When the debate was adjourned last night, I was discussing the labour policy of the National Party. I said, amongst other things, that the National Party had not yet deviated one inch from its policy of controlled employment of non-Whites in consultation with the various trade unions. However, there is one last matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It was with great joy that we took cognizance of the honourable agreement between the Post Office and the staff association concerned in regard to the permanent appointment of non-Whites as postmen. Sir, it is with the greatest measure of appreciation that we take cognizance of the faithful work done by the White postmen in the past. They were faithful and loyal and, what is more, patriotic. Even in inclement weather these White postmen justified themselves and served the purpose for which they were appointed. Now we should like to see these White postmen, and also the staff association representing these White postmen, feeling happy and content with this labour arrangement. Sir, since it is of so much public importance that people should know how this labour arrangement came into being and precisely what it envisages, we would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would inform us as fully as possible on this matter. I trust that everybody—and more in particular, the White workers who made major sacrifices for the Post Office, in whose service they were employed—will be satisfied with this arrangement.

I think I should reply at this stage to the representations and the contributions made during the Committee Stage up to now. I shall therefore start with the hon. member for Orange Grove, who asked, amongst other things, that the Post Office should get its own service Act and pleaded for this matter to be expedited. I can give the hon. member the assurance that I have done everything that had to be done in this regard. The Bill has already been drafted; it has already been checked by the law advisers and the Bill is therefore ready for introduction during this Session of Parliament. I hope to introduce it during this Session of Parliament, and with the co-operation of the Opposition it ought therefore to be passed during this Session of Parliament. Then the hon. member also referred to the question of switching apparatus.

†As a matter of fact, Sir, quite a few hon. members on the other side referred to the question of switching systems. The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke of the grid system, and the hon. member for Benoni spoke about the cross-bar switch system. There are different systems, of course.

I referred to the latter system.

In any case, the technical staff of the department are quite aware of the different systems, and I can give the hon. member the assurance that they will consider all the different systems. We have to take our own staff into consideration; we cannot expect them to concentrate on a variety of systems if the same service can be rendered by adopting one or two systems. In any case, we will take note of these suggestions and see what can be done about them.

*The hon. member for Mossel Bay, with his interest in philately, once again made a contribution in that regard. I am most grateful to the hon. member for his interest in philately. I think that to any country this is not only an important source of revenue, but also a source of advertising which one can radiate to countries abroad. The hon. member’s plea was that we should be conservative in regard to the issue of postage stamps, i.e. that we should not issue too many of them, as was being done by certain smaller states in Africa and elsewhere, otherwise nobody would after a while attach any importance to the issues of such a country. I want to give the assurance that we in South Africa shall rather be on the conservative side and see to it that we shall rather have fewer issues than is perhaps the case with certain other countries. The hon. member asked specific questions in regard to the issue of regional stamps, such as those for the Bantu homelands, and he asked for more information in that regard.

As far as that matter is concerned, the intention is that we shall issue stamps for the homelands at intervals of four years. Those stamps that will be issued for the homelands, will be valid in the rest of the Republic as well. They will bear the letters “RSA”, which stand for the Republic of South Africa, and then they will also bear the identity marks of the homeland concerned in order that attention may also be focussed properly on those homeland people in that way. Those stamps will therefore be valid in the homeland as well as in the rest of South Africa, but they will only be sold in that homeland. As I have said, they will be issued at intervals of four years, and inquiries have already been made with the respective homelands in this regard. I may just mention that we have already received back proposals in this connection from the Ciskei, from the Okavango and the Owambo, and we propose to make a start with this matter one of these days, when these proposals will be submitted to me and we shall be able to give further consideration to them. Therefore I want to give the assurance that we shall proceed with this matter, and that these homelands are most delighted with this development.

†The hon. member for Constantia gave much thought and study to the aspect of finance and I would like to pay my tribute to him and to say that I really appreciate the contribution he has made to this debate. I think the hon. member would agree with me that a portion of the funds for capital development must of necessity come from our own sources. This is the practice all over the world, and, of course, also the practice in the private sector. The question is only what percentage must come from your own sources. That is a point which has been thoroughly thrashed out by the Franzsen Commission and the Franzsen Committee. As far as the latter is concerned, the hon. member is aware of the fact that one of our prominent industrialists served on that Franzsen Committee and they came forward with a recommendation that it should be 50 per cent. Of course it will vary from time to time. There may be years when it may be less than 50 per cent and sometimes in excess of 50 per cent, but 50 per cent will be our target which we have in mind as far as this self-financing is concerned. As I have said in the previous stages of the debate, as far as other countries are concerned, they follow this policy too. I may merely quote for record purposes that as far as the self-financing is concerned, the percentage in Britain is 57 per cent, in Australia it is 54 per cent, in Holland 54 per cent, in Japan 52 per cent and in Sweden 98 per cent. This sounds exceedingly high. What is significant about Sweden is that this country, which has the highest self-financing out of its own sources, is also the country with the lowest tariff structure in the world. As far as the private undertakings are concerned, I can quote the Bell system in America, which, as you will know, is a private company. This Bell system finances its capital requirements for telecommunication undertakings from generated funds to the extent of 46 per cent. Those are the latest figures we have of the Bell system. So I think that in following these guide-lines recommended by the Franzsen Committee we are really on very sound economic and financial grounds, and we will continue along those lines.

*The hon. member for Kempton Park put a number of questions to me, but last night he apologized for the fact that he would not be able to be present here today as he had to meet a commitment somewhere else. I shall nevertheless reply to the matters he raised. The hon. member expressed his appreciation for the fact that, in spite of the curtailment in respect of the construction of post office buildings, we nevertheless proceeded with the erection of a post office of approximately R1 million in Kempton Park. That is, of course, one of the most intensively developed spots in our entire country, and for that reason we felt that that project had to be proceeded with. The hon. member also pleaded for more call office facilities. In this regard I now want to mention to this hon. member, and also to all of you, the following two aids on which we are working at the moment. The first of them I mentioned the other day in the course of the Additional Appropriation debate. This is the modern type of public telephone mounted on a table. It was shown to the two chairmen of the respective groups, and I think they will agree that this is a most handsome model of a public telephone, which may now be used at hotels and banks, and so forth. We have no fear that money can be embezzled. As you yourself saw, Sir, an arrangement was made for the insertion of the money, and the locked drawer is such that we entertain no fears in that respect. This system, in terms of which people will now have telephones on their counters and under their supervision, ought to result in vandalism being restricted to a minimum and in the possibility of the public actually being provided with a better service, and we shall therefore proceed with it.

The second aid which we now want to start implementing, and which I want to mention today, is to start testing the system of public telephones, which we can, for instance, mount on telephone or electric standards. This is really a small type of telephone booth, with a transparent casing, which people can use as they do an ordinary telephone. It is quite transparent and visible. At the moment experiments are being carried out with it in our workshops. We shall also carry out further experiments in this regard in the near future. The hon. member for Kempton Park, who will read this reply of mine in Hansard, will be able to react to my reply by telling me where in his town, Kempton Park, he thinks there is a need for this new kind of telephone, and this also goes for the other members who are present here. In the near future we shall reach the stage where we shall be able to use call offices of this kind, which we shall mount on telephone and electric standards.

The hon. member also asked me a question in regard to the part-time after-hour telephone service, the so-called sundowner service. I may just say that there are approximately 5 000 such services at the moment and that we are proceeding with the provision of such services.

The hon. member for North Rand is not present at the moment, but I shall nevertheless reply to the two matters he raised. In the first place, he referred to the “tremendous amount of unnecessary work done in post offices”.

†Of course, we are continually streamlining our procedures, and we all wish to eliminate unnecessary work. In this age of productivity we cannot waste our time and energy on unproductive work; so we are concentrating on the elimination of any unnecessary procedures in this regard. I can mention that our department has a fully equipped work study team, which perpetually concentrates on this type of thing— the elimination of unnecessary and uneconomic methods. So, he can be assured that we are paying attention to this.

*The hon. member also made a very strange, yet very important plea. With further reference to my announcement during the Budget speech to the effect that we also wanted to use more non-Whites on counter duty in White areas where they could serve their own people, the hon. member simply rushed along and referred to the smaller post offices. That brings one to this precipitate manner in which the United Party wants to carry out a labour policy. Now I want to ask the following question very pointedly. At those smaller post offices where, for instance, two ladies are employed, do they want a White lady and a non-White lady or a White lady and a non-White man to work together, behind the same counter, in such small post offices? Do they want that? Is that what the hon member is advocating now? That is the plea that was made to me last night. In order to save on labour—for ostensibly we are in such a sorry plight now as far as labour is concerned—we are now supposed to use non-Whites. It is this unrealistic approach, these mixed working conditions to which I referred last night while the hon. member did not have the courage …

That Black peril again.

He did not have the courage, and now he is running away with Black peril stories. If you want to talk about Black peril, you should speak to your bench-mate, for he is the one who is most articulate in shouting “Kaffir” while fighting an election campaign in Oudtshoorn. The hon. member should speak to him, for he is an authority in that field. But I doubt whether you yourself are quite a novice in that very same U.P. art. That just goes to show one what an ill-considered business the U.P. policy is. If we were to follow that line of conduct, the result would be a rather scrambled business in our labour world. I want to state very explicitly that this is definitely not the way in which this Government will use non-Whites in our economic life.

The hon. member for Hercules raised two important matters. In the first instance, he referred to the development in the Wesmoot areas, which will now come into being as a result of the conversion of the Lady Selbome area into a new residential area. The hon. member wanted to know what we were planning in that regard. I take pleasure in furnishing the hon. member with certain data in this regard. We are planning a large-scale extension of the underground telephone cable network in this area. It is expected that the work will be commenced in February of next year. A new automatic telephone exchange is being established in the vicinity of Mahen, and it is expected to be ready towards the end of 1973. Furthermore, a new automatic telephone exchange is being planned at Hartebeespoort Dam to replace the existing manual exchange there towards the end of 1974. Another extension being planned, is that of the existing Daspoort exchange, which will serve the Hermanusstad, Pretoria Gardens, Claremont, Booysens, Daspoort, Daspoort Estate and Mountain View areas. This exchange will be extended by 1 810 lines, and the new lines are expected to be available during 1975. In the light of these extensions, it would appear that the constituency of the hon. member for Hercules is not being neglected.

The other important matter raised by the hon. member, was the question of the agreement, which has now been entered into with the Postal Association in regard to the permanent appointment of postmen. This is an important matter. The hon. member asked questions about this matter, and I should like to reply to them now. All of us are delighted about these satisfactory arrangements that have now been entered into between the department and the Postal Association, which represents the White postmen. Thanks to the fact that the department and the association understand each other’s problems, there is really a very good understanding between the Postal Association and my department. Without exaggerating I may tell hon. members that there is real harmony between the Postal Association and my department. Now, what are the facts of this situation? I shall state them briefly. There are more than 3 000 posts for White postmen in the Republic. Of this number 800 are at present being filled by non-Whites on a temporary basis. Some of these posts have been filled by non-Whites for many years. Apart from the 800 who are doing this work in a temporary capacity, there are, approximately, another 1 000 non-White posts, mainly in the Cape Province, which are being filled by Coloureds for the most part. In other words, those Coloureds delivering mail in the Cape Province, are doing this work in a permanent capacity. I do not want there to be any doubts in this regard. I have just seen in one of the press reports that these Coloureds who are now delivering mail here in the Cape Province, are also doing so in a temporary capacity. Back in the days when, along with them, I started working in the Maitland post office at 6 o’clock in the morning, i.e. I as a clerk and they as postmen, they were permanent already. At that stage they were on the permanent staff already. In other words, back in those days they already enjoyed the benefits of permanent appointment. They are still enjoying them today, in the form of holiday bonuses, pensions and everything that is coupled with permanent appointment. Therefore, the point at issue here is not these 1 000 Coloureds who have been doing this permanent work in the Cape Province from the earliest times; the point at issue is the other 800.

They are working in both White and non-White areas.

That is correct; they have been delivering mail at White homes from the earliest times. Therefore, the point at issue here is the 800 who are serving in White posts in the rest of the Republic. The point at issue here is those who are still working on a temporary basis. They are the people on whom I had discussions with the Postal Association last year. I said that in my opinion it was morally correct that we should also grant these 800, who have now been serving in these posts for years, the benefits of permanent appointment. Now I am very grateful to be able to join the hon. member for Hercules in saying that a really satisfactory agreement between the department and the Postal Association has been effected. This arrangement will be implemented in such a way that the White postmen will, as far as it is practicable, take care of the more advanced facets of postal delivery—such as those of driving vehicles, station supervisory duties, and so forth. Since this matter is of so much public importance, and since the hon. member asked me pointed questions in this regard, I should now like to quote from the letter of the chief secretary of the Postal Association a few of the provisions on the basis of which this agreement was entered into with them. In this letter, from which I am now going to quote, the chief secretary stated inter alia the following (translation)—

It may therefore be concluded from this that the point at issue here, is not merely the question of placing on a permanent basis the 800 who are employed in a temporary capacity at the moment. In terms of this agreement more than this is being done. What is also involved here, is their places of work, in order that there may be compliance with the basic principle advocated by this Government. Consequently they proposed that the posts at the following offices might be converted into posts of Coloured postman :

1. (a) Western Cape: Beaufort West (4), Moorreesburg (2), and Swellendam (2).
2. (b) Northern Cape : De Aar (3), Kimberley (13), and Vryburg (3).

They went on to say the following—

1. 1. The conversion of the 13 posts at Kimberley is done on the definite understanding that no promotion post for Whites shall be relinquished as a result.

That we accept in full. Then I come to the second provision in this letter. It reads as follows—

1. 2. After the conversion of the said posts, postal deliveries in the Western Cape and Northern Cape areas shall be done exclusively by Coloureds, with the exception of Cape Town Central, Oudtshoorn, George and Knysna. As there are Whites at the former three offices, the Association believes that the two temporary Coloureds at Knysna can also be replaced.

The third provision reads as follows—

1. 3. That in the Western Cape and Northern Cape areas, all the posts of postman for station, dock, driving and indoor duties, shall be posts of White postman, unless the Department and the Association mutually agree to other arrangements.

This is the protection they ask for their own White postmen. Actually, this is merely the administrative manner in which job reservation is applied by a department. This is nothing but the principle of administrative job reservation which is being applied here. In the fourth place, it is said that the department has undertaken to proceed with the recruitment of Whites for the job of postman, and, as they also state in their letter, the postman today makes a very good living in the Department of Posts. As a result of all these fringe benefits, there is a very good means of livelihood for him today. The Association itself recommends this very highly to prospective postmen. At the moment there are certain offices which will be served exclusively by Coloured postmen, and in spite of these concessions which have been made by the Postal Association in regard to permanent appointments, the Postal Association laid down the following condition, which I also accepted, namely—

I have complied with this. This is really a very serious attempt which is now being made, in the first place, to protect the White postmen in their sphere of employment, and, in the second place, to concentrate them in places where they will exclusively work together as Whites. Furthermore, this also brings to light once again the difference between this side of the House and that side of the House as far as mixed working conditions are concerned. Here the Government and the Postal Association are upholding the principle that we do not want any mixed working conditions in the same work situation. In this specific case the work situation is that of postal delivery. We do not want Whites and non-Whites to do postal deliveries shoulder to shoulder, at the same place. This is one of the questions to which the United Party is not prepared to answer. I put that question yesterday afternoon.

No. We did …

Then I should be glad if you would answer now. Would it therefore be possible for me to get the answer now?

The hon. member for Maitland will reply to it.

No, you are supposed to be the shadow Minister. Can you not reply? Let me state this clearly now. Surely it is not necessary to be at a loss in regard to such a clear, elementary question? This is our policy, and it is implemented in such a way that there will not be any mixed working conditions in the same work situation. Now I want to put a question to that side of the House. Does the United Party also support this principle, i.e. that there should not be any mixed working conditions in the same work situation?

You will receive the full answer.

Oh, I shall receive the full answer. Mr. Chairman, it is this attitude of the United Party to try, i.e. to evade everything, to evade every thorny matter, which has led to our being firmly convinced that the United Party’s policy merely implies that the flood-gates will be opened in this country to the uncontrolled influx of non-White labour.

Mr. Chairman, if I am correct, the hon. the Minister asked seven questions. I do not know whether time will allow me to reply to all seven questions, but I shall do my best. The hon. the Minister asked whether we advocate that a Coloured woman should be allowed to work with a White woman in the same post office. That was his question.

That was one of the questions.

Yes, it was one of the seven questions. Incidentally, I am glad the hon. member for Hercules is here, because he agrees with the hon. the Minister. He says that the questions were put to me and that I do not want to reply. I shall reply now.

But where does the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs live?

What has that to do with the matter?

I shall say in a moment what it has to do with it. The hon. the Minister described the situation where a White woman is in charge of a post office and has, for argument’s sake, a Coloured woman as an assistant. Is this not in fact the typical situation found in every home in South Africa, in every kitchen in South Africa? Is this not in fact the traditional way of life of every woman, every country woman in South Africa? Where does the hon. the Minister live? But what does he do?

Are you running away again?

No, I am testing the hon. the Minister’s questions against the reality in South Africa. Every time we find that his question is nothing but setting up a skittle and then knocking it over himself. His question means absolutely nothing.

I now want to make my second point. Has the hon. the Minister considered the possibility of consulting his trade unions about the matter if, as a result of a labour shortage, he should be compelled to consider such a situation? It is a fair question. Incidentally, this brings me to the second question the hon. the Minister asked. The hon. the Minister asked whether we want the White and non-White postmen to work on a mixed basis. This is what they call “the same work situation”. My counter-question to the hon. the Minister is this: I do not know whether the need for it exists, but if, for argument’s sake, such a situation were forced on him as a result of a labour shortage, would the hon. the Minister be prepared to consult his trade unions about it?

I do so continually.

Thank you, I am satisfied. The hon. the Minister therefore says that if he is forced … [Interjections.] Wait, give me a chance. The hon. the Minister said that he continually consulted the unions. If the hon. the Minister were forced into a position where he found that non-Whites and Whites had to work together in the same work situation, he would also be prepared, so he says, to consult his trade unions about the matter. What is wrong with that? Would the hon. the Minister act against the wishes of the trade unions?

Yes, if it is in conflict with our declared principle of White protection.

Then what does such consultation mean? The hon. the Minister consults the people, but tells them in advance: “I am going to consult you, but you already know what the reply must be.” [Interjections.] Wait a moment. I shall also come to the traditional policy of the National Party. This is precisely what he is going to hold up to the trade unions, and he will tell them : “Look, boys, here is my policy. You may do what you like. I am consulting you, but remember, I am telling you in advance what my policy is and if you do not agree, hard luck boys. You have to do as I, the Minister, say.” That is the second point.

But yesterday the hon. the Minister put five questions to me. Then the hon. the Minister was very vehement. It was the climax of his speech, it was the peroration. His hon. friends behind him considered it of such importance that they virtually applauded him. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister in passing that his own press thought so little of his questions that they did not even say a word about them. But I want to deal with them. The hon. the Minister asked whether we stand for controlled employment. The hon. the Minister knows that every piece of labour legislation in South Africa, and there are about 12 of them, partially or entirely, to a greater or a lesser extent, has to do with controlled employment. It is therefore a general principle which is accepted throughout South Africa for all workers, White and non-White. This is not the whole story. Then the hon. the Minister comes along as he did a while ago, and concludes his peroration by telling us on the one hand, “I know you stand for controlled employment”—because we said, “Yes, we stand for it”—and on the other hand saying, “You want to throw open the floodgates.” I want to ask a simple question: Must we really take the hon. the Minister seriously if they set up these skittles and knock them over themselves?

He then asks whether we stand for consultation with trade unions. Yes, of course we stand for it. It has been the policy of this side for years. The point is that when one consults a trade union it is no use telling it in advance what the conditions are.

Which trade union?

When one consults a trade union, one does so because one wants their guidance and assistance. It is no use if they are tied down in advance. We stand for consultation of trade unions as a basic point of our policy.

Question No. 3—the hon. the Minister asked us whether we are going to allow mixed employment. Let us test this statement against the reality in South Africa. If a railway artisan is assisted by two non-White assistants …

They are not working on a mixed basis.

Oh, they are not working on a mixed basis! [Interjections.] I then see the situation as follows: The White artisan works in the workshop and, because we do not want mixed employment, the non-White assistant throws the White artisan the spanner through the window.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

So in actual fact there is nothing in the hon. the Minister’s questions. He says Whites may not work under non-Whites. This is the policy of the National Party. Let us test this against reality. Since this is taking place under his administration and with his administration’s approval, the hon. the Minister knows that in South Africa there are non-White teachers exercising control over White female teachers.

Where is that?

Now the hon. the Minister does not know about it. But wait, I go further.

But you must tell us where.

The hon. the Minister knows about it. Do not worry. On Monday the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, Mr. Raubenheimer, made a speech here. He said—

“they” are the White doctors—

The Transkeian Government is not White. In case hon. members want to catch me out, the sentence continues—

There the Bantu are primary.

This is again a skittle set up by the hon. the Minister. He asked us whether we are going to allow mixed employment and whether we will allow Whites to work under the charge of non-Whites. I have already dealt with that. Is there perhaps another question that hon. members want to ask about the labour policy of the United Party? The questions asked here by the hon. the Minister and those asked by my friends are all questions that are asked in the abstract. If one tests those questions against the reality in South Africa, one realizes that one cannot draw a line anywhere and say: “So far and no further.”

The question to which the hon. the Minister must give me a reply is whether it is the policy of the National Party that no non-White artisan may be trained in White South Africa and practise his trade in White South Africa. May he be trained only in the Bantu area in which he is to perform his work as well? The hon. the Minister must tell us this. Before we interpret the hon. the Minister’s policy as an enlightened one, I should like him to tell us today whether there has been a policy shift as far as the National Party is concerned, and whether the hon. the Minister has now relinquished his traditional policy and that there will now be vocational training for the Bantu in the White area and that those vocationally trained Bantu will then be able to work in the White area. That is my question. The hon. the Minister knows what I am talking about. The fundamental question I want to ask him is therefore whether there has been a policy shift in the National Party or not.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland, who has just resumed his seat, used the words “traditionally” or “traditional” three times.

He said so.

He spoke of the traditional way of life in South Africa, which he apparently does not know much about. He spoke of the traditional policy of the National Party which he himself would have come back to at a later stage. He did not do so.

I have just stated it now.

I want to tell that hon. member that it is probably wonderful to be able to speak of a “traditional policy”, because that side of the House has nothing of the kind. The hon. member spoke, inter alia, of traditional customs. If I may consequently also use the word “traditionally”, I want to tell that hon. member and the Opposition that the United Party’s attack on the National Party in this Budget was again traditionally a poor one. We include the hon. shadow minister of the United Party in this.

In the Second Reading and in the Committee Stage we had a typical repetition of what we experienced in the Railway Budget, i.e. that that side of the House absolutely takes to their heels as far as that aspect of the administration and the interests of the Post Office in South Africa is concerned. They again deal with economic levelling off and the labour situation in South Africa. When one listens to the complaints of that side, in connection with economic levelling off as well, one realizes that that side of the House must really take note of the speech the Leader of the National Party made at Blood River on 16th December, in which he warned South Africa against discontentment. That is precisely what we get from that side of the House. In complete contrast with that discontentment, there is a brief report in the Volksblad of 9th March in which mention is made of a campaign specifically being launched by the Post Office in South Africa. They call it a “courtesy campaign”. We should like to congratulate the Post Office staff on this scheme dealing with appearance, the correct way of speaking and proper conduct towards the public. I think it is perhaps a good thing that in this House an appeal should also be made to our general public to also be courteous to the officials of the Post Office in South Africa.

