Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

1. (a) Friday, 13th April, adjourn until Tuesday, 24th April, at 2.15 p.m.; and
2. (b) Wednesday, 30th May, adjourn until Monday, 4th June, at 2.15 p.m.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, in opening the discussion on the Committee Stage of this Bill, it is my duty to express once again the deep anger and resentment of the public of South Africa at this extraordinary increase in tariffs which the hon. the Minister has announced, in order to enable him to meet the commitments of his Budget. If one looks at the figures one finds that in so far as telephone services are concerned, they carry the bulk of the increases. R53 million of the R59½ million required by the hon. the Minister as an increase on the figures of the previous year is in respect of these services. I would like to say that I think the hon. the Minister is possibly falling into very serious error, because, as he has experienced in the last two years, he is going to meet with resistance on the part of the public to what I call this very bad handling of public relations in so far as the use of, and the advantages that can be obtained from a service of this nature, is concerned. The hon. the Minister has bound his department by accepting the Franzsen Commission Report on his finances; he now seeks to obtain 50% of his capital requirements from any excesses in his estimated revenue. In other words, he seeks to find 50% of his capital requirements from the contributions of the public in respect of these services. I feel that that is very bad budgeting because the hon. the Minister will meet with resistance, as he did, according to the Controller and Auditor-General’s report, two years ago, and he will find shortfalls all the way. Far from achieving his objectives, he is going to lose more money. I believe that this is very bad financing indeed. The hon. the Minister has the opportunity of raising loans for capital requirements. He can raise as much as he wishes, because we have very great capital strength and assets which can easily meet any requirements in the case of capital which may be obtained from abroad. I feel that the hon. the Minister should have given direction to his department; instead of burdening the public with these tremendous tariff increases, he should have sought to meet his capital requirements from elsewhere. He should have allowed this undertaking to maintain itself, as he undertook to do two years ago.

Does the hon. the Minister realize that every member of the public is being affected? It is not only a question of the selective raising of tariffs, as he has described it. It may seem so because it has been divided into a few categories, but the rental itself is sufficient to raise the whole level of costs for every person throughout the country, poor and rich. It is going to fall very heavily indeed on the people who most require not only telephones, but all sorts of communications which today are part and parcel of our daily existence. As much as a man is expected to live on bread and water, so too must he live with communications, because without communication, not only on a global scale, but even on the most diminutive individual scale, he is virtually cut off from all that he requires in his modern way of life.

The cost of teleprinter services is to be increased as well, and this will affect overseas businessmen. Rentals have been increased and this will affect every business throughout the country. If the hon. the Minister is keeping pace with information in the Press, he will have seen that, according to one of this morning’s dailies, this rise in costs will add another load on to the shoulders of the already suffering public, which already can hardly make ends meet, and certainly cannot see their way out of this morass of the cost of living which is engulfing them. I say that we cannot sufficiently stress that here the hon. the Minister has bungled because he has not had the courage to change his tactics. Anybody can follow the stream of a monopoly. If you need more money, just tax the poor and you will get as much as you need, and you can meet your budget commitments. But that is foolish. The hon. the Minister could have discarded the commission’s report if he had wished to, and if the circumstances warranted his doing so. I believe that in this instance he had the opportunity to show some sense of statesmanship; he could have risen above what one might call this monotonous form of Government budgeting today, where they keep on increasing costs all the time because they realize that that taps the source which is obliged to pay, the source which has no alternative but to make use of the monopoly services which the administration provides. But I think the worst feature of all is that I am satisfied that at the end of the financial year for which the hon. the Minister has budgeted, he will still have a shortfall because of this resistance I have mentioned. He should have learned, from the indications of his finances over the last two years, that the resistance will mean constant shortfalls in his Budget, even as far as the revised Estimates are concerned. If he has a look at the Controller and Auditor-General’s report for the financial year 1971-’72, on page 27, he will find that there was a shortfall of R1 786 522 in respect of telephone services, and that increased use of these services did not come up to expectations. He will find that wherever he had a large shortfall, this was the reason. For instance, in the case of telex rentals and calls the shortfall was approximately R2½ million, and the reason given for this shortfall is that the increased use and expansion of services were overestimated. This is what will happen, and instead of enuring the public to the constant use of a service which brings in constant revenue, he is now going to build up a resistance, and that resistance is going to be to the disadvantage of the postal services. This is one of the services which means much in the daily life of people, and they should, by means of sound and proper public relations, be encouraged to make use of these services. The use and productiveness of these services should be just a matter of course.

