately made it imperative for the persons representing the Coloured people and who are to be White to have some connection with the Coloured people; to have a say in the political organization for those elections and therefore to “interfere”—the very word used in the long title—in the affairs of the Coloured people. For ten years there has been no objection to such “interference”. We have had a history of Coloured representatives coming to this House who belonged to White political parties, and who willy-nilly therefore were “interfering” in the political affairs of another population group. All the members sitting here to-day as representatives of the Coloured people either belong or at one time belonged to a White political party.

Indeed, Sir, when they stood for election they had to be vetted by the candidates’ selection committees of the White political parties. It is no good the hon. member for Boland shaking his head, Sir. In 1958 that is how he came to this House. And, Sir, it was not only members of the official Opposition who were “interfering” with the politics of another race, but the candidates who stood against them at that stage, Sir, were unofficial candidates of the Nationalist Party, and nobody has got any doubt about that. In fact one or two of them stood quite openly as candidates for a White political party and they were therefore “interfering” in the political affairs of another population group. So, Sir, one does not have to be a political genius, or any other sort of genius, to understand the meaning behind this Bill and why it is that over the last couple of years there is this sudden spate of horror at the thought of a White political party organizing and assisting Coloured people in exercising what remains of the political rights they had and in selecting their candidates for this House. That is the meaning behind this Bill, and I think one would be stupid to try and pretend that there is anything other than that behind this Bill.

In the meantime a political devil was born.

Sir, I have no interest in the hon. Deputy Minister’s comments. It is quite clear that the intention behind this Bill which we shall be debating shortly, is to make it more difficult for the Coloured people to select the kind of candidates that they want, since they are now going to be restricted as regards having anything to do with a political party belonging to another racial group. Now, how any candidate will be able to even associate with or organize or address constituents belonging to another racial group, is difficult to see. But, Mr. Speaker, you would not allow me to develop that point any further and I shall not do so at the present moment. I want to finish by saying that this is part of the pattern of what has been happening to the Coloured people since this Government took the reins of power, a gradual whittling away of their rights …

Order!

Sir, let me say just this then, that although it is part of the pattern it goes beyond that pattern, because this now affects the constitutional rights, and indeed if some years ago we had not started on this stony path, away from the entrenched clauses which protected the rights of the Coloured people …

Order! I cannot allow the hon. member to proceed on those lines.

Sir, what I am trying to say is that this Bill should never have been introduced and this could not have happened if we still had the protection of the entrenched clauses.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I take the very first opportunity of registering my strongest objection to the introduction of a Bill which without any doubt is going yet further along the stony path of a betrayal of the rights of the Coloured people.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, the rules of debate of this House preclude me from dealing with the remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton. I am sure that I will have an opportunity, at least I hope I will have an opportunity during the second reading of this Bill to deal with some of the statements which she has made, some of them very erroneous statements. Therefore I do not intend answering her this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, it would appear from the authorities that I have been able to consult on parliamentary procedure that a motion for leave to introduce a Bill is usually unopposed. There is a fundamental reason for this procedure, and that is that where the House is satisfied that the Government in introducing such a motion as is before the House now, is acting constitutionally, then and in that case the Government should be afforded an opportunity of submitting to the House reasons for introducing a Bill, and the House should have the fullest opportunity of debating those reasons, and the House should have unfettered discretion in deciding whether to support the Government or oppose it.

I have listened very attentively to the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and I should like to say to him with great respect, that his entire speech was based on mere surmise. Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the draft Bill and I doubt whether the Leader of the Opposition or indeed any other member, apart from members of the Cabinet, have seen this Bill. So at this stage, Sir, any opposition can merely be based on Press reports. many of which were contradictory as to what the terms of this proposed Bill are likely to be. Therefore I say, adopting a constitutional attitude, we should allow the Government to introduce the Bill and state its reasons for introducing the Bill. By allowing that to take place, I want to make it perfectly clear that no one of us thereby supports this Bill. But at least we should have an opportunity of hearing the reasons which motivate the Government to submit a Bill of this nature to the House.

Mr. Speaker, there is a precedent for the attitude that I am adopting here. I speak on behalf of myself and my two colleagues. You will recall. Sir, and I am sure many of the members of this House will recall, how in similar circumstances in 1953 the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Strauss, was confronted with almost a similar position. On that occasion, it will be remembered, that the then Prime Minister, Dr. Malan, at a joint meeting in this Chamber, asked for leave to introduce a Bill “to amend the South Africa Act and to amend the Separate Representation of Voters Act. 1951”, and to define the jurisdiction of courts of law to pronounce upon the validity of laws passed by Parliament. Now. Sir, immediately Dr. Malan moved that formally, there was an outburst by the then representatives of the Labour Party and the Federal Party in this House, and the representatives of those two parties moved two amendments having the effect virtually of nullifying the motion proposed by Dr. Malan. What happened, Sir? The Leader of the Opposition obviously had to take part in the discussions, and quoting now from the report of the Joint Sitting on 14th July, 1953, Col. 24, Mr. Strauss said this—

He then went on to say this—

Then he went on to say—

Then he went on to say that the Prime Minister should be given the opportunity of presenting the Government’s case. Mr. Strauss continued in Col. 26 as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by saying that I am satisfied that at this stage at any rate the Government is adopting the only constitutional method of bringing this Bill before the House and before the nation. It is the only constitutional way of doing it. I am prepared to withhold my observations on this Bill, and not to state the attitude I propose to adopt on this Bill, until such time as I see the terms of the Bill, when I can decide for myself what attitude to adopt.

I want to say, finally, Sir, that in relation to my colleagues and myself we will be motivated only by one principle, and that is we will decide on our course of action as regards this matter on the basis of what is in the best interests of the Coloured people whom we represent in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the objection made by my hon. Leader for leave to introduce this motion in the House to-day. I do not base my remarks on the type of argument used by the hon. member for Peninsula, because he is referring to a joint sitting of both Houses of Parliament. Sir, I rather liked his last remark “in the best interests of the Coloured people”.

I can speak with some knowledge of the Coloured people. I move among them, I work among them, and I have been among them quite recently. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that any legislation which seeks to amend the 1951 Separate Representation of Voters Act finds no favour with the Coloured people, no matter what it may be. The reason why I say that is the following. This motion contains references to two Acts, namely the Electoral Act and the Separate Representation of Voters Act. The general election for White voters has just taken place. Therefore one must accept that this Bill relates to amendments to the 1951 Separate Representation of Voters Act as described here in this motion. Furthermore, it refers to the word “interference”. I make no bones about my position, and I never have. I am a member of a political party, and I always have been. I fought an election as a member of a political party. I represent the Coloured people. I do my best, and I always have, to try and lead them.

Order!

That is just an observation. I believe, Sir, that any amendments to the 1951 Separate Representation of Voters Act cannot mean anything good for the future of the Coloured people.

Order! That is a conclusion, and the hon. member is not entitled to draw any conclusions. He must confine his remarks entirely to the terms of the motion.

The terms of the motion are the word “interference”. Now, Sir, what does “interference” mean? In the Afrikaans version the word “inmenging” is used. We have heard the word “inmenging” used quite often. I find that the translations in the dictionaries are not on parallel terms, Sir. For that reason I think the hon. the Minister should withdraw his motion and publish this long title in some more detail so that we will know exactly what it means. There has been far too much mystery. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout as well as my hon. Leader have questioned the hon. the Minister from time to time.

Order! The hon. member must confine his remarks to the motion.

Well, Sir, the remarks that I wish to make to the motion are that I refuse to give leave to introduce this Bill. That is the essence of my remarks.

Mr. Speaker, I want to see whether we cannot get some more information from the Government members as to the meaning of the motion before the House. The motion before the House speaks about “leave be granted to introduce a Bill to prohibit interference in the political sphere in the affairs of any population group….” Now, what does that mean, Sir? We have had some explanation from the hon. the Minister himself about what he intends to convey by this very woolly-worded motion. He tells us that it means only two things. The one is that the Coloured people should have the same right as the European group to manage and conduct their own political affairs, and to give political expression to themselves. The other is that, with a view to that, other race groups should not interfere in their affairs. But how can we, as a House, consider a measure which starts from the premise that this is already a separate Parliament, a Parliament existing separately for Whites and Coloureds? That is the only way in which one can give any meaning to the terms of this resolution. As long as we are one Parliament, this one Parliament controls the affairs of all race groups in South Africa. It is meaningless to speak about giving the Coloured people separate political rights and a separate political function in South Africa, because they will come to this Parliament, as they do now, and they will participate in discussions, in legislation, in motions that affect the interests of every human being in the Republic of South Africa, irrespective of race, colour or creed. It is impossible to give any meaning with any sense to an intelligent person to the words of this resolution. Therefore I want to suggest, Sir, that if the Government wants to come to us with motions for leave to introduce a Bill, and they want us to suspend judgment on what that Bill will contain, they should at least word that resolution so that one has some idea of what they have in mind. But nobody knows what they have in mind here.

Now, Sir, I have a suspicion what this really means. And I want to suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that in the same way as this Government has given long titles to a series of Bills passed before on race matters which are entirely misleading, this motion—and I am only talking about the motion—is an attempt to mislead the people of South Africa as to the true contents of the Bill.

Why should we? You will know to-morrow.

The precedents are there. We had a Bill for the extension of university education which meant exactly the opposite. We had a Bill for the separate representation of voters which meant exactly the opposite. I am convinced, Sir, and I want to put it to you, that once again we are entitled to refuse permission for the introduction of this Bill on the basis of the wording of this motion because, Sir, there is no interference. There is no interference on the part of one race group in the politics of another in South Africa.

Order! That is not under discussion now.

But that is the wording of the resolution, Sir. I have to abide by that. There is nothing else for me to discuss except these words in the resolution. I put it to you with respect, Sir, that I want to try and find out, so as to determine the attitude that we on this side should adopt in regard to this resolution, what is meant by “interference”. There is no precedent, there is nothing to prove whatsoever that there has been interference. How can one call it interference if a legitimate political organization tries to put before a section of voters who elect the members to this sovereign parliament what their point of view is? By what stretch of imagination can that be called interference? It is merely an assistance to those voters to register an intelligent vote on the affairs of South Africa. As long as the Coloured people have representation in this House, and I would go further and say that as long as Coloured people are subject to the laws of this House, the Government will have to explain to those Coloured people what its policies are and what it hopes to achieve for them. Otherwise it is not functioning as a government in the true sense of the word. And in the same way, any other political organizations should have the right to put their alternatives before the Coloured people who vote the members of Parliament into this House. It is preposterous, it is undemocratic, it is impossible for us to stomach that the Government should say that that right should be denied to legitimate political organizations in South Africa, and that that should be called interference. It does not make sense.

That can all be argued at the Second Reading. We are only concerned now with the motion.

Thank you, Sir, I have made my point.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville is now terribly concerned about the hon. the Minister not having furnished sufficient particulars at the introduction of the Bill or in his motion to afford him a proper opportunity of fighting the legislation. But the hon. member need only wait until the proper opportunity is there; then he will get all the particulars.

Order! I have already told the hon. member that, and it is not necessary for the hon. member to tell him that again.

But the hon. member still does not believe it.

No, he believed me and resumed his seat.

Then it is a good thing that the hon. member has accepted sound advice.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition advanced two arguments here for opposing the First Reading of this measure. The first reason—and in my opinion it is a completely illegitimate one—was that he based his statements on what had allegedly been said here in regard to the legislation by Ministers and others from time to time. He went further and said that he assumed that this legislation would result in a diminution of rights for the Coloured people. Now, on what grounds can the hon. the Leader of the Opposition say these things? He does not have the facts before him to enable him to say that. The Opposition come along here and blindly oppose a measure in regard to which they have absolutely no facts. From the commencement of the session it has been very clear to this side of the House that this legislation is working on the nerves of the Opposition and that they feel very uneasy about it.

Order! That does not stand in the motion at all.

It does not stand in the motion, Sir, but I am merely stating a fact. The rules of the House make provision for objection to be made to the introduction of a Bill. It is only by way of rare exception that the Opposition makes use of that procedure. But now the hon. member for Peninsula has said on behalf of his group that the people who are really affected by this legislation are in fact satisfied. That was what the hon. member for Peninsula said here. The hon. member indicated that Adv. Strauss, the predecessor of the present Leader of the Opposition, viewed this matter in a completely different light. He adopted the attitude that the Minister should be given an opportunity—and he can get that opportunity only at the Second Reading—to put his case. Then the Opposition can react to it very sharply in whatever way they choose. Well, Sir, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is rushing into this matter blindly. He does not have the facts. All that he has before him is the motion that is now before the House. This motion gives no idea and no indication whatsoever of the way in which this measure is going to attain these objects. I want to say here that when an Opposition finds it necessary to oppose legislation at the First Reading, it is usually taken as a strong motion of protest against the entire measure as such. But, Sir, to-day I want to ask whether we can regard this action on the part of the Opposition as a motion of protest, or whether we should rather see it as a political demonstration being held here by the Opposition. One must ask oneself why the Opposition finds it necessary to oppose this legislation at this stage. Why can they not wait until they have the legislation? They have no idea whatsoever of the contents of the Bill. Apparently it does not matter to them at all whether or not they know what it is about. All that matters to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition—and apparently to the United Party—is that they can probably attain certain objects. Now I want to put this question to the Opposition: Must we regard the action they have taken here to-day as some kind of political demonstration? Must we take it as meaning that the United Party accepts in advance that the hon. member for Houghton will get up here and oppose the legislation, and that they are now stealing a march on her? Sir, I do not want to go into this matter any further. All I want to say is that, since such a refusal to agree to the introduction of a Bill usually has to be regarded as a motion of protest, the Opposition is obviously staging a demonstration here, and that all the fuss made here is simply so much political ado about nothing.

Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing the country is entitled to expect from its Government, it is certainty and decisiveness. When we take a look at the question of economic growth in this country, how quickly or how slowly it should develop, where it should be, and when it should be, I think that all we have had in this regard are contradictions and uncertainties. I understand that the hon. member for Pinetown dealt with this matter in some of its aspects. I want to discuss this stop-go policy of the Government a little further. In the context of our economic development, the hon. the Minister of Finance in the Budget debate told us that as far back as 1965 it was time to apply the brakes and let the emphasis fall on stability rather than on growth. This was also the theme the hon. the Minister adopted in his Budget speech, namely, to destroy the inflationary peril and embark upon a new phase of stable economic growth. In other words, Sir, the spending spree was to be over and we were to cut our coat according to our cloth. This policy gave some meaning to the Minister’s measures of the 8th August.

If we take these pronouncements and the actions of the hon. the Minister by themselves, we would have created the necessary climate in which the businessman or the industrialist or the entrepreneur would have cried “Halt”! He would have accepted that the Government was now determined to slow down the industrial expansion of the country for the time being at least, and he would have planned his programme accordingly. But an industrialist who acted along these lines would have reckoned without the Minister of Economic Affairs. According to the Rand Daily Mail of 26th July, the Minister of Economic Affairs delivered a message to the Republic on 25th July. The occasion was the opening of the National Development and Management Foundation Congress in Cape Town. What was this message? I will give it to you, Sir, as I got it from the Rand Daily Mail—

That was the message the Minister gave to the country. The Minister, after having listened to the Budget speech of the hon. the Minister of Finance, repeated this message, for what did he say?—

It is quite true that the Minister did say that we first had to pass through a period of consolidation and stabilization, and I agree with much of what the Minister said. I agree with him that in 25 years’ time we will have prosperity that we probably have not dreamed of. But there is a time to say things, and the timing of the Minister of Economic Affairs was not bad; it was quite out of place. We are living in a world of inflation, Sir. One member after another on the other side of this House has been telling us that there is inflation in every part of the world. So there is, and it will take us quite a while before we can cope with the inflation with which we have to deal. But what were the Minister’s words to the country and to every businessman? They were a clarion call: The economy might slow down for a while, but get on the bandwagon; good times are around the corner; prosperity will prevail. Here all the efforts of the hon. the Minister of Finance to show the country the seriousness of his intention, that we must pull in our belts are wiped out by his colleague the Minister of Economic Affairs. Psychologically, if we cannot get over to the public, to the businessman and the industrialist the climate in the country, you have not got a hope to get him to play along with you. The Government has to make up its mind on its economic policy. I suggest that the Ministers of Finance and of Economic Affairs should get together and decide what they want from the country. Do we tighten our belts for inflation, or do we respond to the Minister of Economic Affairs and project ourselves into the next phase of economic growth and expansion? This has happened before. Do we save for prosperity or do we spend for prosperity? These are the two alternatives we have before us at the moment.

When I spoke on the Budget I said that the businessman planned ahead, but businessmen plan within the ambit of Government policy. They take statements made by Ministers very seriously. If the Government wants commerce and industry to help them in the task of building up the economy of this country, the Government must commence to speak with one voice and not with two voices. You see, Sir, businessmen are optimistic by nature. You have to be optimistic if you want to be in business. As soon as a businessman feels that the direction which the Government is taking is towards expansion, then he is going to move immediately to be able to be there when that expansion takes place. If he feels the Government is going to move towards retraction of growth, he will probably go along with it. After the speeches of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, the Government must not blame industry if they are going to take steps for the expansion of their plants or their projects. They have as much as been asked by the Minister to do so. He has told them of the great days ahead, and he has shooed the gloom. If the private sector is attacked for spending too much, as we had it in the House this year, they will be able rightly to turn round to the Government and say: You told us to go ahead; you are the ones to blame because you gave us the green light. The words of the Minister of Economic Affairs took precedence over the words of the Minister of Finance and we have acted in accordance with Government wishes.

I do not know why the hon. member who has just sat down is dissatisfied with the hon. the Minister. The hon. member gave me the impression that he felt that the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs should have been most disheartened about the economy of the country. In fact, the hon. member also used the words which are not acceptable in South Africa nowadays, but which are used in the English economy, namely the “stop-go method”. I want to tell the hon. member that the Minister of Economic Affairs, like any other Minister, has a full right—and should in fact do that—to tell South Africa what the position of our economy is, which is that the economy of South Africa is at present developing at a very rapid rate and that our economy has reached a stage, although to a lesser extent than in other countries, where it has to be cautious as regards the direction and the rate of this growth. There is nothing wrong with it. In other Western countries all indicators as regards the growth of the economies show that inflation is developing at a much more rapid rate than here in South Africa. We have now reached the stage where it has become necessary for the State to caution, as the hon. the Minister of Finance has rightly done, and to indicate that we are developing at a rate of which the businessman and the financier should take note, and that they should also help us to be cautious enough so that the growth may be even and within limits. That is the attitude adopted by the Minister of Finance.

Later the Minister of Finance was compelled to step in and also to tighten the screws systematically and gradually in order to achieve one object, and that was to keep the growth of the South African economy sound and within limits. But if the Minister of Finance intends stepping in or does indeed step in from time to time with monetary or fiscal measures, in an endeavour to keep the economy even, then that does not mean that the Minister of Economic Affairs should go about with a long face, should give the alarm and should warn industrialists to curtail their development at once. The position is in fact that our growth is rapid and extensive, and because that is so, our economy is behaving like any other developing economy in the world; the rate at which the development is taking place causes certain bottlenecks, as we have also experienced here. It causes bottlenecks with regard to our balance of payments, bottlenecks with regard to our reserves, bottlenecks with regard to the manpower available for integration with our economy and also other bottlenecks, but in spite of that the control was of such a nature that business leaders and financial leaders from most responsible circles in South Africa last week expressed their satisfaction and confidence because the economy had been evened off in a way which gave satisfaction and which made them confident that the control measures applied by the Government would have the intended effect.

Under these circumstances there is therefore no need for the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to do anything else but to continue creating confidence in South Africa and to continue saying what is correct, namely that our economy is in fact sound and that it is growing at a rapid rate. But it is the responsibility of all of us, and in particular of the Minister responsible, not to create an incorrect impression when we discuss these matters. The impression we should all create is that South Africa is in fact basically sound and remains sound. The hon. the Minister also has his measures by means of which he can determine the flow of the economy, and here I want to say that in my view, because we have a small population with a very large potential, with very great opportunities for development in numerous directions, and since we must of necessity develop in certain directions—here I am thinking for example of the development of our strategic industries, the development of our steel, oil, shipping and chemical industries—we have reached a stage where we should take a very cautious look to see whether we cannot place the emphasis on certain important industries, for the sole and simple reason that our country is so small that we cannot allow equal and extensive developments in all facets. In recent times it has become fashionable to see an opportunity for manufacturing our own products to replace imports in every field where a shortage is experienced.

Businessmen inside and outside South Africa saw in that an opportunity to enter industry, and by doing so created further strains as regards our manpower and also as regards other resources needed for such production. That relates in particular to imports of machinery and basic materials. I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister, when he rises to reply, can also give the Committee an indication of his views on the necessity for defining limits in certain specific directions, particularly from the viewpoint of foreign exchange, which the Minister of Finance has to make available for new production fields. I think the time has come for us to go about matters very cautiously and to take care, within the context of a free economy, that we do not develop in too many directions where that development is not absolutely essential to the economy of the country, because we must also be rational as regards our available capital and particularly as regards the utilization of our manpower.

We inhabit a wonderful country with exceptionally great possibilities, but in particular also a country where there are opportunities for development in all fields, with the result that it offers an invitation to enterprising businessmen to enter those fields. I believe that the Minister has specific views on this, and that he is in all probability already applying what I am now asking, but for the record I believe it will be a good thing if the hon. the Minister will inform us and will give us the assurance that some control is being exercised, and that we are not developing on too broad a front here in South Africa and perhaps starting industries we need not necessarily start when we may rather import the products with a view to our strong balance of payments position.

I have no quarrel with the hon. member who has just sat down. All I want the Government to do is to take a decisive line, make the public believe that they are going to adhere to that line, and then we will get somewhere. The rights or wrongs we can discuss at some other time. But there are one or two other matters that I want to talk about and the first is price control.