In contemplating this discontentment, I think the time has come for us in South Africa to realize that it is high time for us to adapt ourselves and our needs to the available services that are furnished, with an effort to do everything in our power to extend and to improve those services. Negative and scornful criticism, such as we get from that side of the House, has never improved any department in the world. I said one must adapt one’s needs to the available services, and I want to illustrate this with a practical example. I myself have never—and I repeat never—had any reason to complain about the South African Post Office system. In the past recess I never made a single telephone call that culminated in a wrong number.

Where did you dial from?

From Bethlehem.

Can one dial from there?

Never did I have reason to complain about having to wait very long for a number that continually gave an engaged tone. I do want to say, though, that it was only yesterday morning that I felt that the South African telephone service is not adequate in itself. I want to say why I think this telephone service was, as far as I am concerned, inadequate yesterday morning. Yesterday morning I wanted to telephone the entire Free State in the space of a few minutes to tell the Freestaters that I had just become the father of a daughter. Very quickly I also made use of the other arm of the Post Office, i.e. I made use of the telex facilities, and I should like to mention that 20 minutes after I had sent telegrams from here, I obtained replies to them from the Free State, telegrams in which the Freestaters expressed their thanks for the National Party being extended in such a practical fashion.

Let us now look at whether the telephone situation in South Africa is really as bad as the United Party says it is. I want to tell you that this is not so; the figures will speak for themselves in this connection. Taking the number of telephones per 100 inhabitants of South Africa, one finds that in respect of the Whites there are at present 47,3 telephones per 100 inhabitants. If the United Party tells me that this is not a lot, let me tell them it is a little more than the number of members that side has in this House. When one includes the Coloureds and the Asiatics, there are 26 telephones for every 100 persons. When one takes everyone in South Africa, except the rural Bantu, the figure is about 16,8 telephones per 100 persons, and when one takes the total South African population there are about 12 telephones per 100 inhabitants.

I should like to make a request to the hon. the Minister with respect to the automatic farm line system we have at present. Unfortunately I neglected to inquire whether a change had taken place in this connection with respect to the newer schemes, but Bethlehem was the first place where automatic farm lines were introduced, and there one finds ten subscribers sharing an automatic farm line and one finds that this is too great a number. We know that at one stage the Minister considered reducing the number of subscribers of a farm line to five. We should like to ask the Minister, if possible, to continue with that idea, so that our farm lines will carry less of a load, because at present there is a maximum of 12 subscribers per farm line. There is a further thought in connection with automatic farm lines. Unfortunately some members of the public— and perhaps it is more noticeable in one generation than in the other—use these automatic farm lines for visiting purposes. These telephone lines do not have a signal to remind one of the length of time one has spoken. We should like to ask the Minister to consider, if possible, also introducing a metering signal on these automatic farm lines. If it would not be possible to control this from the exchange building or exchange centre, I really think it would not be a very great expense to install, in the telephone set, a smaller apparatus that will emit a tone every three minutes, working from the same power source as that from which the telephone itself works. Sir, I want to give you the assurance that this is needed on our farm lines. Perhaps one can also apply this idea of a built-in metering signal in the case of all long-distance automatic dialling, where the subscriber is not warned by a metering signal that three minutes or six minutes has passed.

Again I want to take this opportunity of appealing to the general public in South Africa to follow this example of courtesy we find amongst the Post Office staff in South Africa. In that way we shall be able to express our thanks for the very important work the Post Office does and for the services it furnishes.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Bethlehem will excuse me if I do not follow his line of thought. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister has already reacted to what I had to say yesterday, because when my time expired yesterday, I had not quite completed developing the arguments in regard to his method of financing his capital expenditure that I wished to develop. More important, I had not reached the conclusion I wanted to reach. I hope I shall be able to do that this morning.

I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that there is some danger in making comparisons between the way overseas countries and even the Bell Telephone Company in America finance their capital expenditure and the Minister’s proposed policy for South Africa. What is necessary is to take into consideration certain vital factors that have an effect on that policy. I would suggest that the most vital factor to take into account is the state of development of the telecommunication system and the need it has for further capital, as well as the proportion which the capital expenditure required for expansion bears to ordinary operating expenditure. It is on that proportion that depends the extent to which you have to raise your tariffs in order to produce the surplus that is required under the proposed policy to provide finance for capital expenditure.

When my time expired yesterday, I was busy commenting on the capital structure of the Post Office. I had pointed out that the loans owed by the Post Office organization do not represent a particularly heavy amount in comparison with the total of the assets belonging to and employed by the Post Office, nor does the interest on such loans represent a particularly heavy burden either in relation to the capital employed by the Post Office, in other words, the assets employed by the Post Office, or in relation to the revenue of the Post Office. What is more important is that this burden of interest over the past few years since the Post Office became an independent entity has not been an increasing burden either in relation to capital employed or in relation to revenue. In fact, rather the opposite has been the tendency; the tendency has been for the burden of interest in relation to capital and in relation to revenue gradually to reduce. The Franzsen Commission—not the Franzsen Committee— which recommended in respect of the capital expenditure of public corporations such as the Post Office that 40 per cent of capital requirements should be financed from internal resources, gave as its two main reasons for making that recommendation firstly that the burden of interest and redemption payments were getting high in the case of public corporations and secondly that interest and redemption payments were representing a rising proportion of revenue. The Franzsen Commission at no place, when it was discussing the matter, referred to the Post Office as one of the public corporations that it had in mind, and I would suggest that the figures I gave to the House yesterday clearly indicate that the reasons which the Franzsen Commission advanced for making its recommendations are not applicable as far as the financial structure of the Post Office is concerned.

Then, Sir, I think there is a third factor we should take into consideration when viewing the merits of the Minister’s policy for financing capital expenditure, and that is that normally capital expenditure can be planned on a much better and more reliable basis if it is to be financed mainly from loan funds, than if it has to rely on a surplus of revenue over expenditure to provide that finance. This applies particularly if a measure of priority were to be given to the loans advanced by the Treasury to the Post Office, which is something I suggested yesterday should be done. The unreliability of having to rely on surpluses of revenue over expenditure to finance capital expenditure has been amply demonstrated by the sad example which we had in this past year. We on this side of the House do not want to have the undignified sight again of the hon. the Minister leaning over into the barrel and scraping the thirteenth portion out of the bottom.

To sum up, Mr. Chairman, if my conclusions as to what this means are correct, I would say first of all that the hon. the Minister should not be shy about borrowing for his capital expenditure when there is such a crying need to get on with the job of expanding our telecommunications service. My appeal is that that expansion should not be starved for want of finance. The second conclusion that I arrive at is that there is a need for the hon. the Minister to be flexible in his approach as to what proportion of his capital expenditure is to be financed out of revenue. I am not against a proportion being financed in this way, but I think that what is needed is a balance which takes into account the outside factors which apply in the economy. I believe that now is not the time to have a higher tariff structure than you need have, because by doing so you are only adding to an inflationary situation. I do not think there is any point in saying that our tariffs in this country are lower than they are overseas. What matters is the fact that the Minister is in a position not to increase his tariffs. He has a margin of revenue over expenditure, and if he is going to increase his tariffs, as he strongly indicated in his Budget speech that he would, it would be an inflationary step which he can avoid taking. That is the pertinent point. Finally, Sir, I would say that now is not the time to rely on making surpluses of revenue over expenditure large surpluses that can be used to finance capital expenditure. The state of the economy is not certain enough to ensure that those surpluses are going to be realized. We are seeing this not only in the Post Office finances, but in the case of virtually all companies; we are seeing what difficulties they have in keeping up their margins of revenue over expenditure. To sum up, I would say that I feel that in the present circumstances 50 per cent is too high a percentage to take from revenue to finance capital expenditure. [Time expired.]

Sir, in the debate about this Post Office Budget Bill, a variety of subjects were discussed that have proved quite interesting. The hon. member for Mossel Bay spoke about postage stamps; the hon. member for Maitland did an egg dance such as we have very seldom witnessed here; he did everything but reply to the direct questions put to him. The hon. member for North Rand even went so far as to refer to the activities of hon. members on this side of the House during the last war. We regret that the hon. member did not elaborate a little further on his heroic deeds because I understand that he was quite a brave man. Perhaps it would have been interesting if he had told us something about the activities of the brave Gen. Moolman, and it would have been interesting if he as an animal lover, had told us how they made use of Shetland ponies in the war, and how in the future they are going to use Shetland ponies for delivering mail.

But, Sir, I should like to come back to the problems in my constituency in respect of telephone services. If we look at the Postmaster-General’s report, we notice immediately that the number of deferred applications in Boksburg for the year 1971 amounted to 2 559, which is the fourth-highest in the Republic. I understand the problems experienced by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, with the tremendous growth and development we are experiencing, in complying with all the applications for telephones. I also want to add that we are grateful for what is already being done there and for the planning in Boksburg. We are grateful for the new exchange that is coming to Witfield, an exchange which, it is hoped, will come into use with 2 600 lines in 1973. Together with that there is the 600-line extension to the Boksburg exchange. But our problem in Boksburg is this: Since Witfield lies to the north, Boksburg’s greatest development is actually taking place in the south, and that is where the greatest bottlenecks exist. I am aware of the planning of a new exchange for that area in 1975, but I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether temporary steps cannot be taken to comply with the needs of new, developing residential areas that will perhaps have to wait for telephones for four or five years, as is the case there in Boksburg. We have a residential area there, Vandykpark—an economic scheme—where 825 houses have been completed within 1½ years. It is a residential area without any blocks of flats. There are no hotels and at present no businesses yet; there are only houses. After I made representations we obtained two call offices. It is expected that in the next few months another 375 houses will be built; we shall therefore have 1 200 houses there, with two call offices. Can other temporary measures not possibly be adopted? Since we shall perhaps have to wait four or five years for telephones, I am thinking here of a mobile exchange that could serve as a temporary aid. The hon. the Minister spoke here of telephones that could be attached to power and telephone poles, and I wonder whether temporary measures could not be adopted in such an area, where at present there are cable lead problems, to assist the people there.

Sir, another matter that probably concerns us all, is the granting of telephones by the existing telephone committee. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what priorities apply in the granting of telephones, because I frequently receive complaints that there are people who wait perhaps three or four years longer for a telephone and then one has a person moving in there and already being in possession of a telephone after a month or two. I am aware that there are certain professional people who have preference, but sometimes things do not look quite right to me, and our people cannot always understand this either.

Another matter concerns parcel post rates. With reference to representations I have received, I should here like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider giving us a reduced parcel post rate for parcels sent to our young men who are fighting terrorists there on the borders. I can understand that there are many other deserving cases of persons who are in the Defence Force, perhaps serving elsewhere, but I do think that here we are dealing with people who are doing South Africa a great service under very difficult circumstances, being in areas where they cannot easily obtain all the necessities. Knowing mothers as we do, we know that they always like to send a parcel of delicacies to the young men there, but at the moment the rates are quite high. I understand that the rate on a 3 kg parcel, which is not a heavy one, amounts to a quite a few rand.

If one thinks of the Post Office one thinks only of services such as telephone services, postage stamp services, letter deliveries, etc., but I think we must also take note of the services the Post Office furnishes for other Government Departments. I made a calculation and it appears that R237,5 million is handled by the Post Office on behalf of other Government Departments. I see in the Revenue Account that certain commissions are received. I take it this is from the Department of Community Development for charges. But has the time not perhaps come for the Post Office to collect commission from other Government Departments as well to cover their own costs since they probably have to retain additional staff to be able to furnish all those services. For the sake of interest I may just mention that if I look at the transport division of the postal services. I notice that in this financial year, as indicated in the Report, almost 78 million km was travelled by postal service vehicles at a total transport cost of a little more than R4 million, depreciation included. I subsequently made a calculation and came to the amazing conclusion that the transport costs, including depreciation, amounted to a mere 5,4 cents per km. I enquired from the Automobile Association and they inform me that the cost per km of the smallest vehicles is 5,3 cents according to their calculations. If one takes into account that the postal services chiefly make use of heavy vehicles and that there is probably quite an interchange of drivers, I consider it a remarkable achievement for the transport division of the postal services to keep those vehicles in working order, depreciation included, at 5,4 cents per km. I thank the hon. the Minister very much in anticipation for all those telephones Boksburg is most certainly going to receive shortly.

The hon. temporary member for Boksburg, who is now singing his swan song here, will not expect me to reply to his last-minute effort to do something for his constituency. It is too late. His successor on this side of the House will see to it that the interests of his constituency are promoted.

You said the same in 1970.

I shall return later on to certain matters which have already been discussed, but I see that the hon. member for Bethlehem has returned. I want to con gratulate him on becoming the father of a daughter. I can assure him that at the rate at which young people are crossing over to our party today, his youngest daughter will have joined us when she has grown up, and we thank him for another member for the United Party youth.

† want to deal firstly with a local matter of importance, and thereafter I will return to the question of the labour policy with which we were dealing. The local matter is the question of the Cinderella constituency of Durban Point in regard to Post Office services. We have at the moment along the beach front of Durban three post offices, where there were previously four. There used to be the Addington post office, but that was closed in 1964. There is a temporary Point post office in a prefabricated building right on the docks in an area quite unsuitable, particularly for older people to transact their business. There is a Marine Parade post office which is closing at the end of this month with the demolition of the building, and there is the Snell Parade post office where the whole building has been demolished and all that is left is a little pimple in which the post office is housed, and that also is due to come down within the next two years. That means that there will be no post offices at all on the whole of the beach front area of Durban by 1974, when the new Seaview post office may or may not be completed. [Interjections.] Sir, the hon. member need not worry about my constituency. They said at the last election that it was going to go Nat, but what happened? I increased my majority by more than 150 per cent. So that hon. member need not worry. But what will happen is that if we get the sort of service to which I am referring, this situation where a Government department is unable to give service to the people of South Africa, it is the Government which will have to worry about the position and not me in my constituency.

I want to pay a tribute to the officials of the Post Office in Durban with whom I have been dealing for a long time on this issue. The present regional director, when he was still postmaster of Durban, was involved in negotiations in which I participated in exchanging various land until we got a piece of land for the building of the new Point post office—not the hon. the Minister, but his local representative and I, negotiating with charitable organizations and the city council, got a piece of land. That land has been available for four or five years. Plans were drawn up for building a post office, and now the hon. the Minister is unable to say if or when that post office will ever be built. I do not want to say more; I have all the correspondence on the matter. The Minister says he does not know when, if ever, it will be built. He says he does not know when capital will be available for it. Sir, what sort of Minister is this who allows an area which is vital to the economy of Durban, the premier holiday resort of South Africa, one of the fastest developing areas anywhere, an area not only important to the local population but to holiday-makers, overseas tourists and to business, to run down to the state where there is not a single post office operating? Let me give the example of Addington Hospital, which is in this area. Addington Hospital, with staff and patients, has 2 500 people concerned. Anyone of those people who wants to collect a parcel or a registered letter, has got to take time off, take a bus into the centre of town, and a bus back to go to collect that registered letter or parcel. I know the Post Office is looking for premises. The Marine Parade post office is being pulled down this month, within six days. They are now looking for premises. This is not the time to look for premises, six days before the post office is to be demolished. This is an example of short-sightedness which does not reflect to the credit of the hon. the Minister. It is short-sightedness which does not reflect to the credit of his planners.

You are a bad member of Parliament.

I have been trying my best. I have this map of the constituency. I know the new main post office will be built there—but when? What I am worried about, is the short-term problem which does not only affect my constituency but an area where, within two or three years’ time, there will be 40 000 inhabitants. In this area flats are shooting up like mushrooms. This sort of failure to foresee development and necessary changes and to plan for them is something which should not happen.

Whilst I am speaking of that, I believe the hon. member for Bethlehem never dials a wrong number. I wish he could have been with me on Tuesday night in Durban. By the time I dialled the second digit the phone started ringing. I dialled 33 and it would start ringing; I then dialled 34 and it would start ringing. It was shortcircuiting into lines; children were answering and adults were answering. You could not even dial a wrong number. Before you could make a mistake it started ringing. When a phone starts ringing before you have misdialled it, then you are really getting into a serious situation. [Interjections.] Let us not have any of that.

Whilst I think of it, I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister can tell us when British postal orders will be available.

I want to return in the moment or two left to me, to the hon. the Minister who puts on the Ben Schoeman shirt in regard to labour policy. He adopts the United Party policy and then puts on his “verkrampte” overcoat in case anyone thinks he is a “verligte”. Then he puts on his Oudtshoorn hat and tries to play politics with a fundamental problem of South Africa. The hon. the Minister warned that he would negotiate with the association but that he would not listen to them if they acted against the interests of the White man. I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question : Has he so little faith in the Postal Association, the officials of the department and in the White trade union movement that he believes that they would act to the detriment of the White man in South Africa? Has he so little faith in his own people that he must say: “I will negotiate with you, but I don’t trust you and I am not going to allow you to endanger the future of the White man”? I want to say to him in loud and clear terms : We on this side of the House, as we have said, will negotiate. We will persuade, and we will seek a pattern of labour in the interests of all people without endangering the White man in South Africa.

The hon. member for Durban Point, who is always called in by the United Party to bring some life into a dull debate on its side, tried to do his best once again. He said that I had tried to put on the Ben Schoeman shirt, that we had accepted the U.P. policy and had put on the Oudtshoorn hat. This made me wonder for a moment what, in fact, the United Party was putting on. The United Party need not do a single one of these things, of course, because basically it was born two-faced. It need not put on anything more. Basically it is a two-faced party—it has one story for the one side and another story for the other side. We had an attempt from the hon. member for Maitland to save the hon. the shadow Minister. The hon. the shadow Minister could not comply with my request simply to give a clear and courageous reply to elementary questions. No, I was referred to the hon. member for Maitland. He had to utter the words which were to save them. That hon. member then started off by giving one of the most ridiculous examples I have heard in a very long time. Yesterday evening the hon. member for North Rand asked me whether we could not employ non-Whites at the smaller post offices. It was in pursuance of that question that I asked the United Party this morning: “Do you want a non-White woman to work together with the White behind the same counter in that small post office?” They did not have the courage to reply “no” to that question either.

Can a White woman hand a telegram to a non-White postman?

That is rather interesting. So we are able, after all, to bring something home to the United Party, especially in pursuance of the wonderful example concerning the housewife and the servant dished up by the hon. member for Maitland. That was his subterfuge. He said the housewife and the servant worked together and that that allegedly was the justification for having the White and the non-White working together behind the same counter.

[Inaudible.]

But why did the hon. member advance such a ridiculous example? Why did he take up ten minutes to deal with such ridiculous fancies?

I say your question was ridiculous.

Why do you not have the courage to admit frankly … The United Party knows what our standpoint is. We shall not allow a situation, either in a small post office or in a large post office, in which a White and a non-White stand shoulder to shoulder in the same employment situation. We shall not allow it. I put the question to the United Party before, and by way of reiteration I do so again.

What would the United Party do in the light of the plea made yesterday evening by the hon. member for North Rand that I should appoint non-Whites in the small post offices? Would the United Party allow a non-White to work together with a White behind that counter? Just tell me whether you would allow it.

May I put a question to you?

Do not run away from my question. In a moment I shall come to your other subterfuge, i.e. that of the Coloured teachers. That hon. member does not have the courage to reply frankly to these simple, fundamental questions. No, this is the two-faced policy they try to get away with all the time. They spoke of the trade unions.

May I put a question?

As you can see for yourself, I have very little time. This debate will be concluded at precisely five minutes to twelve. I still have quite a few matters to which I have to reply.

But then you should not play the fool.

For your information we still have the Third Reading in which you may state these matters openly. As regards consultation with the trade unions, I have put my standpoint before. We do consult them, but we have a policy and that is to protect the White worker. Suppose a leftist trade union federation, such as TUCSA, we had to consult were to tell us that there should be mixed employment of the races. What would the United Party do in such a case? Would you accept it? I may say very frankly that this side would not do so. We would not do it. We would consult those trade unions but this Government would not accept anything if it were in conflict with our fundamental policy of protecting the White worker. I hope this is as clear as daylight.

There is the other fundamental matter, and that is that we shall not have a White working under a non-White. In this regard they again use the subterfuge of the hon. member for Maitland saying, “Yes, but here in the Cape White teachers do work under Coloured principals”. That, after all, is the favourite reply of that side when they want to run away from this matter. Now pay close attention : Let me say at once that it is not our policy to have a White working under a non-White. This situation is not in keeping with national policy. It is a temporary emergency measure which must be terminated. [Interjections.] However, those Coloured schools would come to a standstill if we were to withdraw the White teachers at the present time. They have been told to take steps so that the White women teaching at those schools may be withdrawn as soon as possible. That is our policy. But the question which is important at the moment, is whether the United Party, if it were to come into power, would have those women teachers permanently in those posts or whether it would withdraw them, as we intend doing. What is the attitude of the United Party in this Post Office debate as regards the question of mixed employment? They do not want to reply to this question. In regard to this matter I now want to put a question very pointedly to that side of this House : Hon. members opposite will have an opportunity to reply to this question during the Third Reading debate. Now those hon. members must pay close attention so that they will be able to reply to the question. Is the United Party prepared to say here that it will not allow a White person to work together with a non-White person behind the same counter in the same employment situation? This is the one question. The United Party can reply to this question during the Third Reading debate. The second Question I want to put to hon. members opposite, is whether the United Party will allow a situation in which a White postman can work under any senior non-White postman. Hon. members opposite do not want to reply to this question at the moment, but perhaps they will do so during the Third Reading debate. Furthermore, as regards the mixed employment of Whites and non-Whites behind the same counter advocated by the hon. member for North Rand, I want to ask the United Party whether it will allow a situation in which the White can work under the non-White if that non-White is the senior. Hon. members opposite can give us the replies to these questions during the Third Reading debate.

I have only three minutes left and I have to make haste. I should like to reply very briefly to the points which were raised. The hon. member for Bethlehem referred to the matter of developing towards the position of having only five subscribers per line. I want to tell the hon. member that the automatic system is such that it will, unfortunately, take a considerable time before we shall be able to apply it throughout the country on a five-basis. A regards the long conversations, I want to tell the hon. member that for economic reasons it is difficult to meter conversations according to the three minute metering system. Unfortunately it will still take a considerable time before we shall be able to introduce this into the rural systems.

†The hon. member for Constantia referred to the factors mentioned in connection with financing. I should like to assure the hon. member that all the aspects which he raised were considered by the Franzsen Committee. I wish to give the hon. member the assurance that I have taken note of the arguments which he has advanced and I will certainly bear them in mind and I will see in what way they can be implemented in our system.

*The hon. member for Boksburg complained about the back-log of 2 000 telephones in his constituency. However, the hon. member is not the only person who can complain. The other day the hon. member for Alberton, too, complained vigorously about the 2 000 people waiting for telephones in his constituency, and he is not a man without contact with the department! I want to tell the hon. member for Boksburg that I shall address a letter to him before long in which I shall set out the steps being taken in this connection. As regards the question of priority in making allocations, I want to say the position is that we give priority to sick people and to professional people. Sometimes, however, the cable position is such that certain peoole simply cannot be connected to the cables.

†In regard to the points raised by the hon. member for Durban Point I should like to read the following because it is very important to him—

As far as the Marine Parade office is concerned, I should like to say the following.

*We have already obtained other accommodation and the Postmaster-General says he has approved of the lease. As it happened, we had to take a decision in this regard today. I hope this will help the hon. member to sleep more soundly, at least as far as this matter is concerned. The hon. member also asked a question concerning British postal orders and asked when we were going to start this service.