I want to raise just one or two other issues, if I may, in the few minutes at my disposal. I want to refer, firstly, to the question of equipment and components of equipment used in this vast service which the department runs. Is there no possibility —because I see nothing at all to suggest it—of the Minister having adopted a policy whereby he can not only encourage but even contribute towards the establishment of local industries to manufacture the necessary equipment and components? Sir, this could save us many millions of rands in foreign exchange. Over the last four years our imports from Germany alone have risen by over 60%, taking devaluation into account. That was an assessment as at July of last year. Since then we have had further massive devaluations, and we also have currency problems throughout the world. Sir, the resultant saving in foreign exchange could mean a great deal to South Africa. Here we have a simple issue where the hon. the Minister, when he took over in his first flush of joy, could have given valuable direction and vision to this important department. Sir, even the motor industry, as a result of research, has been able to establish factories for the manufacture of components for motor vehicles. This has been done with such success that we have now reached a stage which is known as Stage 3, where we will virtually be constructing our own motor-cars. Here we have an example where we are saving the country a great deal in foreign exchange and where we are giving work to the people of South Africa and increasing our own productive wealth. Sir, that is what the hon. the Minister should have done. But instead of that, we are faced with all sorts of diversions. For instance, the hon. member for Welkom wants to know about entrances to post offices. I had a look yesterday at the public telephones in various streets of the city, and I found all over that there was only one entrance, one telephone, one mouthpiece and one earpiece. I wondered in which town I was, because listening to what the hon. member for Welkom had to say, one would imagine that there are about four telephone booths in every spot where a public telephone booth is needed.

Another matter that I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister is this question of his vast transport fleet. I believe that there is something like R6 million or R7 million at least involved, according to the figures which I have been able to take out. [Time expired.]

Sir, in the course of this debate we have heard many complaints from that side concerning so-called dissatisfaction, poor telephone services and shortages. However, since I represent the Vaal Triangle/Vanderbijlpark, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to express my thanks and appreciation to the Minister, the Postmaster-General and his staff for the relief that area has been given as far as the telephone service is concerned. Sir, we have an outstanding service there. Since our service has been separated from that of the Witwatersrand, I want to tell you, Sir, that since December, 1972, we have had an absolutely outstanding service. Waiting and getting wrong numbers is something of the past. Also as far as the waiting list is concerned, I want to tell you, Sir, that there has been a tremendous reduction in the number of people on the waiting list in Vanderbijlpark. We want to express our thanks for and appreciation of that excellent service.

However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister and the Postmaster-General, in view of the expansion which is going to take place in those areas and in Vanderbijlpark in particular, since we hope that by the year 1977 an additional 5 000 houses will have been built, to keep that expansion, too, in mind in the planning of the telephone services particularly as far as the industrial areas to the north and the northwest of Vanderbijlpark are concerned.

Sir, I want to return to the hon. member for Orange Grove. We still remember the fuss he made here last year in this same debate, in more or less the same vein as today, when the Budget was presented to this House. But at that stage the hon. member was very optimistic; he saw himself as the future Minister, with a flower in his buttonhole, and said, “When we are in power in two years’ time, we shall run the Post Office on the basis of ‘a clear-cut and concise policy’.” But, Sir, that optimism on the part of the hon. member was not of long duration. Since then that optimism has waned. What is more, as yet he has never given us an outline of that “concise and clear-cut policy” or of what it involves; we are still waiting for that. That optimism has waned in the meantime because the United Party is involved in a leadership crisis; it is up against their boss Joel Mervis and his Press, who are giving them a beating and who branded the hon. member for Orange Grove a “Shetland pony”; the party is also having difficulties with the students. Therefore they have abandoned that policy of theirs. At every Budget they come forward with a new policy. The hon. member for Orange Grove has once again come forward with a new policy; he calls it an “expansionist policy”. Instead of his “clear-cut and concise policy”, he now comes forward with what he calls an “expansionist policy”. Sir, what is this so-called “expansionist policy”? One must provide 100 000 telephones all at once, each yielding an income of R200 per annum and, hey presto, one has R20 million, and QED, the Budget balances. That is the “expansionist policy” with which the hon. member has come forward here. However, Sir, I should like to put a few questions to the hon. member. Does he agree in principle that the Post Office must be a commercial service? I am beginning to have my doubts whether hon. members opposite are in earnest when they say that the Post Office must be autonomous and that it must be run on business principles. Does the hon. member agree with that?

Certainly.

Apparently the hon. member agrees with that. The hon. member for Durban Central agreed with that; he said so. If that is the case, then, in the first place, I want to put this question to him: If there are unremunerative, uneconomic tariffs in the Post Office, tariffs which are not high enough to cover the cost of the service, then one has no alternative but to introduce tariff adjustments if one is to run the Post Office on an economic basis. The hon. the Minister in his Second Reading speech mentioned a number of examples to us of uneconomic tariffs in the Post Office. Sir, we can run the Post Office on sound business principles only if we eliminate those anomalies. Last year the Minister told us here that tariff adjustments would have to come. The hon. member for Orange Grove was very concerned and wanted the assurance that these tariff adjustments would not come before March, 1973, and the Minister kept his word. He did not introduce tariff adjustments during that time.

Is that five years?

Sir, I should like to dwell on this Budget for a few moments. When the Minister reviewed the year 1971-’72 here last year, he mentioned that a deficit of R29½ million was anticipated. The hon. member for Orange Grove threw up his hands and said, “Shocking! Never before has a deficit of R29½ million been budgeted for.”

Hear, hear!