In his Budget the hon. the Minister of Finance introduced an excise duty of 8 cents per gallon on mineral waters. The same day the Price Controller fixed all prices at those ruling before Budget day, i.e. the 16th August, and I must say that the Price Controller was very prompt, because when I got back to my office after the Budget debate, I found the price control gazette already on my desk. This price control that was introduced, meant that the excise duty of 8 cents per gallon which had been imposed on minerals, was to be borne solely by the manufacturer. The trouble, of course, was that there were many manufacturers who did not make 8 cents profit on a gallon of minerals and who were therefore quite unable to bear this excise duty, so immediately, in some parts of the country, there was a boycott by some of the mineral water manufacturers who told the public that they were no longer going to manufacture or supply. It appeared—and I hope the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that a mistake had been made. The notice therefore had to be withdrawn and another notice issued passing the buck to the retailer. The manufacturer no longer had to bear this additional cost; it was passed on to the retailer and the retailer was controlled to the extent that he could only add a profit of 2 cents per bottle on any cold drinks that he sold.

The Controller apparently again forgot two factors; the one was that there are different sizes of bottles, ranging from very small ones to very big ones, and, secondly, the fact that crates were not controlled. There was nothing to stop any manufacturer of mineral waters from increasing the price of his crates.

You see, Sir, a small bottle of mineral water is sold wholesale at 28 cents per dozen, the middle size at 40 cents and the big size at 74 cents. I am referring here to a particular brand. In all these categories the retailer is now only allowed to add 2 cents per bottle, with the result that we have another boycott; this time the retailer is boycotting the factories. In Johannesburg to-day you cannot buy what is known as a giant or family size bottle of soft drinks, because the retailer says, with a certain amount of justification: “If I pay 28 cents a dozen I am allowed a profit of 2 cents per bottle; why, if I pay 40 cents a dozen, am I still only allowed to make 2 cents per bottle, and why, when I pay 72 cents, am I still only allowed to make a profit of 2 cents a bottle?”

In respect of one of the best known proprietary lines, the cost is 96 cents a dozen for the giant size, and the retailer is still only allowed to make a profit of 2 cents a bottle. The retailer says that he does not want this kind of business, because his drinks cost him 96 cents per dozen bottles; his deposit on the bottles has now gone up to 72 cents; the cost of the case has risen from 20 cents to 38 cents. So on a dozen giant size bottles of a particular cold drink he is now paying R2.06. He is allowed to add on 24 cents (2 cents a bottle) and so he is selling the dozen bottles for R2.30. He is making 11.6 per cent profit, without breakages, without storage, without freezing, without rent, without service—without anything else. It is just not a business proposition for him. So he stops selling giant size cold drinks.

We have had two boycotts already in respect of this one price control. It is an utter muddle, and what is frightening is this. It seems that we are moving into an era of price control. We have already had price control in regard to cheese, butter, coal, milk, minerals, cigarettes; but what we want to know, Mr. Chairman, is whether before price control is imposed, and before it was imposed in regard to minerals, whether an investigation will take place or took place into this particular industry. You just cannot go around slapping on price control on items. You must investigate an industry to see whether it can bear control; and what its profits should or should not be.

I am not subscribing to the principle of price control; that was debated in the House two or three years ago when the Bill was passed. I am talking about when the hon. Minister or his colleagues find it necessary to impose price control for one or another reason we want to know that it is going to be done properly, we want to know that a proper investigation will take place, we want to know that there is going to be consultation with the industry concerned, and we want to know that there is not going to be a muddle as there was over mineral waters. The hon. the Minister should have been more careful. His colleague tried to impose a tax on mineral waters once before and he could not carry it out and had to withdraw it. Despite knowing all this, when the time came to impose price control on minerals, we had the most unholy mess we have had for a long time. As far as cigarettes are concerned, it was not quite as bad. There was an increase of 1 cent per 10 and then price control was introduced. We found that we were paying one price one day and another price the next day, until eventually the price settled down, but for a week there was complete chaos. If we are going to have price control—and it looks as if we are going to have price control—not only commerce and industry, but everybody, the man in the street, demands and will demand that it be properly handled, handled efficiently, that there will be a proper investigation, that the steps be carefully planned, and that you do not just rush in, issue a notice with great speed, and then find that you have got to withdraw it and have to issue another one, and that you have got to have deputations from all facets of the industry in an attempt to rectify the errors that had been made. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us an assurance that if we are going to have Price Control, it is going to be introduced properly.

Another matter is that apparently there is another Kennedy round of tariff negotiation on the way or due to start. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will be good enough to tell us what the Government’s attitude is to those particular items, where there have been specific proposals, and whether he can give us some progress report on the matter. Tied up with this, Mr. Chairman, it looks as if we are going to be back very soon with the problem of the entry into the common market of Great Britain, something we debated at great length in this House some years ago. Here again I am afraid that the hon. the Minister is doing the same as he did three years ago, I think it was, not having adequate representation at the seat of the Common Market. He did take an economist out of the private sector and sent him to Belgium, but I understand he has returned. The hon. the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. I hope we will have adequate representation at the seat of the Common Market, and I hope the hon. the Minister will not hesitate again to go to the private sector and ask for their assistance if he does not have the staff available to send people over himself. I have told the hon. the Minister on many occasions that he will find that the private sector will give him all the assistance possible. There seems to have grown up between certain sections of Government Departments and private industry a certain amount of antipathy which should not exist—the one is complementary to the other. I am not referring specifically to the hon. the Minister’s Department, but I do say that there is a world of goodwill in the private sector to assist the Government if assistance should be needed, and I am positive that if the hon. the Minister is short of economists, they can be found of first class calibre, from the private sector, and the private sector will be only too glad to second such economists to him for a while, as was done on the last occasion. [Time limit.]

It has already become an institution that I have to complain about the shortage of industrial land in Springs. Unfortunately it is a fact that there is no industrial land available in Springs to which the town council may draw industries to replace the dying gold mines. Last year I told this House that four gold mines had already closed down in Springs, and now I must say to my sorrow that two more mines, namely the Springs Mine and the Geduld Mine …

Order! That comes under Planning, not under Economic Affairs. Industrial land does not come under the Department of Commerce and Industries.

I merely feel, Mr. Chairman, that we should allow industrial development to continue, because we cannot hold back the development of any of our towns or industries. The facilities must be there and are a prerequisite for encouraging and assisting development. I appreciate that we must have the necessary capital available, but I think we should not allow our foreign exchange to be spent on the importation of luxury goods, but that we should concentrate on the importation of industrial machinery which can help us become self-supporting, and can also further our effort to export more manufactured goods. We have been making efforts in this direction for a long time, and we may not neglect it.

If industrial developments take place, there are of course matters that we have to bear in mind. For example, there are shortages that impede industrial development. If there is a shortage of water, for example, one cannot have industrial development. I want to point out that when mines close down, water used by the mines becomes available for industrial development. As regards the Witwatersrand and Pretoria complex, there is the complaint and the difficulty that there is not enough water in the Vaal Dam to permit great developments, but, Mr. Chairman, the Oppermansdrif Dam will be completed within a few years, and that dam will then be able to provide water mainly for the Vaalharts Irrigation Scheme, and the water from the Vaal Dam which is now used for that, will then become available for industrial development in the Witwatersrand area. There is also the shortage of technicians, particularly White technicians, which is having a restraining effect on the development of our industries, but as a result of the establishment of technical high schools in recent years and of the technical schools that are still to be built, more technicians will become available for industries in South Africa. By those means that shortage will be eliminated to a large extent. There is also immigration, and we are bringing trained artisans to our country who can assist in the expansion of our industries in South Africa. There is also a further problem, and in that regard it is on the side of superfluity, and that is that we have too many Bantu on the Witwatersrand. I agree with the policy of the National Party, that we should like to see the Bantu flow back to their homelands. In a case such as Springs, for example, where mines are closing down and where as many as 31,000 natives working in the mines will no longer have work in the mines by 1970, those natives can be sent back to the Protectorates and other African States. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the industries and the industrialists cannot be encouraged to mechanize and to automatize more. I appreciate that it will not be profitable for a factory manufacturing only a small quantity of goods to automatize, because such an automatic machine costs a great deal of money, but I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if the industrialists were encouraged to acquire such machinery for mechanization and automatization, they should be allowed to deduct the capital outlay on the machines from preliminary taxes as soon as possible. That will encourage those people to mechanize and automatize to a greater extent, rather than to employ non-Whites. In that way we can get rid of the large majority of the Bantu labour in our cities. I also hope a definite endeavour will now be made to determine what are capital-intensive industries and what are labour-intensive industries. Let us decide what are capital-intensive industries, and let it then be provided by legislation that capital-intensive industries are industries employing, say, 3 non-Whites to 2 Whites, or I White to 1 non-White. Such industries can then be regarded as capital-intensive industries and can be allowed to establish themselves in any of the large cities and towns in South Africa, and those that are labour intensive industries can then go to the border areas. In that way one can allow the industrial development in White South Africa to continue without letting it become blacker. I am asking in all humility that the hon. the Minister and the Government should introduce such legislation immediately, so that the country may develop on the pattern we desire. I feel that is legislation of the most essential nature, because one cannot guide the industrial development in the right direction in any other way. One needs the right legislation to do so, and I feel that that has become absolutely essential now.

Under the planning Vote I shall therefore plead for additional industrial land for Springs, but I feel that if we have the legislation I have suggested, it will not be necessary to avoid having too much industrial land anywhere in White South Africa. [Time limit.]

The hon. member who has just sat down will pardon me if I do not respond to his speech. This afternoon I want to bring a serious matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister, namely the protection of our fishing industry. I recently made a special plea to the Government to protect our fishing industry in our territorial waters, and I was very glad to read in the papers on Friday that the Government is now making arrangements for international consultations with the countries fishing off the South African coast. Personally I welcome that, and I am very glad that the Government is at last taking positive action to protect our fishing industry.

I hope, however, that the hon. the Minister whose Vote is now under discussion, will also give attention to the interests of smaller fishermen and will protect them too. This afternoon I am speaking on behalf of all the local authorities of the Peninsula, and I am also speaking on behalf of the fishing communities of the Peninsula, I am speaking on behalf of the hotel and tourist industry, and I am speaking on behalf of anglers throughout the Republic, and I ask the Government to place a prohibition immediately on purse-seining in False Bay, and to proclaim False Bay an angling reserve.’ In other words, the Bay between Cape Point and Hangklip should be closed to all trawlers. As hon. members know, of course, False Bay was an open bay until 1928. Then a prohibition was placed on deep-sea or bottom trawlers, and the prohibition is still in force. But after that the expansion of our fishing industry resulted in a great increase in the activities of purse-seine trawlers, and as hon. members know, that gave rise to great dissatisfaction. The Government took action, in February, 1956, and placed a total prohibition on purse-seining in False Bay. But after the fishing industry had objected to that, the Bay was declared open again only six months afterwards, but on a certain condition, namely that fish were not to be trawled within a distance of two miles from the shore. Mr. Chairman, that was of absolutely no use, because that restriction could never be enforced. There was not one single patrol boat at the disposal of the Department, and we could hardly use our fleet for that purpose. In practice no notice whatsoever was taken of that restrictive measure. Many complaints were lodged with the Department, but there were no prosecutions of people who had committed an offence. On Friday we received the report of the commission of enquiry, and according to a report in Die Burger net fishing in False Bay may be prohibited. Sir, that will not happen, because the commission recommended a total prohibition on the use of any kind of net, excluding dragnets and crayfish nets, for fishing within a distance of two nautical miles off-shore, and that is exactly the same restriction that we had in the past and that was never enforced.

Mr. Chairman, the commission made various other proposals, and I welcome some of them, particularly those that relate to anchovies, that is to say, the total prohibition on trawling or dragging for anchovies and the large varieties of fish in the Bay. But the commission’s proposals are not far-reaching enough, and on behalf of the anglers and on behalf of the local authorities and all concerns involved. I therefore ask the Government to place a prohibition without further delay on the activities of trawlers in the Bay, and to proclaim the Bay an angling reserve.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the problem which had arisen in regard to the pegging of profit margins and prices of mineral waters. The hon. the Minister will of course reply to this in full, but I just want to point out that the hon. the Minister was instructed by the Cabinet to peg these prices. Owing to circumstances there was very little time for doing so. Problems also arose owing to the large variety of cubic measures in which mineral waters are being sold. After discussions with industry and commerce it was agreed that the profit margins of commerce were such that it could afford this, but the industry could not. I also want to point out that the problems which have arisen do not outweigh the advantages. The advantage which results from this, is the fact that mineral waters are being made available to the public at the lowest possible price. For that reason I think that the public of South Africa owes the Minister and the Government a debt of gratitude for the wise and courageous steps they have taken in this regard.

But I want to discuss certain statements made in this House last Friday by hon. members of the Opposition in regard to border industries, statements they also made a year or two ago. They made two statements, statements I cannot merely allow to pass by. In the first place they called attention to the detrimental effects border area development would have on the existing industrial centres. In the second place they said that they were in favour of industrial decentralization and of border area development on condition that it took place on a purely economic basis. On 18th May, 1964, according to Hansard col. 6190, the former hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) had the following to say in this regard—

In May, 1965, Dr. Cronje made the following further statement—

I should like to prove that both of these statements are unfounded and untrue. If I want to erect a factory in Rustenburg, for instance, I shall need building materials to build that factory and once that factory is in operation, I shall need raw materials. As you know, between 50 and 60 per cent of our raw materials are produced domestically, i.e. in South Africa itself. In most cases building material and raw materials come from the existing industrial centres and that is why I cannot understand how hon. members opposite can suggest that it does not also stimulate industrial development itself in the existing areas. I also fail to understand how they can suggest that it will not benefit economic development in general. In this regard I should like to refer to a progress report published by the Department of Economic Affairs in Great Britain. The following is an extract from that report—

Later in that report the following is stated—

In other words, if those backward areas are not developed economically, the general economic development of the country as a whole is prejudiced. Another economic problem which arises is the following—

These quotations taken from this report refute the allegations made by the hon. members of the Opposition. As regards the argument of the hon. Opposition, namely that decentralization should be based on purely economic principles, I want to refer to a document published by T.U.C. in regard to border areas in South Africa. It says this—

This emphasizes the aspect relating to the sociological implications. It should be noted that members of this organization are generally speaking not supporters of this Government. They nevertheless differ from the hon. Opposition in this regard. At this juncture I want to refer back to the report of the Department of Economic Affairs of Britain from which I quoted a few minutes ago. In that report two economic and two sociological reasons are advanced in support of decentralization. The two economic reasons I have already mentioned, while the two sociological reasons are as follows—

These are the two sociological considerations. A great deal of emphasis is therefore placed on the importance of sociological considerations in industrial decentralization, a process which in our country coincides predominantly with the development of the backward areas, namely the border areas. Apart from the fact that Chambers of Commerce, the Handelsinstituut and the Chambers of Industries are supporting this idea of border area development, Assocom has also expressed itself in favour of it. In this regard I want to quote the following from a letter written by this body—

All these organizations, employees’ as well as employers’ organizations, therefore, are in favour of border area development, although not unconditionally, of course. They are in favour of that on account of sound economic and sociological reasons. Nowhere in the world is that applied on the basis of purely economic considerations, as suggested by the hon. members opposite. That is least of all the case. It is clear, therefore, that those people who have the closest connection with border area development, namely the employers as well as the employees, are in favour of this kind of development. For that reason the United Party should once again consider the position amongst themselves since they are quite alone at the moment. It is time that they expressed themselves strongly in favour of border area development. Years ago they rejected it summarily. This year we saw that some of their hon. members accepted it while it was still being rejected by others. I believe that after another year we shall see everybody accepting it. Then they will, as it behoves an opposition, co-operate in developing that policy, which is truly in the interests of our country and the backward areas in particular, into a strong one.

There is a certain aspect of this development I want to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister. Up to the present it has mostly been private and individual industries which have taken part in the development of border areas—and they did that with a great measure of success—while private financial institutions have as yet not made a great contribution in this regard. There are many good reasons for that, but unfortunately time will not allow me to go into them. [Time limit.]

I want to say to the hon. member for Florida that I believe that under our policy there will be at least as many of the Native people employed in their own areas as under the Government’s policies. Indeed, we strongly stand for the admission of White capital and skill to go into the reserves themselves and there to create opportunities for employment for the Bantu people. We also appreciate that the movement from the reserves or even from farming regions in the so-called White part of South Africa does involve very large sociological changes which we shall be very happy to avoid if it can be done. One has, however, got to get this whole thing into perspective. I say so because we are getting highly exaggerated claims from Government members regarding the number of Native people that have been retained in the border industries. I think the time has come that the hon. the Minister should tell this House most clearly what in fact has been achieved by the border industries and also what he hopes to achieve in future. This policy of border area development has now been in operation for six years. We have seen what has been achieved and it ought also to be possible to look into the future and to give a fairly accurate forecast of what one can further do there. More particularly is this so if one remembers that there is an economic development programme wherein our entire economic development has been planned and foreshadowed and, obviously, any development in the border areas must be included in this programme because it must be planned in terms of it.

I have said that we have had some highly exaggerated claims made for these border industries in recent times. I am very sorry to have to say that the hon. member for Vereeniging who, after having given yeoman service to his side in many debates in this House and elsewhere, was promoted to the position of Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, in the first honeymoon period of his elevation to the Deputy Ministership gave vent in a broadcast to a most exaggerated claim in this regard. I want to deal with this here this afternoon and I am very pleased to see that he is here to hear me say this. This broadcast by the hon. the Deputy Minister over the South African broadcasting system on Monday 28th August was a highly exaggerated and irresponsible broadcast for a Minister, let alone for the hon. member for Vereeniging when he was a mere member. I shall seek to justify this in due course. It is important because it deceived the public in regard to the true problem we have in South Africa, and it deceived the public in respect of what can be hoped for from these border industries and other industries established by the development corporations in the reserves themselves. It ’S this sort of charge we have to make against the other side, that they are lulling the public into a false sense of security in regard to the facts of the situation upon this point. But let us examine this broadcast. The first and I would claim the smallest exaggeration is his statement that approximately R300,000,000 has been put into these border industries.

Of course.

On the 26th August during this Session a question was put by the hon. member for Pinetown in this regard. The reply he received was to the effect that a total of R193,000,000 has been invested.

The hon. the Deputy Minister, in other words, claimed that R100,000,000 more had been invested. Let me read the question so that there can be no misunderstanding. It was: “What is the total amount invested in these industries by (a) the Government, (b) the industrial development corporation and (c) private enterprise?” This was the question. The reply was R193,000,000. Notwithstanding this fact and the availability thereof the fact has been broadcast to everyone in South Africa that R300,000,000 approximately has been invested in these industries. All I can say is that if the hon. the Deputy Minister’s approximations are of this order we are going to get nowhere with him.

Have you read your latest report of the permanent committee?

This broadcast gave a highly inflated figure involving guesswork in respect of the numbers of Natives that have been taken into employment as a result of this work. He said, namely, that in four years border industries and other development going with it had created employment opportunities for at least 120,000 Bantu labourers. On the previous occasion the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs said in reply to a question that there were 42,000 actually in these border industries themselves. This question dealt only with the number of Bantu employed in the border industries themselves. I believe that the true facts are, and I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us when he replies, that very many of that 42,000 were employed well before four years ago. This is my first point to show that the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement is highly inaccurate. My second point, and a much more serious one, is that there is then a difference of 80,000, i.e. the 40,000 actually employed in border industries and the 120,000 the hon. the Deputy Minister claimed to be so employed including secondary activities. The hon. the Deputy Minister has no actual figures to justify this claim but nevertheless he made this claim. Let me read from the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement. He said: “Secondary activities are usually associated with primary employment and which normally provide employment for twice as many persons”. Now, the hon. member for Florida was telling us this afternoon that it was the established industries which did in fact benefit by those border industries because they provided all the raw materials for the development there. This then is the first indication that this figure of 80,000 is highly exaggerated. What normally may have been so, would certainly not be so here. No actual figures were given; it was an absolute speculation as to the number. I hope the hon. the Minister would tell us what are the actual figures of the number employed in secondary employment.

But the grossest exaggeration and the most serious deception of all is the statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister that—

In other words, he speaks as if his policy was to allow the head of a family plus his wife and children to go into the towns. This is what he puts out, but that is not the position. At the very best for him, and in view of what I have said that it obviously does not hold water, all that can be said is that at the very most 120,000 would have gone in. I do not, however, concede that figure even for a moment. The hon. the Deputy Minister, however, puts out on the national broadcasting network of South Africa that 480,000 extra people were kept out through this policy. Well, if you could deceive people by the grossest misrepresentation you have got it here. I hope very much that we will get a reply from the hon. the Minister as to what the exact figure is.

In conclusion I want to say that the best Afrikaans business men in South Africa do not believe the concluding statement by the hon. the Deputy Minister to the effect that—

This is what the hon. the Deputy Minister believes whilst the best Afrikaans business men say that in the year 2000 there will be 32,000,000 non-Whites of whom, by a calculation, about 12,000,000 Bantu will be in the urban areas.

Who are these business men?

Mr. J. S. Marais of Trust Bank and Mr. Human of Federale Volksbeleggings. They made speeches in Bloemfontein in which they said, making a calculation, that in the year 2000 they expect about 12,000,000 Bantu to be in the White urban areas. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member that he cuts a poor figure in the role of an agitator. The hon. member spoke in a spirit of agitation here this afternoon about things he apparently knows nothing about. In the first place …

Order! Will the hon. member repeat what he said about agitation?

Sir, do you want the hon. member to be allowed to repeat what he said?

No, what you said.

I said the hon. member was adopting a poor role, namely that of an agitator, and I think that the hon. member …

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to describe the hon. member as an agitator. The hon. member must withdraw the word “agitator”.

I shall withdraw it, Sir, so that I may continue. I want to begin with the last point made by the hon. member. The hon. member made the point that leading Afrikaans businessmen did not believe in the policy of apartheid, particularly that part of the policy dealing with border industries. Surely he knows that is not true?