†We hope to start in May of this year. This concludes the answers to the points that were raised.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136.

Schedules 1 and 2 put and agreed to.

Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I am really sorry that this House was not fuller when we had the unsavoury incident in which the hon. the Minister again tried to exploit racial prejudice and racial hatred. In this country there are supposed to be laws which prohibit that kind of exploitation. It is also said that legislation will be introduced in this regard. Let us hope it will come soon, so that we shall not have a repetition of the unsavoury type of incident we have now had. Those arguments used by the hon. the Minister were just a refined version of the old Bastard placard. I think at the next election that side of the House will perhaps distribute a placard on which will appear a post office counter with a White lady and a non-White postal official behind it.

Order! Did the hon. member use the word “unsavoury”?

Yes, Sir.

It is unparliamentary. Will the hon. member withdraw it?

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that it is unparliamentary and I withdraw it.

There are many things that you do not know.

The hon. the Minister received a reply to every one of those seven questions he asked. The hon. member for Maitland replied to every point. Let me repeat to the hon. the Minister that the United Party’s policy is that there should be an adjustment of the labour pattern and that that adjustment will be made only in co-operation with the various staff associations. There are four different staff associations. Some of them will recommend adjustments in a certain direction, and others in another direction. We shall listen to them. We shall never try to force anything on any of those staff associations. Is that an adequate reply for the hon. the Minister? Seeing that the Post Office is in such straitened circumstances, I do not know why the hon. the Minister comes forward with those nonsensical arguments we heard today. There is the biggest shortage of telephones the country has ever experienced, and the hon. the Minister comes here with petty little questions which he would not dare to ask if a Vote such as Foreign Affairs were under discussion, when people from abroad would be listening. But I leave him at that.

†I would now like to refer in passing to the hon. member for Sunnyside, the “thundercloud-browed” member for Sunnyside as Homer would no doubt have called him. He pointed out that there had been a big resurgence on the Stock Exchange immediately after the hon. the Minister had delivered his Budget speech. He pointed out on the front page of Die Burger : “Beurs aan die loop soos in die ou dae.” Well, I saw the Cape Times this morning—not yesterday—and it said : “Rally comes to nothing.” The great boom on the Stock Exchange started by the hon. the Minister’s speech came to nothing in ten hours.

Are you rejoicing in this?

No, I sincerely hope that something will happen in the Main Budget next week which will give cause for rejoicing. I want to give the hon. the Minister an example of how one sometimes can try to predict the state of, say, the Stock Exchange by what is happening in the Post Office. I want to refer to the hon. member for Rustenburg in this regard. He pointed out that he had no difficulties whatsoever in Rustenburg as far as the telephone situation is concerned. There are plenty of phones there, he said. Well, we know why that is so, don’t we? We know that the platinum mines in that area are on short time. We know that there are many homes empty where there were phones previously. We know that many miners are out of work and that they are not there any longer. So whenever, as in Rustenburg, one finds that there is no phone shortage, one can almost be sure under this Government that there is a near depression and unemployment. So I want to give this bit of financial advice to the country. Whenever there is a phone shortage in Rustenburg, buy Rustenburg Platinums again !

The hon. the Minister also replied to the accusation made by the hon. member for Rustenburg against the hon. member for North Rand, when he said that the hon. member for North Rand was not a good parliamentarian: he was not looking after his voters, which was why there was such a big shortage of telephones in his constituency. The hon. the Minister replied to that accusation himself by saying that in his own constituency there is a shortage of 2 000. Out of the 54 exchanges on the Witwatersrand, his is the fifth worst of all. He cannot even help himself, so how can he be expected to help the rest of the country?

*I see that I have made a note in respect of staff, although I have already spoken about that. A remark appeared in one of his newspapers. He is a member, a director of Perskor. He is one of the heads or owners of it. He is one of the …

Bosses.

He is one of the bosses of Perskor. I refer him to a reprehensible attack made on the South African Postal Association by Rapport, in that it accused the Postal Association of exploitation solely on the grounds of colour. Does he repudiate that report in Rapport, while those people have gone out of their way to meet him in respect of his problems? Does he repudiate that report? I go to Owambo and he goes to Perskor …

I said I would reply to it. I may tell you that I repudiate that report. I have the courage to tell you that.

I am glad to hear that the hon. the Minister repudiates that report in Rapport. He knows I am going to Owambo on Monday. I do not think it is a secret. On Monday he is going to a meeting of the board of directors of Perskor in Johannesburg or in Pretoria, and I hope he will make this known there.

On Monday I shall discuss this Bill in the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to say something about the telephone service in this country. We have had examples of what the service is like, but I think it is time we elaborated a bit on what has been happening in regard to the service. As far as telephones are concerned, we have two complaints : Firstly, there is a shortage but, just as bad, there is the service itself. Mr. James Michener, the famous author, said that our phone service was the worst in the world. I do not think it is, but Mr. James Michener knows the South Pacific very well. We can therefore accept that it is worse at any rate than anywhere in the South Pacific, worse than in Samoa, Tahiti or Okinawa.

The service in our country, and there is not the least doubt about it, is bordering on the atrocious today. I can mention dozens of examples. No other factor has contributed more towards retarding growth in our country than this bad telecommunication service which we have in this country. That is what happens when you hear that an executive has had to take two or three hours to make five phone calls. What happens to growth when you find that up to 20 or 30 different calls have to be made in order to get through five or six times? I want to refer here to a true incident. A business man in Johannesburg wanted to phone an office of his in a neighbouring suburb in connection with an important deal but could not get through and had to phone his head office in London and ask them to phone through to his office in the suburb in order to get the message through. [Interjections.] It is quite true. I can mention a building contractor in a town close to Johannesburg who had to open a special office in Johannesburg in order to get a phone. With the staff he had to employ, it cost him R1 000 per month additional just to get a phone! In what town was that contractor’s office? It was in the town of Alberton, the constituency of our hon. Minister.

I know that Mr. Gerry Rooiyakkers complained to the Press about that, and that, at last he has a phone service in Alberton. The Postmaster-General himself, in an interview in Rapport, admitted : “Ons het ’n swak diens, veral aan die Witwatersrand … Ons veg met ons rug teen die muur.”

I have taken the trouble of making a list of all the different things that can go wrong when you try to telephone someone. It is a case of a neurosis, a psychosis, in your telephone exchange; the symptoms are very similar to human ones. When you phone there are certain stages that you go through. First of all, you apprehensively approach the telephone, hoping for the best. Next you pick up the receiver, and then you find certain faults before even dialling. Next you find faults while dialling and in the end you find faults after dialling a number. Let me mention a few of these.

Firstly, there are the faults before dialling. You lift up the receiver and we all know what happens. Sometimes there is no dialling tone. The telephone is suffering from a state of anxiety. Secondly, all you may find is the “number engaged” tone. Thirdly, you find that long-drawn out tone meaning “number unobtainable”. Fourthly—and this can all happen before you start dialling and after you have picked up the receiver—you find crossed lines. You find two other subscribers conversing, and in that case I think the telephone is suffering from catatonia. Fifthly, you find a sudden variety in the intensity of the dialling tone, an intensity alternating between weak and strong. That is an obvious sign of neurosis. Sixthly, you find that the dialling tone suddenly stops after a few seconds.

Now, we come to the next series of faults, the faults while you are dialling. We come to No. 7. You get the dialling tone after dialling the first few digits, in other words, you immediately go back to square one. That is a clear sign of delirium in the telephone service. You next may find that the lines get crossed while dialling or at the same time you suddenly find that the dialling is interspersed with problem No. 9 : “The number engaged tone” or No. 10: Interrupted by that long “no such number” tone. This is very clearly a case of paranoia in the telephone.

That is while dialling. But what happens when at last you have succeeded in completing the dialling of a number? No. 11 : You get the wrong number. How often does that not happen? No. 12: You get no sound at all, only silence. Obviously, in this case the telephone is suffering from depression. No. 13: You get one or two rings and then more silence. No. 14: One or two rings, followed by the engaged signal. That is quite something, Sir. It is a sign of hysteria in the telephone. Then we have No. 15: You just find that after dialling the number, the original dialling tone suddenly returns and you are back to square one again. No. 16: An engaged tone is heard after dialling the number, but the person subsequently tells you: “My dear chap, I have been nowhere near this phone all afternoon; it could not have been engaged.” No. 17: The telephone rings continuously when one knows that there must be someone at the other end because, for example, you are telephoning a big business. Then there is No. 18: You get the “no such number” tone after dialling the number.

That you have said ten times.

Yes, it happens when you have picked up the receiver; it happens while you are dialling and it happens after you have dialled. The hon. member is quite correct; it happens at all these different stages. It is clearly a case of a psychosomatic duality in the telephone, when you get a “no such number” tone after having been connected with the same number no less than five minutes before. Then, Sir, we have No. 19: You get a crossed line again. The best procedure is to cough politely and after the inevitable deep silence, ask for the number and try to report the fault. I once had a speaker from Kroonstad crossed with my line and once came in on a very interesting conversation about the winner of the next Durban July, and we had a very interesting three-cornered conversation on that crossed line. Then there is No. 20: This is a fault you can get at any time—an earsplitting, crackling noise like lightning striking nearby. Obviously, at that stage the telephone has hysteria. Then there is No. 21 : This can also happen at any time. You hear a continuous scratching noise, like an inefficient tape recorder, while one is speaking. Sometimes that is accompanied by very slow, heavy breathing. Then there is No. 22: There is a sudden ghostly fading of the voice of the speaker at the other end, a clear case of involutional melancholia on the part of the telephone. There are all the symptoms, Sir. The hon. the Minister has not found the answer. I give him these as a clear indication of the type of service that we have today.

I do not have much more to say on the telephone service, but I conclude by saying that there is no doubt that local services in this country have worsened, that the capital problem has escalated, that losses will continue. There is no doubt that the hon. the Minister could give no firm denial about tariff increases in future.

*Mr. H. D. K. VAN DER MERWE; May I ask a question?

No, I am concluding now. He could give no assurance about telephone shortages and he has given no indication that fuller use would be made of free enterprise, as has béen demanded in this debate. He has also given no indication that use will be made of the most modern equipment and that he will see to it that there is no continued use and buying of obsolete equipment by the Post Office. With these words I conclude by saying that this Budget has ben a disappointing one, and it seems that next year we will be in for an even worse one.

Mr. Speaker, before I come to the hon. member I want to refer to an announcement the Minister made in connection with the employment of table-mounted telephones. They are going to be installed on tables, desks and on business, café and hotel counters. I think it will be a very great aid to the public to have such telephones at their disposal. What is interesting, and really a feather in our cap, is that our own South African technicians manufactured these telephones. I think they will prove exceptionally efficient, and one accepts that the owners of such places will probably receive a commission for the supervision they are going to exercise in this connection. In addition this will also, in the course of time, eliminate the damage and the vandalism one encounters in respect of the ordinary call offices. Mr. Speaker, I have already listened to many Third Reading speeches in this House, but I do not know whether I have ever listened to anything poorer than the speech of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. For a quarter of an hour and more the hon. member harped on only one single matter; there was a nagging about telephones …

Is there anything I said that is wrong?

… and he did not get round to anything else. The hon. the Minister put specific questions to the hon. member and the Opposition. The hon. member for Orange Grove has now spoken four times in this debate …

And he has said nothing.

… and throughout the debate he simply harped again on what he said last year, and reiterated what he had said in previous speeches. He accused the hon. the Minister of trying to exploit race prejudice with the direct questions the Minister put to him. He evades his responsibility as the main speaker on Post Office matters by saying that the hon. member for Maitland had answered the questions, but we obtained no answers from him. Those questions still stand, and the hon. member still owes us replies. Last Wednesday, when the hon. member replied so close on the heels of the hon. the Minister’s Budget speech, he said very theatrically at the end of his speech—

“Clear-cut” and “concise”. Sir, he had the opportunity as the so-called shadow Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to tell us in these four speeches what the United Party’s “clear-cut and concise policy” will be in respect of the Post Office, but he never got round to that “clear-cut, concise policy”, particularly in connection with the two bottlenecks, i.e. labour and capital. The hon. member accused the hon. the Minister of having made certain promises in connection with not increasing tariffs in the next five years. The Minister has already given an adequate reply by pointing out that he used the word “object”, but subsequently the hon. member and his colleagues continued to harp on the same subject in the subsequent speeches. Sir, in his Second Reading speech the hon. member also very theatrically, and with arms waving, held up a newspaper cutting in connection with what Mr. Louis Rive is supposed to have said. He read the heading: “Telephones more important than cannon.” I concede that he said that this is not what Mr. Rive said, but just the interpretation given to his statement. Sir, Mr. Rive said this (translation)—

Like the hon. member for Orange Grove, I agree with that, but what dumbfounds me is that while the hon. member was reading the cutting he made no more use of that particular interview Mr. Rive held with the relevant newspaper reporter.

But I quoted him; I said that you were standing with your backs to the wall.

Sir, if the hon. member would just give me a chance you will hear how he quoted. He did not quote another heading there, i.e. “Rive states it is easier for us to phone than it is in parts of the United States”. He did not get round to that. He did not go further with this quotation that he is now trying to broadcast to the world. I want to quote a little further. Listen for a moment to what the Postmaster-General went on to state (translation)—

No, he kept quiet about that. It does not suit him to quote that as well.

This year, under the leadership of the hon. member for Orange Grove, the Opposition again came along with destructive criticism. Sir, I have been hearing this criticism for the past 10 or 11 years that I have been here. As soon as the Post Office Budget is discussed, the Opposition can say nothing good about it, and this was again typical of them this year. They again conducted themselves in the old tradition characteristic of the Opposition. In these attempts at criticism, and to support their negative approach, they look with a magnifying glass for weak spots in the Post Office organization. Why do the hon. members not come along with something positive? Why do they not congratulate the Post Office Administration on the planning? Why do they not congratulate the Post Office staff on the excellent advance planning, particularly after the Post Office became independent? But I must say there is an improvement in their arguments, because only last year the hon. member made a terrible fuss about the lack of planning. This year he did not speak about that, but why does he not congratulate the Administration? Why does he not congratulate the Minister and the Administration on the consistent progress —I purposely call it the consistent progress —of the telecommunications services, a service which is one of the most important cornerstones of our country’s infrastructure? Why, in all reasonableness, does the Opposition not mention the fact that while we were still dependent, to a large extent, on manual service up to five years ago, 80 per cent of our 1,6 million subscribers can already dial one another directly? Why does he not mention that? Why does he not mention the great increase in the number of automatic exchanges? I could continue in this vein and mention positive achievements on the part of the Post Office, despite the oppressive factors of capital and labour. No, the United Party are people who see only a future of sombreness and shadows; that is why that party will only furnish shadow Ministers.

I want to say that this Budget reflects the faith of the Minister and the department in the economic future and the economic boom of our country. It reflects the department’s confidence in the future of the Post Office despite these problems. It also reflects once more the determination of the department to comply with the demands laid down to improve the country’s infrastructure, particularly in the sphere of the telecommunications service which, as I have said, is one of the most important connerstones of our infrastructure. I think the Opposition suffers from many political ailments. In this debate the criticism ailment was perhaps the most striking. The hon. members of the Opposition actually vied with one another in this attempt at criticism. The 1972 debates will be preserved in Hansard and will once again prove what a negative attitude this Opposition adopted towards the serious matters we are dealing with.

I want to say a few words in connection with the staff. The temporary and permanent White staff of the Post Office amounted to 40 325 at the end of 1971. As against that the permanent and temporary non-White staff amounted to 18 037 at the end of 1971. This gives a total of 58 362. The Minister and several speakers on this side of the House have already expressed sincere thanks and appreciation to these staff members, particularly for their sound and excellent spirit of loyalty and their willingness to serve. Speakers on this side endorsed this without qualification. I must acknowledge that speakers on the other side of the House also tried to do so, even though this was at times done in a subtle or stealthy fashion.

I should now like to ask the Opposition: How can you complain about inefficient telephone services, about telephones that are out of operation and other trifles if you are not, with that complaint, also subtly indicting the officials? That is what you did, but you do not realize it. After all, the technicians and eingineers are responsible for the installation and maintenance of our automatic exchanges, the telegraph and telex equipment and so on. If anything goes wrong, we cannot always say it is only the Minister’s fault. Circumstances also play a role. Often it is due to difficulties in connection with link-ups and as a result of work being done on those telephones. You come along here and subtly attack those officials.

The White postal workers are members of various staff associations, each with a separate organ. There is, for example, the Postal Journal, the official organ of the South African Postal Association; Live Wire, the official journal of the South African Telecommunications Association and the Postal and Telegraph Herald, the official journal of the Posts and Telegraphs Association of South Africa. If one pages through these magazines and reads them one cannot help noticing what esteem and respect there exists for the hon. the Minister and the Postmaster-General and his Administration. One also notices what harmonious co-operation there exists between the Association, the Minister and the Administration. What strikes me, however, is the loyalty that beams forth as far as the Post Office and its various branches are concerned. What beams forth above all is patriotism in respect of our country. I was particularly struck by an introductory article in the Postal and Telegraph Herald of March, 1972, under the title “Patriotism and Bread”. In strong, simple language in this introductory article the writer states what patriotism encompasses. I shall quote you a portion of it—

Sir, is this not really fine language? One does not want to comment on it any further, because however appreciative one’s comments may be, they will only be an anticlimax. Our people, our country and everyone in this Parliament can only have the utmost esteem and appreciation for officials embued with such patriotism. One ventures to hope that this example will be followed on all fronts.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Koedoespoort charged us with not having praised the Post Office for the actual improvements in the telecommunications system. The difference between our approach and that of the hon. member is that we expect actual improvements from any Government, hence from this Government as well. We want South Africa to be developed, and we are not going to exult at every improvement if it does not comply with the very best standards and does not meet South Africa’s needs. We believe that the improvement should and could have been greater. While we appreciate the fact that there was in fact an improvement, we emphasize that this does not comply with the standard we expect this Government to set.

I must say I am disappointed in the Minister’s conduct today and yesterday. He came along with absolutely superficial arguments. He did not listen and properly respond to the contributions made from this side of the House. Before I came to this House I heard that that hon. Minister was one of those vying with the hon. the Prime Minister, but it seems to me he has now fallen far behind in this race. Each time he comes along with the same senseless type of questions that mean absolutely nothing and have little or nothing to do with the problems of the country. In as much as I prsonally listened to this debate, answers were given to each of the questions put to us from the other side in a way which would satisfy any normal person. [Interjections.] The problem with those hon. members is that they are not really looking for answers. No answer one gives them would satisfy them. They are not looking for answers; they are looking for election slogans.

I actually want to go on to a few problems that have cropped up in my constituency in particular and that I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention. In the Estimates of Capital Expenditure provision is being made under subhead 6, item No. 5 for a telephone exchange at Blackheath. We welcome this and are very grateful for it. It is definitely an advantage for that portion of my constituency. But I should like to ask the Minister to investigate the possibility of a new post office for the North Cliff portion of my constituency. There is a post office at the moment, but it is a very small one. That area has developed tremendously in recent times. At present the post office is also situated at a very inconvenient spot. It is not ideally situated at all. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister would institute investigations there so that we can obtain better accommodation, particularly since new centres have been opened. Under item 38 provision is also being made for an automatic telephone exchange in Florida. In this connection the hon. the Minister and I have already received representations from the Roodepoort Chamber of Commerce. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister what his reaction to these representations is. The position is simply that the present post office site is situated in Golden Street, which is Florida’s main street. That is where all the business undertakings in Florida are at present concentrated. There is an open piece of land available that belongs to the State. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister if it is in fact their intention to construct the telephone exchange there. A telephone exchange is inevitably, from an aesthetic point of view, not the type of building one would like to have in the main street. If its design could be different to those one normally sees I should also like to hear about this from the Minister. In addition I should also like to hear if there is any particular reason why the exchange should specifically be built there. There are certain objections this body mentioned. I do not want to go into that any further at the moment, but I hope we shall obtain a favourable reply from the Minister in this connection. We are proud of our town and of the way it is developing. We do not mind the exchange being built there, provided the aesthetic aspect is taken into account, of course. I shall be glad to know the Minister’s attitude in that connection.

Lastly I have also received representations from a very well-known welfare organization that also does tremendously good work in my constituency; in fact throughout South Africa. I am sure their problem is also experienced by many welfare organizations. At Christmas they send out printed Christmas cards that people order from them. It is a source of income to them. People order Christmas cards from them on which the names of those people are then printed. They then post the Christmas cards. Parcel post rates are then levied on those parcels, rates that are considerably greater than those for printed matter. It will entail a great saving for them if they could send them at the lower rate instead of at parcel post rates. My information has it that they spend about R6 000 per year on postage in order to post these Christmas cards. I will be very glad if the hon. the Minister could see his way clear to granting relief to these welfare organizations in this connection by allowing them to despatch the cards at the lower rate. I can mention that the minimum order of 24 cards weighs 398 grams. A packet of 50 weighs 767 grams. I think the heaviest weighs 1 420. It is such parcels that they would like to send at the rates applicable for printed matter instead of at the parcel post rates.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Florida will certainly not blame me if I do not follow up on what he said, because I think he must still learn what the difference is between the Committee Stage and the Third Reading. He came to the House with the personal problems of his constituency, something that does not belong to this stage of the debate. If he had linked this up to the Committee Stage it would probably have fitted in much better with the debate.

Since we now come to the third and final stage of the debate, in which we must finally sanction and approve the Budget, I want to say that several questions were put to the members of the Opposition from this side of the House. Only rarely were answers forthcoming. There was to a certain extent a reply from the hon. member for Constantia, a reply that dealt more with the financing of the capital expenditure of this Budget. Had he spoken a little louder we would perhaps have heard more of what he said, but unfortunately he speaks a little indistinctly. I nevertheless think that a few sound ideas emerged from the proposals he made to this House. Coming now to the other members on that side of the House, we are compelled to say that there were no constructive and positive suggestions from any member about how we should get this Budget to balance. It is very easy to give advice and to give counsel when they have the Advisory Committee’s report to hand. Every member who stood up on that side merely repeated the recommendations of the Advisory Committee. They want to plough here with that Committee’s heifer and make this House believe it is their ideas that will lead to a solution for the problems of this Budget.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove, the member who is labelled the “Shetland pony” by the Sunday Times. When one hears the words “Shetland pony” one thinks involuntarily of the circus. “Shetland ponies” usually act in circuses. Hon. members know that they trot in there with feathers on their heads and their tails in the air. This hon. member is rather like a “Shetland pony”, short and chunky. When he entered the Postal arena, he also trotted in with a feather on his head and his tail in the air. He wanted to come and tell us how the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs should administer his department. After I had listened to him in the Third Reading debate, however, he reminded me more of the clown in a circus. Hon. members know that frequently a circus also has chimpanzees participating. The way he carried on here about the problems in connection with the telephone service made me think of the chimpanzee that wanted to dial Pretoria. I do not know whether he knows how to handle a telephone properly.

Mr. Speaker, is it permissible to use such language in respect of an hon. member?