Sir, when we look at the report of the Controller and Auditor-General, we find that the year did not close with a deficit of R29½ million, but with a deficit of R10,6 million, and taking into account the previous surplus of R1,9 million, one finds that there was a net deficit of R8,7 million. For the year 1972-’73 the Minister budgeted for a deficit of R33,7 million. The hon. member for Orange Grove then made just as much of a fuss; he spoke about an accumulated deficit of R63 million, and, Sir, we have the revised figures here before us and what is the position? The deficit was not R33,7 million; at present it is estimated that the deficit will be R7,6 million, and if no concessions had been made concerning revenue —here I am referring to the amount of R8 million surrendered to the telephone subscribers in that they are being debited with their rentals monthly—then this financial year would have closed with a surplus of R400 000.

Why these increases then?

As far as the present Budget is concerned, we would, without the tariff increases, have yielded a surplus of R6,1 million; but if we want to give effect to the recommendation of the Franzsen Committee that we provide 40% to 50% of our capital requirements from revenue, then we have no choice; then we require R26 million for this year. I want to ask the hon. member whether he agrees with the Franzsen Committee that 40% to 50% of one’s capital requirements should be provided from revenue?

It depends on the circumstances.

On what circumstances does it depend? After all, the public wants services.

It depends on the magnitude of your deficit.

If the public wants services, surely the necessary finances must be provided; one will have to provide the necessary finances from one’s revenue. I think that the percentage of our revenue which is being used this year for capital requirements, is a fair percentage, namely 41%, which will mean plus-minus R67 million this year.

Why not 50%?

You moan about the R26 million, but I say it meets our present requirements. I want to put a question to these hon. members, these hon. members who are so serious. They attack the Government from morning to night, but they do not come forward with one concrete proposal. I proved to them here, by giving chapter and verse, that if we want to expand our services, we shall have to vote larger amounts. Yesterday the hon. member made an admission when the hon. member for Rustenburg mentioned here that provision was being made to increase the appropriation for capital expenditure in order to meet requirements. To that the hon. member said that we should proceed therewith. Now I want to say to this hon. member, who says now that we should vote more, that he said in this debate last year that a 50% provision for capital requirements from revenue was too high. He said the United Party was in favour of a 33⅓%. He went even further and said he thought that even that was too high, and he mentioned England, where it was 14%. What nonsense! Probably one cannot expect anything else from him. I cannot share the pessimism of hon. members over the future of the Post Office. On the contrary, I can only see growth and prosperity; I can only see that we shall have a better service and that we shall duly meet the requirements of the people. I want to congratulate the Department of Posts and Telegraphs most heartily on their staff. When we consult the report of the Staff Board, we find that in 1968, in respect of the clerical services, 70% of the officials appointed resigned; in 1972 this decreased to 43%. Then there are the technicians about whom they are so concerned. We had a retirement factor, of appointments and reappointments which dropped from 61% in 1968 to 24% in 1971-’72— truly an achievement. And I say that this is thanks to a Minister and a department who look after their staff.

Mr. Chairman, the expansionist policy referred to by this hon. member and that was proposed last year from this side of the House, must have been implemented—that is why this hon. member is now so satisfied in his own area. Sir, the postal code system has been introduced at last. It is rather belated but nevertheless a very welcome move. I presume that this will speed up deliveries of postal matters. The 1973-74 Budget will show a loss of R18,7 million. Granted that the postal service is a public service, it is still expected to be a very good service. The telephones in use in the Republic have been increased by 25, to 1 750 000 during the year. What I would like to know is whether this number is being spread over all the extensions in South Africa and not only confined to selected areas.

The direct dialling system amounts today to 80% of the telephones in the Republic. I sincerely hope that they are more effective than the Durban-Pietermaritzburg trunk-line. I have had repeatedly to dial up to 20 times and even then I did not get through. What I would like to know is whether there is no possibility please to improve these channels because commerce and industry, which are tied with Durban from Pietermaritzburg, find this service most unsatisfactory. Sir, I notice that the time tariffs for automatic calls have been adjusted but no adjustment has been made for the distances between 100 and 400 kilometres. Are these to remain on the old tariffs? There is a general complaint about overcharging on the metered calls, the local calls. I should like to know whether this system really works efficiently and whether it is fool-proof. We must allay the fears of the public in this respect. We have a new exchange in Pietermaritzburg, with many spare lines, and yet 1 383 ordinary telephones and 68 party lines are being deferred on account of lack of cables.

May I ask when will these cables be laid so that those spare lines may be used? Several years ago—I say several years— the Indian business community was moved from the top end of Church Street in Pietermaritzburg because the area was declared White. They were shifted down to the lower end of Church Street into the Indian area, but their telephones could not be transferred when they applied for them, also on account of no cables being available. These people were removed from their known business area, from their customers, into an entirely new area where they had to work up a business again. One can imagine the trouble they have had without telephones.

The Ashburton area, south of Pietermaritzburg, is developing very rapidly and the existing party lines cannot cope with all the telephone calls. I know of no less than four new townships which are being envisaged in that area. Is it not possible, when new townships are applied for, that arrangements be made at the same time for a telephone service? [Interjections.] This is a very important matter.