That is not what he said.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. member said, “He knows that is not true”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Chairman, that is not true. The persons mentioned here by the hon. member are all members of the Handelsinstituut. Does the hon. member not know that all the leading Afrikaans businessmen are members of the Handelsinstituut? Does he not know that the official standpoint of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut is not only that they believe in this, but also that they lend their active co-operation in this regard? There is a member in this House who was a very prominent person and who played a leading part in the affairs of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. He not only adopted an official standpoint on behalf of the Handelsinstituut, but, indeed, also co-operated in this through his own industries. When discussing border industries the hon. member should not try to mention dates and figures. The reason for that is a simple one. These figures become out of date every week, because new undertakings enter the field every week. The numbers are gradually increasing week by week. Take the June figure, for example. I want to tell the hon. member that this figure is probably out of date already. It is probable that quite a number have been added already. In June the position was that 92 industries had actively entered the field in the border areas. This figure was in respect of the past six years. The number which expanded in the border industries during the same period was 60. I do not know at the moment, and I do not know whether the Minister does, how many have come into operation during the past two months. Sixty-eight industries were in process of investigation. The facts are that these industries collectively had absorbed a total of approximately 54,000 labour units. Just over 42,000 of them were Bantu. But that is not all. That is only the figure in respect of those who are directly concerned with border industries. [Interjection.] I am speaking of the number of people who are concerned in newly established industries, not those which were there before. The fact of the matter is that for every person who is directly employed in a border industry there are those who are employed in the complexes and allied industries. The figure in respect of these persons is 120,000. These 120,000 persons represent a large number of families. Now the hon. member says that the families would have been in the vicinity in any case. That is not so. Does the hon. member not know that there is a constant drift to the urban areas, and that these industries are responsible for reversing that trend and for the fact that these people now remain in the Bantu areas? Does the hon. member not know that the Department of Bantu Administration has been establishing large Bantu towns in all the border areas during the past number of years?

Under their policy all those people would have been in the urban areas.

The people who are now in these Bantu towns are the Bantu families who would have formed a drift to the urban areas. These people are being kept in their own areas to-day. There are not only the direct examples which I have mentioned here now. The beauty of this entire programme lies in the fact that responsible English businessmen who normally do not subscribe to the Government’s policy are expressing their faith in this policy to an increasing extent. The Deputy Minister will be able to mention their names to you, Sir. But that is not all. Does the hon. member know that it is not only in South Africa, but also in the outside world that people are looking with interest at what we are doing here and by what means achievements are being accomplished here? The belief is already being expressed in the outside world that this policy has made a break-through and that this policy is also creating confidence on the part of the outside world. That is indeed happening.

Sir, I want to make another point in this connection. In order to expand and to establish industries it is necessary first to create an infrastructure, an infrastructure which must make provision for roads, proper transport facilities, water, the establishment of towns and all the things which go along with that. Now, the hon. member can understand that, if you ultimately want to create such infrastructures at 40 or 50 places, you cannot start at all those places simultaneously. Certain key points have to be selected. The fact that an achievement such as I have mentioned has been accomplished here, that a few key points have in fact been established, provides proof that if this number of key points, of which there are five at the moment, should become 20 or 30. the probability is that the snowball effect of these first few industries will be of such a nature that we shall see tremendous development taking place in the next few years. A start has been made at a few points only. Not only has time been taken to lay a foundation on which to build, but the hon. member knows that it is also an economic rule that one business attracts other businesses. Once the first undertakings have been established there, the increase in the number of other businesses and industries will be more significant and will take place more easily. It is true that the snowball effect will not only be increased in the few key points, but will also encourage the development of the next key points. Quite a number of them are being planned. I want to mention one of the latest to him. I want to mention the key point of Pietersburg. The hon. member for Pietersburg is sitting over there. He will also be able to address the House. Pietersburg was not one of the first places to be selected. Some of the first places to be selected were those at King William’s Town, Rosslyn and others. Pietersburg only came into the picture at a later stage. Do you know, Sir, that the latest development in Pietersburg is taking place on so large a scale that it is becoming a major key point? It is the first one in the Northern Transvaal. In the North-Eastern Transvaal there is Phalaborwa. A few years ago Phala-borwa was a small place. At the present moment there is such a tremendous surge of business undertakings to Phalaborwa that it is difficult to keep abreast as regards the provision of water supplies and telephone and other services which form the infra-structure. In the whole of the Northern and North-Eastern Transvaal area there are two key points. But planning is being undertaken not only for those two, but also for quite a number of other points. The big achievement lies in the fact that we have been able to show this progress after only a few years, although it was difficult to lay the foundations for those few places. The additional places being planned are four or five times as many as these. We can therefore make the deduction that, with the snowball effect created by the existing key points, plus the effect of the other key points which may be planned, this figure of 42,000 Bantu will probably increase at such a rate during the next six years that it will be more than doubled within that period. [Time limit.]

The Deputy Minister has asked the hon. member for Pinelands to repeat the speech he made this afternoon under the Native Affairs Vote. I can assure him he will get much more on this issue under that Vote, and I hope he will give a better answer than we have just received. Naturally we expect more from the Deputy Minister than from an ordinary member. But the hon. member who has just spoken said they had found work for 42,000 Bantu in six years and it will be doubled in the next six years, or more than doubled. But it will have to be many more times greater than doubled in order to find work for all the Bantu who need work. This is no answer at all, to talk about 42,000 in six years. I would like to ask the Deputy Minister or any member here to tell me how border industries have helped the Bantu in the biggest Reserve in the country. What border industry has helped any Native in the Transkei? There is nothing anywhere near the borders. The hon. member said “Die mooiheid van die beleid” is that English-speaking businessmen are now accepting it. Yes, I know one English-speaking businessman who accepted it, Mr. Lord, and no wonder he accepted it. He has done very well out of it and he would probably like to start more border industries with the same assistance he got before.

Natal accepts that policy.

Where are their border industries in Natal? There is no town in Natal which is more than five miles away from a Native reserve. Any industry started anywhere in Natal could be called a border industry. What nonsense is this? They are ordinary industries which are started in Natal and not border industries. This Deputy Minister is going to have a lot of fun when his Vote comes on, if he considers every industry started in Natal as being a border industry. I would like to remind him that the Tomlinson Commission in 1954, 12 years ago, stressed the urgency of the matter and said that industrial development had to take place at once. They said there was no time for delay, and not only in the border areas but inside the reserves as well. What did we find out last year when we asked the Minister of Bantu Administration how many new jobs had been created for Bantu in the Transkei? He said 864. That is nothing at all. [Interjection.] If this Government did for the Transkei what its Member of Parliament does for it, the Transkei will be much better off. But my complaint has been that the Government will not allow that development to take place. But I do not want to deal with the Natives of the Tanskei; I want to deal with the White people there. I have raised this question before, of the position of Port St. Johns. Now, that Deputy Minister has been to the Transkei, not very successfully. I am not talking of financially now, but politically. He held meetings in the Transkei. [Interjection.] If he wants to forget them we will forget them, too.

What do you mean by “financially”?

I said I was not talking financially. I said the Deputy Minister held unsuccessful political meetings there.

When you speak about “financially”, what do you mean by that? Why do you bring in that word?

I meant nothing at all. I said the Deputy Minister had not had successful meetings there. But I do not know why the Deputy Minister is so sensitive. Has he had unsuccessful meetings financially?

Do not make insinuations. Tell us what you mean.

I am not making any insinuations at all. But I want to get back to Port St. Johns. That is a White area, with White people settled there, and it is completely cut off from the rest of White South Africa. I have raised the position of these people before. Assistance will have to be given to them in some way or other. They are not in the position of the White people elsewhere in the Transkei who may be able to sell their properties to the Bantu. The other villages in the Transkei are being zoned for Black occupation, but not Port St. Johns. There the Bantu will for all time be forbidden to buy. Only Whites can buy there. This question was raised some time ago with this Minister and with the Minister of Planning, and quite rightly the Government appointed a Committee to go into the question and to see what assistance could be given to Port St. Johns. There were all sorts of rumours about developments which were going to take place there, and I would like to ask the Minister to tell us now what this Committee has done and whether it is intended by the Government to put money into the development of Port St. Johns, because I understand from the Minister of Planning that this Minister will deal with the subject. Then I notice an amount of R200,000 set aside for a rebate for industries in the Transkei and the Ciskei, and I would like to know what that amount is for. How much of it is for the Transkei? I know the Ciskei is being assisted and there are some border industries in the Ciskei, but will this help the Transkei in any way? I see the amount has been increased by R20,000 and I would like to know whether this is to assist industry in the Transkei, and what industry is it intended to assist?

First of all I should like to reply briefly to a few questions put to me on Friday. In the first place I want to refer to the questions I was asked by the hon. member for Brakpan, as well as those the hon. member for Pinetown has now asked me. They asked me what was happening in regard to the Kennedy Round. In that regard I just want to say in brief that the negotiations on tariff reduction have progressed very slowly because no agreement could be reached in the E.E.C. in respect of the agricultural problem. After long and drawn out negotiations which almost lead to the breaking-up of the E.E.C., a solution was eventually found and a beginning has now been made as regards further Kennedy negotiations, which will be very difficult negotiations and will still continue for some time.

As hon. members perhaps know the Kennedy Round contains the proposal that all industrial countries should reduce every sing’e import tariff of theirs on a percentage basis, for instance, that all industrial countries should reduce every single import tariff by 50 per cent. That was the Kennedy proposal and industrial countries were expected to submit exceptive proposals, namely that they would submit to the negotiating body lists of those goods in respect of which they did not see their way clear to being subject to a linear reduction. We in South Africa, together with Australia and New Zealand, were not expected to take part in the linear negotiations because we are regarded as a country in an intermediate position, between developed and undeveloped. We are only expected to furnish an offer list; that is, we are the beneficiaries if other countries reduce all of their import tariffs by 50 per cent, and now we must offer something which in our opinion compensates for the benefit we derive from this reduction in tariffs. South Africa handed in its offer list in December last year. The only task we shall have in the negotiations is to state in defence of the offers we have made that they compensate adequately for the benefits we derive from the reduction in tariffs by the other countries, but the other countries will of course dispute it by saying that we should offer more. Under-developed countries play virtually no part. They were only asked to offer to the best of their ability something to compensate for the benefits they receive.

The hon. member also asked me about the G.A.T.T., and whether there were still any sense in our adhering to that agreement. I may just mention that the G.A.T.T. has recently undergone a tremendous metamophosis. Where in former years it was a body consisting mainly of Western and industrialized states and controlled by them, it has in recent times changed into an organization chiefly occupied and controlled by the underdeveloped countries, the Afro-Asian countries in particular. As we see these things, the G.A.T.T. is gradually developing into an organization in which under-developed countries may get the upper hand and be in control and where that organization will be used for their own political ends and especially for their own economic purposes. We must watch this situation very closely. We shall remain a member since we are a signatory to that agreement. In recent times a Chapter IV has been added to the agreement and a protocol for signature has been opened in which the signatories undertake certain obligations in respect of the development of underdeveloped countries, far-reaching obligations. We have not yet signed it, neither do we intend doing so at this stage because we have our own obligations towards our own undeveloped areas in our midst. But we are prepared to have talks with other countries in order to have agreements in the field of economics and trade. But in future we shall have to watch this organization very closely. We should like to co-operate with it and to remain a member, because it has rendered us valuable services in the past. We shall want to remain a member in the future, but we shall watch it closely so that it does not create a political or economic problem for us.

†The hon. member for Parktown asked me about the Common Market negotiations. The hon. member may remember that a few years ago there was the idea that Britain might enter the Common Market and we took some steps to safeguard South Africa’s interests. We are still closely watching the situation, and if anything should happen I can assure the hon. member that we shall again take the necessary steps. The hon. member also asked whether we had an economist at the E.E.C. Yes, we still have two of our best men there. They are not in Brussels at the present moment but in Geneva. Actually, the balance of weight of the Common Market has gradually shifted to Geneva, in connection with the Kennedy Round. We have two very good men there. I wish to assure the hon. member that his idea that we are a bit unfriendly towards private initiative in regard to borrowing an economist from them is not completely true. We are always prepared to receive help from private enterprise, but there are sometimes difficulties. It is not always easy to get a man from private enterprise and to make him perfectly acquainted with the procedure and the policy of a Government Department. It is always better to find a man from our own midst if we possibly can, but we are not against taking somebody from outside if necessary.

*The hon. member for Brakpan asked me about the oil refinery and whether the refineries we have in South Africa can refine a different kind of oil. My reply is that it is not really possible at the moment. Different kinds of oil have different specifications, but at a small cost it is a technical possibility to change over a refinery from one type of oil to another so that in the event of a situation arising where we have to refine different oil, or even our own oil, such a change-over will be possible.

The hon. member for Graaff-Reinet asked me about the South African content of cars manufactured here, and whether we should not calculate it in terms of value instead of weight. We are very much in sympathy with that point of view, but it has been found to be very difficult to put into practice. There are practical reasons which make it difficult. We are still reconsidering the matter. In the meantime we shall leave the protection of local components which are actually significant as regards their value, to the Board of Trade and Industry to protect such local components by means of protective tariffs.

†The hon. member for Kensington has asked me a few very interesting questions. First of all, I must thank him for the interest he takes in my speeches.

That is the only chance we have of getting any information.

He referred to what I said in a speech I made in Cape Town about Bantu education. I think I spoke about increasing the productivity and the earning power of the Bantu, which may well transform the domestic market. He asked me what I meant by these words. I meant what I said. It simply means this, that if we educate the Bantu more and train him better he will be more productive where he works, and particularly more productive and more useful to his own people, whether he works here, on the borders, or in the homelands. The hon. member knows that we find it very difficult these days to find enough suitably trained and educated Bantu to work among their own people. If we train them better we could have more of them who will go to their homelands to serve their own people, and this would release the White people working there at present and allow them to come back here and work for us. If they are better trained they will become better workers and more productive and then they can attract better wages, and if they are paid better they have a greater purchasing power and there will be a bigger market for South African goods. I think it all follows very logically, and that is what I meant. The other points I do not think I will discuss.

The hon. member for Kensington also asked me about the American companies interfering in the affairs of South Africa. I do not think the hon. member expects me to give him any names. I do not want to mention names, but I can assure him that there are companies, American companies and also other companies, but particularly American companies, who constantly attempt to interfere in the domestic affairs of South Africa and try to dictate to us or to force us by economic means to change our policy. We will not allow that. I do not think any party will allow any foreign company, particularly under pressure of its own Government, to try to force South Africa into one direction or other politically.

Is it only American companies who do this?

No, I just said also other companies, but mainly American companies.

The other question is an old hardy annual, the accountability of public corporations. I have discussed this question many times across the floor of the House and I do not propose doing it again to-day. The hon member knows my point of view, that we simply cannot allow business undertakings such as the T.D.C. and the companies falling under the I.D.C. to have their business affairs discussed even by a Committee of Parliament, because that is a public discussion and the report has to be brought out and the business affairs of these companies become public. But I do not want to argue this point much further.

Surely shipping is not such a very private affair?

Mr. Chairman, we have about 25 shipping companies operating here. They are all business undertakings competing with one another. How can we discuss one company’s affairs in public and not the others?

We are the shareholders.

If we are the shareholders it simply means that as a Parliament or as a Committee we are entitled to discuss the private affairs of each and every company in which the I.D.C. has invested a few rand.

With reference to the shipping companies, it is hard to understand, because on the Loan Account there is an item to arrange for the purchase of tankers for the I.D.C.

I do not know what this has to do with the point under discussion. The point raised by the hon. member for Kensington is simply whether a Committee of this House should have the right to go into, not this Vote only, and the amount that is being voted, but to go into how the money is spent and into the activities of the company concerned. I think the furthest we could go, if money is voted by Parliament, is to see to it that that money is spent in the way for which it was voted by Parliament, but not further. We cannot discuss the affairs of any company because there might be confidential reasons why the business is handled in a particular way and that cannot be discussed in public.

Coming to the hon. member for Parktown, he really surprised me. A week or two ago we heard in this House that we as a Government do not know how to manage the boom; that we mismanaged prosperity. But now the hon. member says that just a simple word from me, just the one sentence that prosperity will prevail, is sufficient to keep prosperity going endlessly. In other words, he admits that prosperity is there and that it will increase, but three weeks ago they said that we did not know how to handle this prosperity. I am very grateful for the compliment that one sentence by me is so important that it can keep the whole economy going. But we must remember that I also said that first we must go through the process of stabilization and consolidation; that is a sine qua non. Unless we go through the process of stabilization and consolidation there can be no prosperity. In view of the many questions which are nut to me every day as to what the future of South Africa is, not the short-term future but the long-term future, must I tell them that there is going to be a recession in South Africa? Is that what my hon. friend wants? If I believe that there will be prosperity in South Africa for the next 25 years after we have gone through this period of stabilization and consolidation, why should I hide it; why should I not say it to the public? But there is also another point: There will be prosperity in South Africa; there will be development, but for the next few years that development will take place at a slower tempo. When we took these credit control measures and the interest rate measures, it was not our intention to slow down the economy to such an extent that there will be a depression in South Africa. There will still be development but that development will be at a slower rate than we have had over the last few years.

The hon. member raised the question of price control over mineral waters. I know it is a most difficult matter; it just goes to show the difficulty of price control. There was an honest attempt by the Price Controller in the first instance to fix the price of mineral waters in order to enable him to negotiate with the interests concerned. It is not right to say, as the hon. member did, that he should have negotiated. He did negotiate and his latter decisions were based on negotiations with the interests concerned. But there are difficulties and there will be difficulties in connection with price control, in the case of every commodity and particularly in the case of this type of commodity. We are still trying at this moment to iron out the difficulties. I think the Price Controller has done a service to the country, as the hon. member for Florida has pointed out. because we know that in many cases the retailers of mineral waters have been exploiting the public.

The hon. member for Pinelands has asked me about border industries. I do not want to enter into this controversy between him and the hon. the Deputy Minister. I just want to reply to the question which he put to me with regard to the employment figures in the border areas. There is a great deal of misunderstanding on this point and I can understand why there is this misunderstanding. I gave a reply the other day to a question which was put to me by the hon. member for Pinetown with regard to this matter. It was stated in that reply that there was an investment of R33,000,000 by the I.D.C. and an investment of R160,000,000 by the private sector and that the employment figure was about 42,500 Bantu. Let me be quite clear on this point. This figure of R160,000,000 applies to industries of which we are aware. It refers to industries which have applied for assistance in connection with the establishment of border industries. There is no registration or licensing of industries in South Africa, as the hon. member knows. We do not know of all the industries in the border areas. We only become aware of the establishment of industry it applies to us for assistance, and this figure of R160,000,000 refers to industries which have approached our Department for help.

May I ask a question so as to get clarity in this regard? If a new industry is established in a border town and it does not get assistance from the Department, do you still regard that new industry as a border industry because it has been established in a border town?

Of course, it is a border industry, but the industries to which the hon. member referred are not included in this figure of R160,000,000 or in the combined figure of R193,000,000. The R193,000,000 only applies to those industries financed by the I.D.C. or to industries which have applied for some form of assistance.

Do you think it is likely that industrialists will establish border industries without applying for financial assistance?

Numerous industries have been established in border areas without having applied for assistance. There are numbers of large industries there which have not applied for assistance. There is the Frame Group, for example, which is a powerful group and which operates only in border areas, without assistance from the State. I could mention a whole series of such large industries.

May I ask a question?

Let me just dispose of this point.

Order! Hon. members must stop asking questions.

I think the figure referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister was in respect of those other industries which are also located in border areas. The figure might even be higher than R300,000,000; it may be R400,000,000; we do not know.

But the Frame Group has been there for 40 years.

That does not matter. In the meantime they have expanded because they have found it profitable to be in border areas.

May I just get this point clear? Every new industry which establishes itself in Pietermaritzburg (because Pietermaritzburg is now included in the Minister’s list of border towns) will be regarded by your Department as a new border industry, whether it applies to the Department for assistance or not?

If they are in a border area then they are border industries. Many of these industries go to the border areas without applying for assistance to the Government because they find it the best areas for their purposes. These areas are relatively developed areas; the necessary services have been provided. These areas have been opened up and they go to these areas because there are established industries there already.

Like Pietermaritzburg?

Like Pietermaritzburg, Rosslyn and Pietersburg and many other places.

Why do you not declare every city a border area and solve the problem in that way?

We do not want to be facetious about this matter. I think it is a very serious matter. I think I have made it clear that the higher figure of R300,000,000 or more applies to all the other industries located in border areas but which have not all been established there as a result of assistance given by the Government.

In view of the Minister’s explanation of the figure, may I put this question to him: Are you including among the 42,000 Bantu, all Bantu working in what are called border areas by the Government, even though half or more of them may have been there long before the border industry policy was proclaimed?

No, let me state the position quite clearly. I have already said that the figure of R160,000,000 refers to industries that came to the permanent committee and asked for help to establish themselves as border area industries. This figure does not include all new industries or expansions of existing industries. This figure does not include those numerous industries about which we do not know anything. We do not include Sappi; we do not include Frame; and there are many of the industries in Phalaborwa which are not included. They are not included in this figure.

May I ask a question?

Order! The hon. member can make his own speech afterwards.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has been very kind in answering our questions. I am not trying to harass him; I am merely trying to get clarity. Since he has kindly yielded, may I put a question to him?

The hon. member may proceed.

The Minister has claimed that 42,000 Bantu have been given employment in border industries. Have they all been employed since the announcement of the border industry policy?

We did not count each and everyone of them. It would be completely impossible to draw the line here or there, but these Bantu are all employed in industries which came to the Government for assistance.

*The hon. member for Simonstad asked me to prohibit at once all trawlers from operating in the vicinity of False Bay Harbour. We are already in possession of the report of the commission of inquiry which investigated the matter. That report is being studied by us at the moment. Many of the recommendations contained in that report have already been implemented, some of them were implemented many years ago. It seems to us as though some of the recommendations are based on false assumptions or, at any rate, on insufficient information. That report is being studied, but I think the hon. member is asking me too much when he asks that we should tell him at this juncture that we shall close False Bay Although we think highly of anglers, the fact remains that the tremendous South African fishing industry is of very great value to us,, and such a decision to close False Bay to the fishing industry cannot be taken lightly.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the waters of False Bay are absolutely essential for the progress and the development of the fishing industry in South Africa?