Yes, the hon. member may continue, but he must not be too personal.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I called the hon. member a chimpanzee. I only said that his conduct reminded one of that chimpanzee or clown that acts in a circus. The shadow Minister of Posts and Telegraphs moved into this arena, his tail in the air and a feather on his head. You know, at this stage he has his tail between his legs and the feather has been plucked off by the members of this side of the House. Typical of the build of a “Shetland pony”, short and chunky, he trotted on with a short, tense and matter of fact policy which he calls the “clear-cut policy”. It almost puts me in mind of the old booklet they issued with the last election. The booklet is called : “You want it; we have it.” In respect of the Post Office they came along with the same idea, the idea of “You want it: we have it.” In respect of their “policy” I can tell them : “If you get it, you’ve had it”. That is precisely what will happen to those hon. members.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Before the adjournment for lunch I referred here to the expected policy that would be forthcoming from the United Party. As I put it, and as it was stated by the hon. member for Orange Grove, they would have presented the House with their so-called “concise and clear-cut policy”. Of all the speakers who stood up on that side of the House during this debate, not one came along with constructive or positive proposals about the curtailing of expenses or the collecting of more revenue. On the contrary; every Opposition member who stood up here advocated more services and therefore greater capital expenditure. I want to begin with the hon. member for Benoni. I must congratulate the hon. member because he succeeded well in reasonably successfully reading another man’s speech here. He also advocated the extension of telecommunications services. If we look at the provision being made for capital expenditure in the Estimates, we see that it amounts to R140 million, R115 million of which is destined for the extension of telecommunications services. In other words more than 82 per cent of the amount provided for capital expenditure makes provision for the extension of the telecommunications system. If we look at the statistics we had before us we can compare the 1970-’71 trunk-line equipment with that for the year 1969-’70. We shall then see that the development for that one year was 20,9 per cent while in the past year we have had a growth rate of more or less 5,5 per cent.

The hon. members opposite want to join in the talk for the sake of being popular. I refer here to the hon. member for Jeppes. Unfortunately that man suffers from an ailment: Once his tongue starts moving he cannot stop it. We also had the hon. member for Orange Grove. Both of them stood up in this House and advocated more staff. To be popular and to try to canvass votes they will, of course, try to win popularity by asking for better and higher salaries. If we look at the Estimates dealing with operating expenditure, we see that the amount for salaries and wages alone totals R143,5 million. This is more than 50 per cent of the total Budget.

Are you opposed to higher salaries?

I cannot even call that hon. member a “U.P. man born and bred”. I must call him simply a “testamentary U.P. man”. So he had better keep quiet. We have found here that every member simply advocates greater expenditure. There was not one who spoke of reducing expenditure. With respect to the Estimates before us not one of the hon. members had the courage of their convictions, except for the amounts I referred to, to recommend the reduction of direct expenditure such as pension commitments, medical commitments, the rental of foreign telecommunications channels, the interest redemption and the provision for depreciation. They all just want more services. What is the difference between the United Party’s attitude and that of the Post Office staff. I think that in the first place the attitude of the Post Office staff is largely attributable to the competent action of the Postmaster-General. He made it his task, when he took over the post, to travel through the whole of the Republic and visit his people in the various departments. He addressed them and I think was largely successful in his efforts, because today those people are proud to be Postal officials. They are industrious and they are loyal. The difference between the United Party and the Post Office staff is that the officials still possess a great love for their fatherland, while the United Party—I accuse them of this—are prepared to sell South Africa for a mess of pottage. The hon. member for Orange Grove rejoiced when he heard of a recession in the share market. I want to ask hon. members, must one rejoice if there is a recession in the share market? Does a patriot do that? Does a person do that for love of his fatherland? No, one cannot be patriotic if one makes such a statement. [Interjections.] Those people are prepared to besmirch South Africa from morning to night. They are prepared to do South Africa even more harm. They rejoice when South Africa suffers an injury. That is how we have come to know them! Then they speak of an alternative Government! I do not believe that South Africa could ever get a bigger stepfather than if they should come into power.

The hon. member for North Rand fought the Second World War all over again, neglecting only to tell us whether he was a red or blue tab. What did he say here? He also flung out a few ideas here by levelling the accusation of a “tremendous waste of manpower”. I wonder whether the hon. member has ever properly seen how a Post Office functions and what is done there. I want to tell him that the Postmaster-General will most certainly arrange a visit for him to one of the post offices. Last year during the recess we had the privilege of visiting the Johannesburg post office. I want to tell hon. members that it was worth the effort.

I do not want to come back to the labour question. I think the Minister dealt with it very thoroughly. There is, however, one other matter I should like to come to, i.e. the question as to who authorizes us to deal further with the Budget and to bring it to the point of implementation. In that connection I should like to refer to the Postmaster-General and his staff. We are going to approve this Budget, but they are the people who will have to implement it. Let us look at the testimonials of those people to whom we are entrusting this Budget. I should like to refer here to the Auditor-General’s report for the year 1970-71. In that financial year we find that although the revenue and expenditure account of the Estimates amounted to more than R225 000 000, the total bad debts that had to be written off totalled the small amount of R426 000. I say that this is truly an achievement. If we look at the thefts that took place we find that there were only 18 or 24 cases of irregularities involving the staff of the Post Office. The meagre amount of R5 100 was involved. However, it is tragic to say that there were many other cases, i.e. 1 764 cases of theft. The amount involved there is R104 000. And here I want to advocate that we, as members of the public and citizens of the country, must assist the Postmaster-General and his staff in completely exterminating this spirit of vandalism that prevails in a small sector of our people—the small value they place on what they have. I referred, inter alia, to the revenue that was written off, and I should like to mention one more figure in that connection. Of the R63 000 that was written off in the relevant financial year as unrecoverable revenue, R54 000 was in respect of telephone services. This is absolutely minimal if one thinks of the number of transactions the Post Office deals with.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136.

Mr. Speaker, with the Government having made certain decisions in this House concerning the Post Office, we have now reached the stage where we must concern ourselves with the implementation of those decisions. Before I say a single word about what awaits us in the coming year, I just want to tell members that matters belonging not to a Third Reading debate, but to a Committee Stage debate, but which were nevertheless raised during the Third Reading, will be replied to in writing.

I should like to say a few words about the task awaiting us in the coming year. We, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, realize that we have a big task in getting our telecommunications system to function well. We realize that we have a task of developing this communications system and letting it function as satisfactorily as possible. In that respect there are three main requirements, as I see it. There are three main requirements for the effective and smooth functioning of our Post Office telecommunications system. The first is that we must have financial means at our disposal. That is the first requirement I want to refer to. Sufficient announcements have been made in this debate by myself and hon. members on my side to indicate in the light of the Franzsen Committee’s recommendations—which were accepted by the Government—what financial means can be placed at our disposal to enable us to comply with the growing demands. This will give the Post Office elbow-room. These proposals, which were also accepted in principle by this House, will enable the Post Office to plan and implement that.

We also received an announcement from the Opposition about the same matter, i.e. from the hon. member for Orange Grove, that informed us that during this debate the Opposition would come along to this House to give us, and I use his own words, “a clear-cut and concise policy for the country”. We all listened with very great interest to this “clear-cut and concise policy” which is actually to serve as a counter to the explanations I gave here on behalf of the Government. What did that “policy” give us? It was really a case of a mountain not even bringing forth a mouse. In the Committee Stage we got the hon. members on the other side of the House to the point of admitting—and it takes a great deal to get them that far—that they are in favour of private entrepreneurs being offered greater opportunities. Do the hon. members know what the extent of private contributions to our telecommunications system is? Up to now we have already issued the following contracts to private entrepreneurs : for the installation of automatic exchanges we have issued 94 contracts amounting to R16 million; for the laying of cable systems we have given 27 contracts to private entrepreneurs amounting to R1.6 million and at the moment we are awaiting quotations from private entrepreneurs in respect of 48 contracts for automatic exchanges. If we add the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee in connection with the rental of buildings from private bodies, in connection with the rental of apparatus and in connection with negotiating loans overseas, I really think that we have specifically begun to harness the private sector on such a large scale that this matter is least of all something to complain about. If we take this into account it is the last aspect that must be put to us as a point of their so-called “concise policy”.

It is better to judge by results.

You had better read that speech well.

The second requirement laid down for the Post Office to fulfil its big task during this year is a dedicated labour force. However important financial means and the matters presented to us in this report and accepted by this House may be, human beings still remain the most important factor in any production undertaking. Fortunately the Post Office has a very dedicated and motivated labour corps. This is evident from the fact that they work these extra man-hours willingly and without compensation. It is also evident from ther responsible conduct in these economically difficult times and, lastly, it is evident from their attitude, their patriotic attitude as revealed in their press organs. This morning the hon. member for Koedoespoort quoted from one of these organs. I say that we are fortunate to have such a dedicated labour corps at our disposal. The labour corps is after all just like a person because it consists ultimately of people. Just as an individual would like to have safety, security and protection for his way of life, a labour corps also wants this. A labour corps is no different from the individuals composing it. Under this Government the labour corps in South Africa enjoys that security because we respect their way of life and their life pattern. As a result of the discussions conducted in this House, the question cropped up about how safe our labour corps can feel about the statements and the silences we have had from the United Party side. This silence of theirs creates in our labour corps a complete uncertainty in respect of the cardinal labour principles of the United Party. Despite everything I did from my side, and despite everything that hon. members on this side did, to get the United Party to the point where they would unequivocally state their standpoint about vital matters, they continued to shy away from every vital question put to them. The only two matters in respect of which the United Party was prepared to adopt a standpoint were, firstly, the question of controlled employment. They, of all people, are also in favour of controlled employment.

You learnt that from us.

Fine! That is a very fine attitude to life. Let us see how the next requirement accords with that. The second matter in respect of which they also share our feelings is that the trade unions should be consulted. Then it appeared this morning that there is a very radical difference in our view of this matter. It goes without saying that the trade unions are important as far as the National Party is concerned. We continually consult them. I as Minister, the Minister of Transport and everyone who has anything to do with them, consult them continually, but we make no secret of telling them, and whoever it may be, that our task as a party is to protect the identity of the Whites. If a trade union like Tucsa, for example, were to give us advice …

Tucsa is not a trade union.

If, as a trade union federation, with its lot of subsidiaries, it were to give us advice that is contradictory to the interests of the Whites, this Government would not accept it. I told the hon. members that this morning and I am repeating it now. The United Party would not do that; oh no! They would be only too glad to hide behind such a conglomerate in the hope that they will have their integration policy implemented.

You are speaking for Oudtshoorn, but you are wasting your time.

It is not only Oudtshoorn, but let me tell the hon. member for Yeoville that before and after Oudtshoorn we shall be chasing them with this until they are revealed for what they advocate, i.e. integration. The third requirement laid down for the Post Office in the performance of its big task this year, is that there must be confidence in South Africa. We can only obtain the necessary revenue to finance this big undertaking from our own sources if the economy is vigorous enough. Such a vigorous economy depends again on confidence in the country. This is an important matter as far as we are concerned. The National Party has confidence in South Africa, and we have clearly evidenced that confidence in South Africa in the Budget up to now. We have confidence, but in order to succeed fully and to enable the Post Office to obtain its maximum revenue, we need the public’s confidence. What do we now get from a certain portion of the public in this connection? What do we get from the other side, from the United Party in this connection. In this connection we have had a series of lamentations nourished by a negative and destructive attitude to life. Sir, in spite of this the Post Office goes to meet this year with confidence, and I am convinced that the Post Office will accomplish its task in spite of the fact that the Opposition has made no positive contribution to this matter. In the past year we have accomplished much under difficult circumstances, and I want to give you, Sir, and the country the assurance that the Post Office will achieve even greater success in the coming year.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Sir, we return to clause 2 of this Bill because we are still hoping—perhaps hoping against hope— that the hon. the Minister is going to give us some idea of what exactly he has in mind with regard to the make-up of the council which he is now going to establish, because we have established in the Second Reading that this Bill is going to allow the hon. the Minister to appoint a certain number of people and allow a certain number of people to be elected, and that the total shall not be more than 30. The one thing that rather concerned me when the hon. the Minister was replying to the Second Reading debate was that he seemed to give the impression that it was more important in his mind to consult with the Indian Council than it was to take this House into his confidence and to tell us what he has in mind. Surely to goodness, if he is going to consult with the Indian Council, that consultation should already have taken place. He should have had the consultation and he should have been able to come to this House with a clear-cut plan and say that there will be 16 nominated members to 14 elected members, or some other ratio. Surely there must be some idea in his mind. We are concerned, and it was for that reason that I took hon. members opposite to task in the Second Reading debate because they were simply allowing the hon. the Minister to come before this House with something which is as completely vague and undefined and indeterminate as clause 2 of this Bill is. I appeal again to the hon. the Minister to give us some idea of what he is thinking about. Here he is going to constitute a council which for the first time will give the Indian people the right to elect members of their own race to represent them on that council which deals with their own affairs. Surely he must have some idea in his mind now. We feel that it would give this Bill itself and the idea of elected members of the council so much more weight and force if he could take us into his confidence. I resent it very much indeed that he appears to think that it is more important to consult with the Indian Council than with this House. He will consult with the Indian Council and then make up his mind, and the result of his deliberations will simply he put before this House by way of a proclamation, for which the opportunities of debate are very limited indeed. Sir, I again ask the hon. the Minister whether he can tell us more about clause 2 and what he has in mind.

Sir, the hon. member for Mooi River is not quite clear in his thinking. [Interjection.] Of that I am convinced, but the hon. member has rot discovered it yet. Hon. members opposite now accuse the Government that it never consults non-White leaders in this country, but that hon. member now suggests that the hon. the Minister should deal with this whole matter in this House. I think the hon. the Minister himself will furnish the hon. member with a reply in this connection. I should like to come back to another matter. You will recall, Sir, that the hon. member for Zululand said in the Second Reading debate that this proclamation, of which reference is made in clause 2, will never be discussed in this House. On that occasion I specifically asked on what grounds the hon. member for Zululand could say that those proclamations may not; be discussed in this House. As the hon. member for Zululand is unable to be here today, the hon. member for Mooi River, who is also a laywer, has an opportunity to rise and tell us why they suggest that it is impossible for these proclamations to be discussed here.

I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik when we will have an opportunity to discuss those proclamations in this House?

Before they are in force.

Yes, before they come into operation. The hon. the Minister will now go and consult the Indian Council; he will then issue the proclamation and after that it will be very difficult for us in this House to have an opportunity to discuss such proclamation. As I understand the matter, we will have to bring this matter before the House by means of a private member’s motion to be able to discuss the proclamation. Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether that is correct or not? As we understand this matter, the Minister is now going to issue that proclamation; the proclamation will then be laid upon the Table of this House but when will we have the opportunity to discuss that proclamation in this Hous? That is my difficulty. The hon. member for Zululand admitted that he was wrong; that the proclamation will, in fact, be submitted to this House, but we want an opportunity to be able to discuss that proclamation.

First of all, I would like to say that the hon. member for Houghton has written to me to say that there has apparently been a death in the family and that she has left for Johannesburg. She will not be here, therefore, to move the amendment which stands in her name on the Order Paper. She discussed the matter with me, and she was well aware that the amendment which she proposed to move was not acceptable to me. As hon. members know, I stated at the Second Reading that as far as I was concerned, this was not going to be a fully elected council.

The hon. member for Mooi River has referred to what he called the “vagueness” of this clause. In the first instance perhaps I could give him this explanation. If he looks at subsection (4) of this clause he will see that it states that 25 will be appointed and five will be elected; this is how the Indian Council is going to operate at this stage. The basis of further development of the Indian Council, after the period of office of the new council has transpired will be discussed by me with the Indian Council as far as the elections are concerned. I say quite frankly —I make no bones about it—that I am going to discuss that matter with them. The hon. members will have every opportunity to discuss the decision. It will be promulgated and there will be many opportunities for them to discuss it. There is an opportunity for instance, under my Vote.

When it is already in force?

Oh yes, that is how it is going to be. The hon. members are entitled to criticize it, but that is how it is going to be done and I have no arguments about it. I say to the hon. members I prefer to talk directly to the Indian Council consisting of the whole Council—25 appointed and five elected members, all Indians—to talking to members of the Opposition when it comes to these matters, because from my experience all they are interested in is politics. They are not interested in the Indian community as such. They are only interested in exploiting the position for party-political gain.

That is not correct.

The hon. member for Berea says it is not correct, but does he remember what happened about this matter of a fully elected council, how they said it should be a fully elected council? This was their line even when it was pointed out to them that in their own province under United Party control, they do not allow fully elected bodies but appoint members to those bodies. This is the way we intend doing it, and the hon. members will have all the opportunity as a parliamentary Opposition to criticize whatever decision is reached when the proclamation is placed on the Table of this House. The hon. members will also remember that they tried to make out that they would not have the promulgation before them, until it was pointed out that they would have it before them; so they must not pretend that they are kept in the dark; every opportunity will be there, but as far for discussing the matter with them beforehand, I am not prepared to do it. I will do it the way it is described in this clause.

I hope the hon. the Minister will be a little more explicit in regard to his reference to subsection (4) in regard to the number of members who will be elected and the number who will be nominated. It is correct that under clause 1 the council will consist of so many members, not exceeding 25, as may be determined by the Minister. I take it that the limit on the total number is 25. I am reading clause 1 of the Bill.

That only refers to the present council, a council which is in existence, until we establish the other council.

I am sorry I do not quite follow the Ministers’ reasoning. Perhaps he will explain to me how he feels that clause 4 places any limitation on the numbers at all. Clause 4, on page 5 of the Bill …

Order! We are dealing with clause 2 now.

I mean subsection (4), which provides that if a proclamation is issued under subsection (1) the council, as then constituted, shall until the first election of the members jn terms of subsection 1, be deemed to be validly constituted in terms of this section. That is the 25 nominated members. It then says that the persons who are members thereof at the time of the issuing of such proclamation shall, subject to other provisions of this Act, be deemed to be members appointed by the Minister in terms of this subsection. Now, that I gather is for the interim period.

No. (1) is the interim period; (1) (a) refers to the new council.

That means that the hon. the Minister is suggesting that the maximum number that can be elected if he so desires after consultation, will be five out of the 25. In other words, whatever the Indian Council indicates to be their wishes, there will be bound to be only five elected members and he will have to come back to this House to change that position. That is the first point. The second point I want to raise with the Minister is this. One appreciates the position in regard to proclamations which may be issued under this Act. Sir, there are two ways of considering legislation. The one is to ask a person to change his mind after he has committed himself, and that would be the case if the proclamation is issued and is then debated under the Minister’s Vote. We will then be in the position of having a proclamation which is of force and effect. Then we must debate it and ask the Minister to say that it is wrong and he must change his mind. But I believe the whole basis of democratic Government is that when there is a proposal to put something into operation, the Government discusses it and hears the views of the Opposition. We have a democratic parliamentary function to perform in terms of which we can voice views which are contrary to those of the Minister, and then the Minister weighs the views one against the other. I do believe that that rule by proclamation is an undesirable procedure. It is certainly easier for the hon. the Minister simply to make a proclamation and then to come and defend it afterwards instead of discussing it first, and then he has to go through the whole procedure of amending it after proclamation. I hope the Minister will realize that that is the significance and the basis of our discussion with him on this point, that this is now being removed from the Parliamentary purview to the extent that it will be an expost facto discussion. Only after the event has taken place, will we have an opportunity of discussing it with the Minister and saying whether we think he was wise or not. I believe it is an undesirable procedure to adopt this legislation. We do not for one moment say that he must not consult the council. By all means, he must consult the Indian Council; he must consult those persons and ascertain their views, but then those views should be debated here before a decision is arrived at. That is our complaint about this clause, and that is why we feel that it is not desirable in the form in which it is.

The hon. the Minister has now indicated his intention of retaining the 25 existing members who shall all be appointed and that the additional five members who will be required to extend the council to 30 members will be elected. Considerable confusion has arisen, because in terms of subsection (2) of this clause it is provided that any proclamation in terms of this section may be amended by the State President by proclamation after consultation by the Minister with the council. As I read it, this allows the Minister by proclamation to be able to vary the situation between the number of appointed and the number of elected members, as indicated in subsection (1) of this clause where no specific mention is made of how many members are to be appointed and how many are to be elected. What is of importance is that the council as it now stands, the way it is constituted, will retain those 25 appointed members until such time as the Minister might wish to vary the situation by proclamation. But as the clause now stands this could be done on that basis. The hon. the Minister has indicated that he wishes to consult the Indian Council on these matters, and he said during an earlier stage of the debate that he had the support of the Indian Council for a number of these matters. However, this specific and important matter of the number of elected and the number of appointed members of the council, was referred to by the chairman of the executive committee of the council who recently expressed an opinion and it would be interesting to know what the Minister’s reactions are in regard to this matter. Mr. A. M. Rajab, the chairman of the council’s executive committee, said, according to a Press report on 15th March, that he welcomed the move to increase the membership to 30, and then he went on to say that he would like all council members to be elected so that the stigma that the council was a Government-controlled body would be lifted. He said that for a start there could be no objection if at least 40 per cent of the members were elected. So this appears to be the thinking of the chairman of the executive committee of the council, who will also of course retain its position in the council in terms of the legislation that is now before us. They have clearly indicated through the mouthpiece of the chairman of their Executive Committee, that they could see no objection to having at least 40 per cent of the 30 members that are provided for in this clause elected although they preferred to see the whole council elected. However, the hon. the Minister disclosed this afternoon that he intends to have only five of those 30 members elected by the Indian people as such. Here I think we require further elucidation from the hon. the Minister in regard to the feeling and attitude of the Indian Council, whom he says he has consulted and from whom he says he has received support as far as this measure is concerned. This is perhaps the most important clause in this Bill. We have now heard from the hon. the Minister that he interprets the legislation in this way, that there shall only be five elected members to this council. It will be interesting to hear whether the hon. the Minister agrees that this matter can be amended by way of proclamation as contained in subsection (2). I should also like to know what the hon. the Minister’s attitude is in regard to the view that has been expressed by the chairman of the executive committee of that Indian Council.

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are very disturbed at the hon. the Minister’s attitude in regard to this clause. He says that the clause can be interpreted clearly as meaning that there is going to be five elected members and 25 nominated members. I want to ask the hon. the Minister why he did not state that clearly in the clause itself. What was the difficulty? Surely this House needs to be taken seriously. When the hon. the Minister comes with a Bill in which he means something, why does he not say what he means? The way I read this clause, it is certainly not as clear as the hon. the Minister likes to think it is. If the hon. the Minister wants to have five elected members, why on earth did he not state in the Bill that there was going to be five elected and 25 nominated members? Is there any reason why he should hide this fact from the House by wording it like this in the Bill? The hon. member for Umbilo is perfectly correct. The Indian Council has asked for a fully elected council. The Minister himself tells us that he prefers to consult with the Indian Council rather than with us on this side of the House.

[Inaudible.]

Keep quiet for a moment! The Minister said that he preferred to consult with the Indian Council rather than with us here on the Opposition side. If this is how he consults with the council, he certainly ignores every bit of advice he receives from them. They have asked for a fully elected council. We are not debating that particular point at the moment. The Minister now says that five of these councillors can be elected. I want to know where that is clearly stated in the Bill?

I should like to go a bit deeper into this. In electing five members for the new council, he is going to have to draw up voters’ rolls, and so on. Having drawn up the voters’ rolls, which will allow every Indian who qualifies to have a vote, would it make any difference whether the number is five or 25 or 29? He will have to go through the same machinery to do so. He will have to go through all this work to elect the small number of five out of the 30. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister is doing jusitce to this House by bringing forward a Bill so badly worded as this. If this is what he means, why did he not put it in clear and plain English?

Then in subsection 3 (a) of this clause he talks about the qualifications of the candidates and of voters. Here again, why are the qualifications of the candidates and the voters not clearly stated? Is there any reason why this cannot be stated as well? It seems to me that this particular clause is so badly worded that the Minister can virtually do anything he likes under this clause. It seems to cover a multitude of sins.

Then he talks of consultation.

Then, as my hon. friend says, he talks of consultation. Whom is he consulting with? Himself? He certainly is not consulting with the Indian Council, because it has asked for a good deal more. I feel particularly horrified at the hon. the Minister, who seldom presents Bills in this House, presenting a clause so poorly worded.