I understand there is a new sub-exchange being built at Pelham in Pietermaritzburg. I have been told that it is quite possible that this exchange will also control the Ashburton area. May I please be advised on that point?

The non-White staff are filling vacancies normally filled by Whites, but I say there will never be Whites available to fill any of these vacancies. Can these non-Whites not be put on to the permanent staff immediately, or if not immediately, can they, when they are appointed to the permanent staff, not be appointed retrospective so that they will at least get the benefit of that service? We must admit that they are rendering a very satisfactory service. This will also be an incentive to attract the better educated non-White to the postal service.

I must pay the hon. the Minister a compliment. [Interjections.] I thought that would come. Nevertheless it is very pleasing and I think the hon. the Minister should be congratulated on the fact that a very large number of blind and physically handicapped persons are being employed as telephonists.

Hear, hear!

That is a real service to the community. I want to thank him very much for that. [Interjections.]

On the other hand, it is very disturbing to note that there were no fewer than 2 796 employees who were injured on duty during the year. Are we satisfied that safety measures are being sufficiently observed in the department?

In view of the large amount of equipment which is being repaired in the workshops of the Post Office, are we making full use of female technicians, both White and non-White? I believe they are most adaptable to this type of work.

The information supplied by the hon. the Minister about the Kaneeldrif semi-electronic exchange has excited the imagination. Is this still in the experimental stage, or is it already linkad to a telephone system in operation? As such a system is faster and more efficient and needs less maintenance, it does require high technical ability. Are technicians being trained in this field both for now and for the future?

Did Etienne write it?

Who is your mayor?

In conclusion, I wish to thank the Postmaster-General and all his staff, from the highest to the lowest, for the assistance and service they have rendered to South Africa during the past year.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City who has just resumed his seat, has been dealing with local matters for the most part and I shall therefore not reply to him in that connection. In the few moments at my disposal I should like to cover a different field. When we think of the Post Office, we think first of all of communication and of the finances, etc., which are involved and which we want to bring into harmony with each other. However, we so often forget that the Post Office also operates in another and broader sphere, and that is in the sphere of contemporary and ordinary history which it is continually trying to bring to the attention of the public. That is one of the aspects which it is necessary to bring to the attention of the public. The Post Office does this by means of its special stamp issues. Let us now examine the programme which the Post Office has for this year in this connection. At present the three stamps commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Escom, are available at Post Offices. In this way the Post Office brings to our attention the fact that Escom has been active in South Africa for 50 years and that every time we press a button and have electricity at our fingertips, we must realize that this is not something which just fell out of the sky and that Escom produces more than 80% of South Africa’s electricity, indeed, more than 50% of all power generated in Africa. In this way, therefore, these stamps carry abroad an image of South Africa’s industrialization and of the role it is playing in Africa. The next series of stamps which will be available one of these days, has our universities as its motif. Today the universities are very much in the foreground and I think that many of those who rant and rave so much about our universities, could well spend some time looking at the history of these universities; perhaps that will help them to a better understanding of the matter. This year exactly a 100 years ago the University of South Africa started for the first time. A 100 years ago, the University of Cape Town was still the University of South Africa, and all the universities, of which we have a whole network in South Africa today, grew from those humble beginnings, and what we have today in the complex of the University of South Africa, began 100 years ago. The Post Office brings this to our attention and tells us about it. This year also marks the birth of our genial Langenhoven at Ladismith. Cape, 100 years ago. A series of three stamps on which his portrait appears will be issued, and these will reflect his intelligence and his keen wit in as fine a way as possible. It will tell us of the immeasurable contribution made by this great South African to the Afrikaans culture, the poet of the immortal national anthem “0ns vir jou, Suid-Afrika”. This year exactly 200 years ago one of the greatest acts of heroism in South Africa took place, when the simple dairy farmer of the Cape Flats rode his horse into the sea when De Jonge Thomas was sinking. He went in and saved the people, and even then he was translating into practice the words of the Bible, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends”. Our Department of Posts and Telegraphs must also contribute towards bringing this to the attention of our public and our youth.

It will also be a 100 years from the time of our Department of Posts and Telegraphs first association with the World Postal Union. The postal services of a country cannot function on their own. They must be intergrated with those of the rest of the world. We are in the fortunate position that in so far as we have fulfilled our obligations in this connection, we have never experienced any difficulties.

As the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, the demand for South African stamps had doubled itself in recent times. Consequently a department such as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs must feel tempted at all times to reap the profits in this sphere, where profits are the largest, and to put those profits in its own pocket. This is a sphere in which it is very easy to overplay one’s hand if one is not very careful. Here one can so easily over-supply the demand. The moment that happens, the bottom falls out of the whole set-up. Africa taught us a lesson. New issues of postage stamps appeared in their hundreds. Today many of those stamps can be bought at less than their face value because no one wants them. They overplayed their hand and eventually the goose that laid the golden egg went back to laying normal eggs. Our Department of Posts and Telegraphs follows the policy of not issuing more than 15 special stamps per year. That is something of a departure from the position in the past when we were exceptionally conservative as far as this matter was concerned. With 15 special issues per year we have found a good, delicate balance. It is enough to hold the interest and it is not so much as to saturate the demand. I want to request the hon. the Minister, if we should err in this sphere, rather to err on the conservative side; rather too few issues than too many. At the moment South Africa is perhaps the one country in the world which has never yet exploited the philatelist. Because we have never done this, the confidence in the issues of South Africa is so great throughout the world that we have been informed that the demand for our stamps has doubled itself in recent times.