During certain times of the year the fishing industry caught 60 per cent of their fish in False Bay; I am now referring to surface fish.

Because it is an easy place.

No, it is not because it is an easy place. As the hon. member knows, fish are living creatures which move around. False Bay is situated between various currents, and those currents influence life in False Bay, the life and the movements of fish. One cannot determine beforehand whether the fish will be mainly in or outside False Bay. For that reason it is very difficult to take a final decision in this regard.

Can they not wait until the fish come out?

Mr. Chairman, I do not think that we can hold a personal conversation across the floor of the House.

Order! I think the hon. member should stop being naive.

†The MINTSTER: I then come to the last two questions put to me by the hon. member for Transkei. The first was in regard to Port St. Johns. Of course, we had this committee to go into the future of Port St. Johns and the advisability of the further development of that port. The report has not yet been released. We are considering it at the present moment. I should be quite happy to have a discussion with the hon. member and in the meantime ta show him the report confidentially. We can then discuss the future of Port St. Johns. I hope that will satisfy him.

The last point which was put to me was in connection with the R200,000 in respect of the Transkei and the Ciskei. The hon. member knows that we have discussed this matter here previously. This is a railage subsidy which is paid to the industries of the Transkei and the Ciskei, because of the problems they have in connection with the long distances and the heavy freight charges for their raw materials, and because they are far removed from the main markets of the country, railage charges constituted a very heavy burden on those industries and militated against the development of industries in the Transkei and the Ciskei. That is why there is a 10 per cent subsidy on railage on articles produced in that area and sold outside that area.

On any type of article?

On any type of article that merits assistance. I would not say that it applies to a house or cottage industry but it applies to most industrial articles which are of any value to the Transkei and the Ciskei; they are transported outside the territory at a 10 per cent rebate. I could not tell the hon. member which portion applies to the Transkei and which to the Ciskei. We could get that information from the Railways but I think it would be very difficult to ascertain these figures.

Do they have to apply for the rebate? Does it not apply to all articles transported from the Transkei or the Ciskei?

Yes, they have to apply for it, but the subsidy scheme is managed by the Railway Administration which then reports to this Department.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 24,—“Posts, Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services, R92,100,000”, and Loan Vote C,—“Telegraphs, Telephones and Radio Services, R29,172,000”.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask for the privilege of the half-hour? I think the hon. the Minister will probably be pleasantly surprised to hear that this year, unlike last year, we are not going to move a reduction in his salary, at any rate not at this stage. The reason is perhaps not so much that he has shown tremendous improvement as a Minister during the past 12 months, but rather that there has been an election and that we now want to express the hope that there is perhaps some hope of his turning over a new leaf. As a matter of fact, if the hon. the Minister should give us some good news in connection with television, then, if it were not for the rules of the House, I would even move that his salary be increased.

As unofficially agreed, we are first going to deal with Posts and Telegraphs and related matters, and then a word will be said about the S.A.B.C., television, and so forth, at a later stage. One of the most important duties of the hon. the Minister is to see to the staff of the Post Office. After the Railways the Post Office is the largest State Department in South Africa. The Post Office has 48,000 employees, almost half as many as the Public Service, and 36,000 of them are permanent officials. The welfare of these 48,000 persons, the welfare of their families, the welfare, in other words, of more than 100,000 South Africans, is in the hands of the hon. the Minister and in the hands of his Department, at the head of which is the Postmaster-General. While I am speaking of the Postmaster-General I just want to say this: This is the first time since the appointment of the new Postmaster-General that this Vote is discussed here and I think it will only be proper for me to associate myself with what the hon. the Minister said at the end of the previous session, when we did not have the opportunity to associate ourselves with what he said, and to express the appreciation of this side of the House for the services rendered by the previous Postmaster-General. We can testify to the fact that the relations between the Department and us—and I am sure between the other side of the House and the Department as well—were always excellent during Mr. Botes’s term of office. We want to wish him every success in his new sphere of activity. We think that he acquitted himself very well of his task as Postmaster-General. Accordingly we want to express our appreciation for his services and at the same time we want to welcome the new Postmaster-General to his new office. His career in the Post Office prior to his appointment as Postmaster-General was an illustrious one. I am sure that he will occupy his place in the row of Postmasters-General of South Africa with distinction.

I now come to the staff. We know that a considerable number of changes have been made in the conditions of service of the postal staff during the past few months. We know how for a long, frustration-ridden period of 16 months pleas were made to the Minister for an improvement in conditions of service; how the Staff Association did its utmost; how we had to plead in this House over and over again for the shocking conditions of service to be changed. On the other hand we know how the Minister chopped and changed time and again week after week, month after month, and first refused to effect any improvement in the conditions of service. We know that he first said that there was no money; that he then promised to effect improvements and that no improvements were effected; we know that he subsequently made small concessions that were not the same as had been promised, and that in the end an improvement in conditions of service was, after all, announced which caused general satisfaction on the part of the Post Office staff.

We must remember, however, that that was done after there had nearly been a collapse of the postal services in South Africa; it was done after there had been the largest number of resignations in the history of South Africa, and if that state of affairs had continued any longer and higher authorities had not intervened, we could have had a collapse of postal services in South Africa. For that reason I say that the hon. the Minister cannot claim much credit for himself as far as these improved salary scales and conditions of service are concerned. These improvements are due to the hard work of the staff associations, the public of South Africa, and this side of the House.

I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister has introduced certain changes pleaded for by this side of the House. Year after year we drew the attention of the House to the fact that the Post Office was being placed in an inferior position as compared with other State Departments in the country. We pointed out that it was possible for only a very small percentage of the Post Office staff to occupy high-ranking posts and that the vast majority of the posts were occupied by low-paid staff. I am glad to see that a sound start has been made in this regard and that this position has now changed. Last year, before these increases were announced, only 472 posts out of all those tens of thousands of posts carried a salary of R3,000 or more. At present there are more than 7,400 such posts. I acknowledge that that is an improvement and I hope the hon. the Minister will acknowledge that that is something for which we on this side of the House pleaded frequently and for a long time.

Now, however, the question arises: What is going to become of that additional remuneration in view of the tremendous increase in the cost of living over the past few months? Is the Minister again going to be too late in making the necessary adjustments? Is it again going to be the position within a year or two that the Post Office workers will have to say, “Yes, the increases were too small and they came too late as well”? I think we have the right to demand that the Minister should keep an eye on the position, particularly now that the Post Office enjoys a larger measure of autonomy as a result of the establishment of the Post Office Staff Board, and that the Minister should see to it that the salaries will be timeously adjusted to the tremendous increase in the cost of living which is imminent. The hon. the Minister should realize that he may be responsible, if he wants to be so irresponsible, for a heavy increase in the cost of living. We know how increases in communications and transport charges cause an increase in the cost of living. In the same way an increase in telecommunications charges can cause an increase in the cost of living. If there is an increase in telephone charges throughout the country it affects the whole of industry throughout South Africa; it affects the workers; it affects the profits; it affects income and eventually, and very soon too, if affects the cost of living.

We are therefore entitled to demand from the Minister that he should see to it, since the cost of living is increasing so phenomenally at the moment, that he does not increase the charges of the Post Office in the foreseeable future. We must remember that in the year 1965-6, the last year in respect of which figures are available, the Post Office made a profit of R18,000,000, R4,000,000 more than in the preceding year. There is therefore no justification whatsoever for any plans, if the Minister should have any such plans, to increase the charges of the Post Office.

I am still dealing with the position of the staff, and there are certain problems which arise in that connection. The first is automation and its effect on the Post Office staff. I regard automation as something inevitable; on the whole I regard it as something that is essentially in the growing economy of South Africa, but along with it, and particularly in the Post Office, we shall get the usual problems in connection with it. There is the problem of persons whose work is taken over by machines; there is the problem of persons whose training is not so designed as to enable them to work with these new machines; there is the problem of the delaying of promotion and even the problem of unemployment as a result of automation. I know that the hon. the Minister is aware of these problems. I want to inquire of him, however, what progress has already been made with the training of Post Office staff to provide them with the necessary technical knowledge to enable them to serve in other branches of the postal service. Although automation is inevitable, the unemployment and the suffering which it can sometimes bring for the ordinary worker can be avoided, and in that regard the Post Office and the Minister should begin to play their part in good time.

Another question that has occurred to me in connection with the Post Office staff during recent years is this: As from 1st January, 1966, the ordinary language tests which used to apply in the Post Office were done away with and a new method of testing language proficiency was introduced. In most cases it amounts to this, that the Department need only certify that a person’s qualifications for a particular post are good enough; that he is sufficiently bilingual for the post concerned. My comments on that are of three kinds. The first is that we in the United Party have always said that it would be a good thing if the language requirements were relaxed in the case of persons who do not come into contact with the public, particularly as far as the technical staff is concerned. You may get trained technical staff who have only been in this country for two years and who are capable of rendering good service in the Post Office. We have asked that they should not be refused promotion because they are not completely proficient in both languages. My second comment in this connection is this: If these language tests have been done away with because new employees in the Post Office do not possess the desired standard of proficiency in the two languages, then I think it is a very unfavourable comment indeed on bilingualism in South Africa to-day. I hope the hon. the Minister will see to it that persons in the postal service who come into contact with the public are thoroughly bilingual and I hope that the language tests have not been done away with to satisfy one section of the population alone. My third comment in this connection is this: I hope that this partial relaxation will also apply to a certain small section in the Post Office, a section which has suffered as a result of these tests for many years, and that is the old members of the staff who did not learn both languages at school and who are still having trouble in passing the test in one or other of the languages and who have been refused promotion year after year because they have not attained a sufficient degree of proficiency in both languages. I hope that the relaxation will to some extent apply to these faithful servants who have waited for promotion for many years.

I hope the hon. the Minister will be guided by his own words in the Other Place two years ago when he spoke about the problems of the Post Office staff and said, “Human beings cannot carry on working indefinitely like machines; they are subject to exhaustion and other problems”. He should bear that in mind when he has to deal with the problems and the overtime difficulties of the staff in the future. He should bear in mind that the Post Office has a longer working week at present than most other State Departments. He should bear in mind that he often wastes the time of Post Office officials unnecessarily, as he did a few years ago when he employed the services of many of the officials for the purpose of opening postal articles in order to ascertain whether or not they contained Rhodesian lottery tickets. And it was not simply a matter of hundreds. In one year alone 60,000 letters were opened and in one year alone R180,000 in lottery money was held back. What a senseless waste of man-power, and that at a time when we needed every man and woman in the Post Office service so urgently!

When the hon. the Minister asks us to consider the Post Office worker, does he also consider the conditions under which the staff have to work to-day? For example, the Post Office now has a backlog of 25 years as far as its building programme is concerned—an indefensible state of affairs which affects the public and which has a detrimental effect on the Post Office worker in his daily work. He has poor facilities, poor lighting, poor washing facilities, poor toilet facilities—in a word, miserable conditions which prevail in hundreds and hundreds of post offices to-day. As a matter of fact, I want to suggest that the post offices at, for example, Durban or Port Elizabeth or Pretoria should be declared historical monuments. Then they will probably be looked after better than is the case to-day. In any case, I think it is wrong that the Post Office should be allowed to spend only R12,000 on the erection of new, and improvements to existing, buildings. What is more, I understand that these improvements and new buildings are limited to buildings of less than R50,000. But if changes have been made in this regard in the meantime, I shall be glad to hear about them.

I now want to say something about the services being rendered to the public by the Post Office to-day. As far as telephone services are concerned, no one can deny that the quality of those services as well as the quality of ordinary postal services has shown a downward trend in the past year. And I am not blaming the staff for that. They have to work very hard under the most impossible circumstances in order to provide the services they would like to provide. I know that they often suffer frustration through the lack of support on the part of the Minister and also that they are sometimes at a loss what to do when they see that there is not enough capital for expanding the services rendered by the Post Office. There is only one person to be blamed for that and that is the hon. the Minister. Do you know, Mr. Chairman, that the number of telephones for which people have applied but which cannot be provided has trebled in the past two years? On 31st March, 1964, it was 11,900 and two years later, i.e. on 31st March, 1966, it was 33,000—three times as many. There can therefore be no question of there having been any improvement in this particular respect. And I am sure that if the hon. the Minister can give us the figures, we shall see that the position is even worse to-day.

How many have been installed in the meantime?

I know that a large number have been installed. Of course a large number have been installed. But if it is the policy of the Government to provide only 100 if 110 are required or 1,000 when 2,000 are required, surely the position will become worse every year? That goes without saying. Although there has been a small increase in the capital expenditure, there has been a decrease in the expenditure under one important sub-head of capital expenditure, namely “Telephone Subscribers Plant”, from R5,300,000 to R4,700,000 between 1964-5 and 1965-6. That is R500,000 less, and that during a period known as the boom period. We are entitled to ask the Minister to tell us exactly what his policy is in regard to capital expansion in the Post Office. What is he doing to obtain the capital required for expanding telephone services? We are being told to-day that there is not enough capital in the country. Money is difficult to obtain and therefore the Post Office cannot get sufficient funds for expanding telephone and postal services. But let us see what this same Minister said during the boom period. Then, surely, there was money available. Or then, surely, he could have obtained money. Did he say at that time that we could obtain money in a boom period, although not in a recession? Let me quote from what he said in the Other Place in 1963, that is to say, in the year of the boom—

In other words, although there was a boom in 1965 he was nevertheless unable to obtain the capital. To-day, again, he says that he cannot obtain the capital because there is a recession. What is in reality the policy of the hon. the Minister as regards obtaining capital for Post Office services?

I am afraid that we on this side of the House do not have much faith in the promises made by the hon. the Minister, nor do we have much faith in his descriptions of the wonderful future awaiting the postal services. Just consider one aspect of the telephone services, namely the tremendous delays experienced in connection with trunk calls, delays which are becoming worse year after year. Hon. members on the opposite side will also admit that. And do you know, Mr. Chairman, that this year, 1966, was to have been the year of the Utopia, that is to say, the year in which there would no longer have been any delays? I have before me part of the speech made by the hon. the Minister in the Other Place in 1965, when he discussed the micro-wave system. That is of course an excellent system with which one can put through trunk calls from Cape Town to Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg by means of micro-installations, and while one can perhaps handle only 30 such trunk calls under the present system, one can handle 400 such calls simultaneously by means of the micro-wave system. In regard to this system the hon. the Minister said in the Other Place in 1965 that they were at that moment carrying out the surveying work in connection with and working on the erection of microwave towers between Bloemfontein and Port Elizabeth. That was after the tower between Johannesburg and Bloemfontein had already been erected. The Minister said at the time that he hoped that that system would be in operation from Johannesburg via Bloemfontein to Port Elizabeth by April, 1966, or by the middle of that year. That would have eliminated all the trunk call delays on that line. But now I challenge the hon. the Minister to deny that that system is still not in operation to-day and that the chances that it will be in operation before the end of this year are very remote.

On that occasion the hon. the Minister also said that the micro-wave system would be completed to Cape Town by 1967 and that we would then be able to make calls from Cape Town via Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg and that it would be possible to handle 400 calls simultaneously as compared with 30 at the time when the hon. the Minister made the statement. Is the hon. the Minister going to keep that promise? Is this problem going to be solved by next year? We shall take note of his reply and if he does not do that, we shall accuse him of having failed to carry out yet another promise.

By way of summarizing I want to say that the position in regard to our Post Office services is deteriorating and that the hon. the Minister is not doing his duty as regards obtaining the capital required for expansion. As far as telephone services are concerned, the hon. the Minister makes promises which he cannot carry out.

But I now want to leave this aspect, as there are a few other matters that I want to raise. In the first place I want to know from the Minister what the plans are of the South African Cable Corporation which is going to lay the cable between South Africa and Europe. Last year in June I asked him where the terminal point was going to be, what the capital was going to be and how long it was going to take to put it into operation. His reply on that occasion was that he did not consider it in the public interest to make a statement in that connection. More than a year has elapsed since. We have seen reports in the newspapers that the I.D.C. is going to undertake the work and that the terminal point will be on the Iberian Peninsula. It has also been envisaged that by 1969 it will be possible to dial from South Africa to any other place in the world. Those are fine words. As for me, I would be glad if I could dial from Johannesburg to Pretoria without experiencing any delay. But f would be pleased if the hon. the Minister would give us further information about the progress being made by this company. This House is entitled to that, because money is to be voted for the company.

The other matter I want to raise is in connection with Comsat, the “Early Bird” satellites which are orbiting the world. When the conference was held, we were only granted one miserable little channel on the Early Bird. I think Australia was granted eight channels. But are we making sufficient use of the one channel we received? Since we joined Comsat, have we done anything to introduce telecommunication by means of these satellites? Sir, I can give you the reply to that off-hand, and that is that the hon. the Minister has not yet done anything in that connection.

It is necessary to build installations in South Africa, but has a start been made with drawing up plans? Has anything been asked for on the Estimates for that purpose? We want to know. We are a member of an international organization and we have a share in a system which is going to be one of the largest telecommunication systems in the world in the future, even for television. Yet we find that the hon. the Minister has done nothing about it yet. In February last year the statement was made in the programme “Current Affairs” on the radio that the Government was adopting a policy of “wait and see”. It first wanted to see what lay concealed under the feathers of the Early Bird. That is a year and a half ago already and we are therefore entitled to ask what has been done in the meantime and if nothing has been done, why nothing has been done.

The last matter I want to raise with the Minister is the part played by the Post Office in censorship. In terms of the Post Office Act, as amended, the hon. the Minister may keep back postal articles, which articles then have to be sent to the Publications Board. I have no quarrel with that. That is quite in order. But according to my information hundreds of articles and even more are kept back which are not submitted to the Publications Board, but which are simply kept back for quite a few weeks while some person sits brooding on them and which are then eventually let through. It is therefore a form of censorship, a form of additional censorship which is shared with Customs, something which is not right and about which something therefore has to be done. [Time limit.]

While I was listening to the hon. member for Orange Grove, it occurred to me that he was switching so rapidly from one point to the next that it was not clear whether he was discussing Railway matters or postal matters. It is quite clear to me, of course, why the hon. member does not feel free to come along this year and propose a reduction in the hon. the Minister’s salary. Because if I belonged to a party that had gone to the people of South Africa and had made so much ado about television and had received such a drubbing, I would not have felt free to come to this House and move such a motion.

The hon. member referred to certain shortcomings, shortcomings particularly as regards services. I cannot deal with all the points he mentioned, but there are in fact certain points on which I want to spend some time. Amongst other things the hon. member said here that the postal service would collapse unless there were certain improvements. If we refer only to what was spent in the past year on automation and the expansion of our telecommunications system, we find that according to this annual report an amount of more than R24,000,000 was spent. That shows that the increase in the amount spent in respect of expansion, equalled 8 per cent. If we consider that our country’s normal development rate is 5½ per cent, then I do not believe the hon. member has the right to point at this side of the House and to say that our postal service and our telecommunications system will collapse. Because, Sir, we have not only kept abreast of normal development, but we have even spent more on development than the normal development rate in the country.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to use this opportunity firstly to thank the hon. the Minister in particular for the post office we obtained in Vanderbijlpark in the past year. It is a well-equipped and attractive building. The voters of that constituency are particularly proud of it and I want to assure the hon. the Minister that we appreciate it very much.

I want to analyse the criticism levelled here against the hon. the Minister and his Department, particularly as regards our telephone services. Emphasis was placed in particular on the shortages in those services and on the delays that accompany them. The hon. member referred to 33,017 telephones which were purported to be outstanding at the end of the financial year, on 31st March. But why does not the hon. member take the statistics he has at his disposal and present them to this House? The hon. member for Berea asked the hon. the Minister a question and asked what the position of our telephone services was from 1955 up to and including 1966. He wanted to know how many outstanding applications there were in each year, and how many services were provided. But, Sir, the hon. member now comes along and says that the services deteriorated in the past year. That is true—they have shown a deterioration in the past year. But let us take the period in respect of which we have figures available. I shall come back to the deterioration to which the hon. member re erred. It is quite clear to us that in these times of prosperity, in these times of tremendous development and growth in this country, a telephone is no longer only an absolutely essential item, as it was in the past. It has in fact become a convenient means of communication. I grant it to everybody to have it. But as a result of that prosperity and of the times in which we live, the demand for telephones has increased tremendously. It is therefore obvious that Posts and Telegraphs cannot supply them as readily as in the past.

But to come to the figures mentioned by the hon. member. If we consider that in the past year the number of telephone sets increased by approximately 59,000, and if we compare that with the figure in respect of the previous year, we see that the increase amounted to more than 6 per cent. That again proves that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has not only kept abreast of our normal development, but has even exceeded it. Apparently the hon. member dared not present the figures he had available to this House. I put it that way, Sir, because that is the way in which the hon. member tries to mislead the public outside. If we consider the areas where the demands occurred and in respect of which the question was asked, then we see that they include the nine major centres in our country. The question referred to Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town, Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, Kimberley and East London. The question was how many telephones were outstanding in each of those municipal areas at the end of the financial year. The hon. member received the reply. In the short period at my disposal it is impossible for me to present the full details to the House. I have therefore made a summary of the position. If we analyse the actual position in those areas in the year 1955, we find that on 31st March, 1956, altogether 46,466 applications for telephones were outstanding. If we take the financial year ended 31st March, 1966, then the total number of outstanding applications in those areas was only 24,123. That was almost 50 per cent less than in 1955. How did the hon. member arrive at that terrible deterioration? Let us consider the services provided over the same period. What do we find then? We find that in the financial year 1956 37,260 telephones were provided, and in the financial year 1966 80,647 sets were provided. That is almost twice as many sets as those provided in 1955. What gave the hon. member the right to come and claim in this House that there had been a deterioration? What right does he have? The hon. member mentioned nothing here to prove to this House that there had been any deterioration. His arguments were hollow. He merely quoted figures. He quoted the figure 33,017. That sounds as though a tremendous number of telephones were outstanding on 31st March. But let us analyse the figures to determine their significance. The hon. member did not do that. No, Mr. Chairman, he evaded that. If we analyse the figures and measure them by the number of telephones available to the public of South Africa, we find that a meagre 3 per cent were outstanding. If we consider that 80,000 telephones were installed in the past financial year, then the number outstanding was not equal to the figure in respect of five months. Now I ask you: where is that tremendous deterioration that the hon. member pretended had occurred?