Both hon. members, who spoke consecutively, mentioned the fact that the Indian Council, through its chairman, had said on occasion that they prefer that this should be a fully elected council. This was referred to by both those hon. members. The hon. member for Houghton even came along with an amendment …

Order! The amendment is not before the House now.

The amendment is not under discussion now. Sir, but I just want to point out that those two hon. members could have discussed, during the Second Reading, the matters they discussed here a moment ago.

We did.

It is quite clear that they did not do so. They are now hiding behind what the chairman of the Indian Council was supposed to have said. The position is that the principle contained in this clause, is one of a partly elected and a partly appointed council. This is the general principle contained in this clause.

It seems to me that the hon. member for Koedoespoort was not here when we discussed the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. member for Berea voiced specifically the point about the statement made by Mr. Rajab, the chairman of the Indian Council. What is happening now is that the hon. the Minister is going to all the trouble of registering Indian voters. He has to consult with the Indian Council, first of all, to establish qualifications of voters and candidates. He then has to register all those voters, after which he will have to decide on constituencies—all for the purpose of electing five members to a council on which there are 25 nominated members. All this has to be done for the purpose of consulting with that council of 25 nominated and five elected members as to what they want the future of the council to be. At this stage we know already out of the mouth of the chairman of the council that they want a fully elected council. Surely to goodness, it would have been more to the point if the hon. the Minister had come before the House with a statement that he was going to have a council which would have more than five elected members at least—whatever you want the number to be, even if there were only 14 elected and 16 nominated members to give them a majority of nominated members on the council. I think the hon. the Minister is really being self-defeating in clause 2 of this Bill because he has got to put himself to endless trouble merely to elect five people. Then the hon. the Minister says that we are trying to make political capital out of a thing like this when, out of the kindness of our hearts, we came here to support him with this Bill. I fail to understand where the political capital comes from. We are supporting the principle which he has in his Bill, as has been explained to him in detail during the Second Reading. We feel that he is going an awfully wrong way round to get himself back just to the edge of square one. When he gets to the edge of square one, then he knows he is going to get to the stage where the chairman and the council are going to ask him for a fully elected council.

Mr. Chairman, we made it quite clear during the Second Reading that it was the tradition in South Africa for all legislative authorities to develop in this way, in other words, by means of an evolutionary, constitutional process of development. In the initial stages such a body is usually a fully appointed body. In the various and subsequent stages this authority is gradually transferred into the hands of the elected members. This is merely the first stage of such constitutional development. I really do not know what the hon. member is so concerned about. We all know that this situation is not a static one. It is an evolutionary, constitutional development.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort is obviously confused about this question. He did not get the position clear in the Second Reading debate. In order to assist him, I would like to read what Mr. Rajab himself has said, so that he can know what the position is. It appeared in Fiat Lux, an official publication. Mr. Rajab is quoted quite specifically. He said:

Why did the Opposition not mention the principle of a fully elected body during the Second Reading debate?

We made it quite clear that it is the policy of this party to have a wholly elected Indian council. We use the argument of Mr. Rajab to indicate that he, as the chairman of the executive committee of the present council, was of the opinion that this should be the position. I fail to understand members opposite who cannot see that this is an expression of opinion from a responsible person, a member of the executive of the Indian Council. I cannot understand why the hon. the Minister is not prepared to admit that this is an expression of opinion and accept it as such. There is no need further to consult on the question of allowing just five members, when Mr. Rajab has made his position quite clear, having said “fully elected by the people themselves”. Then he says:

To me it is very clear, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply in the first instance to the hon. member for Green Point. If the hon. member will read subsection (4), he will see that it refers to the fact that the present members appointed by the Minister will be reappointed to the new constituted board. Let me make my position quite clear in this issue. I am not prepared to reject or expunge any members of the board who have been acting in that capacity over the years under my jurisdiction. I am going to keep them on the board. The five new members will be elected.

Can they resign if they want to?

They can resign, but another one will be appointed. Let us get it quite clear.

Can I ask a question?

Just let me finish, then the hon. member can do so with pleasure.

Now I come to another point I want to put to the hon. member for Green Point. We have had all this lovely soapbox oratory about democracy, about Parliament being a democratic machine and about this promulgation being something terrible. Let me point out to him that under the United Party Government in he old days hundreds of proclamations were made without the consent of Parliament. They were simply put on the Table of the House and accepted or criticized. Why then all this nonsense over an issue like this? The whole basis of government of the country is by way of proclamation. Parliament is a machine which serves the purpose of criticism but the running of the country is by proclamation. Hon. members who have had experience will know it. The country has to be run also by proclamation. Parliament is not always in session, and the government of the country still has to continue. So all this business about this being a terrible, undemocratic way of doing things, is absolute nonsense.

Now I want to come to the hon. member for Berea. He quoted Mr. Rajab. Obviously I do not deny the quotation read out to the House. I appreciate the situation. But I consulted with the Indian Council. The hon. member for Green Point indicated that I was going to face them with a fait accompli.

With Parliament.

The hon. member also mentioned the council. He said “Now that the five members have been appointed you go back to the Indian Council”. I do not. I have already discussed the matter with the Indian Council. When this term of office expires, the question of what should happen for the future constitution will be discussed with them. They will be consulted in the matter. The hon. member for Port Natal asked why I did not say in the Bill itself that 25 members would be nominated and five elected. I did it for the simple reason that the Bill states quite clearly that from time to time, as a new council is to be constituted, these consultations will go on with regard to the elected members. Why should I then put in a Bill that five members will be elected, when the matter is going to be handled from time to time in what I regard as the proper way of doing it? I am sorry that the hon. member feels that I should come to him and to Parliament and let Parliament and the Opposition tell me or give me advice on how many members should be elected and how many should be appointed. I am prepared to go to the Indian Council and discuss it with them, and the fait accompli will be promulgated in this House. That is how it is going to be. It is what has happened in the past in regard to so many matters. This atmosphere hon. members opposite are trying to create about the terrible action of the Minister is quite incorrect, because if I had said that I was never going to consult with the Indian Council they could have said that it was a dictatorial way of doing it, but that is not so. They feel that I should consult them about it.

No, Parliament.

No, I will consult my own people, but I am not prepared to consult the Opposition on matters which they exploit for party-political gain. We saw that during the Second Reading debate.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I think the hon. member for Berea must first ask his question.

I want to ask the Minister if it is his intention to allow the 25 nominated members to serve their terms of office and that he will review the position at that stage. He has made it clear that he does not wish to discharge them and I appreciate that, but will the position be reviewed at the end of their terms of office and the number of elected members determined at that stage?

I can answer the hon. member immediately. He is quite correct. It is laid down in the Bill that the first reconstituted Indian Council of 25 nominated and five elected members will retain office until the terms of office of the appointed members have expired. Then the formula for a newly reconstituted council will be submitted to the Indian Council and discussed with them. The hon. members opposite talk about “vagueness”, but as is allowed for in this Bill, the number of elected members can then be, instead of five, a larger number. But this is a matter in which consultation will take place with the Indian Council.

When does the period of office expire?

The present appointed members were appointed in August, 1971, and their terms of office will therefore expire in August, 1974. These members serve for three years. The first five elected members will obiously not serve the full three years, because they will be elected during the periods of office of the members who were appointed in August, 1971. This will be done to maintain the continuity of a full council. The hon. member for Turffontein can now ask his question.

The Minister said that he does not want to consult this side of the House and that he will consult his own people. What I want to know from him is whether he means by that that he is not prepared to consult Parliament as a body?

This Bill is before Parliament. The hon. member for Turffontein should not try to create an atmosphere that does not exist. My consultation is with the Indian Council. That is what I intend to do in future. As far as Parliament is concerned, I want to say that the decisions reached will be promulgated and will then be discussed in Parliament. The hon. member can then discuss it when my Vote comes before the House, or at any other opportunity that comes his way. The formula that will be applied in the appointment and election of members of the council will be adopted after consultation with the Indian Council. That is what I have stated and that is what is meant.

The hon. member for Mooi River, was in my opinion, able to convey to this committee the many problems that faced myself and the department in connection with this arrangement. He is quite right. There is no statutory election roll for the Indian Council. All these matters have to be worked out. All I can say to the hon. member, and I think he will agree with me, is that the people who will understand the situation more than anyone else, are the Indian Council members themselves. Those are the people who will be consulted on every one of these points. This Bill provides that the Indian Council will be consulted in connection with, for instance, the areas or provinces which elected members of the council shall represent, the procedures to be followed in the nomination of candidates and the qualifications of candidates and voters. All these matters will be sorted out with the Indian Council. It is impossible to lay down all the details in a statute, but it will be done in the manner that is laid down in this Bill. I do not know why hon. members on that side of the House think that there is something very bad and sinister in the way in which we are handling this matter. The Indian Council does not. We discussed the matter in full with the Indian Council. The amazing thing is that they accept the situation, but the hon. members on that side of the House do not. [Interjections.] The hon. members in my opinion approach the matter in the wrong way. They do not approach the matter in the light of what is in the interests of the Indian community. I am the responsible Minister, and the whole point is that they are of the opinion that the powers which I have, or the powers which the State President has, are too much. Here we have the situation that the Indian Council agrees with this arrangement, but the hon. members on that side of the House disagree with it. That I cannot understand.

Mr. Rajab does not.

No, the hon. member is wrong. Mr. Rajab was present at the discussions.

Well, then he has changed his views.

He may have. That may be so, but all I can tell this House is that this was accepted by the Indian Council. It was not even accepted with any dissenting votes. It was a procedure that they accepted. Quite frankly, they appreciated it. The one thing that I wanted to do was to get this legislation under way. I did not want to hold it over for a few years while I sorted out all the details which the hon. member for Port Natal thinks I should sort out and lay down in legislation. I wanted to allow much of this by promulgation and do it immediately. I wanted to give them a basis and therefore introduced this skeleton of five elected members. All this is accepted. I want to ask hon. members opposite to be reasonable about it. This is the situation. What are they trying to do? Are they trying to disturb a situation that has been created, that has been accepted and why are they doing it?

Mr. Chairman, I rise to reply to four points raised by the hon. the Minister. In regard to the first one, I should like to say to him quite clearly and categorically that it ill behoves a sawdust Caesar to talk about soap-box oratory to other people. The hon. the Minister made a statement and I wonder whether he realized the significance of it and whether his colleagues realized the significance of what he said. He said that this country is run by proclamation, that we have government by proclamation and that that is a normal form of government. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is speaking out of the arrogance of a pocket dictator or whether he is talking out of ignorance. It is far-fetched to suggest that we have reached a stage of parliamentary government in South Africa where we run things bureaucratically, by proclamations coming from departments and that that is now the basis of government. I hope the hon. the Minister will think again about his words when he reads his Hansard.

I hope you will think again about yours.

I hope he will think again about his words and whether he really means that this country is to be run by proclamation. I want to tell him that that approach to government is one that we on this side of the House will fight day in and day out as long as Parliament exists. There can be no question of government by proclamation.

The second question I want to ask the hon. the Minister is whether he is suggesting that the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa must accept the views of a statutory creature which it itself has created, namely the Indian Council. What the hon. the Minister is saying is that, when he has consulted the Indian Council and has obtained their views, he must issue a proclamation and Parliament must accept it. What is the sovereign authority in this country, if it is not this Parliament? But apparently we are not to be consulted. We can merely discuss afterwards what has taken place. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that this is a complete change of policy so far as the Government is concerned. Its first effort, its first step or action in Parliament to create some form of self-government was the Transkei Constitution. The hon. the Minister knows that that constitution cannot be changed in any way or altered without a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It is true that the Government has unfortunately departed from that principle with regard to some of the other legislative authorities. That was, however, the basic and proper approach which is enshrined in the constitution of the Transkei. The hon. the Minister now feels that that is of no value.

I have just one final point to refer to the hon. the Minister who said we were raising questions here for party political gain. Perhaps the hon. the Minister is unaware of the fact that no Indian can vote any one of us into Parliament. I do not know where the party political gain comes in when we are fighting for what we believe is right for a disenfranchised group of the country so far as this Parliament is concerned. The hon. the Minister suggested we are doing this for party political gain. I hope that there again he will think again before making stupid remarks of that nature in this House.

Mr. Chairman, it does amuse me— and I mean it—that the hon. members on that side af the House always put themselves on a pedestal.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member puts words into my mouth that I never uttered. I said that Parliament is a machine which does not operate all the year round and that the country’s government must be conducted during those periods when Parliament is not in session. Promulgation is a method in which this can be done. The same was done by General Smuts a hundred times. [Interjections]. Now it is “rubbish”. That is why the hon. member called me a “sawdust Caesar”. I do not have an epithet for him, but I know that the hon. member tries to create an atmosphere of:“How could we ever think in terms of trying to create party political capital out of this?”

How can we get party political gain out of this?

It is not the Indian vote that the hon. members are trying to obtain, but they are trying to compete with the hon. member for Houghton. [Interjections.]

Be your age.

Oh yes ! That is all they are after. We know that they want to be the champions of the disenfranchised Indians in South Africa. Let me put it to the hon. members: Who made the disenfranchised Indians of South Africa? Natal disenfranchised them originally!

You passed the 1946 Act. Was it a proclamation?

This sort of thing does not get us anywhere. Here we have a positive, practical measure aimed at hearing the voice of the Indian people. Whether the hon. members like it or not, the Indian Council, which consists entirely of Indians, have discussed this matter fully with myself and the department and they accept it as a step which they themselves never expected would be done so expeditiously that they would get elected members within, shall we say, a short period of time.

Only five.

Yes, only five. They have accepted it in the spirit in which it has been submitted to them. Now an hon. member says “only five”. The Indian Council accepts the situation but the hon. members are not trying to make political capital out of it—of course not!—but they are now saying “only five”. Five members will be fully elected, which they do not even do on the councils that side controls in Natal. After all these years they do not even allow them a fully elected body of Indians in Natal. They insist upon it that certain numbers must be appointed by the Administrator. Now these hon. members come and tell me how we should conduct our affairs in South Africa. I do think that this clause is a workable clause which allows the elasticity needed for the handling of a subject like this and the hon. member for Mooi River is aware of it. It gives us the opportunity of going ahead on a formula which, I think, is one the Indians in South Africa deserve.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question. He says quite rightly that the Indian Council is nominated for a three year period. On that basis, it has two and a half years to run. According to this Bill we will have to draw up voters’ rolls, constituency boundaries, set the qualifications of the voters and the qualifications of the candidates. This, of course, cannot be done overnight. It is going to take some time because with the best will in the world, this is a lengthy process.

Unless he has got it all ready.

Unless he has got it all ready, but I do not believe that this is so. We have to start from scratch to create the mechanics of bringing this into operation. With only 2½ years left for the Indian Council, the present council, it would mean that anybody elected, even with the best will in the world, would probably not serve for more than a year before the council’s time has run out. I hope the Minister has borne in mind that the people who will be elected will have a very short term of office before that period runs out. I hope the Minister appreciates that and therefore appreciates the urgency of getting this started. Then we are on the same ground.

Before I sit down, I would like to say something else to the hon. the Minister. He asked who disenfranchised the Indians. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that this side of the House did not disenfranchise the Indians in 1949. It was that side of the House who scrapped the 1946 Act of Parliament in 1949.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3 :

Mr. L. F. WOOD : Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to the new subsection (1) of section 2 of the principal Act which is introduced by clause 3. This subsection reads—

It was the intention of this side of the House to seek to move an amendment in line 17 which would cause the line to read: “in such proportion as the Minister, after consultation with the council, may deem equitable”. In terms of the Rules of the House we were told that this would be broadening the scope of this Bill. This I accept, but in the light of many other clauses where it is entrenched that there will be consultation with the council, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to give the Committee the assurance that this particular step will be taken after consultation with the council.

Mr. Chairman, I give the hon. member that assurance. I can say that I have already discussed the matter of the geographical division with members of the council. If I remember correctly, the suggestion of the five was that one should be from the Cape Province, one from the Transvaal and three from Natal. However, no finality has been reached. It is a matter in regard to which a decision will be reached after consultation with the Indian Council itself.

May I ask the hon. Minister a question? I just want to know, if that is going to be the case, will all the Indians in the Cape Province elect only one member?

The trouble with the Indians in the Cape is that they do not even have a voters’ roll.

The Coloureds?

No, we are talking about the Indians. They are not on a voters’ roll. In the Transvaal and Natal they have a sort of semi-voters’ roll, if I may put it that way, but they have not got it in the Cape, so some sort of formula will have to be found for the election of a Cape member of the council.

And in the Transvaal?

There is some machinery in the Transvaal, but it is not voting machinery for the election of members to the council itself. A formula will have to be found which the Indian Council regards as the best method to adopt for the election of a member of the Indian Council from the Transvaal.

Sir, I do not think the hon. the Minister understands my question. I want to know whether in the Transvaal all the Indians who are on the voters’ roll will vote for one candidate?

Sir, I cannot give the hon. member details at this stage. All I can tell him is that the discussion was on the basis that I mentioned, and that is one member from the Transvaal, one from the Cape, and three from Natal. The member concerned will be elected, but the method that will be used will be decided upon in due course.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question about something which has intrigued me for some time. How do the members of the council, elected and nominated, travel between the provinces in view of the regulations with regard to provincial travel permits? What sort of permit is issued?

Order! That is not relevant to this clause.

With respect, Sir, as I see it the clause deals with representatives of the different provinces. How do they get together if they have not got permission to travel between the provinces?

Order!

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Subclause (3) of clause 4 reads—

It is this particular section to which I wish to refer, because as I understood the hon. the Minister when he dealt with this matter in the Second Reading debate, he made it clear that the intention was that teachers would be incapable of being elected to the council. The object of our amendment is to provide that at least they shall not be precluded from offering themselves as candidates for election. If members of the teaching profession are not allowed to stand, they can obviously never be elected, but if members of the teaching profession are prepared to stand for election, they should be allowed to do so. Should they be elected, then it will become necessary for them to resign from their teaching post, which is an office of profit in the service of the State. I believe that this suggestion deserves the very serious and sympathetic consideration of the Minister. I want to point out to him what the position is in this House at the present moment. I just want to give a few details which I think will illustrate my point of view most succinctly. The present Minister of National Education, Senator Van der Spuy, was in the teaching profession; the previous Minister of Education, Senator De Klerk, now the President of the Senate, was in the teaching profession. When we come to the House of Assembly, as at present constituted, we find that we have two Ministers—I think my facts are correct —the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development and the hon. the Minister of Information and of Immigration, who were members of the teaching profession. But, in addition, we have the hon. members for Algoa, Worcester, Durban Central, Carletonville, Germiston, Koedoespoort, Hercules and, I believe, Kempton Park; all of them were in the teaching profession.

We all resigned before we came here.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really believes that the House would be better off without the services of some or all of these hon. gentlemen, all of whom were members of the teaching profession, and all of whom would not have been allowed to stand if they had been Indians and wished to serve their community as members of the Indian Council. I also want to put it to the hon. the Minister that as far as I am aware, there is no provision which prevents a Bantu teacher from being elected or standing for election in the Transkei, and I do not believe that in so far as Coloured teachers are concerned, they are precluded from being eligible for election either. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to deprive this embryo Indian Parliament, for which the Indians themselves hold out such great hopes, of a solid corps of intellectual people who I believe have reached the stage of development where they can play a constructive and notable part in the deliberations of the council. At least give them an opportunity to stand for election and at least give the Indian community the opportunity either of electing or rejecting them at the polls.

I should like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Berea as I believe this amendment has a direct effect on the functioning of the council and on its future functioning, particularly in view of the fact that a clause which still has to be dealt with, clause 8, specifically outlines the functions to be delegated to and administered by the executive of this new council to be that of education and community welfare. I assume that by “community welfare” the hon. the Minister intends social welfare, pensions and other aspects dealing with community welfare. Obviously there will be an interest in the affairs of this council from Indians in those two professions : the profession of education, the educationists, and those people who are professional welfare workers and social workers who occupy posts which may deprive them of the opportunity of being elected to this council. I think it is indeed in the interests of the council to encourage people of these two professions to be elected to this council, whereby they can make definite contributions to the functioning of this council. I therefore think the hon. member for Berea in moving this amendment is really doing a service to the Minister in assisting him in creating a more effective council to represent the Indian community. We will have the situation whereby the Indian community will be deprived of the services and the experience of these people, like educationists and social welfare workers and other professional people, who can render such services. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to accept this amendment, which is in the interest of the council as a whole and of the Indian community.

I think the position is that there is no prohibition on a person who is a teacher to stand for the council. It is the same situation which applies to all elections. The point is that, as hon. members will see, the original Bill refers to a person who holds a post in the Public Service. But this has been changed to holding a position of profit in the service of the State. From that point of view it is not a bar to any intellectual. The only point is that he cannot hold a post of profit in the service of the State and at the same time stand for election. This matter was thrashed out fully in the Indian Council. Do not forget that the disciplinary code in the service is such that a teacher for example who criticizes the department would be guilty of a disciplinary offence against the department. The normal procedure is that a man resigns as a teacher, after which he can say what he likes. It is a process which is of general application. The hon. member referred to members on this side. All the members of the Opposition who were teachers before they became members of Parliament, resigned from the teaching profession. You have them here and you have them on that side of the House.

It is only when they are nominated.

Mr. Rajab, for instance, who is chairman of the executive committee, in his early days was a teacher. He therefore did not go into this with a prejudice against teachers. He considered what was best under all the circumstances. I should like to point out to the hon. member for Berea that I went into this matter immediately I saw his amendment on the Order Paper. I will tell the hon. member what advice I got from the legal advisers. I discussed the omission of the relative words with them, and they say that the words must be retained. The word “capable” refers to the qualifications of a candidate. It refers purely to the qualifications; it does not refer to his person, to him as an individual. He may be a first-class individual. It refers to his qualifications. And in regard to the qualification, it has been laid down on what basis you can stand as a member of the council.

That is provided for in subsection (d).

It reads that “if he does not have the relevant qualification prescribed by proclamation in terms of sec. 1A”. I think these are qualifications quite different from the disqualifications. I think clause 6 talks about disqualification. If he cannot be disqualified, he can stand. If he has a position of profit in the service of the State, then he cannot stand. That is the recognized position in our electoral system as far as the White people are concerned. And here, as far as the Indians are concerned, we follow that pattern.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied that the Indian teachers who do elect to stand in comparison with teachers of other races who also stand for election to public office will not be penalized in any way?

I would say that the same approach would be applied in their case as in the other cases. There is no attempt to victimize an individual. It is just a basis for the formulation of law. That is all I can say to the hon. member.

I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the proposed subsection (3) (a) in clause 2 of the Bill which we have already dealt with. The hon. the Minister now has power under the proclamation to provide for the qualifications of candidates. It is within his own hands. If the words “no person shall be capable of being elected if he holds an office of profit in the service of the State” in clause 4 are adopted, then the hon. the Minister won’t be able to say that a teacher is a qualified person to stand for election. This will bind the Minister.

Correct.

That is why I believe that the hon. the Minister, now that he has the powers which the House has seen fit to give him under clause 2, to determine what the qualifications should be, that he should accept the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Berea and not curtail his discretion, as it will be if the words “capable of being elected” are retained. I think the position is still in the hon. the Minister’s hands as to what the qualifications should be. But he will be restricted in his discretion if the words “be capable of” remain in this particular clause. I urge him therefore to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Berea.