In spite of that, I do want to plead that we should avail ourselves of the opportunity, as soon as it is appropriate and possible, to issue a set of stamps in South Africa which will promote tourism. Mr. Chairman, you are aware of the incomparable scenery we have in South Africa. Just think of scenes from the Cango Caves; just think of our National Parks and think in particular of our golden beaches. What country in the world can really compare with South Africa as far as our beautiful beaches are concerned? If we were to print four or five good stamps, we could carry free propaganda for South Africa to the outer corners of the world. We would not have to pay for it. On the contrary, we are paid for the stamps. I think here we have a golden opportunity of presenting this country, with everything which it has to offer, to countries abroad as a tourist’s paradise. With these stamps, which can carry the message throughout the world, we can really strike a blow for South Africa. I want to make the request to the hon. the Minister and the Postmaster-General not to postpone this aspect too long in favour of other issues.

Mr. Chairman, at the moment the permanent series which we use every day, has been in service for as long a period as 12 years plus. As far as their design and usage are concerned, they have had their day. In fact, they have had their day some time ago. As hon. members know, a new series of stamps is being planned, in fact, it is ready to be printed. The Government Printer who does this part of the work for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, has purchased a new apparatus because the technical aspects of the printing of stamps change virtually every day. The Government Printer, having bought the most modern apparatus, one which is really complicated technically has had his plans upset because as a result of one strike after another in Europe, from where the machine had to come, it took more than a year before he could assemble the machine here in South Africa and have it ready for use. We trust that the ordinary stamps which we shall be printing on it shortly, when the new machine has been put into service, will be as good as the best in the world.

Mr. Chairman, I do not propose to follow the hon. member who has just sat down and for that I would ask his forgiveness. I would like to refer to some of the things that were said yesterday. One of them is that we had many figures trotted out by hon. members on the other side trying to prove to us the progress the Post Office is making and has made over the past few years. My colleague, the hon. member for Orange Grove, brought significant points to the attention of the hon. the Minister particularly his promise not to increase rates in the next five years made in 1971. I would like to draw the attention of this Committee to a very salient fact. Hon. members are so quick to bring statistics to bear out their arguments, but they overlook one significant year as compared to this one, namely 1969. In 1969, the report given to us before the debate at that time, showed that there was a shortage of 72 000 telephones of which the hon. the Minister said that by the year 1971 they should be able to catch up and reduce that shortage dramatically. In 1973 the shortage is, however, 103 000 telephones, an increase of over 30 000 telephones. In 1969 the department supplied 122 000 new services. Great play has been made in this debate about the fact that the Post Office supplied 71 000 telephones during the last year compared with the 122 000 telephones no less than three years ago. If any statistics were needed, if any proof was needed that the Post Office has gone backwards under this hon. Minister, then, I submit, the figures for telephones alone is that proof. I would like the hon. the Minister to explain to me the significant drop in the number of telephones supplied in 1972 compared with the number in 1969 and the great increase in the number of telephone services outstanding, bearing in mind his undertaking or believed statement that the number would be reduced drastically after 1971. What I tried to say to the hon. the Minister yesterday, and what I would like to repeat very briefly today, is that if we are to solve this problem, this tremendous problem of the telephone shortage, then I believe that all South Africans, of all race groups, must be brought into solving this problem, because if we do we would be able to bring telephones within the reach of the nearly 16 million people who at the present time find that telephones are completely out of their reach. As I have said yesterday, the latest tariff has put it out of the reach of most White people as well. But before I go any further I would like to deal with a personal matter in regard to telephones.

My telephone over the last couple of years, particularly the last two years, has caused me a great deal of trouble and a great deal of nuisance. I have had to have technicians to repair this telephone on numbers of occasions. It happens almost once a month. I must say that they come very quickly and they do their best. But I have come to the conclusion, from information that I have gathered round and about, that one of the problems caused by my particular telephone is the tapping device they are using on it. I know, and I am quite convinced of it—the hon. the Minister will deny it because that is what I would do if I were in his position—that there is a tapping device on my telephone. I do not mind the hon. the Minister putting a tapping device on my telephone. It is a waste of time and a waste of Government money to do it. The only thing he is likely to hear on this tapping device is how little I think of his department and of other Government departments. If that pleases them, I am prepared to let them have a play-back of the tape any time they wish to. But I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister in all seriousness that if he must tap my telephone, and others, I wish he would use a good modern device that does not mess up the calls that I try to make to legitimate people. It is this archaic device that he is using on my telephone which is putting up my telephone account. In all seriousness, therefore, I would say: Let him tap my phone but please put a decent instrument on it so that it does not stop me making normal calls in the course of my duties.