It is in his imagination.

Yes, it is merely in his imagination. Now one can understand, if that is the way they juggle with figures, why they are the opposition party they are to-day.

Sir, the hon. member for Pinelands asked certain questions. He asked the hon. the Minister how long the waiting periods in respect of telephones were. And, Sir, not one of the hon. members on the opposite side will dare to mention those figures. Because the figures will show that there is actually no waiting period. As a result of our tremendous development we find new township areas being laid out. There one finds applications for telephones from time to time. Obviously the post office cannot install a telephone for every applicant. Surely that is far-fetched. Surely it is illogical. A network has to be designed. One cannot do the work piecemeal. One can therefore understand that if there are new township areas, new extensions, new developments, circumstances will arise where some persons may have to wait longer for a telephone than would normally be the case.

If we want to be honest, we have to admit that the rate may be increased more rapidly. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reply at length to what the hon. member has just said. He has said nothing. In any event, he has not said much. He alleged, however, that the hon. member for Orange Grove and the United Party as such had made much ado about television during the recent election. But I noticed that he did not go much further. Because, Mr. Chairman, he like all the other hon. members on the opposite side, will soon have to swallow his words about television. Because it will come, as surely as we are sitting here to-day. They will not be able to stop it. Those hon. members should not say too much about it, because the less they say about it, the better.

Another matter he raised was the tremendous leeway. I think the hon. member hit the nail on the head when he said that the Government had simply not kept abreast of the development that had occurred. He said that when a new town was laid out, it would be ridiculous to give a telephone to every house. But in the same breath the hon. member said that everybody wanted telephones. Every home wants a telephone. It is a modern convenience. It should therefore be planned to provide every house and every business with a telephone. The planning should be there. And that is our complaint, namely that the planning was not there.

Mr. Chairman, I think all of us in this House will agree that there are usually three heads under which hon. members of this House are approached by the public as regards the postal services. In the first place many people complain about the delivery of mail. In the second place many people complain, firstly that they cannot obtain a telephone, and secondly that when they have a telephone, there are tremendous delays before they can get through to certain places and to certain concerns. In the third place—and under this head we receive many complaints from the public—we hear complaints that a considerable number of parcels are lost in the post office.

Now, Sir, I want to say a few words about the first complaint, namely the delivery of mail and postal articles. I want to bring it to the hon. the Minister’s attention that in those parts in respect of which there were complaints about irregular and late deliveries of mail, parts where there were not enough Whites to deliver the mail, the position improved immediately when non-Whites were employed. The non-Whites were available. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it will not be a good idea to employ more non-Whites for that kind of work.

If I had been asked, I would have said “no”.

Why cannot the hon. the Minister do that? Not only can the non-Whites render the services, but by employing them Whites can also be released to do work in other sections of the post office where there may be shortages. Surely there are at present many people walking about with a mailbag at their sides who are suitable for more important things. I am convinced of that.

The second complaint—which has already been dealt with—is that everybody cannot obtain telephones, and that the leeway is increasing continually. Do you know, Sir, that in the part of Pretoria where I live we find it exceptionally difficult to get through to towns that are not really very far away. I am thinking of calls from Pretoria to places like Potchefstroom, Parys, Vredefort, and such places. Sometimes one struggles a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes before you get through to those exchanges. They are manual exchanges. Let us take the example of a call from Pretoria to Potchefstroom. You first have to dial 03, then 998, then you reach the exchange at your objective. Once you get through to the man at the Potchefstroom exchange, you are fine. Then you have him, and you keep hold of him. But when you dial 03, Sir, one of three things may happen. Firstly—and I know this sounds funny—nothing happens. Nothing whatsoever happens. You try again, and on the third or fourth attempt you get dialling tone at Potchefstroom, and there the same happens all over again. You wait and wait and wait, for a long time. I do not know whether it is a defect in the equipment or whether the exchanges are overloaded. But that is one of the matters that will definitely have to be set right as far as the telephone services are concerned.

I now come to the third point, and that is the question of parcels that are lost in the post office. We know that if you register a parcel, you receive a receipt, but if you despatch an ordinary parcel, you hand it across the counter and then you simply hope that it will reach the other end. You have no proof that it has been handed in, and a considerable number of parcels are lost. I presume that if you send something very valuable, you would insure it, but there are many smaller parcels that are not of great value, though it is in any event not good enough that those parcels should disappear.

What becomes of them?

I do not know. The Minister should tell us. In the past three months I myself have lost one parcel, but those are the complaints one hears and nobody can deny that it happens. I wonder whether it is not possible for the Department to issue a receipt when a parcel is handed in, just as in the case of registered articles.

The hon. member for Vereeniging quoted a bunch of figures. It has become customary in this House that if the Government is driven into a corner, figures are quoted. But the public is not interested in figures. What they want is telephones and services, and they want their mail delivered. Figures do not give us those services. If all those figures are correct, then we ask the Department to spend more and to give the public those services.

It is clear that the hon. members on the opposite side who have taken part in the debate so far, know the Post Office only from the outside. Fortunately I know it from the inside as well, because I worked in the Post Office for many years. I may also say that if we had this Minister as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in those years, I would probably not have been here today. The treatment we received in those days, under the United Party Government, was of such a nature that one really had reason to complain, and that was one of the reasons why I left.

The hon. member for North Rand pleaded with the Minister that some form of receipt should be issued when one hands in a parcel. There is such a service. If the hon. member paid 1 cent, he would receive such a receipt for any postal article. The hon. member also complained about the delivery of postal articles. I may tell him that I am still in very close contact with my ex-colleagues in Johannesburg and Germiston. To mention just one example, last year I sent an hon. member of this House a telegram in the morning, and the very next day his reply was delivered to me. That is evidence of quick delivery. The hon. member and others also complained about the installation of telephones. Because I am interested in my constituency, I have made a survey of the position there. Now you know that Germiston District is situated on the Rand. It is a very large industrial centre, and you may assume that what applies to Germiston district also applies to the entire Rand, and if it applies to the Rand it must also apply to most parts of the country. My constituency is served by six exchanges, and from 1st April to 30th June, 1966, 86 applications were received in Kensington and 78 telephones were provided. At Alberton 89 applications were received and 64 telephones were provided. At Germiston 105 applications were received and 92 telephones were provided. At Primrose 109 applications were received and 103 telephones were provided. At Wadeville 26 applications were received and 15 were provided. I may tell you that at Wadeville the situation is not as desired. The exchange there is a temporary one where 1,000 lines were recently provided, but the development there has been so tremendous that the Post Office could not keep up with it very well. At Benoni no applications for farm lines had been received and none were outstanding. If one examines this Post Office report and considers it from the point of view of the businessman, one will see that it is a most satisfactory report. During the year the profit increased by R9,000,000. The revenue increased by 9 per cent. The increase in personnel was only 1.6 per cent. It testifies to great efficiency that a revenue increase of 9 per cent could be effected by means of only 1.6 per cent additional personnel. Any business undertaking would be jealous of the Post Office. A considerable number of exchanges were established in that year. At Joubert Park in Johannesburg an exchange was established that provides 8,864 additional lines. At Lewisham, in Krugersdorp, there were 2,175, and at Linton Grange, in Port Elizabeth, 2,600 lines were supplied. At North Rand 1,384 new lines were provided. The time does not allow me to quote more figures, but I may tell you that the morale of the Post Office staff is at present higher than at any time in history since 1936. The men and women are satisfied, and in. the light of my constant contact with them I may tell you that the Post Office staff has never, under any Minister, been as contented as under the present Minister.

I am very glad to find the hon. members opposite so satisfied with the postal services, but I wonder whether their constituents are quite as satisfied. In the report for the year 1964-5 the figure of 18,660 is given as the number of telephones which had been applied for but which could not be supplied. In terms of a question put by the hon. member for Orange Grove, this number had risen to some 33,000 by March, 1966. At the same time, in the telex service, there was a shortage in 1964-5 of 186 telex units. If we look at the report of the Postmaster-General for 1964-5, we will find that the total profits of the Post Office amounted to R17,681,364, and of that figure R14,226,105 was achieved through the telephone services. In other words, practically the entire profit of the Post Office was derived from its telephone services. Now, I tried to impress upon the Minister before, and I do so again, that where you are making a profit out of a service you should extend that service as far as is humanly possible, and that every single person who wants a telephone should get one, because that is what private enterprise does in other parts of the world. It is no good the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark saying that if you have a new township or village you cannot expect to get telephones. This is part of basic planning to-day. When a new township is set up in an area, the telephone service should be planned at the same time. The Department should know where the townships are going to be, for Heaven alone knows it takes you long enough to get a township, anything from two to three years. The position throughout the world is that telephones are profitable business, and when you are in profitable business you supply the demand. That is what you are in business for. We are not running the telephone services on proper business lines when there are 33,000 people wanting telephones, and that figure could be trebled if telephones were available, and on each a profit could be made.

There are a few small matters in regard to our telephone services. One is that in the Johannesburg exchanges one constantly seems to get wrong numbers. I do not know whether this is due to over-loading or not, but the chances are that once out of every ten times one dials one gets the wrong number. The second is the faintness of the lines. There seems to be periods when the lines are so faint that one cannot hear the conversation. The third thing is the weight of the telephones. We changed from the black to the grey telephones. and the first ones issued were very light in weight. The new ones are heavier but the position with the old ones is that when you dial you find that everything moves, including the telephone. That makes it very difficult to dial and I would suggest that when these telephones are repaired or replaced they should be weighted so that they can be conveniently used.

But of more importance is the question of postal deliveries. There has been an improvement in postal deliveries on the Rand, and particularly in Johannesburg, and I want to give the Minister credit for it but I do not want him to rest on any laurels, because by civilized Western standards our postal deliveries are shocking. One delivery a day is unheard of amongst civilized beings. It goes back to the days when you used to run with a letter in a stick. A minimum of two deliveries is required. Our delivery services have improved and we are getting one delivery a day in most places at reasonable times, and the improvement is due to the fact that in Johannesburg in 1960 we had 621 White postmen and now we have only 578. We had two Coloureds and now we have 99. We had no Indians in 1960 and now we have one, and where we had no Bantu we now have 50. So obviously the improvement in deliveries is due to the employment of Coloured and Bantu postmen, but what does the report of the Postmaster-General say about this?—

What does the Postmaster mean by temporary emergency measures? Is he telling the public that he is going to withdraw these Coloureds, Indians and Bantu postmen next week or next year? He knows that for years to come there will not be sufficient White postmen to provide efficient deliveries. Why not stop playing the fool and make up our minds that we will never again have enough White postmen in this country and that we will have to employ Coloureds and Bantu? Why do we not say openly that we will do so, instead of saying it is a temporary emergency measure? Is the Minister waiting for a depression when there will be unemployed Whites again, so that he can take them back into the postal service? Let us face the fact that the postal delivery services of this country can no longer be performed by White personnel only. Let us make up our minds to employ non-Whites and let us make them efficient, and let us give the public proper services by means of the non-Whites. Then we will start getting somewhere. But it is nonsense to put in a report that this is a temporary emergency measure. It is the old story of the ideological thinking of the Minister. We need decent services and we will never get them unless the Minister looks facts in the face and realizes what the position is and comes to terms with himself as to what has to be done.

The hon. member for Parktown had no real complaints. His complaints were very petty. In the first place he complained that the telephones were now lighter, and that he could never get the right number when dialling. I think he has finger trouble, for if I dial and I get the wrong number, it is usually my own fault. I doubt whether that can really be a complaint. But the hon. member spoke about basic planning and said that even to establish a township area was taking very long. I do not know what that has to do with this Vote. He should surely know that if a township area is planned and the basic services are provided, the cables are usually laid, and it is only after the inhabitants have moved into their houses that they decide whether they want telephones, and then they apply. This telephone service forms part of the infra-structure our country will develop, but it cannot be in the vanguard. There must of necessity always be a waiting list. Surely one cannot install the telephone first and then look for somebody to use it. Every application has to be dealt with on its merits. I think the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark has dealt conclusively with these waiting lists. He set out the figures very clearly. I cannot elaborate on that much further. The hon. member also complained because more telephones were not being installed, because they are the Post Office’s greatest source of profit. That is true, but one finds that in any respect there is always a profitable department that has to provide for the other departments. The telegraph service is just as important as the telephone and just as profitable. One cannot concentrate only on that.

I should like to refer to the hon. member for Orange Grove, who raised such a dust here. To me as a new member it was fun to watch the member for Orange Grove.

Order! I shall be grateful if hon. members will refer to “hon. members” and not simply to “the member”.

I said it was fun to watch the hon. member for Orange Grove once he got into his stride. He worked himself up to such a pitch that he was finally striking out in all directions like a whirlwind, and he became so confused that he did not know what he was talking about. He made the most outrageous statements here. At one point, when he thought he was still talking about the telephone, he was already travelling by train. He asked why the Post Office personnel were not paid more, but as soon as the Minister pays those people more, he will be the first to say that the Government is creating inflation again. He told us how the Post Office had become empty, but if he looked at the employment figures for the rest of the country, he would find that there is virtually full employment. They were being drawn away by offers of better remuneration elsewhere. Their salaries had to be increased eventually, as happened elsewhere in the Public Service. But the Opposition does not care whether or not we create inflation. They can rest assured that the Minister will increase the salaries when the time is ripe and when it becomes necessary, without jeopardizing the economy of the country.

I want to say a few words in connection with the service on our farm lines. In the first place I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the excellent expansion that has occurred in the rural areas as regards telephones. In the Northern Transvaal we have received automatic telephone exchanges and also automatic telephones in the homes. It is really a blessing to the farmers in that region. At the same time I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to lend the same priority to a farmer’s application that is lent to the application of a businessman, because nowadays every farmer is conducting a business; farming is no longer merely a way of living. Those automatic telephones have made it possible for the farmer to discuss his most secret and confidential affairs over the telephone. It saves him tremendous expense; he need no longer drive into town for every bagatelle. I do not know why the hon. member for Parktown has so much trouble with Potchefstroom.

He does not know how to dial.

That is only one example.

You will find that at any of those rural telephone exchanges you have to wait a while before you are put through, but I just want to remind the hon. member of how long he had to wait in the days of the manual exchanges, particularly under the United Party regime. It was almost quicker to walk across to the person to whom you wanted to talk than to wait until you were put through. I think we, and particularly the farmers, have much to be grateful for in these days of automatic telephones.

Then I want to refer to another minor matter, and that is the radio service in the rural areas. In the rural areas, as hon. members know, the radio is the eyes, the ears and sometimes even the nose of the public. There are farmers in the Northern Transvaal who have to wait days and days before they can get a newspaper. They receive their newspapers only four or five days after they are published. When I visited my home the other day, I was asked whether there were only United Party members in Parliament; whether there were no National Party members, because the people said that if they tuned in in the mornings and listened to the Parliamentary review, they heard only what United Party members had said and very little about what National Party members had said here.

And as a result of that they vote for us.

Yes, as a result of that they have decided always to vote National in future. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the broadcasting time for Parliamentary news cannot be extended by five or ten minutes, and whether a more complete report cannot be given. The people in the rural areas want to know exactly what is happening here; they are greatly interested in it. News over the radio is the only hot news they get, because they get their newspaper only days later. Then I also want to ask that justice should be done properly and equally to the parties as far as the Parliamentary news service is concerned. [Time limit.]

Sir, I am hardly convinced by the remarks of the previous speaker, because it is quite obvious to me that the telephone position is in a very serious state indeed. I have no quarrel with the Postmaster General and his staff, because they have done all they can, but I can bring the Minister many letters from constituents of mine who have been waiting not for moths but for years for telephones. I have a case in my files now where a person applied for a telephone 18 months ago. The hon. the Minister’s Department replied that he could possibly expect a telephone at the end of 1967. Sir, that state of affairs is grossly unsatisfactory. In my own constituency I was told in a letter from the Postmaster General that there was a backlog of over 1,600 telephones, and that figure does not include many people who have just given up in disgust. Only recently I had a letter from a newly established industry, in which they complained that the factory was due to open and that they could get no telephone services; they had applied for a telephone service when the factory plan., were first drawn up, and eventually, after having made representations direct to the Postmaster General they were told that their needs were being met. But in the meantime all the senior members of the staff of that firm have no telephones. They live in that area. When it comes to non-Europeans living in that area, it is almost impossible to get a telephone. Indians and Bantu have been moved to various parts of the town and their applications simply go into the filing basket. The telephone position in Pinetown is such that the backlog is an all-time record, despite the utmost co-operation from the Department. On every occasion when I have made representations to the Department they have indicated that they are sympathetic and that they are doing all they can, but the backlog in the Pinetown-New Germany-Marianhill complex is not being overtaken; in fact, the position is getting worse. The position is not only unsatisfactory as far as telephones are concerned; the conditions in the local post office are unsatisfactory. The Minister knows or should know that his own Department admits that the post office facilities in that area are grossly inadequate. The Minister admits …

Order! The hon. member must address the hon. the Minister as “the hon. the Minister”.

The hon. the Minister knows the position and I suggest that the hon. the Minister should see to it that some indication is given to this House as to when he expects to be able to catch up the backlog. The Postmaster General, as I have said, has done all he can but there is something radically wrong in the postal service. Either there is a shortage of material or there is a shortage of staff, or a shortage of both. If it is a shortage of staff the Minister should tell us and if it is a shortage of material he should tell us. The information given to us would appear to indicate that the present equipment used throughout the province is out of date, and when the service is extended it is proposed to introduce more modern equipment. That may be the reason but I think the public should be told what the reason is. It is all very well telling us that we can have direct dialling from Cape Town to Johannesburg and from Johannesburg to Durban. The average householder regards the telephone as a necessity; in many cases it is the only security the householder has. We know that commercial travellers in particular have to be away from home for one or two nights or even longer and they regard a telephone at home as a security measure, because if there is a telephone at home the wife is able to get in touch with her doctor, if necessary, or with the police. The telephone is therefore regarded not only as a modern convenience but as a necessity. The Department, however, instead of facing up to the position, seems to regard the telephone as a toy. Business firms are given priority and maternity cases are given priority; elderly people who are ill and who produce a medical certificate are given priority, but the ordinary citizen who is entitled to regard the telephone as a right and as a necessity for every-day living, is denied a telephone. Things have now reached the stage where the Department sends out stereotyped replies indicating that there are no lines available and that the applicant must wait. It may take a year or a year and a half before an applicant gets a telephone. As I have said in my opening remarks, I know of one case where the applicant has already waited for a year and a half and where he has been told that there is no prospect of getting a telephone until the end of 1967, and that, Sir, is the position in the centre of a fast-growing town; it is not as though application has been made for a telephone in an outlying district. Sir, the general public are getting absolutely tired of the continual frustration when applications for telephones are refused by the Department, and when hon. members on the other side pretend that all is well with the postal service, they are certainly not convincing this House and they are certainly not convincing the country. They may be trying to bolster up the Minister but I do not think they are doing their cause any good. The present position in the telephone department, so far as the general public is concerned, is one of chaos, muddle and delay, not due to any faults on the part of the senior staff but due to the Government’s failure to face up to the fact that a telephone is a modern necessity. There is no reason at all why the backlog should increase as it has done over the last few years.

So far hon. members of the Opposition have restricted their criticism of this Vote mainly to three aspects, namely the question of telephone services, postal delivery and poor services in general. It really comes as a surprise that hon. members cannot broaden their vision and their perspective somewhat when a Vote like this is being discussed. This Department is one of the most important of all Government Departments, and I do not think it becomes us to complain under this Vote merely because a telephone cannot be granted within the period applied for. This is the very last Vote in respect of which one can complain about a lack of planning. In the past years there has been an increase of 9.8 per cent in trunkline telephone calls, but the provision made in the past year for the increase in trunklines was 11.4 per cent. In other words, more provision was made than was necessary to meet the demand for these services. I also want to give a practical example: There could surely have been no more difficult time than Tuesday night of the week before last to put calls through and yet, without my asking for any priority or mentioning who wanted to make the call, some of my calls from Cape Town to Johannesburg and other towns were put through at the normal time. One of the Opposition speakers put it as follows: He said the Minister had said that when there was a boom he could not get capital; now that there was inflation, he was saying again that he could not get capital. I should now like to tell you, Mr. Chairman, how the Minister and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs found capital in both those periods, in the case of my constituency. In the past year, in only one town in my constituency, R326,311 was spent on buildings, and R780,000 on telecommunication services, a total of R1.100,000. I am convinced that there can be no better example of how capital can be found in both periods and is in fact found by the hon. the Minister. I feel that we should set our sights somewhat higher in our criticism of this Vote, and that we should consider what the Minister and his Department are doing to stabilize our position in Africa, and how our position compares with that of other countries in Africa.