Mr. Chairman, I want the Minister to clear up some doubt in my mind. Today White teachers are capable of standing for election. After they are nominated they are not permitted to hold an office of profit under the State. They must no longer be in State employment, which means that they can resign the night before, or whatever the case may be. But the process of establishing oneself as a candidate starts a long time before the date of nomination. It is now going to be that no person holding an office of profit in the service of the State is capable of being elected? Does it mean that, for argument’s sake, no teacher, welfare worker or anybody else, can make himself or herself available for nomination? I think this is a limitation on the hon. the Minister’s own powers, which I am sure he does not want. If he wants to say that teachers will be eligible to stand for the council he has to take out the words “capable of being elected”; because without taking out those words, no person who has an office of profit under the State can make himself available even for party nomination with a view to ultimate election. This is our concern. I am sure the hon. the Minister can see the point, that he is virtually cutting out the whole of the teaching profession from any chance of being capable of being elected. They cannot be elected in terms of this provision.

Mr. Chairman, I know it is obvious that I am not a legal man, but I would like to say to the hon. member for Mooi River that a person is not capable of being elected until he is officially nominated. The only persons who are capable of being elected are the official nominees who come forward for the election.

But he must resign before he is nominated.

“Capable of being elected” in my opinion—and I am not a lawyer—means that a man cannot say vaguely that he is going to stand for election; he will only be capable of being elected when he is officially nominated. That is my interpretation of the words “capable of being elected.” That signifies the situation. I went to the trouble of going into the matter with the law advisers. They say that “capable of being elected” is not the capability of the individual; it is the capability of his qualification. That is all that it means.

Can we then assume that any person may make propaganda for his nomination on a public platform beforehand? If so, it is possible that he shall have the right to talk against the Government of the day in order to gain nomination.

Mr. Chairman, hon. members must understand that if the actions of a person who is employed in an office of profit in the State—let us say a teacher, for argument’s sake—are contrary to the disciplinary code of a department, action will be taken against him whether he is seeking nomination or not. But if he behaves in that sort of way, then according to the Public Services Act action is taken against him. That is the situation. But let me put it to the hon. members that this clause follows the usual pattern of clauses in connection with elections. So it is not different from any other section.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the question a little further. I want to quote a specific example. The hon. member for Durban Central was a White teacher in Natal. He was then nominated as a candidate for the election, but it was not necessary for him to resign. Special arrangements had been made for people who wished to stand as candidates.

Then I have been discriminated against—I had to resign.

Other members who were teachers and who are sitting in this House, such as the hon. member for Germiston, had to resign, but in the meantime new regulations have been made for Whites who want to stand for a Parliamentary or provincial council election. All we on this side of the House want is that we must also grant this special permission to Indians who are teachers and who want to stand for election, so that it will not be necessary for them to resign before they are elected. The day they are elected, they must of course resign, as the hon. member for Durban Central did. This is the point which I think the hon. member for Berea made.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but the situation as I have described it to this Committee, is the one which I consider as a reasonable basis on which the legislation should apply. I do not want to be dragged into the situation of the hon. member for Durban Central or anybody else. All I say is that this is the basis on which the council, myself and the department feel we should handle this situation. The best way is the method whereby the holding of an office of profit under the State should be taken account of.

Mr. Chairman, does the hon. the Minister therefore interpret this provision as making it possible for an Indian teacher to be elected to the council and, indeed, to be nominated to the council if he so desires?

I would say “yes”.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 6 :

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, namely—

I do so following a point I made in my Second Reading speech. I could see that under this clause the Minister must have quite clear definitions as to how and when a member of the council can be dismissed from that council. I agree with those which he set out very fully. I believe that they are quite essential and I can find no fault with them at all. I explained to the Minister in my Second Reading speech that paragraph (h) caused me some concern. In terms of this paragraph it is possible for the Minister to dismiss from the council, after consultation with them, a person deemed unfit to be a member of the council. I agree, too, with the Minister that this may on occasions be necessary but, as I said in the Second Reading debate, I would by far prefer that all the conditions for dismissal are clearly stated in this clause. I can foresee that if the Minister, acting on the advice of the council, were to dismiss a member when it is not clearly stated why, and if this member was elected, the people who elected him could cause all sorts of difficulties for the council and the Minister. The Minister may not wish, for instance, to publicize why he or the council has decided to act against that particular member. He may have very good reasons, but obviously he cannot state them publicly without running the risk of damages. So he would not like to make a statement. But I think that, if these reasons were stated in the council and this clause was altered in terms of the amendment which I moved, with the approval of the council, at least then the Minister’s defence would be that it was the council itself who acted against the member.

Do you expect disapproval from both elected and nominated members?

The Minister can dismiss a nominated member. That is entirely a different matter. I am concerned with the man who is elected by the voters. Those voters send him to the council. The Minister may have perfectly good reasons to dismiss that man; there is no argument about that. In fact, the various reasons are set out in this clause for the dismissal of a member. The Minister also says that he can dismiss a man for reasons not stated here. I believe that when a member of the council is an elected member and the Minister should choose to dismiss that man, he would be running a grave risk of destroying that council because the electors themselves might be his greatest critics. I want to try to strengthen the hand of the council in this case and to take the onus off the Minister, so that if the council approves of the dismissal of a member, then one assumes it will only approve of the dismissal by a majority, otherwise it would not be approval. If the elected member then says that he has been dismissed unfairly, the decision would, at least, have been taken by a majority of the council; it would then not be the prerogative of the Minister. He would not get the blame. The council will not be brought into disrepute. One must face facts. A man may be dismissed perfectly legitimately, but he will obviously make propaganda that he was dismissed unfairly. We will not be able to deny this unless you are prepared to run the risk of all sorts of action being taken. I would like to see this amendment introduced into this clause. I believe it will strengthen the hand of the council and will obviate a good deal of trouble that could possibly arise in future.

I am sorry, but I cannot put this amendment, because it is in conflict with the principle embodied in this clause as accepted at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak on the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper in respect of paragraph (f) which reads—

During the Second Reading debate certain doubts were expressed on this side of the House and reasons were sought for the intention behind this particular paragraph. The Minister gave reasons which we accepted as being valid. We move this particular amendment suggesting that the words “recommendation of at least two registered medical practitioners, one of whom shall be a specialist”, should be substituted for the wording as it stands in the clause. We did this because we felt that in view of the Minister’s explanation during the Second Reading debate, this could improve the position and possibly leave the Minister in a much stronger position than he would be with the clause as it stands now. Last night the Minister gave an example. I too wish to give an example of what could happen under these circumstances. If the Minister operates under this paragraph and he removes a person from the council acting on the advice of a registered medical practitioner to the effect that he is regarded as being unfit, and this particular person, who may not necessarily be in the same poor condition of health as the gentleman to whom the Minister referred, could decide to seek other medical advice and goes to another doctor to get a certificate which is contrary to the Minister’s and has that certificate endorsed by a specialist—and I believe this is not impossible—the situation may arise where the Minister or the council may be placed in an embarrassing position. This was the reason which activated our amendment in this respect. I have been advised by the hon. the Minister that he is prepared to accept at least two registered medical practitioners and we on this side of the House are not going to take issue with the hon. the Minister as to whether one should be a specialist or not, although we believe that this may be desirable. But in view of the Minister’s undertaking that he will move such an amendment, I wish to withdraw the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that you have ruled out of order the amendment of the hon. member for Port Natal, I would like to ask whether the hon. the Minister could not himself consider moving an amendment of that nature in the Other Place. I ask for this …

Order! I rule that out of order, and it may not be discussed.

May I not discuss the idea of the hon. the Minister moving such an amendment in the Other Place? This is my request to him, because I believe that it is of vital importance to the council. As I understand the position, the proceedings at meetings of the council will be privileged but I can imagine that some of the meetings of the council will be open to the Press. Now, if the onus is on the hon. the Minister to remove a certain person from the council, he will be covering himself and he will be in a much stronger position to make it quite clear to everybody that the removal was taking place for a very real and genuine reason, because on a privileged occasion a reason will be able to be given which will satisfy the people outside that it is being done for a very good reason. It will be able to be reported in the Press if the council itself so decides. I think the Minister will have to use this power, and he will admit it, with the utmost circumspection. It is not something that can be done right and left. It is something that will be a very serious step indeed and I honestly think that the hon. the Minister would be covering himself, the council and the status of the council, if he were to move in the Other Pace that this amendment should be inserted in the Bill.

You cannot say what he can do about it.

I was ruled out of order, and the hon. Whip is himself out of order. I am entitled to say what I am saying. I am asking the Minister to consider this matter and to move an amendment in the Other Place, because I believe it would help the Minister and the council to get past what is going to be a very ticklish position indeed. It will be a very corny situation which the hon. the Minister will find himself in if he wants to remove one of the members of the council. I think this would help him.

Mr. Chairman, following the amendment of the hon. member for Berea, I want to say that he is now bringing in two new ideas.

Order! The hon. member for Berea has not moved the amendment. He has withdrawn it.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this clause is being treated by the Committee and the Opposition in the right spirit at this stage. I would also like to say to the hon. member for Port Natal that I understand his sentiments and appreciate them on the other point. All I can say to him and the hon. member for Mooi River is that I will go into this matter thoroughly. I also want to say to the hon. member for Berea that I appreciate the fact that he has withdrawn his amendment, and I therefore would like to move the following amendment—

I think this covers the point adequately and I am happy to move it.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the powers delegated in terms of section A, which is proposed to be inserted by clause 8, and ask him to explain to the Committee what is embodied in the term “community welfare”. As I understand it, the council will have powers to deal with such matters as housing problems, problems arising from proclamations under the Group Areas Act, the removal of people under the Group Areas Act, provincial travel permits, etc. In terms of my definition of “community welfare”, all these matters could fall under that definition and very many more, in addition to the obvious meaning of the term, namely social welfare. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me just what the definition “community welfare” means under this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that it is not possible to extend the scope of the powers referred to in clause 8. But I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could give some indication to the Committee as to what was the reasoning and the opinion of the Indian Council in regard to the omission of the Health portfolio from the powers initially to be given to the council?

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Berea will appreciate the fact that subsection (2) (c), which reads “such other matters as the State President may from time to time determine by proclamation in the Gazette”, does give one the scope to extend certain delegated powers to the Indian Council executive committee.

Yes, I appreciate that.

These matters will be discussed fully with them. We specifically mention education and community welfare, because these are matters which we are quite satisfied can be completely handled by the council.

The hon. member for Port Natal mentioned housing, group areas, and so forth, in connection with community welfare. Of course, these matters do not come under my portfolio at all. This clause deals with powers that I can delegate to these people. I have just received a note which says that this clause deals with the delegation of powers and that I, or any other Minister, can only delegate powers assigned to me by Acts of Parliament. I have no powers with regard to group areas, neither have I any powers with regard to housing. All I handle are those aspects of community welfare that come under my department. These are pensions, like old-age pensions and so forth. The Bill refers to the delegation of powers in regard to community welfare and not in regard to social matters. The hon. member is quite right when he says that, for instance, a housing problem is a social matter. In this Bill reference is made to community welfare and I can delegate powers in connection with community welfare to this council. The matters in regard to which I am quite happy to delegate powers to this council are the matters which they can handle for their own people.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has indicated what powers it is intended to delegate in terms of this clause. I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to the delegation of powers to this executive committee. Am I correct in assuming that this committee will be restricted in its operations on the basis of the funds that are available in the administration of these powers and particularly in so far as it affects social welfare and pensions?

Yes.

There is another point which I should like the hon. the Minister to clarify. Subsection (4) brings into account the fact that there may be certain other powers which the Administrator of a province may wish to have delegated to this executive committee. If one considers the question of Indian hospitalization, where today you have a large Indian hospital in the Chatsworth area, which has an Indian advisory board appointed by the provincial council, one realizes that such a situation may arise where certain health matters and hospitals may fall under the jurisdiction of this executive committee. In the event of such delegation being desirable, is it necessary also for the Minister to ratify the position in terms of subsection (4), or can the Administrator and the executive committee delegate those powers to this executive committee of the Indian Council? My question therefore is whether the hon. the Minister must also ratify any delegation of further powers to the executive committee in terms of subsection (4).

Mr. Chairman, subsection (4), to which the hon. member has referred, states specifically that “the executive committee of a province may by notice in the Gazette delegate any power conferred upon it or the Administrator concerned”. For instance if in the province of Natal they want to delegate certain powers to the executive committee of the Indian Council, I would say the executive committee of the province, presumably with the approval of the Administrator, will delegate those powers to the Executive Committee of the Indian Council.

Directly, without your approval?

I have nothing to do with it. It is entirely a matter for the Administrator and the Executive Committee of the province.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House will support the Second Reading of this Bill. However, I should like to make it quite clear that it is well-nigh three weeks since the hon. the Minister made his Second Reading speech. I take exception to the fact that the Order Paper has been so arranged that there has been this large hiatus between the Second Reading speech of the Minister and the opportunity given to this side of the House to reply. I think things could have been arranged a little better to keep the continuity of this debate going. It breaks the debate and one feels that a certain amount of interest in the matter has been lost during this very long period between the Second Reading speech of the Minister and today’s continuation of the debate.

There are several matters in this Bill which I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will later have an opportunity of enlarging upon these matters. We all realize the great importance of the mining industry and the great role it is playing in the economy of our country. It follows that if those individuals and companies who are prepared to search for and prospect for deposits of minerals in any part of our country, if they are going to spend large sums of money, time, etc., on the search, we, as a responsible body, must give these people every reasonable opportunity and every encouragement. At the same time, in view of the fact that, in South-West Africa particularly, the mineral rights remain vested in the State. I would say that the owners of the land where these minerals may be present, should receive special attention. How can we do this? The Minister has seen fit to bring into being a board,

which I think is a satisfactory one. It will consist of people who are interested in mining operations and in agricultural fields as well. This will be presided over by a magistrate, and they will settle any differences. But every man who has a piece of land, especially if he feels there is something valuable there, will naturally want the best possible compensation for any inconvenience he may suffer as a result of prospecting or mining operations. The hon. the Minister rightly has appointed this body to discuss these matters with the parties concerned. However, I would say that when operations are taking place to see whether a piece of land is valuable from a mining point of view, the owner of the land should be given full details of what has been discovered. If he is told that gold has been found on a piece of ground—or uranium or diamonds—he will be able to judge to what extent his piece of land is going to be disturbed. He will then be able to judge whether this disturbance is going to be of a permanent nature or whether it is only going to be temporary. For that reason I would urge the hon. the Minister to make sure that the owner of a piece of land, on which prospecting is going to be done or mining operations are going to be carried out, will be fully informed of what is going to take place. He will then be able to know what section of his land is going to be wasteland as far as he is concerned, and that he will not be able to cultivate that land or use it for grazing or any other purpose. He will also be able to assess what the land which is virtually going to be taken away from him, is going to be worth.

There is another matter in this Bill which concerns a similar type of consideration. In terms of three clauses in this Bill, the hon. the Minister is going to take away the custom that has been in vogue up to now, in that notices will no longer have to appear in the Government Gazette. I think the hon. the Minister is making a mistake. I have listened to what the hon. the Minister said. He said that the purchasing and reading of the Gazette is going out of vogue and that very few people buy the Gazette. Consequently he felt it would be sufficient if the notices were placed outside the mining commissioner’s office. It is not only the people in the immediate vicinity who are interested in what takes place on a piece of land. It is not only the people in the vicinity who want to know where discoveries are being made, but this is vital information of which the whole of the mining community should be informed. For that reason I say that it should not be necessary for people on the Reef or people in Johannesburg, to have to go to Windhoek or to a mining commissioner’s office to find out what is taking place. They would continually have to wait to see what notices are being put up. I urge the Minister to reconsider this matter and to continue publishing notice of mining activities in South-West Africa in the Government Gazette. The hon. the Minister also mentioned that he thought it was an unnecessary expenditure.

It will be negligible.

The expense will actually be negligible. I think he should think again on this particular matter and make full use of the Gazette issued by the Government.

Another problem in regard to which I do not have clarity at all, is the control of mining operations in those areas which are going to be set aside or which have already been set aside for the Bantu. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell the House whether or not mining operations in these areas will fall under the control of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. I have been under the impression that the Minister of Bantu Affairs through the Bantu Mining Corporation will be the Minister responsible for any mining operations that take place in Bantu areas. I wish to quote from the Minister’s speech as it appears in Hansard in Column 2660—

He says “control”—

Does that mean that the Minister of Mines is in full control of any mining operation in Bantu land? We are dealing with South-West Africa at the moment, but I want to know whether that is the case and whether he will give his permission to the Bantu Mining Corporation to carry on its work or whether he will give permission to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development …

Are you only referring to South-West Africa?

Yes, I am referring to South-West Africa. Will he do what I have mentioned or will he eventually hand over his authority to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development permanently, or will he hand it over eventually to any independent state that may come into being in South-West Africa? It is a point in regard to which I think we must have clarity. I and the rest of the House would very much like to hear whether the hon. the Minister is going to do this in stages or whether he is going to do it at once.

These are the points I would like to make. I am asking the Minister to clarify the point I have just made. I also want him to tell the House how compensation is going to be paid to owners of ground if they are not fully informed of findings that are being made and that could be developed on the ground that they own, having regard to the fact that they do not possess the mineral rights. With those few words I say again to the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House welcome the Bill and that we give it our full support.

I thank the hon. member for his support of this Bill. I think this Bill deserves the support of all members of this House. The hon. member started off with a rather queer protest. In years gone by we have had protests that hon. members have had too little time to study the Bill or to study the Minister’s speech, but now the protest is that the time was too long in this particular case. I do not think, therefore, that we should regard that protest as a very serious one, and in any case these arrangements are made by the Whips with the Leader of the House and the matter is not in the hands of either the Minister or the member concerned.

Tell us why you were not here when this Bill came up for consideration.

I was late.

Sleeping again?

Order!

Sir, in this regard I want to do the same thing that was done by my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs, in view of the fact that one holds in very high esteem and regard not only this House, but also you as Mr. Speaker. I am sorry if any inconvenience was caused by the fact that I was absent on Wednesday when this Order of the Day came up for consideration, but hon. members will appreciate that there were two other measures on the Order Paper which were supposed to have been dealt with first, i.e. one in the name of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, which was to be dealt with by the Deputy Minister, and the other in the name of my colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs. I had consulted him before I left the Chamber, and I was informed that there would at least be another six speakers and that he himself would give a reasonably lengthy reply. I was busy with the Secretary for Mines in my office in this building when I was informed that a problem had arisen here owing to the fact that it had not been possible to proceed with measures which preceded this measure on the Order Paper.

The hon. member for Rosettenville made the point that when prospecting operations were carried out and companies made certain findings of a geological nature, the owners of the land had to be the first people to be informed in full of the findings in order that they might decide whether they wanted to sell the mineral rights and at what price. As far as the mineral rights are concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that in South-West Africa these vest in the State in any case; all that is involved here is the surface rights. In the second instance, this would introduce a very far-reaching, new principle, since restraints would be imposed on prospecting operations as a result.

†The hon. member has correctly said that prospectors spend large sums of money; that they take the risk and that it involves their time. I do not think that we can consider a principle of that kind at this stage, but in any case it does not apply in South-West Africa.

The hon. member also raised the question of the Government Gazette. May I point out to him that I said very clearly in my Second Reading speech that in the past the notice had to appear in the Official Gazette in South-West Africa. When we dealt with the 1968 legislation here, we made provision for the notice to appear in the South African Government Gazette. That is not the position in regard to these matters as far as the mining laws in South Africa are concerned. All we are doing now is to bring the position into line with the existing position in the Republic of South Africa. Prospectors and representatives of the big mining houses are constantly visiting the mining commissioner’s office in Windhoek or, for that matter, in other parts of South-West Africa. This is the way it has been done for many, many years; it has worked well, and the fact that we have continued with it in South-West Africa has been creating a tremendous amount of work for my department.

Then the hon. member also raised the question of the Bantu areas in South-West Africa. The position is that the South-West Africa Administration was responsible for everything until 1968.

*As far as base minerals are concerned, the Bantu Trust is responsible in the Bantu area. As far as precious minerals and natural oil are concerned, the Government of the Republic is the responsible body, and at this stage we are not giving any consideration to effecting any change in this respect. That was done in 1968 already.

†Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any other point raised by the hon. member that I have not dealt with. If there is any other point, I will deal with it in the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

This is merely a consequential amendment.

Sir, I want to come back to subsection (2) and refer again to a matter which I raised in the Second Reading debate, and that is that the priorities are not stated here in so far as consent is concerned. The subsection reads—

I dealt with the difficulties that may arise in the family if two or more people disagree with the decision made by the senior member of the family, and I want to know from the Minister what is going to happen if there is disagreement in the family. There may be two or more people who are majors. There may be a major brother, a major sister, and five children in the family. Two of them may agree to a donation taking place, and the others may be against it. I do not know how the Minister is going to sort this out. Does this mean that a part of the body or the whole may be donated even though there is an objection from some member of the family? Is there not some way of overcoming this difficulty? I know that it is very difficult indeed. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will not have a look at this again to see whether he cannot sort this out by laying down priorities. Perhaps the eldest brother or the eldest sister should be allowed to decide if there is no spouse. If, on the other hand, there is a spouse, the final decision should be left to him or her. This is an important matter, and the Minister must realize that at a time like this, when emotions run high in the family, a difference of opinion may lead to serious trouble in the family. The Minister knows what publicity is given to this sort of thing. I wonder whether the lawyers cannot get together and see whether they cannot give us a list of priorities in this matter. If the wording is going to be left like this, I can foresee that we are going to have trouble in the future.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with the hon. member’s point of view, because as he quite rightly says, in circumstances like this people are in a state of emotion in the family and I think one should have some consideration for the family. On the other hand we are dealing here with conflicting interests. On the one hand it might be—we think only in rare cases—that there is dissension in the family. On the other hand we have to consider the interest of the person whose life is to be saved. That is why I say there are conflicting interests. This point has been thrashed out very thoroughly, as I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, with all the Attorneys-General and with the Directors of Hospital Services. I think we consulted 27 different people, all of whom have had some experience of this particular matter. Of course, we must realize that we are dealing here with a rather new situation and that this is the best that we could come to. I would not like to write anything into this which would create priorities because if we do that, we will write in a factor which will retard procedure, and that will not be in the interest of the patient. I do feel that ultimately the interest of the patient must prevail, that is why it is drafted in this manner, so that there are no specific priorities.

I accept the hon. the Minister’s explanation in regard to the matter and I would then say to him that we shall wait and see how this fares. If we find that difficulties do arise, we must then amend it.

I may just say to the hon. member that we are of course watching the legislation all over the world to see whether we cannot perhaps learn from them as well. But I will certainly come back to this House at the earliest opportunity to make changes in this legislation if we can learn something new from other countries or from our own experience.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

This clause is one which was also raised tentatively in the Second Reading debate, but I believe the hon. the Minister could perhaps give us some further information in this regard. The first part of this clause, which introduces the new section (1) (a), is the one which deals with the onus of proof mentioned by the hon. member for Rosettenville during the Second Reading. I would like the Minister to give us some further information as to why he deems it necessary to introduce this provision whereby the onus of proof rests on the person who is being investigated. The S.A. Dental Technicians Association has pointed out that they believe that this section would not really achieve the aim which the Minister has in mind. They refer to the fact that certain situations may arise where there might be connivance between certain parties which then, as far as that particular incident is concerned, could lead to the position that the onus of proof would be less effective than independent evidence establishing guilt. I hope therefore the Minister can give us further information as to why it is necessary to take this step in regard to the onus of proof in the new subsection (1) (a).