I should now like to return to the question of labour, which I dealt with briefly yesterday. The hon. the Minister will know now just what I was getting at. I raised this very matter on previous occasions in this House. The point is that workers working on the same job in the telephone department, that is technical people of different race groups, work different hours per week before they are allowed to earn overtime. You will find that a White technician who works a 44-hour week is working with a non-White labourer or assistant who has to work a 48-hour week before he is entitled to overtime. The hon. the Minister made a significant statement yesterday. He said that he believed that if the work intensity was the same they should work the same number of hours per week, and of course that is perfectly true and perfectly justified. I am delighted that the hon. the Minister said so. Two or three years ago when I raised this same issue with this hon. Minister, he said it was the different conditions under the Civil Service Commission that were responsible for the working hours not being the same. I want a guarantee from the hon. the Minister. I am now referring to those cases where White technicians work together with non-White assistants. I am not now referring to rates of pay, although I believe that they should be equal for equal work. Let us say that they are not for equal work as one may be the labourer and the other the artisan. I want a guarantee from the hon. the Minister that they are working the same number of hours per week before overtime is earned. It is my information and I have it on very good authority that, until fairly recently, an artisan could work a 44-hour week but the labourer working with him had to work a 48-hour week. What happened then was that the artisan would work his 48 hours and earn four hours’ overtime while the labourer would have earned nothing in overtime. I believe, from the hon. the Minister’s own words yesterday, that this is something which should not be tolerated. I therefore appeal to him—in fact, I ask for his guarantee—to see that this position will no longer be tolerated in his department.

Finally I would like to return to the question of people working for the Post Office who earn at the present time a figure below that set as the poverty datum line. According to the reports that I have here, there are roughly 4 000 workers on the permanent staff and 8 000 odd labourers who are employed at local rates of pay and who are in fact earning at this very moment a figure well below the poverty datum line. I would like to ask this hon. Minister as well just what the position is in this regard. How many of the staff of the Post Office, of any race group for that matter, have incomes which at present fall below the poverty datum line?

In conclusion, let me remind the hon. the Minister once again that if he wants to make a success of the Post Office, if South Africa wants to see an efficient Post Office and if it wants the organization run as it should be run, then he must bear in mind that all people who live in South Africa are entitled to enjoy the fruits of South Africa. The Post Office does not belong to one section of the community; it belongs to everybody and I hope the hon. the Minister, in view of his pronouncements in connection with our recent labour problems, will be able to assure this Committee that this is in fact the case and that he agrees with me. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Natal made a serious charge and a serious accusation against the hon. the Minister and the department. I think that the hon. member has forgotten that legislation was passed last year with regard to phone-tapping and that that legislation makes provision for measures to be taken before phone-tapping may occur. I believe that the hon. the Minister will deal with his point; I shall not deal with it because I know just as little about that hon. member’s phone-tapping as that side of the House knows about this Budget.

Sir, the attack by hon. members on that side of the House in respect of this Budget calls to mind the typical, common, everyday conduct of members opposite, and that is to rush in blindly, to mark time for a short while and then to retreat slowly. The hon. member for Orange Grove crossed swords with the Minister because he wanted to risk taking too big a leap in respect of electronic telephone exchanges. In that connection he used the example of the development from the ox-wagon to the Concorde. But just a few sentences later, he wanted to pick a quarrel with the Minister because the electronic exchange systems would apparently be put into general operation in South Africa only towards the end of this century. We on this side of the House want to ask, in the interests of the consumer public, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to continue using telecommunication apparatus for their full effective economic lifetime. The effective economic lifetime of some of the instruments in these apparatuses is 35 years.

Very few of them.

In the case of some of the apparatuses it is 35 years, while in the case of others, it is shorter, but we want to make the request that that apparatus will in fact be used for its full economic lifetime. I do not think the hon. member for Orange Grove can expect this side of the House to follow the example in respect of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs set by that side of the House. Let me just mention one example. Last year, at the time of the leadership election in the Transvaal, the hon. member for Yeoville was kicked out by that side of the House. It is my opinion that the hon. member for Yeoville had not by a long chalk expended his reasonably effective life as leader of the Transvaal, but he was replaced. This side of the House wants to make the request that the Post Office apparatus be used for its full economic effective life.

As far as the shortage of telephones is concerned, this side of the House, too, regrets that we are still faced with a backlog, but I want to make the statement and give the assurance that no one is working harder than this hon. Minister, as well as the department, to eliminate those shortages. I want to concede that this telephone shortage may probably hit that side of the House a little harder than this side of the House. The new United Party leader of the Transvaal has declared on occasion that the United Party will no longer blow hot and cold in the future. I accept that they often have to confer together by telephone. I also accept that the leadership must often obtain permission from the Transvaal leader to issue statements.

You must really do a little better than this.

Those members have our sympathy and also the hon. member for Green Point with the difficulties he is experiencing in his constituency.