Mr. Chairman, before I continue with my speech, I should just like to do justice to the hon. the Minister and his Department and to my constituency by telling you without fear of contradiction that the Post Office at Potchefstroom, which has now been completed and taken into use, is the finest and best-planned post office in our country at present I should now like to go on to the question of our position in Africa. According to the figures and the statement we have before us and according to the statement of the Postmaster-General which has been made available to the House, the position is …

Order! The hon. member for Gezina is not allowed to pass between the Chair and the hon. member addressing the House.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I did not pass between the hon. member and the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, the position is that although we are denied participation in certain world conferences, we still retain our membership of the World Postal Union. If one considers the main object of the World Postal Union, which reads as follows—

Mr. Chairman, there are two matters which I would like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. The first is the provision of telephones in townships which are laid out by local authorities for the non-White community or the non-White communities, my particular interests being in regard to the Coloured people. The Department of Community Development is building townships usually far from the centre of established towns and these are being built by local authorities. It has often been a source of wonder to me as to why such an essential thing as a telephone service—I refer to public call boxes—is not provided when the township is first designed and building operations commence. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that these townships are usually built without shopping facilities, with poor roads, poor street lighting and no telephone service at all. The result is, that when these people become ill, especially at night, they have great difficulty in obtaining a doctor. I think that the hon. the Minister should give his attention to this matter and make absolutely certain that when these townships are established telephones are provided. I want to say that the Department is most cooperative, but usually replies when applications are made, that the cables cannot carry the service and that the matter is being considered and that something will be done in the future. I believe, not only in regard to telephones, but also post office facilities, that they would be provided when these townships are originally designed. After all, the local authority makes provision for water reticulation, sewage reticulation and also lighting to a degree. It therefore seems to me, that it is not unreasonable to expect, that every township should have postal services and telephone services provided at the outset. Mr. Chairman, I find that there are cases, happily not many, where some party lines are provided and that we then run into a rather peculiar set of circumstances. If the party line serves Whites the Department is reluctant to add a Coloured subscriber to that particular party line. I do not want to press that point unduly. I merely put it to the hon. the Minister and ask him not only to give it his attention again but to do something about it, because this is a very real grievance and a very real complaint among these people.

The second matter I wish to discuss with the hon. the Minister is the question of staff and the facilities that are provided for Coloured persons in regard to post office activities. According to the establishment there were 32,259 persons employed in the year 1965-6 and 32,793 in the year 1966-7. This refers to White persons. This is an increase of 534. This is obviously due to the increase in the services provided; but I am surprised to find that the non-White establishment has decreased from 4,540 to 4,275, that is 265 fewer than in the previous year. Mr. Chairman, the Coloured person as you know, on entering a post office finds himself faced with two counters, the one being for the Whites, and the other for the non-Whites. In most post offices, and I have been in a large number of them, the portion of counter allocated to non-Whites is usually a small portion of what was at one time, the large counter. The White community has a very large counter with few people being attended to at it, whereas the Coloured or the African and in many cases the Indian as well, is crowded into the small portion of the post office to transact not only his own business but the business of his employer. The thing which the hon. the Minister is overlooking is that, I would say, 90 per cent of the people who are attended to at post offices in the cities, are non-White employees of established White business houses. The hon. the Minister was good enough to write me a letter and tell me that his Department was endeavouring to train Coloured personnel to work in their own townships. I have no complaint on that score. But I think, that if we pursued the policy of the Government to its logical conclusion then surely the non-White persons at a post office counter in the urban areas should be served by their own people. I think that would alleviate the manpower shortage of which we hear so much. Here are people who are willing to work and able to work and as the hon. the Minister knows, as in the case of postmen, they have done a first-class job. They serve White people by delivering their post. I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that the time has come, when if the Government is sincere in its intentions to have each race group served by its own people, then these post offices should be demarcated somewhat differently. The large counter should be allocated to the non-White and the small one on the side should be reserved for Whites. Then we would have the position as it should be, and as the Government wants it, and at the same time find a place and opportunity for non-Whites to be employed. In commerce and industry it has been found that they make first-class clerks, they are good telephone exchange operators and they can do a job with training as well as any other person in the country. I submit therefore that some change should be made and that the number of non-Whites employed in postal services should be increased year by year and not be reduced as is the case in the present estimates. There is no doubt that if the Coloured is trained and he is capable of being trained, I might add. he could serve a most useful purpose in the postal service. I refer to the arrangements behind the scenes, that is the sorting of post which in some post offices is done to a certain extent by Coloured personnel. I believe that that is an avenue of employment in which they could be employed fruitfully. I think that on all the manual exchanges educated Coloured women and girls could be employed to advantage and so release the White women for better types of jobs. These are the points which I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and I hope that he will not only listen to my plea, but that he will do something about it. To summarize, I would like him to consider providing new townships with postal services and telephone services when the townships are designed and when building commences. I would like him to look into and make changes in regard to the personnel in urban post offices and lastly to make provision for the employment of more Coloured people in the postal services. I ask the hon. the Minister to do that for me.

Mr. Chairman, I wish respectfully to bring to the notice of the hon. the Minister a problem relating to telephone services in Maitland. The Maitland exchange serves Maitland itself, Ysterplaat, Rugby, the municipality of Milnerton which includes Bothasig, Montagu Gardens and Table View. Due to the very rapid and healthy development in the municipal area of Milnerton there has come about a very serious backlog regarding applications for telephone services through the Maitland exchange. There is now a backlog of approximately 1,000 and the exchange is closed to any further applications at the moment. Mr. Chairman, as you know the three areas of growth on the northern side of the Peninsula are Bellville, Parow and Milnerton. The municipality of Milnerton now embraces Bothasig in which there are already more than 300 houses and in the near future it is hoped that there will be more than 4,000 houses there. There is also the industrial area of Montagu Gardens and Milnerton itself is almost fully built up. In Bothasig there are only two lines available at the moment and I have received various complaints from constituents. The inhabitants there are mainly young couples with young children and mothers have complained to me that when the babies become ill or children become ill at night time, it is very difficult to phone a doctor. Business people in the Montagu Gardens area have approached me and also residents from Maitland. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister respectfully to consider building a new exchange for the Milnerton area because this is going to be a very big municipality and I do not think that the mere enlargement of the Maitland exchange is going to meet the needs for the future. As far as Maitland is concerned I would also ask that steps be taken to enlarge the exchange as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to welcome the hon. member for Maitland and his contribution to this debate. I have at last found a Nationalist member who will admit that there is a backlog of telephones in his area. I feel that he must be the person we hear spoken about so much on the other side of the House, a “vreemdeling” in Jerusalem. I must say that we in our areas have experienced much the same kind of difficulty that he has in his area since there are many areas short of telephones. In the case of Pietermaritzburg a whole new extension to the exchange has to be built on before services can be provided to the outstanding subscribers in Pietermaritzburg. I wish to raise a particular matter with the hon. the Minister which directly concerns many of my constituents, particularly those in the Midlands of Natal, as far as the Natal Fire Protection Association is concerned. This is a voluntary association of people who are maintained by voluntary grants, people who take it upon themselves to provide protection against fires in the fire season, i.e. in the winter months. This is something which is so important to the farming community in Natal that the Natal Agricultural Union went so far as to approach the hon. the Minister’s Department for free radio licences to be given in respect of the shortwave receivers which are used by the Natal Fire Protection Association. These fire protection services are provided in the very widely planted timber areas of Natal which play a very important part indeed in the economy of the province and this is something in which the Government itself is directly involved. I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. Minister and hon. members that a fire in a large plantation is not the concern only of the owner or of the State, it is the concern of the entire district, because it is a menace to the whole of the surrounding area. I feel that we have a prima facie case in approaching the hon. the Minister and asking him to give priority in this particular case because this is a matter which comes under the minor works of the Department. It is covered by the Divisional Controller but there are at this moment in Natal no fewer than seven fire towers, set up for the early warning of the fire fighting services which are not connected by telephone. This is something which renders the whole protection against fire completely useless if we are not able to get through immediately a fire is sighted and to call in help from the surrounding areas. At Lufafa Road a distance of .6 miles is concerned. This is a small distance but we are not able to get the work done because of the gangs being tied up with work in other areas in Natal. At Eston authority has been issued to provide this service. A mile and a half is involved. At Bulwer there is one mile of new route, and at Shafton fire tower 1.5 miles of new telephone route. Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask that very sympathetic consideration by the hon. the Minister should be given to this matter and that the Department should attempt to make arrangements to see that early recognition is given to the importance of connecting up these watch towers by telephone. These watch towers are tied into a system which covers the whole of the Natal Midlands. I am sure that the hon. the Minister, with the aid of his Department, will be able to meet us now that the fire season is over for this particular year. Somewhere between now and the next dry season, we hope to see some progress and to be able to say that this matter has been rectified. I shall be most grateful if attention is given to it.

Mr. Chairman, the small postage stamp which we use from day to day to compensate the State for the despatch and conveyance of our mail has to many thousands of people a much greater significance than a merely compensatory one. Collecting postage stamps is the hobby of thousands of people. It is not only children or youths who amuse themselves in this manner. As a matter of fact, with some people it is a particularly specialized hobby. To the stamp collector a postage stamp tells a story. It tells us the story of its country of origin, and it may be concerned with the products, the industries, the natural beauty, or the geography of that country. To some countries the issuing of a series of postage stamps has even become a method of earning foreign exchange. A country such as South Africa, however, does not employ that method. It has long been the practice in many countries to honour or commemorate the great men in their country who have died, by issuing a special postage stamp. The British, who are probably the most conservative people as regards the appearance of their postage stamps, made an exception after the death of Sir Winston Churchill and issued two postage stamps commemorating him. That was really something, coming from the British Postmaster-General. Usually he only issues stamps depicting the head of the reigning sovereign.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider commemorating our late Prime Minister by issuing one or a series of postage stamps. These stamps will have a world-wide circulation. One way or the other they will reach all countries in the world. For stamp collectors in South Africa and abroad such a stamp or a series of stamps will be something special to add to their collections. I also think that this will be a fitting way for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to commemorate the deceased.

The hon. member for Waterkloof has made some interesting comments in regard to stamps and commemorative issues. I trust he will forgive me if I do not follow that trend in the discussion. I wish to refer to the question of telephones. Before I do so, Sir, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister for some details in regard to two items mentioned in the estimates before us.

Under Head E there is a reference to incidental expenditure in connection with the transfer of officials. The amount shown in respect of this item is R25,060. I see that this is a new item and I wonder if the hon. the Minister can give us details in this regard. Under Head K, I notice that in connection with registered envelopes there is quite a substantial increase, namely from R160,000 to R205,000. Will the Minister be good enough to enlighten the House as to the reason for this increased expenditure?

I should like to come back to the question of telephones, because obviously there is a divergence of opinion in so far as the hon. members opposite and members of this side of the House are concerned. Hon. members opposite seem to regard the Minister’s shortcomings as mere peccadillos. But we on this side of the House take a more serious view of the position.

You put a very weak case.

If you listen I shall tell you in figures exactly how weak your case is. I am sorry that the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark is not in the House at the moment. He referred to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister. I do not know whether the hon. member brought the full weight of his intelligence to bear on the reply. I do not think he draws the same conclusions from the reply as I do. My main object in asking this question was to establish whether the Department was in fact keeping pace with events in the Republic. My conclusions, from the answers given, are that unfortunately that is not the position. I find that the backlog in telephone applications from 1956 to the years 1962 and 1963 showed an encouraging reduction. But unfortunately at that time the position seemed to deteriorate. My figures show—and I am dealing with the answer to my question and solely with the nine major urban areas, not the overall position—that in 1962 the total outstanding applications were 6,163. By 1965, Sir, this amount had almost doubled. It stood at 12,306. One year later, on 31st March, 1966, the total outstanding applications for telephones for the nine urban areas stood at 24,123. Therefore, from 1962 to 1965 the number doubled. And then in one year the number outstanding doubled again. We heard from the other side of the House: What about the provision of telephones? That is a fair question. During the dinner adjournment I thought I would do some research in that regard. The figures were supplied in the reply to the question I asked the hon. the Minister. I find that in 1964 the number of applicants who were provided with telephones was 80,265. In 1965 the figure was 78,911. In 1966 the figure rose again to 80,647. But, Sir, that does not alter the position, that the number of outstanding applications in the nine urban areas now amounts to 24,000, whereas it was a quarter of that amount in 1962.

The hon. member for North Rand referred to difficulties which he had in putting through a telephone call. I had a very interesting experience the other day, on 16th August. I received a telegram. It was an urgent telegram which was sent from Johannesburg at 11.17 a.m. According to the telegram it arrived in Cape Town at 11.34 a.m. I think that is good going, Sir. But the telegram said this—

Mr. Chairman, I want to come to a more local matter concerning my own constituency. I would like to plead with the Minister in regard to the provision of a post office in the Glenwood shopping centre. I have discussed this matter by correspondence and verbally with the Postmaster in Durban. He has indicated that his representations to higher authorities have not met with success. My appeal directed through him, was answered to the effect that there was no particular need because there was a post office in Berea Road, another in Bulwood and another in Musgrave Road. I want to submit to the hon. the Minister in my appeal that the post office in Berea Road is not an ideal post office to cater for the people in the area, which the new Glenwood shopping centre is designed to serve. In so far as the post office in Bulwood is concerned, it would involve at least one or two bus journeys for anybody who was not particularly mobile. As far as the post office in Musgrave Road is concerned, the same thing would apply. It would necessitate two bus journeys. I believe that there are many old people who are pensioners and who require to attend a post office regularly in order to receive their pensions. I believe that wherever possible it should be the desire of the post office to provide a convenient service. I ask the hon. the Minister if he will give further consideration to my plea. This shopping centre has been established at great cost to cater for a definite need in the area and with the building operations and the increased flat development which is taking place in the area, I believe that there is a need now and that in the future the need will increase for post office facilities in that particular area.

I should like to refer briefly to the question of F.M. transmission. We on the Berea, on the seaward side of the ridge, have had a rather disappointing experience in so far as the virtues and the advantages of F.M. transmission are concerned. As a public representative in that area it has been my unpleasant experience that many people have complained bitterly at the reception which they have experienced in this area. Over a period of years they have experimented with their sets. They have gone to considerable expense to erect antennae in order to avail themselves of the F.M. service which has been provided by the transmitter at Alverstone. It seems to me that the siting of the transmitter at Alverstone was designed primarily on a basis of economy to serve Pietermaritzburg and Durban. Unfortunately, with the large ridge, the people on the seaward side of the Berea have found that the reception has been very very poor indeed. I must say that the Director of Broadcasting in Durban has been most sympathetic. The Director has investigated these various problems and he has offered suggestions. He has said that he fears that the difficulty will persist until such time as the new Port Natal transmitter is provided. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he could give us some definite information as to when that new transmitter will come into operation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea has just told us that he could not be reached by telephone and that a telegram had later to be sent to him. He cannot expect the hon. the Minister to know where he was gadding about. He leaves us in the dark here, and I do not want to hazard a guess. If I do that I might perhaps guess wrongly.

Mr. Chairman, I think that one should never let something go by without expressing one’s gratitude. I want to congratulate the hon. member for Orange Grove tonight. This coming from me is really something. We sat here listening this afternoon, and I want to congratulate the hon. member on the speech which he made this afternoon. In comparison with previous years it not only bordered on, it was in fact quite within the boundaries of decency and propriety. The hon. member asked this afternoon what the hon. the Minister was doing, why he did not render better services and why he did not obtain capital. Mr. Chairman, that hon. member was in this House in 1961 when most of us were not here. He even helped with the launching by this House of the Constitution of South Africa. That hon. member ought to know that the hon. the Minister cannot merely obtain loans. He cannot merely obtain money for capital works, etc. The hon. member ought to know that. Does he or does he not know that?

I know that, but he should have put in a stronger plea to the Treasury.

That hon. member does not know that all the money from the Post Office goes into our consolidated funds. I think I should read this section out to the hon. member, i.e. section 98 of Act No. 32 of 1961:

Then I also want to read Section 100 of this Act to the hon. member. It reads as follows:

The hon. member knows that our Cabinet decides about this. The hon. member knows how much the hon. the Minister has pleaded for extra funds. Or do you not know?

He did not plead very well.

Oh, then you know. But why ask such a foolish question as the one you asked this afternoon? I should like to respond to this hon. member’s speech here this afternoon. But I want to make a plea to him to make a contribution in future. I want to reply to the first part of the hon. member’s speech here this afternoon. The last part was very poor, Sir, what the hon. member did here this afternoon was to plead. He mentioned a number of things, but he said that more money must be found. I should just like to draw his attention now to this Budget. He and the hon. member for Parktown both said that there had been a profit of R18,000,000 and they asked what the hon. the Minister was doing with that money. They asked why those other things could not be done. But in the same breath that hon. member pleaded for tariffs not to be increased. He said that the hon. the Minister should see to it that officials receive more remuneration. But who in South Africa has done more than this Minister for the Post Office and its officials? The hon. member knows what he said about the then Minister when the hon. member was still editor of Die Kruithoring. He came along to-day and stated that the Post Office was 25 years behind the times. That is perhaps so, but then one must remember that we have only been in power for 18 years. We have therefore still to make up seven years of the leeway left by that Party, which had a leeway of approximately 50 years when this Government took over.

In this Loan Vote before us R25,700,000 is being voted for this year. The budget comprises R92,100,000, but included therein is R632,000 for Radio Bantu and R1,065,000 for the overseas radio. If we deduct those amounts so that we are dealing only with Post Office money, we have an amount of R116,103,000 which is being vofed here for expenditure in the Post Office. The revenue is R116,250,000. Except for a difference of a few rand it is almost exactly the same. What is being taken out of the taxpayers’ pockets, is being put right back again in the form of services.

I want to raise another little matter with that hon. member. You asked, as did all who rose to speak, for more telephones to be supplied. You wanted more services. Do you agree that there should be more services?

The hon. member must please address the Chair.

Sir, those hon. members agree one hundred per cent, and now they must tell us how they are going to finance it. That hon. member would never enter a shop here, buy a suit of clothes, and, once he has the suit of clothes under his arm, slip away and run off. He pays for it. If this Government introduces services, there has to be funds to pay for those services. That is why I say that it can only be done in one way, and that is by increasing the tariffs. If you do not want the tariffs to be increased, where are you going to get that revenue from?

What about the profit of R18,000,000 made by the Post Office?

The hon. member is talking about R18,000,000. I mentioned these figures specifically. If the hon. member did not hear them, he can read them himself. If we want more services the population of the Republic is prepared to pay more. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the population of the Republic of South Africa is prepared to pay for these extra services for which the Opposition has asked and which we also want to supply. The Government wants to supply these services. Nobody in this country wants something for nothing. We are not parasites in South Africa. We are prepared to pay for what we get. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that this shortage of telephones which we are experiencing to-day is the result of this tremendous economic expansion. How many of you sitting there have two or three telephones to-day where a few years ago you only had one? I can mention a number of businesses which two years ago, had two or three small offices but which to-day occupy an entire floor and have 20 to 30 telephones. We cannot help it that the country has expanded so tremendously. We can only thank the Government for those things which they have brought about. In the Censure Motion the Opposition said the Government should not spend such a great deal because it would thereby promote inflation. How must the Government render services without paying for them?

But the telephone service brings in the most revenue.

Yes, it brings in revenue, but it first has to be paid for. One must have the capital in order to obtain it. We cannot render services without there being any capital. If we desire good services, which we are already receiving, and we want more services, we as a nation must be prepared to pay more for them. Does the hon. member for Pinetown agree that we must obtain more capital and that one can only obtain it either by means of long-term financing or by means of revenue now? We cannot merely live off the generations to come: we must contribute something out of our own Dockets. We cannot just negotiate loans and live on credit. We must finance these projects out of our present revenue. That is why I would like the speaker who follows me to say where we must get the money from in order to finance these increased services.

I am sure the hon. member who has just sat down will not take it amiss if I do not answer his puerile questions. I think he has had the answer before during the Budget debate and he will have it again, and I am not going to waste time now in answering.

I want to bring two matters to the notice of the hon. the Minister. One is the provision of public telephone services for the Bantu people in the Hammarsdale area. This is an area which has been developed by this Government as a shop window, something they can boast of to the outside world to show what we are doing for the Bantu, but at Hammarsdale only two telephones have been provided for the Bantu, and most of the time both those telephones are out of order. The result is that the postal staff, the Railway staff, general dealers and factory personnel are pestered daily by Bantu who require the services of a telephone, particularly due to the fact that they have no hospital services and no police services there. This of course is part of the lack of foresight of this Government, that they establish all these things without worrying about any services at all and then they do not even put telephones there so that the Bantu people can get into contact with the services which are so essential to their well-being.

One further small point I want to raise with the Minister is to ask him why the preferential postage rate for agricultural produce which applies within the Republic is not applicable to parcels addressed to centres in South West Africa? I am sure hon. members are aware of the fact that many A.C.F. ballotees are today undergoing prolonged enforced training in South West Africa and parents find themselves in the position where they cannot address parcels of home-made cakes or fruit or biltong or anything like that which might help to relive the tedium of these trainees: that they are unable to post these parcels at the preferential tariff applicable to agricultural produce in the Republic. I can think of no reason for this differentiation between the postal rates because to the best of my knowledge there is no differentiation in the surface and airmail postage rates. I appeal to the Minister to give favourable consideration to extending this privilege of posting agricultural produce to centres in South West Africa at the same reduced rate applicable within the Republic.

It has become so customary for the hon. member for Orange Grove to move a motion of censure in the Post Office and in me and in the radio every year, frequently in the form of a motion for a reduction in the Minister’s salary, that I was quite baffled tonight. I feel that the Post Office may perhaps have a flaw somewhere, or is it perhaps the hon. member? But the hon. member was nevertheless true to one of his characteristics, which is that the language of his speeches is always very flamboyant and that his facts are often not quite correct. I will concede that when one deals with a large organization like the Post Office which, as he himself said, employs 46,000 people and receives additional capital of R25,000,000 every year, and of which the turnover, or rather the estimates of expenditure, is approximately R92,000,000, one must be prepared for snags. There is no large organization in which snags do not develop or which has no problems. It will be astonishing to find a large organization which does not experience minor difficulties at some time or other. It is a feature of large organizations that difficulties must arise continually. But now it is so important that one should not be blinded by some minor difficulty or other, that one should retain one’s perspective. I found it so striking when the hon. member for North Rand got up here and told us that he wanted to have nothing to do with figures; he wanted to have nothing to do with facts; all that concerned him were the allegations he was making. Now that is the approach of that side of the House, that it has nothing to do with the true facts or figures. All that gives them satisfaction is what they conjure up from their imagination, or something they can exaggerate. We all have ideals for any business in which we are involved and for our country and our families, but it is surely a fact that nobody can realize his ideals at once. Every man and every family start on a small scale, and as one’s income and one’s production increase, one earns more and one acquires more facilities, and to that extent one advances in life. It is surely unheard-of to realize all one’s ideals at once. Life is not like that. Life is such that one has to find one’s way in the world gradually, and acquire more and more facilities and realize more and more ideals. One cannot measure the Post Office by an ideal, because our ideals are usually extravagant. We would not be human if our ideals were not high and even extravagant. One cannot measure the efficiency of a practical institution such as the Post Office by a magnificent ideal. One has to be reasonable and practical. Now what are the criteria by which one should measure an institution such as the Post Office, if one wanted to know whether it has met the requirements of a good Post Office?