The other matter in this clause which perhaps requires further explanation, is subsection (4), which brings about the situation whereby all persons who are employed in this calling of dental mechanician, are required to be registered in terms of the Bill. That is clause 8 (d). It introduces a new additional subsection (4) into the original Act. Here we have the position of the mechanician, particularly the contractors, who feel that there is certain work which is perhaps being undertaken at the present time by auxiliary labour. If this clause is passed as it stands, it would preclude them from continuing to employ auxiliary labour which undertakes certain tasks which I understand are possible to be undertaken by a person other than a registered dental mechanician or a registered apprentice dental mechanician. They refer to the fact that plaster work, polishing and cleaning the making of dentures, can be undertaken by a person who is not necessarily required to be a registered dental mechanician. Here I would like the hon. the Minister to give an indication whether he has given thought to this particular objection and, if he has, whether it is not perhaps possible in the Other Place to make some provision whereby those persons can be employed, provided they maintain the necessary standards in their workmanship, which could be retained under supervision. I know the Minister holds the view, which we share, that it is important to maintain standards and that is perhaps one of the reasons why this has been worded as it has been worded. However, there is a further provision which would assist in the control of this matter. Further on we will come to a clause which gives further details concerning the appointment of inspectors of dental laboratories. I think that with the inspection that is required in terms of a later clause it would be possible for the Dental Mechanicians Board who would appoint these inspectors to ensure that the standard is maintained and at the same time to ensure that the particular work is done only by those persons who are registered in terms of other provisions of the Bill. I hope the Minister will feel that the dental mechanician contractors have a case in feeling that some provision should be made; in other words, that the position as it now stands should not be proceeded with exactly as it stands in view of the fact that it will affect them in their employment of certain persons who are presently employed in the laboratories to do certain work.

During the Second Reading debate I mentioned my objection to clause 8 (1) (a). I told the hon. the Minister that this was rather a harsh clause and that I cannot really agree that a person who makes a set of dentures and who is unauthorized should have to subject himself to this type of legislation. I would urge the Minister to look at this again and think it over. Perhaps in the Other Place he can bring this into line with the ordinary law and charge these people if they have done wrong, instead of accusing them of having done wrong and then make them prove that they are innocent. I think the Sate should prove guilt in these cases, and for that reason I ask the Minister to amend the Bill in the Other Place.

Mr Chairman, the hon. member for Umbilo has raised the same point in regard to clause 8 (a) as was raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville. Let me say that we are introducing a new principle here which did not exist in the past. The reason for this is that I was persuaded to introduce it by the Dental Mechanicians Board as well as by the police, as a result of the fact that they had tremendous problems in bringing these people to book.

†I want to explain to hon. members that I think they are misunderstanding the position slightly. This provision only applies to people trading in dentures with the public. It does not apply to their manufacture, but only when trading takes place. It is frightfully difficult to get hold of these people, and that is why we have introduced this new principle. I do not want to mislead the hon. member, but I have gone into this matter very fully. I do not intend to change this clause either here or in the Other Place. I think this provision is necessary. There is only one reason for being a little bit harsh, and that is if it is in the interests of the public. This is a specific measure to protect the public against unqualified people trading in dentures with the public for gain.

The second point raised by the hon. member for Umbilo was in regard to paragraph (d). Here I think there was total misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member. It is the position today, as the Act stands, that nobody who is not properly trained to do this work …

Even the other work that is specified?

Yes, that is the position today. According to the position as it is today, if a person such as a dental contractor employs an unqualified person, that unqualified person can be prosecuted. Often such unqualified persons are innocent: they are not aware of the provisions of the Act. All we are doing here is to say that the person who employs the unqualified person can also be prosecuted. We are just going a step further; we are not bringing in a new principle. It is the position today that no unqualified person can do the work of a dental mechanician. I may say that those who contravene the law usually employ Bantu people, and they do not know what the provisions of the Act are. They are the people who are being prosecuted today. I think the correct thing is being done here, where we say that the person who ought to know what the position is, the person who is employing these people for financial gain, is put in the position where he will be prosecuted if he employs people who are not properly trained to do the work of dental mechanicians.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 13 :

Mr. Chairman, this clause deals with the labour committee, and substitutes a new subsection 25 in the principal Act. This matter has caused certain difficulties in the past, and in terms of this clause, the functions of the committee are now being changed. It is deemed to be an industrial council for the purposes of the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956, and not the Act of 1937. I should be grateful if the hon. the Minister could indicate in what manner he feels that his amendment will improve the position as far as the functioning of the labour committee as an industrial council are concerned, in other words, how the position will be improved if the committee is deemed to be an industrial council for the purposes of the 1956 Act, as opposed to the 1937 Act.

Mr. Chairman, I shall be perfectly frank with the hon. member. I have not studied either the Act of 1937 or the Act of 1956, except for the general knowledge which one has of these Acts. Certain problems have arisen, which ended up in court, as the hon. member knows This was under the 1937 Act. The Dental Mechanicians’ Board went into the matter very fully, as did my department and the law advisers. I am told that the position was changed because the problems we had in the past could be ironed out if we dealt with them under the modern Act of 1956 instead of the old 1937 Act. How this is going to work exactly, I am afraid I do not know. I did not go into that because I did not think it was necessary.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on page 204 of the Order Paper, as follows—

This whole clause, as I understand it, is new, and this provision makes its first appearance in this Act. I want to suggest that the amendment I am moving really concerns a situation involving human relations. I believe that any Act functions more efficiently if there is co-operation between the parties concerned.

You will have to put up a good case.

I am going to try, because I feel strongly about this matter, and so do many other people. As the proposed new section 28A reads at present, subsection (3) states—

Basically the change which I suggest is that when an inspector commences an inspection, he shall exhibit the certificate to the person whom he is inspecting. I do so, Sir, with a certain amount of personal experience behind me. Let me say straight away that although I have been, as a chemist and druggist over the past years, subjected to visits of inspectors, all of whom operate under the hon. the Minister’s department, I can say in all sincerity that I have never met with anything but complete courtesy. I believe, however, that a situation is developing, under controls and under bodies which operate under this Minister’s portfolio, where the relationship is perhaps not always as good as this. I believe, as I have said before, that to have maximum co-operation means a smoother working of the Act. I put it from a human relations point of view: If a person comes to you and says: “I am an inspector and I want to inspect something”, you either have to accept his bona fides, or ask him to prove them. I believe that most inspectors have a reluctance of being queried, as regards their bona fides. Although the person concerned has the right to ask for them, I believe it immediately creates a barrier between the inspector and the person being inspected. It seems to me, Sir, that although this is a small amendment, it could have a very important effect. If the inspector walks in and says: “I am an inspector under such and such an Act, and this is my card authorizing me to examine your books etc.,” I believe that automatically he will enjoy the confidence of the person whose books etc. he wishes to inspect. Co-operation will then be extended to him, except, of course, in the case where someone is definitely contravening the Act, but the inspector would then in any case encounter difficulties, obstructions and hindrances. But in the average case, where a man is having a routine inspection, I believe that this would be a better provision. I want to suggest that the powers of the inspector, as defined here, are pretty broad. Subsection (4) states—

These may be confidential documents to the man who owns them and who is the person being inspected. Not only that, but the inspector may “make extracts from and copies of any book, writing, document, account or invoice” referred to in the previous paragraph for the purposes of any proceedings against any such person, and seize any such book, writing, document, account or invoice. I believe, with all these strong powers, it would be desirable for the hon. the Minister to give very serious consideration to accepting this amendment which I believe will only improve and not in any way hamper the work of the inspector. May I say that there is a precedent as far as this is concerned. The Atmospheric Pollution Act, when it was passed, incorporated the principle that, where an inspector in terms of that Act carries out his duties, he would establish his authority before he conducted an inspection. I appeal to the Minister to give his sympathetic consideration to this amendment. I know that the people who are involved in these inspections would appreciate the arrangement suggested by my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea said this was a small amendment that he was proposing. In effect, he is asking for the deletion of a whole subsection, namely subsection (3) of this new section 28A. But I must say that the hon. member has put up a very good case. He has impressed me on one point. Instead of having a negative clause, he wants to change it into a positive one. Instead of the negative situation where the person who is being inspected has to ask the official to prove who he is, our official would be doing a positive action by saying, “I am so-and-so from the department; here is my inspector’s certificate”. For that reason I am only too pleased to accept this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name, namely—

Mr. Chairman, the Minister must realize that this interval will not be three years, but that it will actually be four years before the new tariffs of fees come into force. If they sit in the third year, the tariff of fees does not come into operation until the beginning of the following year. There will therefore be a four-year interval. I wonder if it would not be a good idea for the Minister to take powers which would allow him to call the Tariffs Commission into being if it becomes necessary before three years.

To reduce fees.

Yes, they may want to reduce the fees. Will the Minister look at this matter again and take cognizance of what I have said, namely that the interval will virtually be four years, and that he should perhaps take it upon himself to have the right to call this commission into being again if he so thinks fit before three years?

If the hon. member looks at clause 3, he will see that the new section 30 (1) reads as follows : “The Minister shall, during the month of June, 1974, and thereafter at intervals of”—and we are now changing it to “three years”.

That will be in 1977.

Yes. What we will now have in effect is that the tariff of fees which is now being compiled by the commission, on which I think I will make a statement next Thursday, will come into effect on the 1st April, 1972. In 1974 a commission will again be appointed. Those new fees will then come into operation on the 1st January, 1975. The dates will, therefore, be 1st April, 1972, 1st April, 1973, 1st April, 1974 and then 1st January, 1975, which will be after a period of 2½ years.

In this case yes, but after that?

After that the commission will be appointed at three-year intervals.

The tariffs will then come into operation at the beginning of the following year.

Yes; the commission will be appointed in June, 1974.

1977.

Yes, but I could appoint a commission before that. The interval must be three years after 1974. So, in effect, we will have an interval of 2½ years to start with.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to the proposed section 32 (1). The side-note reads as follows—

As I see it, this includes the accounts in respect of services rendered in hospitals and nursing homes. I should also like to refer to page 7, line 6, which reads as follows—

My question to the hon. the Minister is whether it is the intention that the conditions under which the accounts are rendered may be prescribed. As the hon. the Minister is aware, and he knows that I am aware too, there is growing concern on all sides concerning the costs of medicine and medical services. While I believe that in certain cases the costs are laid down and adhered to in so far as the supply by hospitals and nursing homes …

Order! I want to point out that the hon. member is referring to the original Act. He may not discuss that.

Mr. Chairman, may I then just appeal to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to the manner in which nursing homes render their accounts?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member will know that the Central Council for Medical Schemes, and not the Minister, is the body which fulfils this function. I think the hon. member will agree with me that after the five years this Council has been functioning and with these improvements we are now effecting, and also in the light of the fact that all schemes must be registered in August, we may foresee that these problems he has and other problems experienced during these five years will be eliminated to a very large extent. I am perfectly aware that there still are problems, but I can say to the hon. member that in the 3½ years I have been in charge of this portfolio the complaints and problems have decreased infinitely. I am certain that with the changes we are effecting here, we are improving the situation even more. At the same time we are giving the medical practitioner or dentist the assurance that he will receive his payment on condition that he does certain things within four months.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5 :

Mr. Chairman, in terms of this clause the penalties are being made more severe than they were in the original Act. I understand that in the five years this Act has been on the Statute Book nobody has yet been prosecuted in terms of it. Usually penalties are made more severe if it is found that they are too light and that too many offences occur. In this case no offences have occured, and therefore I cannot understand why these penalties should be made more severe. Accordingly want to ask whether it would not be desirable that the Minister should rather withdraw this proposed section. I wonder if he would be prepared to agree that we should rather delete the proposed section 40. I wish to suggest that it be omitted if the hon. the Minister agrees.

Mr. Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I said that I was against this clause. I still am. I have not been persuaded to change my mind after having listened to what the Minister said about it. I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. the Minister wants this proposed section and particularly the proposed addition to it. Surely there is no other business or profession that would want to penalize its members for not sending out accounts? The hon. the Minister said to me that this applied to medical schemes that did not pay their accounts, but this is not made clear in the Bill. It does not say in this clause that it applies to medical schemes only. This means that, if a doctor does not send his accounts out during three consecutive months, or within four months at the latest, he can be charged and punished for it. The addition to this clause means that, on a second offence, he can be fined up to R1 000 or sent to prison for two years. That in itself is bad enough but it concerns the medical profession on top of that. The doctor who commits this “terrible” offence of not sending out accounts will, on top of that, have to appear before the Medical Council and explain why he was fined or why he was sent to prison for two years. It is absolutely ridiculous. He could be suspended from practising because of this.

This clause covers any contravention including, for example, overcharging.

Yes, any contravention.

As far as overcharging is concerned, the penalty is not too high !

Well, we shall not discuss that. I really and truly think that this clause is not meant to be read as I am reading it. There were some slip ups in drafting. The hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech that he was afraid he could not withdraw this clause or amend it because of the rules of the House. Well, I do not know how we can pass this. The hon. the Minister must give me the assurance that at some time or another we are going to alter it and clarify its meaning, because I cannot agree to it as it is worded here.

Mr. Chairman, I do not agree with the hon. member for Rosettenville. What I said was that we had considered writing into this clause that medical practitioners and dentists are specifically excluded. However, we were informed by the lawyers, and I accept this, that it could not be done in the Committee Stage, because it would be in conflict with a principle contained in the principal Act. In other words what I should have liked to do, I cannot do in that way. The hon. member for Geduld has now asked whether we cannot simply omit the entire clause. If the entire clause were omitted, it would mean that the original situation would continue as it is.

Nothing further then occurs.

If there is any doubt about the position of the medical practitioner or the dentist, I should like to remove that doubt. Therefore I am prepared to accept the ommission of clause 5, so that the existing position will remain.

Mr. Chairman, may I just have the position clarified? Is the hon. the Minister going to withdraw this clause, or will it be necessary for us to move an amendment? Alternatively, will the Minister amend this in the Other Place?

I asked that this clause be omitted.

Has the hon. member for Geduld moved this?

Order! The hon. member is not allowed to move such an amendment. He may only vote against the clause.

Very well, that will also serve the purpose.

Clause put and negatived.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I want to point out to the house that two statutory bodies, viz. the South African Nursing Council and the South African Nursing Association, were established by the Nursing Act, No. 69 of 1957. The function of the Nursing Council is to control and regulate the practice of nursing and midwifery in the public interest. On the other hand, the function of the Nursing Association is to organize nursing and midwifery on a sound basis, and to promote the interests of the members of those professions.

Provision is made in the Act for control by the Nursing Council over two classes of nurses and midwives, viz. fully trained persons entitled to registration with the Council as nurse or midwife, and partially trained persons who are entitled to enrolment with the Council as auxiliary nurse or auxiliary midwife.

Unlike the medical profession nursing is at present not a closed profession. Consequently any person, regardless of whether or not he or she is qualified, may practise nursing for gain, except in what are known as “prescribed areas” where nursing for gain is restricted to persons either registered or enrolled with the council. The declaration of any area as a prescribed area is subject to whether there is a sufficient number of qualified staff in such areas to meet the needs of all members of the community. In view of the shortage of nurses, only one area, i.e. Bloemfontein, has up to now been declared to be a prescribed area with regard to nursing.

This shortage has to a considerable extent been met by the utilization of the services of persons who do not qualify for registration or enrolment with the Council. These persons fulfil an important role by relieving the qualified staff of less skilled duties, and by so doing enabling the latter to concentrate on those aspects of nursing where their ability is needed the most.

The above-mentioned category consists inter alia of the following: Persons who have qualified in other countries but who do not comply with the requirements of the Council—these are persons from abroad; and secondly untrained persons, called nursing assistants, who through experience have acquired a measure of proficiency in the care of the ill.

The Nursing Council has for a number of years now expressed its concern at the fact that, while qualified persons fall under its control, such control is excluded where it is extremely necessary, i.e. in regard to untrained persons or those persons who have not attained the standard required by the Council for registration or enrolment.

One of the principal objectives of this Bill is to remedy this unsatisfactory state of affairs. With this object in mind provision is being made in this Bill in terms of which overseas nurses, who in general comply with the prescribed requirements for registration but whose training in one or more branches of nursing has been inadequate, are being afforded an opportunity of being registered for a period not exceeding two years. During that period these overseas nurses may not, however, exercise their profession in such branch or branches of nursing as may be determined by the Council. If they complete the required further training within the period in respect of which they are registered, they are then entitled to unrestricted registration.

In this regard experience has shown that the vast majority of foreign nurses whose training does not comply with the minimum requirements of the Council, have to undergo further training for a period of only a few months.

Since we are now discussing these nurses, it is clear that there are already many of them in the Republic. In view of this it has been decided to restrict the proposed concession to foreign nurses to those who comply with the prescribed requirements for registration, except that their training in one or more branches of nursing is incomplete by a total period not exceeding six months. During their period of restricted registration they shall not be entitled to vote at elections of members of the Nursing Council—provision in regard to the registration, etc. of these foreign nurses is contained in clause 7. It is expected that the passage of the measure containing these proposed provisions will contribute to alleviating the shortage of nurses, since a relatively large number of foreign nurses who make enquiries at the immigration offices of the Republic overseas, decide to emigrate to other countries when they are informed that they will not be allowed to practise as trained nurses in South Africa without undergoing further training.

The position in regard to untrained nursing assistants is that of the total nursing staff employed at provincial hospitals, approximately 45 per cent consists of untrained nursing assistants. If this is the position in provincial hospitals, it is not unreasonable to expect that the percentage is a similar or even greater one in the private sector.

In view of the fact that no statutory provision exists for the exercising of control over almost half of the persons practising nursing for gain in the Republic, it is no wonder that the Nursing Council has urged that the Nursing Act be amended to prohibit nursing for gain by any person not registered or enrolled with the Council —something which for obvious reasons is imperative in the public interest. I think this is a major step forward, and one which is specifically in the interests of the patients. Provision in this regard is being made in clause 7—this is the proposed section 12 (8) (a), in terms of which only persons who are registered or enrolled with the Council may practise as a nurse for gain. In terms of clause 7 (2) this provision comes into effect after the expiry of a period of one year after the commencement of the Amendment Act. When this happens of course the provision in sections 45 and 46 of the Act, relating to the declaration of prescribed areas, to which I referred previously, lapses.

It is obvious, however, that the health services of the Republic cannot afford to lose the services of the said large number of unqualified persons who, as has already been mentioned, have acquired through experience a measure of proficiency in the care of the ill, since they represent a considerable labour force in a sphere in which there is a serious manpower, or in this case womanpower, shortage. Consequently it has been decided to make provision for the enrolment of a new class of nurse, viz. nursing assistants, and to incorporate these persons in that class. This is being accomplished by providing that any person who furnishes a certificate from a registered nurse or doctor to the effect that she practised for gain as a nurse on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act, within one year after that date, will be entitled to be enrolled as a nursing assistant. The established rights of these persons are therefore being protected in this way.

Provision is being made in clauses 1, 5 (b), 6 (a) and 9 of the Bill for the training of those who in future want to qualify as a nursing assistants. It is the intention that this will be done on the basis of two or three months practical training in wards at approved hospitals.

As in the case of nursing it is the intention to make midwifery a closed profession as well by providing that no person, who is not registered or enrolled as midwife or auxiliary midwife with the Nursing Council may practise midwifery for gain.

The Bill also protects the established rights of certain unqualified persons who practised midwifery for gain on the date of commencement of the Amendment Act and who within one year after that date convinces the Nursing Council—

1. (a) that she practised in a Bantu homeland; or
2. (b) that her name appears on the list of unqualified midwives kept in terms of a regulation made under section 133 (3) (a) of the Public Health Act.

These are the two categories that exist at the moment.

Group (a) relates to the old Bantu women (old wives) and has been incorporated in the Bill at the request of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, while group (b) comprises unqualified persons, who are known as gamps, and who are regarded by the local authority as being competent to practise as midwives in its area.

All these important proposals, to which I have been referring up to now, meet with the support of the Nursing Council, the Nursing Association and the Provincial Administrations. In addition to that, and this is important, the Nursing Association conducted a survey among unqualified persons employed at the provincial hospitals. Virtually all of those who participated in this survey gave their full support to the proposal relating to their enrolment as nursing assistants. I could just mention that this was a relatively comprehensive survey. One can quite understand their supporting this, for it gives them something tangible which imparts status on them and which places them in a position where they will always be regarded as persons competent to perform a certain task.

Consequential amendments of importance are the repeal of sections 45 and 46 of the Act relating to the declaration of prescribed areas which, as I have already indicated, will lapse.

Arising out of the proposal to bring all groups practising nursing or midwifery for gain under the ethical control of the Nursing Council, it was decided, upon the recommendation of the Nursing Association, to make provision in terms of which those subsidiary groups, viz. auxiliary nurses and midwives, student auxiliary nurses and midwives and nursing assistants, who are at present not members of the Nursing Association or who are not entitled to vote at an election of members of the Board of the Association or of the Advisory Committees for Coloureds and Bantu, shall be junior members of the Association and shall thus be entitled to vote. Provision in this regard is being made in clause 22.

The passage of the measure containing these proposals will result in the organization of nursing in the Republic falling under a single statutory body—something which for obvious reasons will be in the interests of the orderly development of our nursing services. In addition to that it constitutes important advantages to the relevant auxiliary nurses and midwives and nursing assistants on a personal basis. They will, for example, have a measure of say in regard to various matters affecting them as groups and also as individuals. In addition to that they will enjoy cover in terms of the Group Compensation Insurance scheme of the Association, as well as its Professional Indemnity Insurance Scheme. At the moment they are excluded from these.

It will be observed that provision is being made in clause 24 (2) in terms of which representation of the said subsidiary groups on the Board of the Association and the Advisory Committees shall be postponed to such dates as will be fixed by the State President and the Minister by proclamation and notice, respectively in the Gazette. This is being done in compliance with a request from the Nursing Association to the effect that it should first be allowed an opportunity to organize the relevant subsidiary groups effectively before they assume their new responsibilities in regard, for example, to the election of their representatives on the said bodies and in regard to related matters. I think this is a sensible thing to do.

The remaining provisions of the Bill contain for the most part different amendments requested by the Nursing Council and the Nursing Association on the basis of experience acquired over the years in the administration of the Nursing Act. As hon. members know, this Act has now been in existence since 1957.

Firstly, the Nursing Council submitted proposals with regard to the membership of the council, the object of which is to ensure that—since this is the intention at present but it has not been stated clearly in the Act—certain members shall in fact be qualified persons registered in terms of the Act as nurses or in terms of the medical Act as medical practitioners. This affects, for example, the representatives of the provinces and the Department of Defence on the Council, and is therefore a completely reasonable request. Provision is also being made to ensure that the nursing profession is represented on the Council on a more comprehensive basis than is at present the case—in other words, that all classes or categories of nurses, i.e. general nurses, psychiatric nurses, nurses for mentally disordered persons and nurses for mentally defective persons, are represented on the Council. Enrolled nurses and midwives, instead of pupil nurses, shall also elect a registered person now to represent them on the Council. This change is a reasonable one since the majority of pupils, a third or whom are in their first year of training, cannot possibly know the members of the profession so well that such an important duty may be entrusted to them. Arising out of the decision to keep separate registers for Indians—a matter in regard to which I shall inform the House later—provision is being made for the election by the proposed Advisory Board for Indians, as in the case of the existing Advisory Boards for Coloured Persons and Bantu, respectively, of a White nurse to represent them on the Nursing Council. In addition to that those universities which have a department of nursing, such as the universities in Bloemfontein and Pretoria for example, shall in future be represented by a registered nurse. In this case the Committee of University Principals appoints the member in question. Clause 2 of the Bill deals with the aforesaid matters.

In view of the amount of administrative work which will have to be done before the Council will be in a position to effect the envisaged changes in its membership, the commencement of the said provisions is being postponed until the next election which is to be held on 31st March, 1975. In other words, it will then for the first time function in this way.