A matter which I should like to discuss with the hon. the Minister this afternoon, is to be found in the supplementary statistics of the Postmaster-General. I refer to postal articles handled by the Post Office, and particularly to the lack of standardization as regards these articles. It so happens that I took note of the mail in my mailbox yesterday. There were 10 letters, and I could not find two of those envelopes which were of the same size. It is encouraging that much progress has been made with the automatic sorting machines and that these machines are now capable of sorting articles of various sizes. But now it is also true that for reasons of efficiency the Post Office may apparently lay down standards or rules for, say, three or four standard sizes. When there are too many series of articles available for any one group, then I believe that things are going too well with that particular group, or, in the case of a people, that things are going too well with that people. Sir, in the monthly bulletin of the South African Bureau of Standards, in the February edition No. 6, there is an enlightening article which deals with standards for improving an advanced mail-sorting system. When one reads this article, one realizes the necessity, and one wants to accentuate it, for the Post Office to proceed to laying down standards, even at this stage, for the articles it will handle. Although these sorting machines are fast and efficient, they are unfortunately, not as versatile as the human sorters. Tests have already indicated that these sorting machines are unable to handle cards which are below a certain level of stiffness, and it has been found that cards with a high degree of stiffness along their length, are better suited than those which have a higher degree of stiffness in their breadth. But, Sir, the stiffness is not the only factor; there are other factors such as the thickness, the porousness, the surface smoothness, the electrostatic characteristics, and a few other factors which are also of importance as regards the automatic sorting machines. Other problems which are already causing headaches in other countries in respect of these automatic sorting machines are the chemicals which are used to intensify the whiteness of the paper. These can also increase their fluorescence, which has the effect that it may change the automatic detection of postage stamps and code numbers. Sir, when this is read in conjunction with an article which appeared in Tegniek of February, which warned that at the turn of this century, by the year 2000, the use of paper and pulp would be approximately six times higher than it is now, and that the supply of pulp which will be available, will apparently only be double, then one realizes how important it is that paper should also be used effectively.

Then, Sir, I want to ask the Minister not only to lay down standards for the articles which will be handled by the Post Office, but also, in the light of the fact that the Post Office has already become a business undertaking, to consider the possibility of proceeding to the supply of writing paper and envelopes by the Post Office. I do not want to propose involvement in the manufacturing industry, but only the distribution of writing paper and of envelopes. Sir, in advocating this, I have in mind not only the service which may be rendered to the public, but also the financial implications. When one looks at the total number of articles which are handled, one finds that as far as first-class mail is concerned, that is letters, postcards and aerograms, and also first-class airmail, postcards and aerograms, that in round figures, approximately 800 million are mailed per annum. If one assumes that these postcards or envelopes are sold or packed in numbers of 50, and if one also assumes that the Post Office could make a profit of, say, 2c on a packet of 50, then this amounts to a profit of between R3 million and R4 million per annum. Sir, I want to ask the Minister and the department to consider entering this new field too, just as the South African Railways renders service to the public in some other spheres.

Another aspect I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, concerns the electronic exchanges. The hon. member for Germiston District briefly referred to some of the inherent properties of these electronic exchanges yesterday. But in the light of our exceptionally extensive automatic party lines and the fact that these party lines show more sensitivity than the normal lines, I should like to ask the department, in considering these inherent characteristics of the electronic exchanges, to take careful note of some of these properties, properties which, particularly with the automatic party lines, I feel can be introduced into this electronic system. What is of importance to us here, is firstly reliability with an eye to immunity against environmental factors, that is the built-in protection mechanisms against interruptions. It is known that party lines are more sensitive to interruptions than the standard lines. Secondly there is the sensitivity to temperature variations and humidity variations, to which can also be added sensitivity or insensitivity to chemical air pollution and dust. I ask that careful note be taken of this as well. Thirdly, there is the automatic centralized fault-reporting, so that faults can be reported to a maintenance centre, particularly in view of the labour problems which we are already experiencing to an increasing extent as well as the distances which have to be examined in order to repair faults. [Time expired.]

I do not think the hon. member for Bethlehem will expect me to reply to him. I want to say at once that I think the hon. the Minister is doing his share to add to the inflation in South Africa. There is very little doubt about that. The increased costs in telexing and in rentals and in mid-distance-long-distance calls will all add very considerably to the costs of production in industry and commerce and I have no doubt at all that these additional costs will pass on to the unhappy consumer. It is unfortunate that the hon. the Minister has found it necessary to increase his charges in this way. I have no doubt that if he had had a sufficient supply of skilled labour at his disposal, it might have been possible to have kept down the charges to the public very considerably. That brings us right back to square one and the old, old story in South Africa about the failure to train and utilize the vast majority of our labour force. I know the hon. the Minister is making certain efforts and his department is making certain efforts in this direction, but I do not believe that nearly enough has been done to off-set the demands which anybody with an eye to see and a brain which can anticipate should have known was going to take place in South Africa, and that is the enormous commercial and industrial expansion. Now the hon. the Minister yesterday expressed a fair amount of satisfaction about the experiments he was trying out in regard to using Black, Coloured and Indian people to serve their own people in White areas; he said that it had proved a success. He seemed to be rather gratified that he had managed to employ all of 105 Africans, Coloured and Indian people in the White areas behind the counters in post offices to serve their own people without there being any racial friction. Well, of course, I have long been of the opinion that the racial friction which the Government fears will result from employing members of the different races in the same jobs and under the same circumstances is largely a figment of their own imagination. I remember very well that only a few years ago the then Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration was going to introduce strictures on the employment of Black telephonists and Black counter-hands and Black clerks in offices because he said if this employment continued there would be racial friction. Of course, in the event, he was unable to produce this restriction, for the simple reason that the jobs he was going to reserve so tenderly for White employees in this country, were not filled because those White employees simply did not exist and therefore he had to drop the whole plan, and I must say a huge sigh of relief enveloped most of commerce and industry as a result. Can the hon. the Minister honestly tell us that as the result of the continuation of the employment of Black people in these jobs there has been racial friction in South Africa? Obviously not and therefore I want to encourage the hon. the Minister not to have fears in this regard, and to go ahead as rapidly as possible with the extension of the use of these services of Black, Coloured and Indian people not only in the White areas but elsewhere in South Africa as well to assist in solving the shortage of labour in the Post Office.