I shall mention three criteria. Firstly, one has to measure it by its achievements in the past. One has to see whether it is making progress all the time. One has to see how its present compares with its past. If there has been progress, then that is one point that proves to you that it has advanced and improved. But at the same time one should compare it with other undertakings of the same kind, and one should compare it with other undertakings under the same management, or with the same undertaking under different management. One should compare our Post Office with those of England or Germany or Italy or America. One should also compare the Post Office in our time with the Post Office in the time of the United Party. Thirdly, one should measure the Post Office by the developments around us. The Post Office is a service. It renders services to the businesses and to the people in the community, and one should keep pace with the development of the people and of the community and of the country. Now we know that the development of South Africa made systematic progress in the past. We know that in the past years it has suddenly developed tremendously, and therefore its development has been unsound, for if a child grows too rapidly, it is not a sign of good health. Nor is it a sign of good health if a country grows too rapidly. It is therefore essential for any Government to see to it that the development of its country is rational and within reasonable limits. Now a criterion has been determined for the continued sound development of our country. It is not the criterion of the hon. member for South Coast, but the criterion of the economists of the country, of the Advisory Council of the Prime Minister. They recommended that in order to be sound, the development rate of our country should not exceed 51 per cent a year. If the development rate of the country must be 51 per cent, then the development rate of the Post Office must also be 51 per cent in order to keep pace with it. Surely that is a criterion. It would be unsound if the development of the Post Office were extravagant compared with the development of the country. I now want to apply those three criteria to the Post Office, but before I draw that comparison, let me point out another fact.

That is that we may cherish the highest ideals and desires in our wanton imagination, but as the hon. member for Sunnyside said, one cannot put one’s wishes into effect unless one has the money. One needs capital to put those wishes into effect. One needs capital to develop the Post Office, but there are various limits to that capital. Firstly, one may obtain capital for the Post Office from taxation, from the rates one charges for the services one renders, on mail or on the telephone service, but one cannot collect from that to an unlimited extent. One cannot simply push up the taxes on the public to infinite heights. There are limits to that. One cannot tax the public excessively. One cannot tax the public to such an extent that one deals a blow to the progressiveness of the country. There is a limit to the taxes one can impose on any people, and there is a limit to the taxes one can impose on people who use the Post Office.

There is a second limit. It may be said that we should look for capital abroad, but the world abroad also needs its capital. The world abroad is also developing. We are continually raising loans abroad, but there has always been a limit to that. One cannot simply raise any amount of capital there. No country can raise unlimited amounts of capital. There is a definite limit to what one can borrow. No business can go to a bank and borrow simply any amount. But there is another limiting factor, and that is that one cannot at one stroke inject an unlimited amount of capital into development, because then one causes inflation. If one has one worker to build a house, it will be folly to start building another house before the first one is finished, because then the worker will be enticed away from the one house to go and build the second, and the two builders will compete with one another to get that worker. That will push up the wages until inflation occurs. One cannot inject an unlimited amount of capital into a country without causing inflation: That will do the country infinite harm. Now we have to take those three factors into account, too, when dealing with the problems of the Post Office.

Now that I have mentioned those preliminary facts, let us come to the true facts of the Post Office. Let us just take the period 1963 to 1966. In 1963-4 the National Party Government put R20,000,000 into the Post Office, the next year R24,000,000, and the following year R25,000,000. Over a period of ten years it put more capital into the Post Office each year, so that it put R202,000,0C0 into it in the course of ten years. Let us compare that with one of our criteria for whether or not it has been a sound development. Let us compare it with the United Party, and then I first take the years 1945 to 1948. The United Party did not put in R20,000,000 or R25,000,000 but R4,000,000, and in the next year R5,000,000, and in the last year they went as far as putting in R11,000,000.

But at that time a pound was a pound.

In ten years the United Party put in R40,000,000, whereas the National Party put in R202,000,000 in ten years. I think you will agree with me that it is a sound comparison. It shows that under the present Government the Post Office has made tremendous progress.

Let us take another criterion. I want to take the amount of capital put into our telecommunications system each year, and I want to take it as a percentage. I said that according to the Advisory Council the sound growth rate of the country should not exceed 5 per cent, but do you know what the growth rate of the Post Office was in terms of capital put into it? It was 8 per cent. According to the requirement that one should keep pace with the development of the country, the Post Office has, in other words, done even more than to keep pace with the development. Let me take only one specific area. I want to take the Witwatersrand, an area which is perhaps one of the most and at the same time also one of the most industrious areas in South Africa. In the financial year 1962-3 the Post Office provided 12,000 telephones, and after it had provided those, 4,000 outstanding applications remained by the end of the year. Then came the year 1964, a year of tremendous economic activity. The activity was so tremendous and the demand for telephones so heavy that in that one year the Post Office provided 37,000 telephones, but at the end of the year the leeway remained the same, i.e. 4,000. In other words, the Post Office was so adaptable and so sound that it could meet that tremendous demand by boosting that 12,000 to 37,000 in only one year, and at short notice. But take 1965. Then the economic activity in South Africa continued at the same rate. By the end of that year 32,000 had been provided, and only 3,000 were outstanding. Then came 1966. In that financial year the Post Office provided 42,000 telephones, but by the end of the year the waiting list had grown to 6,000, and the reason for that is obvious. You will remember that after it had been decided that in order to check inflation the development of South Africa should not be extravagant, the Government decided that capital expenditure should be cut down in all fields. At present we are therefore suffering from the disadvantages of too much prosperity, just as a child suffers when he has grown too rapidly. We have our headaches as a result of a too rapid growth, and we may therefore have to skimp for a few years. But I think everybody will agree that there has been no retrogression in the Post Office, nor is there any stagnation, but there is remarkable progress if one can boost the provision of telephones from 12,000 to 42,000 a year in the course of four years. But now the position is changing, because as a result of the economic activities it is essential for us to combat inflation, and the Post Office dare not continue providing telephones and spending capital at the same rate.

Let me go on to the next comparison. Let me again compare the present South Africa with the times of the United Party, and I want to compare those ten year periods again. I want to compare the number of new telephones installed by the United Party in its ten years. 161,000 were installed in the course of ten years. But do you know how many we installed in our ten years? 454,000 were installed almost 500,000. I think you will have to agree that there can be no question here of devalued money, as the hon. member for Karoo said. Here it was an actual fact that those telephones were installed.

But let us go further. I want to draw a comparison with other countries. If we take the years 1955 to 1965—because those are the only figures I have available—you will see that the number of telephones in those countries increased. In Sweden they increased by 61.5 per cent, in the U.S.A, by 68.1 per cent, and do you know what the increase in South Africa was? It was 72.5 per cent. Despite all the criticism expressed to-night, the increase in the number of telephones in South Africa was still higher than in Sweden and in the U.S.A. If we want to apply another criterion, let us take the number of telephones per capita of the population. I think you will agree with me that it is only fair to use only the Whites for such a comparison. You will then find that apart from Sweden and the U.S.A., we here in South Africa have the highest number of telephones per capita. France has 12 telephones to every 100 Whites. England 18 and South Africa 37. Now can there be any question that South Africa has not developed in an astonishingly sound way in recent years? Now you will say that in South Africa the Post Office is in such a deplorable condition, as the hon. member for Pinetown said. He used unbridled language and said that it was a “muddle” and “chaos”. Let us compare it with the conditions elsewhere in the world. In South Africa 33,000 telephones are outstanding, but do you know how many there are in Paris? There 313,000 are outstanding, almost ten times as many, and the population is not ten times as large as that of South Africa. In Western Germany it is more or less the same. There 295,000 are outstanding, and their population is not ten times as large as that of South Africa. In Japan there is a waiting-list of 2,000,000.

If one draws a comparison between countries abroad and South Africa, one finds that South Africa is rendering excellent telephone services. But let us go even further. We here in South Africa and various countries abroad have conducted experiments as regards the efficiency of our telephone systems. One of the experiments for determining the efficiency of one’s system is the following. If one makes 100 calls—not to one place but to various places—one counts the number of times one does not succeed in getting through at the first attempt. In England one is unsuccessful in getting through at the first attempt 16.6 times out of 100. In France one is unsuccessful in getting through at the first attempt 65 times out of 100, but in South Africa it is only ten times out of 100 that one does not succeed in getting through at the first attempt. Compared with France and England and other countries our telephone services are extremely efficient.

The hon. member for Parktown suggested to my astonishment that the Post Office should simply retain all its revenue and should spend it on the extension of telephone services. The hon. member for Sunnyside pointed out to him that that was in direct conflict with our Constitution. The Post Office cannot amend our Constitution; only Parliament can do so, and the Constitution provides that all revenue of the Post Office has to be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Account and that funds allocated to the Post Office for loan capital have to come from the Loan Fund. The Post Office does not have the authority to spend any profits it makes in any way it likes. Together with all other departments the Post Office has to ask the State for its proportional share of the available capital. I pointed out that the amount of capital available to a country was not unlimited. It is limited, and this limited amount of capital has to be utilized for financing all services of the country—its railways, its road, its provincial administrations, its public buildings, its housing schemes, its post office, its police force. Together they have to share in that joint capital, irrespective of whether the capital comes from loan funds or from revenue funds. The amount allocated to the Post Office is dependent on the amount available which depends on prevailing circumstances. If there is any threat to South Africa’s safety and it may become necessary to use much of its capital for its defence, it necessarily follows that a smaller amount will be allocated to the Post Office for that year; it all depends on circumstances. I just want to tell hon. members that as a result of the fact that we have to apply the brake in respect of economic development in South Africa, it has been decided to apply the brake also in respect of the Post Office and its telecommunication system. We should all make a joint effort to combat the threat of inflation. Where we now have a waiting list of 33,000 hon. members must expect this waiting list to grow, because we shall have to curtail activities to some extent; we shall have to apply the brake.

Since when has the brake been applied?

The hon. member should know that; this year the Minister of Finance once again made that announcement in his Budget Speech. In other words, the brake must be applied. We simply cannot proceed at the old rate because then we will be promoting inflation. But I want to tell hon. members that there is a way of developing postal services without promoting inflation, but that means that one has to obtain the capital required for the development of the Post Office mainly from the users of telephone and other post office services, and it serves no purpose to say, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has done, that salaries should be increased, that one should spend capital on this, that or the other while saying in the same breath that tariffs may not be increased. Where is the money to come from in that case? How will one be able to provide extra services and how will one be able to increase salaries if one is not allowed to find that money from some source? Then one is contradicting oneself or one is trying to deceive the public. The revenue of the Post Office is not sufficient for providing all the necessary services. Let me give you an example. If, like this year, the Post Office shows a profit of R18,000,000 which is paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the Post Office needs R25,500,000 from the funds of the State; in other words, the profits of the Post Office which are paid into the Consolidated Revenue Account are always less than the capital it obtains from the State. Consequently it serves no purpose to say that the State may not increase taxes, that the Post Office may not increase its tariffs but that one has to supply more telephones, that one has to provide more services and that one has to increase the salaries of the staff. That would be impossible; surely that is irrational.

Mr. Chairman, to-night I found it very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Orange Grove. Recently we increased the salaries of Post Office staff. Those salary increases made them very happy because now they are able to progress to higher salaries without any restrictions; and at this very late stage the hon. member comes along with the suggestion that the staff should receive higher salaries. I do not know whether he wanted their increments to be higher or whether he meant that their maximum salaries should be higher. Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove and hon. members opposite need not have the least concern about the Post Office staff. It has never been they who looked after the interests of Post Office workers; they have never had any time for the poor man and the worker. Let me remind them of their past. During ten years of United Party rule, from 1939 to 1948, only one slight increase in the salaries of Post Office workers was granted by them, and that they did not do voluntarily. That increase in salaries was effected after a go-slow strike. They were forced to do so; only then did they do so; then they were the great people. At that time they did not boast that they were the champions of the railwaymen and the Post Office worker. That is a new development. But let us once again examine what the National Party Government has done for the Post Office workers. I am taking the period from 1948 to 1966 as basis. Never did two years pass, sometimes not even one year, without the National Government serving the interests of the Post Office workers and granting them salary increases. The salaries of Post Office workers were increased in July, 1951; once again in 1953; again in 1955; again in 1956; again in 1958: again in 1963: again in 1965 and again in 1966. The United Party need not concern itself about the railwayman and the Post Office worker. It is this side of the House that has always looked after the interests of those poor people and you can rest assured that this Government will always continue to do so in future. It may interest you to see how the United Party Government looked after the interests of those people. As an example I am using the commencing salary of a junior post and telegraph assistant. Do you know what the commencing salary was when they were in power? The commencing salary under the United Party Government was R260.

What was the value of money in those days?

Do you know what the commencing salary of a junior post and telegraph assistant is to-day?

In those days a Cadillac cost £250.

The commencing salary of a post and telegraph assistant in possession of the junior certificate is R840 to-day, and if he is in possession of the matriculation certificate his commencing salary is R1,020. That is the difference one finds when one is dealing with a Government who really has the interests of the worker and the poor man at heart and when on the other hand one is dealing with a party that poses as the champion of the worker and the poor man from time to time when it suits it to do so.

Mr. Chairman, let us now consider just for the fun of it what this side of the House has done for Post Office workers during this year. There has been a tremendous increase in the numbers which now come into the higher income bracket. Let us start with a salary of R6,000. Previously there were only six people in the Post Office service who could earn a salary of R6,000 and more. Do you know how many there are at present? At present there are 45. Let us take a salary of R4,000 and more. Previously there were 63 people in the Post Office service who could earn more than R4,000. To-day there are 544. Let us take R3,000. Previously there were 472 employees who could earn more than R3,000; but to-day there are 7,473 employees in the Post Office service who can earn R3,000 and more. Let us examine the position as regards Post Office workers earning less than R2,000. Previously there were 10,195 who earned less than R2,000, but to-day there are only 4,862 who earn less than R2,000. In the second place all officials in the Post Office service received an increase of at least one salary notch and many received an increase of more than one salary notch. In the third place Post Office officials now advance much quicker in the service than ever before as the result of a better key scale and as the result of double increments at the commencing stage in the lower grades. Furthermore, we consolidated certain of the grades so as to eliminate the long waiting periods which sometimes occurred where an official had to wait before he could be promoted to the next grade. There are now many more higher posts and consequently Post Office workers have much better prospects. The officials advance much more quickly; they need not wait so long. Therefore you can understand that the Post Office officials soon came to realize what the real position was. They appreciate what has been done for them and for that reason the Postal and Telegraph Association decided at a recent congress to express (translation) “its sincere thanks to the Government and the authorities concerned for the comprehensive improvements in salaries and the grading of posts which in scope are unprecedented in the history of the Post Office”. They are unprecedented. There has never been anything like that in the history of the Post Office. These improvements will have a beneficial effect on the Post Office because it means that there will be greater satisfaction; one will be a Post Office staff which takes more pleasure in working. It increased their efficiency and at the same time there was an appreciable decrease in the number of resignations from the Post Office. In 1965 we had 38,000 posts; this year we have approximately 500 more. In 1965 there were approximately 3,000 resignations and that figure dropped to approximately 1,000 this year, as a result of the great satisfaction one finds in the Post Office service at present.

The hon. member for Orange Grove reproached us about the micro-wave system. He said that I had said on a previous occasion that the Bloemfontein-Port Elizabeth link in the micro-wave system would be ready in July of this year. That is quite correct; I did say that. It would have been ready if it had not been for the Government’s decision that we had to strengthen the country economically, and that we consequently had to curtail our expenditure in South Africa as well as in the Post Office. It is as a result of those restrictions that the delay occurred; that we cannot work at the same speed; that we now have to spread our capital over various services to a much greater extent. At the present rate we think that it will entail a delay of a year; in other words, the Bloemfontein-Port Elizabeth link is expected to be ready in July, 1967, and the link between Port Elizabeth and Cape Town a year later, namely at the beginning of 1968.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also tried to launch another attack here. He said that because of the automatization which we are planning at the moment and which we have already started in the Post Office, the eventual position will be that there will be many officials whose services cannot be used in that direction, and that we should take steps to train them for other work. I want to remind the hon. member that I have already pointed out to him on a previous occasion that the Post Office is one of those efficient organizations where virtually every man and woman receives training in one of the schools of the Post Office. The Post Office has no fewer than 18 schools for its staff. Telephone and telegraph operators are trained for a month or two, and teleprinter operators for eight months; counter and mail clerks are trained intensively for eight months; special telegraphists are trained for nine to twelve months; apprentice technicians are trained for five years. The hon. member should therefore not be concerned. In the Post Office no person is being used for work in respect of which he has not been equipped; they receive thorough training and if it becomes necessary to transfer staff to other services, the hon. member can rest assured that they will receive the same thorough training for which the Post Office is so noted.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked me what the position was in regard to the satellite. He levelled the accusation at us that we were not making use of the wonderful satellite. I just want to point out to the hon. member that we bought a share in the satellite, but that South Africa does not have the right to say how much it wants. The countries which initiated this decided how much every other country might get and they granted South Africa .3 per cent. We were prepared to take more, but they granted us .3 per cent. That means that we have to provide .3 per cent of the capital, but it also means that we shall only have .3 per cent of the channels, in other words, .3 per cent of the use thereof. Consequently our say in the matter is also only .3. per cent. Our share is .3 per cent; our use is .3 per cent, but our say is also only .3 per cent and we are only getting .3 per cent of the channels.

Is our .3 per cent sufficient for one channel?

That depends on the number of channels available. Perhaps I should first of all phrase it thus: The first satellite, the Early Bird, was launched in April, 1965. At the moment it contains 100 channels between Europe and America, not between us and Europe but between Europe and America. It is expected that the next two satellites will be launched before the end of this year. At those heights they need a system of three satellites in order to meet the requirements of a world-wide reception. All told it will then provide 220 channels. If we are therefore entitled to .3 per cent, we are not even entitled to one channel. In 1968-9 they intend sending up a further three satellites, and then the total capacity will be 1,200 channels, of which .3 per cent is approximately three channels. We must bear in mind that South Africa does not only want three channels, but that it needs infinitely more for its own use, and that we are getting 360 channels with the cable which is being laid at present. Hon. members will therefore realize that the channels the satellite system can give us in South Africa are absolutely minimal, but the cost thereof is also non-comparable. We shall have to build a receiving station if we want to make use of that satellite, a receiving station which will cost us R6,000,000. It will be the Goonhilly type; it is not the best type; it is merely one of the passable types. When all the satellites are eventually in full swing, the total number of channels will be 2,400, and then South Africa will have seven channels at its disposal, compared with its cable of 360 channels, but that will only be so by the year 1970, while with our cable we shall already have 360 channels in 1968. There are many defects in messages transmitted by the satellite. The first defect is that a period of .6 of a second elapses from the time when one speaks until one receives the reply back, which is of course terribly annoying for speaking. At the same time the satellite operates on solar energy which is so weak that it can quite easily be interfered with by other hostile countries, while the cable is secret in all respects. Another disadvantage of the satellite is that it is being controlled by a certain body and that South Africa has little say in the matter, while South Africa has full control over the cable. I think hon. members will agree with me that South Africa cannot do better but to concentrate on its cable and that it should for the present leave the use of the satellite at that.

The hon. member also asked me what the position was in regard to our cable. I said that I hoped to have the cable functioning in the year 1968. It is essential that the cable should land in various places in the Atlantic Ocean, because it cannot span the long distance between South Africa and Europe without being supported; it has to land somewhere. That means that we must obtain landing rights in various territories between South Africa and Europe, and to obtain those landing rights, we must negotiate with the governments of those countries. At the moment all of those negotiations have not yet been finalized. In most cases the negotiations have been finalized, but not yet in all cases. Hon. members will understand that we dare not say much about it at this juncture, in view of the fact that there are many people in many countries who are not favourably disposed towards South Africa and in view of the fact that there are many who would be pleased to see that this cable is a failure. I hope that when we meet again next year, everything will be finalized and that there will then no longer be any reason for withholding the full particulars from the House.

I think I have now replied to all the questions put by the hon. member for Orange Grove.

The hon. member for North Rand asked me a question in regard to parcels which are lost. If he is not interested in the reply, I shall rather inform him of the position by letter.

No, I am listening.

If parcels are lost and the hon. member did not take the trouble to get a receipt, it is of course very difficult for the Post Office to find out where the fault lies. In future the hon. member should simply see to it that he always gets a receipt, and then the Post Office will be able to go into the matter, and if it is at all considered to be reasonable, the Post Office will even make an ex gratia payment to the hon. member. If it is a valuable parcel, the hon. member should simply insure it, and then he will of course be covered for the amount for which he insured it.

What about the question of censorship in the Post Office?

I wish to assure the hon. member for Mooi River, who referred to fire protection services in Natal, that I appreciate the point he made very seriously, and I will be glad if he puts it forward to me as a request so that I can go into it to see if it is not possible to accede to his wishes.

The hon. member for Berea mentioned the case of a telephone message which could not come through to him in Cape Town. Peculiarly, though, a telegram got through to him, and in turn when he rang he got through almost immediately. I admit readily that something peculiar happened there, and somebody has suggested that possibly the other side wished the hon. member to pay for the call.

I reversed the charges.