In view of the developments which occurred in regard to the Indian group of the population since they were recognized as South African citizens, provision is being made in the Bill for the establishment of separate registers for Indians. This is being done at the request of the Department of Indian Affairs, and also meets with the approval of the South African Indian Council and the Nursing Council. The provisions in question are contained in clause 7 [proposed section 12 (4) and (5)]. clause 8 [proposed section 14 (2)] and clause 9 [proposed section 15 (2)]. Consequential amendments are contained in clause 11 [proposed section 16] which relates to the establishment of an Advisory Board for Indians, and in clauses 12 (b), 23, 24 (c), 26 and 27 which relate to the constitution of the Advisory Board for Indians, the holding of separate meetings of the Association in respect of Indians and related matters, the representation of Indians on the Board of the Association by a White nurse elected by Indians, the establishment of an Advisory Committee for Indians and the establishment of separate regional branches for Indians. The passage of the measure containing these proposals will place the Indians in the same position as the Coloured persons and the Bantu as far as the Nursing Act is concerned.

In terms of section 8 of the Act the Council may delegate any of its powers to a committee. However, the Council has expressed the opinion, and the Department of Health is in agreement with this, that this provision should not apply to the provisions of section 28, which relate to the termination of the specified period of a suspension imposed under that section of the restoration of a name to the register which has been removed therefrom under that section. This is a very important aspect and ought not to be delegated. The object of clause 4 of the Bill is to effect a suitable amendment in section 8 of the Act.

In terms cf paragraph (k) of section 11 (1) of the Act, the Council may prescribe the different uniforms, badges or other distinguishing devices in respect of White persons, Coloured persons and Bantu. In actual fact, badges or other distinguishing devices are prescribed only in order to indicate registered or enrolled qualifications, and are the same for all races. The policy of the Council in this regard is regarded as being reasonable, since persons who are entitled to registration or enrolment as nurse, regardless of their race, must be in possession of the same qualifications. Uniforms as such are not prescribed. These are left to the discretion of employers. Consequently provision is being made in clause 6 (c) of the Bill to delete the provision in regard to the prescribing of separate uniforms, badges, etc.

During the 1971 Parliamentary session the Medical. Dental and Pharmacy Act, No. 13 of 1972, was amended in order to empower the Medical Council to postpone or suspend in its discretion a penalty imposed by it in disciplinary actions taken by it on such conditions and for such period as it may deem necessary. Similar provision is contained in section 352 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The Nursing Council requested that similar provision be made in the Nursing Act, and that in the case of student nurses it should also be provided that their period of training may be extended instead of their being suspended, because in most cases if a student has been suspended, it means in practice that the training cannot be resumed again and that one loses such a student. Provision in the abovementioned connection is being made in clause 18 and 19, respectively.

In terms of section 27 of the Act any accused person who feels aggrieved by the finding of the Nursing Council may appeal to the Minister and if such person is not satisfied with the decision of the Minister, such person may apply for review to the Supreme Court. The Council requested that this right should be conferred upon the Council as well as the complainants. This request is a reasonable one and provision is consequently being made in clause 20 to give effect to it.

In terms of section 28 of the Act the Council may, in its discretion, restore to a register or roll any name which has been removed therefrom. It has now requested that provision should be made in terms of which it may impose conditions when allowing such restoration. Therefore, provision is accordingly being made in clause 21.

In terms of section 43 of the Act certified copies of the record of the proceedings before any court of law shall be transmitted to the Nursing Council in cases where there is prima facie evidence of improper or disgraceful conduct on the part of a registered or enrolled person. The Council has requested that this provision should also be made applicable to inquests. The Department of Justice supports this proposal and the necessary amendment is consequently being introduced in clause 30.

Section 81 of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act, No. 13 of 1928, which relates to the restriction of practice of a medical practitioner who has become mentally or physically disabled, or who has been using a habit-forming or potentially harmful drug, was amended recently with a view to effecting improvements thereto. The Nursing Council has requested that section 47 of the Nursing Act, which deals with the same matters in regard to nurses, should be amended to bring it into line with section 81 of Act No. 13 of 1928, since this section is more comprehensive. Such provision is accordingly being made in clause 32 of the Bill.

As a result of the proposal to which I have already referred, in terms of which persons who are not registered or enrolled will not be prohibited from practising as nurse or midwife for gain, it has become necessary to provide that persons who have completed their training—and whose names have therefore been removed from the register of pupils—but who are still awaiting the examination results, may in the meantime practise for gain. Provision to cover such cases is consequently being made in clause 7 [proposed section 12 (3) (c) and (14)], of the Bill.

According to the Nursing Council the provincial administrations, mission hospitals and the South African Nursing Association have for a number of years urged to the Council the necessity for the deletion of the prefix “auxiliary” in regard to the words “auxiliary nurse” and “auxiliary midwife” and the substitution therefor of the word “enrolled”, because a stigma attaches to the former word. They aver that the use of these terms makes the recruiting of pupils difficult. I, personally, agree wholeheartedly with this and provision is consequently being made in different clauses of the Bill to introduce the desired amendment throughout the legislation.

The remaining provisions of the Bill comprise only:

1. (a) Amendments and additions of a lesser important nature such as
   1. (i) the provision in clause 3 to the effect that the president and vice-president of the Nursing Council shall be registered persons;
   2. (ii) the deletion of the restriction to R1 of the fees which shall be paid annually to the Nursing Council by registered or enrolled persons—clause 5 (a);
   3. (iii) the empowering of the council to require employers of nurses to furnish to it annual staff returns—clause 5 (f);
   4. (iv) the insertion of section 15 (a) [clause 10] in terms of which the Council may refuse registration or enrolment of a person who has already been convicted of a prescribed offence;
   5. (v) the provision that a decision of the majority of the members shall constitute a decision of the said advisory board—clause 13;
   6. (vi) the provision in clause 25 relating to the increase in the number of members which shall form a quorum at meetings of the board of the Nursing Association;
   7. (vii) the substitution for the designation “organizing secretary” of “executive director” in clause 27 (b); and
   8. (viii) the empowering of the Nursing Association to establish and administer nursing agencies—clause 27 (d); and
2. (b) Drafting improvements in order to state the intention of certain provisions of the Act more clearly, for example—
   1. (i) the addition of the words “including meetings of advisory boards” to section 10 (i) of the Act and the words “and accounts” to section 10 (a) [clause 5 (c) and (d)];
   2. (ii) the amendment of section 24 of the Act [clause 17] to make it clear that where any person has been accused of improper conduct under the Nursing Act in respect of an offence of which such person has been convicted by a court of law, the record of the relevant court of law constitutes only prima facie proof that such person was convicted by the court of law— this fact cannot, however, be accepted by the Nursing Council as prima facie proof of improper or disgraceful conduct in terms of the Nursing Act,
   3. (iii) the amendment of section 25 (c) [clause 18] relating to the removal of a name from a register or roll; and
      1. (iv) the rephrasing of section 51 [clause 33].
   4. (c) Language improvements—for example, the translation in different places of the English words “student” and “profession” as “student” and “beroep” instead of “leerling” and “professie” respectively; the use of the word “leerling” and the English word “pupil” in regard to persons who are being trained in the subsidiary categories of nursing— i.e. the enrolled nurses or nursing assistants—and the changes effected in clause 34 [section 53 (e)].
   5. (d) An increase in the maximum penalties which may be imposed in certain cases [clauses 5 (d), 6 (f), 7, 16 and 35].
   6. (e) The deletion of certain sections which are not necessary or applicable now, viz. section 42 [clause 29] and sections 44, 45, and 46 [clause 31].

Mr. Speaker, I have furnished a comprehensive elucidation here because this is a very important milestone in the development of our nursing profession and also of the legislation which has served that profession very diligently and with great success up to now. It is for that reason that I have gone into the matter in detail.

We on this side of the House welcome this Bill and will support the Second Reading. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the nursing profession, for the efficient, knowledgeable and responsible way in which they are serving their country, and have done especially during the past few years when we have had such difficulty in getting a full enrolment of nurses. They worked terribly hard over this period. Some of them, without any complaint at all, have done double shifts. Some have done the work of two people. For this I am sure that all members in this House will join with me in paying a well-deserved tribute to this wonderful band of people.

I have listened with great interest to what the hon. the Minister said and I want to thank him for going into the matter so carefully with us. It is not my intention to go through the clauses one by one this afternoon, but I do want to make a few general remarks during this Second Reading. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that his department should do everything they can to bring in as many people from outside as possible, to augment our already overworked nursing profession. If they have not already reached the standard which we require in this country, I say to the Minister that it is our duty to bring them in and encourage them to reach these standards. They can come and join the profession at a higher level than they would if they were enrolled as students. Ways and means must be found to encourage them to learn as quickly as possible the ways of our country and what we require from them before they attain the status which our locally-trained nurses already have.

Provision is being made in this Bill to curtail the unlawful activities of women who set themselves up to be nurses. I am pleased that the Minister is taking precautions to curtail their activities. Some of these people have come into being because of the shortages of nurses. When people are ill and they cannot get a trained nurse, they take anyone into their home to help them over a difficult period. This has only to happen once or twice to the person who sets herself up as a help and she immediately takes upon herself the duties of a trained sister. For this reason I think it is good that we should put a check on the activities of these people. I am also pleased to see that the Minister is going to make it his business to watch the activities of the nursing agencies. I think they do need watching. The Minister might find difficulty here, because they virtually work in a closed field and it is going to be difficult to spot the irregularities that these people have been committing in the past two years, particularly, as I have said, due to the shortage of nurses available in the country.

I also want to recommend here that we should watch out, where nurses are employed through an agency, that the burden of charges made by the agency itself is not passed on to the patient. When people are sick and they need a nurse, we have found that the charges made by the agencies are sometimes very much higher than the charges made by the sister herself for her duties. We also find that part of the sister’s salary goes to the agency to keep it going. I also feel that the agencies may be responsible in some measure for taking away nurses from the provincial hospitals through the agencies directing them into private nursing homes. This should be discouraged. I do not say for one moment that a trained sister, who has gone through a very hard school, should not be allowed to offer her services to the highest market, but there must be a ceiling to what the nursing homes should pay these nurses, otherwise we will find a vicious circle coming into being and we will have more and more girls leaving the hospitals to work for the agencies and being diverted to nursing homes. We will find that at the other end of the circle, the hospitals will have to go to the agencies to re-employ the people they have trained so that they can fill their complement of nurses. We must try to stop that if possible. At the same time, as I say, if a nurse feels, after completing her training at the hospital, that she wants to go and work outside the hospital, she should be at liberty to do so, but I for one will do everything in my power to discourage them from doing this, especially those younger nurses who have qualified at the expense of the province but leave at the first possible opportunity. I think we must discourage this practice. To me service in a hospital is the highest service that any nurse can render to humanity. We must bear in mind that the people who go to hospitals today, are people who cannot afford private nursing fees and private doctors, and private beds in nursing homes. We must remember that we do get these people who are obliged to go to the Hospitals, through no fault of their own, but only through economic circumstances. It is to those people that we want to give the best possible service. I plead with the nursing profession to stay at provincial hospitals for as long as possible. There are faults to be found in provincial hospitals. The Minister knows and I know, and the members of the medical profession know that we are continually getting complaints about the harsh treatment that young nurses, particularly, get both from patients and qualified sisters in the wards. If we can ease the lot of these young nurses and encourage them through kindness and give them a better deal, we will attract more people to the profession while fewer will be leaving it before they qualify. I want to bring to attention the fact that many qualified non-White nurses are working in private homes. The gap in fees should be closed as quickly as possible. These people who are working in private institutions or in homes should get the same salary as their colleagues. If RX is paid for a trained nurse for a night or a day service then that same amount of money should be paid to the trained non-White sister. I should not like to see the public take advantage and discriminate in the payment of fees to the different races.

I am pleased that we have here some control of the use and wearing of uniforms and insignia. I am rather perturbed at the large number of women we see in the street dressed as nurses with insignia on their shoulders. Not only are they not qualified nurses but they have hardly set a foot into a sick-room. These insignia are not from hospitals. It may be merely a badge with the word “medical” or “surgical” or something of that sort on it. They pass as qualified people. I am pleased that steps have now been taken to stop this practice. I am sure that the nursing profession will be grateful to know that as from now their rights are being protected through this new Bill which is coming into being today.

I want to say a word or two about the advisory boards which the hon. the Minister is now extending to the Indians. I take it that the Indians will have an advisory board and that they will elect one person to the Nursing Council, in the same way as the Coloureds and the Bantu.

In exactly the same way.

In exactly the same way. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question, i.e. what is going to happen in the Bantu homelands? A day or two ago we handed over the hospital services to Bantu homelands. Does that mean that the Department of Bantu Affairs is going to look after health in the homelands and that the White Nursing Council is going to look after the nurses working in the homelands? Is that what is envisaged?

That is the position today.

I am asking whether that is going to be the position in future. I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister whether or not the door is closed for all time to non-Whites ever sitting on the Nursing Council. I do not know what sort of liaison the White Nursing Council as now established is going to have with the nurses working in the Transkei, which very soon will be an independent State. Does that mean that at that stage there will be a Black Nursing Council in the Transkei and in the other homelands? What is going to happen? The position is rather fluid at present. We would like to know what direction the hon. the Minister is taking in this matter and whether he has consulted with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Affairs as to the future of these people. The hon. the Minister knows that if things come about as they wish, there will be an exodus of Bantu nurses from our large hospitals. There are teaching hospitals in the homelands and if progress is going to be made as envisaged, then I can see that there will be an exodus. Because the policy of the government is to encourage the professional people to go back to their homelands. That is the stated policy of the Government. If you are going to do that, then you must be prepared at all times to train Bantu from our present reservoir of urban Bantu, whom the Government has not given full residential status in White South Africa, to provide a nursing staff for the hospitals for their own people in the urban areas. If you are going to drive them out and encourage them to go to the homelands, the hon. the Minister is going to find himself very short of Bantu nurses in the White areas.

I will deal with that in my reply.

All right. We are short of Bantu nurses, and I think that we must hear from the hon. the Minister this afternoon what provision he is going to make in that regard. I should also like to know whether the hon. the Minister is going to encourage a separate nursing council in the homelands, one for each homeland, each drawing from the same reservoir of Bantu. I also want him to tell the House what is going to be the position in regard to the Indians and the Coloured people. Are they all going to be encouraged to have their own nursing councils at some stage or is he going to retain the status quo as at present? It is an important matter. The nurses themselves would like to know how they stand in this regard.

There are various other matters that I would like to deal with, but these actually refer to different clauses. It would be better therefore to say that I will deal with these in the Committee Stage. However, I await with eagerness the hon. Minister’s replies to the questions that I have put to him.

I want to begin in a very unusual way today by tendering my thanks to the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I am doing this not only on my own behalf but on behalf of the entire nursing profession. I am referring to the very kind remarks the hon. member made at the beginning of his speech in regard to the nursing profession. I think they were very well-deserved, and I consequently endorse them wholeheartedly and with the greatest frankness. Now, the hon. member referred during the course of his speech to the bringing in of nurses from overseas, who then have to undergo further training here with a view to registration if they have not yet been fully trained. The necessary facilities for those people already exist in South Africa. They exist at provincial hospitals and nurses who are not yet fully qualified can receive the necessary training which will enable them to register. But now there is one matter which we must not lose sight of; it should not be deduced from this that a large group of people can simply be brought in from overseas and that concessions will be made in regard to the requirements which are laid down, in other words, that there will be a watering down of the standards set in South Africa. As I know the nursing profession, those people regard very jealously the high standards they have already achieved.

There is another matter however, in regard to which I also agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member, namely his reference to the control over agencies. I think that the time will still come when the agencies and their conduct will have to be looked into far more strictly, in the interests of the profession itself. I (hope that there will in future be another opportunity of discussing this matter further.

I think it is fitting that we should at the beginning of this discussion give the House the immediate assurance, as the hon. the Minister did in fact do, that these proposed amendments meet with the wholehearted approval of the South African Nursing Council. There is a good reason why the South African Nursing Council endorses these amendments. They see in these amendments the opportunity of continuing to serve the fine profession which they exercise with sustained, full dedication. They create for the Nursing Council further opportunities of carrying out its functions, so that the community will benefit from that. Before I draw the attention of this House to certain amendments, it would probably serve a good purpose if I referred to another matter. I want to do this with reference to what the hon. member actually omitted to say. In his speech he offered a pot pourri of different matters which actually had very little to do with the Bill. This is proof to me that this Bill before us is a very thorough piece of legislation. I now want to associate myself with this by drawing attention to the fact that the legislation in regard to nursing matters has always been dealt with very thoroughly. Since the nursing Act No. 69 of 1957 was passed, it was only necessary on one occasion to effect a very minor amendment, one which was in fact of no great importance. Now, I am saying this for another reason, namely that the present hon. Minister was at the time the chairman of the Select Committee which gave substance to that particular Act. In the same way as very thorough work was done at the time under his chairmanship, very thorough work is being done again today—the conduct of the hon. member confirmed this—under the guidance of that hon. Minister.

The amendments before us actually emphasize the phenomenal progress which has been made in the nursing profession since 1957. For example, if one were merely to look at the ratio between the number of nurses who are available and the population of South Africa, we will see that in 1960, for example, there was one White nurse available for every 176 Whites in the country. Today there is one White nurse available for every 157 Whites. This is a very fine improvement. As far as the Coloured persons are concerned, the ratio in 1960 was one to 2 206; today it is one for every 1 093. This is a tremendous improvement in that particular sphere. As far as the Bantu are concerned, there was 1 for every 2 206 persons; today it is one for every 1 393. In other words, as far as the total is concerned, there was one nurse for every 686 members of the population in 1960, as against one for every 581 today. This surely confirms that great progress has been made. But the legislation before us also draws attention to another matter. In the proposed new section 3 (2)(o) we see that provision is being made— the hon. the Minister also referred to this —for the representation on the Nursing Council of the departments of nursing at our universities. Now it is interesting to note in this connection that at nine of our universities already a full-fledged degree course in nursing is being offered. Those courses consist of a bachelors degree in nursing, a bachelors degree in nursing education and administration, masters degrees, doctors degrees, diplomas in nursing, diplomas in nursing education, etc. I maintain that this indicates that very great progress has been made. It is also an excellent thing that representation is now being given to these particular groups on the Nursing Council. I may also add, for the sake of interest, that there are already 604 nurses who have completed their studies at our universities and have today entered the nursing profession. I hope that this recognition which is now being accorded them through the proposed amendment will also serve as an increase stimulus to more young women to equip themselves in this direction, through training at our universities as well. I also believe that this recognition which is being accorded will lead to an enhancement of the status of the profession.

There is a second matter to which I should also like to refer, for which provision is being made in the proposed Bill, and this is that our traditional policy of separation is in fact being taken further in this measure, because clause 11 makes provision for the establishment of an advisory board for Indians. Arising out of that an opportunity is also being created now for a separate register for Indians. I maintain that this is as it should be, and that we should be grateful for our having reached that point.

The third aspect for which this legislation, to my mind, makes provision and which is very important, is the training and enrolment of nursing assistants. I think we have every right to claim that as far as the control over the care of the ill is concerned, South Africa has always been among the leading countries of the world. In 1891 South Africa was the first country in the entire world to make provision for the state registration of nurses. With this control measure, to grant recognition to the sub-professional and non-professional groups, we are again one of the first countries to establish anything of that nature. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on this step which is now being taken.I also want to emphasize very strongly perhaps in conjunction with this and arising but of what the hon. the Minister said, that it must be noted that a year after this Bill is passed, the nursing profession will be a closed profession. I want to believe that everyone who has an interest in the matter will acquaint themselves with the fact that they have to take the necessary steps in time to ensure that they do not, after the expiry of that period of a year, commit an offence.

Now it is also true on the other hand that when one is dealing with a living organism there are always things which have to be added and others which have to disappear. Now it is true that according to the Bill which is before us today—I am referring to the new section 3 (2) (j)—the male nurse who has up to now served on the South African Nursing Council will disappear.

I should like to pay tribute in this way today to those male nurses who over the years have served on the Council, to very great advantage, and I want to thank them for the contribution they have made there. We must also emphasize that the Nursing Council—and this was never the intention either—does not consist of representatives of interest groups, and that it is consequently logical that the male nurse should ultimately disappear from the Council. I think and I hope on the other hand that there will be a few of the male nurses in the profession who will be able to make a very positive contribution to the functions of the Council and who will in future perhaps make themselves available for election, perhaps standing against nurses, and that it will not create insurmountable problems if a choice has to be made between a man or a woman, so that we may still in future have the presence of a male nurse on the Council. It is my great pleasure to give my full support to this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to identify myself with the words expressed by the hon. member for Springs and also by the hon. member for Rosettenville. They expressed words of thanks, appreciation and commendation of this noble profession which is so closely related to my own profession. I can only say that it was a pleasure to have been able to be chairman of the Select Committee on the Nursing Bill in 1957 and I think it is a good thing that we are introducing these changes in the year 1972, mainly on request of the Nursing Association and the Nursing Council. The hon. member for Springs referred to the standard of nursing, and I think that knowing the people who serve in the Nursing Council I can give the House the assurance that the standard will be raised rather than lowered. Recently we took the step of stipulating matriculation as the qualification for admission, and I am very glad to be able to say that it has created no probblems in regard to the recruitment of nurses. The hon. member for Springs also raised the question of agencies, and I think I should only say that I have confidence in the ability of the Nursing Association to make proper arrangements in this regard by means of the powers which are now being conferred on them.

†The hon. member for Rosettenville raised three matters. The one was the question of the shortage of nurses. I want to point out to the hon. member that there is no shortage of nurses in my department and in my departmental hospitals. We do have a shortage in provincial hospitals and private institutions, of course.

We cannot hear you.

It is not the responsibility of the Department of Health to see to it that there are enough nurses in South Africa. It is the responsibility of provincial administrations and other authorities to see to it that nurses are found in this country and also recruited outside South Africa. It is a completely wrong impression that my department is responsible for that function and I just want to put that right. Secondly, the hon. member raised the question of homelands and that there will now be an influx into the homelands from the Republic. That will not be the case at all for the simple reason that there is no shortage of nurses in the homelands. The training is adequate and the number of nurses is enough to do the job in the homelands. The hon. member also wanted to know from me what the future would hold and whether there will be a Black nurse on the White Nursing Council in South Africa, or something to that effect. The position is very simple. If the Transkei becomes completely independent, it is their choice whether they would like our Nursing Council to be the Nursing Council for the Transkei as well. If they so wish, such a situation will be created in consultation with our Government. It is our Nursing Council and that consultation need only be on the basis that the present situation continues. If they wish to have their own separate nursing council and nursing association there is nothing in the world to stop them and we will certainly not try to stop them. I will certainly say to that Government as Minister of Health that it will be much wiser and in their interest, in the light of the geographical position of South Africa and the training facilities and experience we have gained over the years, to have one nursing council such as we have today to look after the interests of those self-governing countries which are within the geographical borders of Southern Africa.

: Would they have a representation on the White council?

That we will discuss with them and is a matter for negotiation They can certainly not force us to do anything in that regard and I am sure we will not force them either.

*We must not go looking for trouble, however, or for nurses either.

The hon. member also mentioned the position of the Indians. In regard to the Indian community the position will be arranged in exactly the same way as that of the Coloured people and the Bantu, in terms of the Act of 1957. I do not think there is anything else I have to reply to and I am very grateful to hon. members, not only for their support, but particularly for their spirit of goodwill and of appreciation for one of the finest professions I know.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.