The MINISTER: The hon. member for Berea also mentioned the shopping centre in Glenwood. It seems to me that the hon. member has a good case there and I can assure him that I will go into the matter to see whether we can assist him at all. As far as the FM service to serve the seaward side of Durban is concerned, I wish to state that Durban North will be served by a separate transmitter and that transmitter will probably come into service in May, 1967. So I think the difficulties in that regard will probably be solved then.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District mentioned the case of two public telephones which are out of order at Hammarsdale. Now, Sir, our difficulty with these public telephones is that if you put them in places where there are unreliable people, often in Bantu areas, they are damaged almost every day. It is simply impossible to keep them in order every day because the workman has hardly left the booth after repairing the telephone when it is again put out of order. So it is very difficult indeed to see that the public telephones are always in order. That is the only excuse I can give. Public booths are maintained from the various post offices. They are constantly being serviced, in many cases almost every day. In those areas where you have unreliable people, people who have not been educated to look after public property, you always find this sort of thing happening. That is unfortunately the case, and until such time as the Bantu can be educated to look after their telephone booths, I am afraid you will always have these difficulties.

Mr. Chairman, although I do not agree with all the replies given by the hon. the Minister—I shall deal with some of them—I must thank him for having dealt with most of the points raised by this side. I trust that if he should have the time that he would also consider telling us very shortly what the position is in regard to two other points I raised, namely, firstly, the new language tests, and, secondly, the problem of the post office and the holding back of post for censorship purposes, both by the post office and the customs department.

When the Minister replies to all the points raised, you complain because he talks for so long. But when he does not reply to all points then you complain over that too.

I have thanked the hon. the Minister for giving all the replies which he did give. I should like to encourage him to give us further replies on, these two particular points, Sir. I think the most unsatisfactory of the hon. the Minister’s replies, the reply which will cause the greatest deal of alarm throughout the country, is that the position in regard to post office services, and in particular as regards the supply of telephones, will definitely worsen in the future.

We have already had statistics to show that it became three times worse in two years. The waiting list grew from 10,900 to 33,000 in two years. This afternoon the hon. the Minister has admitted that the brake still has to be applied and that this state of affairs existed before the brake was applied. This brake was applied during the Budget debate, and we are now told that we can expect a very great worsening of the state of affairs in regard to the supply of telephones.

The hon. the Minister spoke of the necessity for the post office to cut its growth rate to 5½ per cent per annum to agree with the growth rate of 5½ per cent for the rest of the country. I believe that that is fallacious reasoning. The post office is an ancillary service, and the post office should see that its development coincides with the growth rate of 51 per cent in the general economy. According to what the Minister has told us, he is going to put the brake on to such an extent that even if we cut our national growth rate to 51 per cent per annum it will not be possible for the post office to give the services the country needs. In fact, Sir, the need will increase and the backlog will grow.

I should now like to go on to other issues which also fall under the Minister’s vote, namely television and the S.A.B.C. On television I promise the House I shall not say much. We have given the arguments in favour of television. We believe that the arguments are overwhelmingly in favour of television, and we simply cannot understand the attitude of the hon. the Minister towards it. The point is this. In regard to television I believe that its coming is inevitable. I believe that the hon. the Minister is honest when he says that he does not want television. In other words, television will come, but only when the hon. the Minister has resigned or has been transferred to another post. Therefore, Sir, it does not seem to me to be of any avail to go into all the arguments. But it is interesting to point out, despite all that the hon. the Minister and despite what some of his young supporters in the Transvaal say, that television is to-day nearer than it has ever been before.

Can the hon. member tell me where television is mentioned under this Vote?

It is a matter of policy, Mr. Chairman. It is the policy of the hon. the Minister. He has stated over and over again that only the Government will introduce television. It is the policy of the Government. In the report of the S.A.B.C. its Chairman stated that television is a matter which will be introduced only by the Government. It is a matter of policy for the Government to decide. In terms of the Broadcast Act and the Post Office Act, too, one of the tasks which can be undertaken by the S.A.B.C. and by the Post Office is to introduce a television service. May I go on, Mr. Chairman?

Yes, the hon. member may proceed.

There have been very interesting indications during the past year of how, despite the hon. the Minister, television is coming closer and closer. One of the most interesting indications comes from the Pretoria University. We hear that the University plans to introduce a closed-circuit television into their current R4,000,000 building programme. In other words, Sir, the University of Pretoria is already thinking of introducing television, although it is closed-circuit television. A further interesting point is that scientists of the C.S.I.R. building research institute are keeping abreast of developments in educational television, abroad since they have been told that they will have to build or design architecturally school buildings for closed-circuit television in the future. Mr. Norman Filmer, the senior director of the S.A.B.C. who retired recently, said last year: “I am confident that television will be introduced in the very near future”. It is inevitable, Sir. It is coming.

One of the most interesting developments was the report of a commission which was sent abroad by the Transvaal Provincial Education Department, also advocating closed-circuit television in the schools. A Nationalist body, sent by Nationalists, say they want it. The most interesting personal advocate of television was no less a person than a Provincial Councillor of the Nationalist Party in Natal, Mr. G. J. Claassen. It is quite interesting to see what Mr. Claassen wrote in December, only a few months ago, in regard to television, in the Natal Mercury:

A Nationalist member of a Provincial Council, Sir, has said this. He went on to say, “All told, I am all for the Government embarking immediately on a crash programme to expedite television here”. We should like to hear from the hon. the Minister, and particularly from the new hon. member from Natal, what they think of this colleague of theirs on the Provincial Council.

That is all I wish to say regarding television, Sir. It is coming, Mr. Chairman, and the hon. the Minister is going—as Minister. I believe the hon. member for Umhlatuzana supported Mr. Claassen in his demand for television. I trust we will have an opportunity of hearing the hon. member on this particular part of his party’s policy too.

I wish to say a few words on the S.A.B.C. I have done so before, if you will remember. Since the Republic has been established in South Africa, the S.A.B.C. has seen its duty in a new light. It has seen its duty in the light of taking an active part in what it calls public affairs, which actually are political affairs. It has been stated in a round-about way in certain of the reports of the S.A.B.C., but I believe it was never stated more clearly than over the radio itself by the Director of Programmes, Mr. Fuchs. On 5th August of this year he said:

[Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Orange Grove, after all these years of making a study of television, and after all the pleas he has made here, has never been able to understand the difference between closed-circuit television for educational purposes and television in general. The closed-circuit television of the University of Pretoria to which he referred is intended for educational purposes. He could have gone even further. Why did the hon. member not attack the hon. the Minister because he had given his permission for the introduction of closed-circuit television in the Cango Caves? The fact of the matter is that the hon. member apparently does not know what the difference is between closed-circuit television and television in general.

It is very interesting to note that before the election the United Party issued pamphlets, these orange coloured handbills which we all know. One of their points of policy and promises was of course television. The United Party then went a step further than the issuing pamphlets. They put up large placards which read, “Want T.V.? Vote U.P.”. Some of their own people then went and changed those placards to read. “Want T.B.? Vote U.P.”. Those people had discovered that it rhymed better. In any case, Sir, the hon. member who is such an advocate for television has been coming away empty-handed since last year when on a few occasions, he pleaded the case in public. I want to refresh the hon. member’s memory a little. Perhaps he no longer remembers how unfortunate he was last year with arguments which he put forward on the occasion of a meeting in the Duncan Hall in Johannesburg on 7th October, 1965. The hon. member was guest speaker on that occasion and pleaded there for television. There were approximately 50 people present, most of whom would have some or other interest or personal motive in regard to the matter should television be introduced. The hon. member used the same arguments there which he has used over and over again in the House of Assembly. He asked, inter alia, why South Africa could not have television, since Ghana already has television. But he did not ask the audience why Israel does not have television. Nobody really displayed much enthusiasm there. The hon. member has also appeared subsequent to that. Recently, during this Session—it was on Wednesday evening, 27th July—the Cape Parliamentary Debating Society met in the Groote Kerk Building to discuss a motion in regard to the advantages and disadvantages of the introduction of television in South Africa. On that occasion the hon. member for Orange Grove was once more the guest speaker. Once again we can guess what attitude he adopted there. The chief antagonist on this occasion was Mrs. Enid Alexander. She spoke against the introduction of television and she was supported, inter alia, by an immigrant from Kenya. There were approximately 20 persons present and that in spite of the fact that the meeting had been well advertised. When a division was called for, the hon. member’s motion was defeated.

In any case, Sir, I may just say that this morbid interest in television in South Africa does occur from time to time. It is encouraged by hon. members such as the hon. member for Orange Grove who comes forward each year with a plea. One can compare it with a bone which a mongrel has buried, but which will only be dug up again in due course. It is difficult for me, and for people in general, to understand why this matter should be raised as regularly as clockwork in spite of the fact that there is not the slightest interest on the part of the public in it. In order to confirm this further, Sir, I want to say that thousands of South Africans go overseas each year as tourists, where they have the opportunity of sitting in front of the little screen. One would expect them to return with television fever, or one would expect them to have caught the television virus. But the opposite is true, Sir. These people return and there is no chain reaction. The fact of the matter is that they have no television craze whatsoever when they return. The simple reason for that is that the quality of the television services everywhere overseas, and particularly in Britain and America, has reached the low-water mark.

In the Western countries where culture and civilization once stood at such a highly commendable level, television has not only led to spiritual superficialization and superficialization of standards of living, it has also lead to defeatism, to the undermining of the spiritual strength of the Whites. And what we are getting now is the gradual abdication of the White man. Since the last World War we have this phenomenon that the liberalist, the communist and the leftists use all the possible means of influencing people. I mention as examples the Press, literature, the radio and television. Throughout the television films one finds that stream of propaganda. What do the controlling bodies care for the existence of moral norms, the culture, the religion of the West, or for the existence of the White man as such? [Interjection.] The hon. member for Wynberg has probably never seen television. I have seen it and I was not at all impressed. What is the purpose of the programme which is forced down one’s throat? In many programmes the White man is presented as a bad person, as the suppressor and exploiter of the Black man. The White man is depicted as being the person causing misery and frustration for the Black man. The pathological partiality for the Black man is in many cases connected with that. The White man should really act apologetically. What happened in regard to the Freedom Riders in the U.S.A.? There the television cameramen came along to photograph everything. There too the Black man was represented as being the oppressed and ultimately emerged as heroes. The overseas money magnates have used television as a deadly weapon to undermine the moral and spiritual resilience of the White man. It is being used so effectively that the onslaught of this type of propaganda is systematically breaking down the White man’s morale. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I think the best reply to what the hon. member has said about the evils of television can be found again in this article written in the Natal Mercury by—let me repeat—Mr. G. J. Claassen, Nationalist M.P.C., and I underline the word “Nationalist”. He said: “There are the hazards. But they can be controlled … I am all for the Government embarking immediately on a crash programme to expedite television here.” Later on he says—

I believe that we can make a good institution of it in this country. The hon. member also accused me of not telling the meeting in Johannesburg why Israel has not got television. Well, I have news for the hon. member, Sir. Israel is going to have television, and possibly before the middle of next year. I trust that when Parliament meets again next year, we shall not hear that argument again, an argument which is one of the favourite arguments of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I was speaking about this programme “Current Affairs” and how it has brought an entirely new political slant to the S.A.B.C. which we never had before. I have here hundreds of transcripts. I am not going to quote them all. Let me quote at random from a few. I have here a transcript of a broadcast of 17th February against Archbishop-Hurley—

This is pure politics. Then there is “Current Affairs” of 29th August, 1966, part of which reads as follows—

this contradicts the Archbishop Hurley broadcast, for instance—

There were attacks on the Cape Times in “Current Affairs” of 25th August, 1966, which read in part as follows—

This, Sir, is personal abuse instead of logical argument. Another interesting one was broadcast on the 4th August, 1966. In that broadcast it was asked “Why is Britain then in such grave economic trouble? To that the answer is that the State had spent too much on ideological ventures.” I do not want to read from any more of these broadcasts. I have them here in case there are hon. members who should like to have a look at them. I only wish to refer to one more, i.e. a particularly obnoxious one which was broadcast on 11th August this year containing an attack on the Rand Daily Mail. I am no supporter of the Rand Daily Mail nor is the Rand Daily Mail a supporter of mine. However, it is a newspaper which is entitled to put its point of view. In this particular broadcast of “Current Affairs” the Rand Daily Mail was attacked for having in its townships’ edition—an edition for the Native areas in Johannesburg—two articles on the front page, firstly the photograph of an Indian who had been mutilated by Whites and secondly, a story about a White farmer who had been gaoled for five years for beating a Bantu boy to death. In this broadcast the Rand Daily Mail was accused of presenting these two articles in its townships’ edition on purpose while not giving it to the Whites in their edition. Well, I did my best to establish the truth and I found that both these reports, were included in the first three editions of the Rand Daily Mail. These are general editions which also go to the White areas. Between the third and fourth edition new reports came in and another report was placed in the place of that particular item so that the final edition did not carry this particular report. It was, however, definitely not a report which was placed only in the townships’ edition. The same goes for the second of these articles. This was covered much more fully in the other editions of the Rand Daily Mail, although not on the front page but on an inside page.

This then is one of the many examples I can quote of deliberate distortion and an actual untruth on the part of the S.A.B.C. in this “Current Affairs” programme.

There is one further point I should like to raise. There are, of course, many others I can raise but I do not wish to take up too much of the time of this Committee. The point I should like to raise I should like to formulate in the form of a question. The licence issued by the Postmaster-General to the S.A.B.C. lays down that no person may be employed in the S.A.B.C. unless he is a South African citizen. In general I believe this to be a good principle, although I personally would make exception in the case of technicians coming from abroad, people who are well qualified in television, electronics, etc. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has applied this principle on all occasions in respect of the appointment of members of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. I should like to know whether the Minister can give us the assurance—and I should like him to be very careful in his reply—that during the past four or five years all the members of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. have been South African citizens. If they were not, then I demand to know from the hon. the Minister why an exception was made in a certain case and whether he is prepared to give this Committee full particulars in regard to that case.

We expected the hon. member to launch a tremendous attack tonight—or in any event that is what he intimated he would do—on what he regards as the terribly inhuman S.A.B.C. review, namely, “Current Affairs”. But he came here and gave two or three childish quotations, and referred among other things to “liberal distortion”. According to him the truth is distorted. But then he left the entire matter at that. He behaved as though it was merely a dust storm that passed after a few moments. We on this side of the House and also the people outside have now reached the point where we will no longer suffer the hon. member for Orange Grove to be the spokesman through whom this debate degenerates every year into a negative attack on the S.A.B.C. By doing so he forces us to defend the S.A.B.C., and that while we have to do with such an excellent organization. The people outside are no longer satisfied with that, and we are not going to be misled by that. If the hon. member has facts to present, we should like to reply to them, but he does not present a single fact. He came here with a little tale in connection with the Rand Daily Mail, but I am convinced that if we go and make inquiries, we shall find out what the true facts are.

I have obtained copies of the broadcasts from the S.A.B.C.

I have them too. Every year this hon. member comes along with exactly the same arguments, and every year he uses them in an attempt to put this side on the defensive. But we refuse to accept that. On behalf of this side of the House and on behalf of the people outside, I want to put it very strongly that we intend paying tribute to the S.A.B.C. for the excellent role it is playing in the life and in the history of our people at the moment. There is no doubt about that. [Interjections.] Those people have become so saturated with anti-national sentiments that they have become anti-South African at heart, and are no longer patriotic. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Wynberg has more “wine” than “berg” with her at the moment.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member allowed to say that of the hon. member for Wynberg?

Let me then say that in her case there is more “berg” than “wine”.

Order! I do not like personal remarks of this kind. I want the hon. member to withdraw that remark.

I shall withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, but then the hon. member for Wynberg should not make personal remarks either. But I want to continue with my argument. Hon. members on the opposite side have become so unnational and un-South African that they actually immediately brand as political and pro-Government everything that is done by the Broadcasting Corporation and that is purely South African in its approach, that is pro-South African. It is that confused and distorted presentation that I want to expose tonight. What is the task of the S.A.B.C., and exactly what is it doing? The S.A.B.C. is the loyal and patriotic citizen in the Republic of South Africa which is performing its task in a masterly fashion, the task of clearly disseminating and getting across all facets of our people and all facets of the life of our people to the world abroad. It makes that very clear here in its report, that it is still the policy of the Board of Governors that Radio South Africa should identify itself pre-eminently with the best in the people and should serve as a stimulus to raise intellectual and spiritual development as well as entertainment and leisure to a higher level. The S.A.B.C. is full of patriotism and disseminates it every day. It is not pro-National, but pro-South African. That is the crux of the matter, and if hon. members will not or cannot see the light, then that is unfortunately their own attitude in their own spirit. We receive excellent service from the S.A.B.C. I want to mention a few aspects of that. Firstly I want to refer to this review “Current Affairs”, on which the hon. member for Orange Grove launched an attack this afternoon. For how many years have the newspapers, and pre-eminently the hostile English Press, launched random attacks on the S.A.B.C., without the S.A.B.C. being able to defend or protect itself in any way? But now that it has introduced its own review, which is the counterpart of the editorial in a newspaper, and by doing so is claiming for the first time the freedom, that freedom of speech that the hon. Opposition claims for itself, now all the stops are pulled out against the S.A.B.C. and a witch-hunt is put into operation, while it is denounced as politically indoctrinated. The S.A.B.C. may be compared with a newspaper. There is a very strong similarity between the two. In fact, the only difference is that one uses the written and the other the spoken word.

Will the S.A.B.C. present both sides of the matter?

Will any newspaper be prepared to allow the S.A.B.C. to write its editorial for it? Furthermore, those newspapers publish the letters that suit them whilst suppressing the others. No newspaper will allow the S.A.B.C. or anybody else to write its editorial for it. That is its own opinion and it is entitled to it. It therefore writes it as it suits it, and in accordance with its own policy. The counterpart of the editorial in a newspaper is the review “Current Affairs” of the S.A.B.C. Here the S.A.B.C. also has the right to present its point of view in that review, according to its own light, positively and pro-South African.

May I ask a question?

No, you can speak after I have done. I have only a few more minutes at my disposal and the hon. member must not try to deprive me of any of them. The talks in this review are written when there is a matter of current interest and when there are deliberate and blatant distortions in the Press as regards matters that harm and misrepresent the image of South Africa. Then it is the task and the duty of the S.A.B.C. to give very clear guidance in that respect. It does on fact do that. It first consults authorities on the subject and then the talks are written. The truth, and nothing but the truth, is its only premise. We can see that very clearly. In general newspapers are critical and express opinions on all and sundry. Thus they have their critical opinions about every Minister, about the S.A.B.C.—in fact, about all and sundry. They do that by virtue of the freedom of the Press, and they are in fact free to do so. All the S.A.B.C. has now done, is to claim for itself the same right, namely to be free to express an opinion too. Instead of those freedom fighters coming forward now and defending that right of the S.A.B.C., namely to have its say freely, they come forward immediately and say that everybody who attacks the Government may do this or that but that a person or body that, like the S.A.B.C., states South Africa’s policy clearly, should be eliminated immediately. They are begrudged that right.

We cannot allow the United Party to get away with those slogans, nor are we prepared to let it get away. The fact of the matter is that the review “Current Affairs” was introduced to disseminate the views of South Africa in a positive fashion. Now the hon. member comes along and says that the S.A.B.C. is doing it with his money, that he has to pay licence fees but has to listen to this kind of thing. The hon. member can switch off the radio if he likes. He need not listen only to our own broadcasts. In fact, he can tune in on any overseas station if he wishes to listen to it. For example he can tune in to Lourenço Marques if he likes, or to Addis Ababa or Dar-es-Salaam. The fact remains that we are not going to allow the Opposition or the newspapers to force the S.A.B.C. off the course it has chosen, a course it has chosen correctly, namely to protect South Africa, and South Africa’s interests only, at all times and to guard over them in all respects. That is its task and its duty and we want to see it continue with that.

The very fact that the hon. member for Randfontein is so enthusiastic about the various political programmes of the S.A.B.C. indicates in no uncertain manner the slanted attitude of the S.A.B.C. in its political commentaries. I believe, and so do many others, that it is quite scandalous how on occasions the S.A.B.C. has seen fit to attack individuals and organizations and then to deny them any right to answer such criticism. One should have thought that if one believed in democracy one would be prepared to allow such persons and organizations an opportunity to reply to attacks being made upon them. And there are, in fact, many attacks in these programmes. There is for instance the case of Archbishop Hurley. I do not hold any political views which are common to his. However, he was made the subject of a severe personal attack and denied the right to answer it. I think it is not in the best interests of South Africa that such an attitude should be adopted, an attitude which is so enthusiastically supported by certain politicians, for instance by the hon. member for Randfontein, who has built up a reputation of being first and foremost a politician. It is quite obvious that his enthusiasm for the attitude for the S.A.B.C. adds further weight to the contention that this body in its political commentaries does not approach things in an unbiased manner. In my view a person can express an adverse opinion and at the same time still be pro-South African. To criticize the Government in power in no way means un-South Africanism. We on this side of the House see it to be our duty as the official Opposition to stand up for the rights of minorities, to put forward alternative policies and to criticize if we wish to do that, without being labelled as being un-South African or unpatriotic. We are just as good South Africans as any member sitting opposite.

But there is another matter in connection with the S.A.B.C. which I should like to discuss with the Minister. This is in connection with the issue of concessionary radio listeners’ licences. Looking at the latest report of the S.A.B.C., one sees a large increase in the number of listeners’ licences issued particularly during the past four years. One finds that from 1962 to 1965 there has been an increase of 100,000 per annum in the number of licences. The increase in the ordinary licence fees has meant a considerable increase in the revenue of the S.A.B.C. In this connection I want to elaborate on the correspondence which has taken place relating to the issue of concessionary listeners’ licences to social pensioners. The Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. was approached in connection with the issue of concessionary listeners’ licences as far back as 1962. A request for such concessionary licences did not only come from myself but also from a large number of non-political and welfare organizations who found that when the radio licence fee was increased to R5.50 per annum it created a considerable hardship for a number of persons, persons who were unable to meet the increase. Eventually, however, the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. stated in a letter dated 22nd February, 1963—

This letter was written in February, 1963. The “higher authority” referred to in this letter is evidently, the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. However, although that resolution was taken by the Board of Governors in February, 1963, the hon. the Minister has not as yet seen fit to agree to amended regulations putting into effect that particular recommendation of the Board of Governors. This means that social pensioners continue to pay the full radio licence fee of R5.50.