Having said that, I want to present one or two small bouquets to the hon. the Minister. I want to compliment his department on its air-letter cards. I have been conducting a brisk correspondence with the Postmaster-General over a number of months over the writing space, the size, the colour, the gum—first of all the taste of and then the lack of gum—on the air-letter cards and I am very glad to be able to report that over the last few months an excellent overseas air-letter card has been issued which I think compares very favourably with those used throughout the rest of the world. I also want to say how thankful I am that we now have a uniform price for those air-letter cards and that one does not have to add extra postage to cope with different countries throughout the world. That is welcome relief.

I want to say too that I appreciate very much the service which the department is rendering with regard to the understamping of letters. I think that is a first-class service and I am glad to find that the South African public, according to the hon. the Minister, is, in fact, very honest in this regard and that the department has not suffered any losses because of the posting of airmail, etc., understamped.

As one who for many years has called for the reduction of telephone charges after hours and during weekends, I am very glad that this has now been extended to all the automatic exchanges in operation. However, I do not believe that nearly enough is being done to publicize the fact that one can put these long-distance calls at half price after hours and during weekends. I know that in the post offices, even here in the parliamentary post office, there is a poster of a smiling young man holding a telephone. The caption is: “Phone at night; it’s half price”. I should like to say that we should also add “Phone over weekends; it’s half price”. That caption ought to appear in every telephone book at regular intervals. This is what is done in England, for instance. On the cover of the London telephone directory, and inside where the area codes are advertised, there is a large advertisement saying: “Phone at night or phone over the weekend; it is half price.” If the intention is to divert the public from the over-loaded service during office hours, then I think we must do much more to publicize this service which is available.

Coming to telephone books, I think it is high time now that the Johannesburg directory was divided into two alphabetical sections. I believe it is much too large and bulky. The time has come—we have become a very large metropolitan area— when the Johannesburg telephone directory now ought to be divided into A to M and N to Z so as to make it easier to handle.

I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me why it is that if one looks for the diplomatic representatives in the Pretoria directory one is directed to the yellow pages. That is the only place where one can find the diplomatic representatives listed.

The same applies to the medical profession.

No, the medical profession appears in the ordinary directory. If one looks up the diplomatic representatives in the ordinary directory, one is referred to the yellow pages and there one finds the diplomatic representatives, the consulates and the embassies having been cosily sandwiched between “diesel injection” and “discount stores”. [Interjections]. Well, there is a “diplomatic corps” section. Some of them might have taken an additional entry and put themselves in separately, but there are times when one wants to obtain the addresses of all the diplomatic corps, the consulates and embassies, and then the only way in which one can find them is, as I say, to look up the yellow pages. I find this something very extraordinary, and perhaps the hon. the Minister will explain the reason for it.

Talking of Pretoria, I wonder when something is going to be done about the appalling service on the Johannesburg to Pretoria telephone system. One can sit for three-quarters of an hour dialling 012 in Johannesburg and one simply gets the engaged signal immediately. These are the two main centres in the Transvaal and it would seem to me that by now something ought to have been done to lessen the load on the existing lines so that one can get through. I am not exaggerating when I say it is quicker to get through to London from Johannesburg than it is to get through to Pretoria. I hope that something is going to be done about that.

Finally I want to say something about the hopelessly inadequate service to the townships. The manual exchange is always engaged and when one gets through, the line is very bad indeed, certainly between Johannesburg and Soweto. After all, Soweto is the Black city of Johannesburg. I would say that today close on a million people must be living in Soweto. The official figures, of course, are hopelessly inaccurate, because, as I have pointed out before, people who live in Soweto who are there illegally do not stand up to be counted on census night; but they are nevertheless there and most of them work in Johannesburg. These residents have an extremely difficult time in obtaining telephones. I do not know what the backlog of applications is, although, as the hon. member for Port Natal has pointed out, the increase rentals of telephones is likely to put them out of reach of the vast majority of Black people. Not only Soweto, but also Lenasia is very poorly served with telephones. There might be more people there who could afford the rentals. I hope that the hon. the Minister is going to be able to tell us that something is going to be done about the provision of better services in Lenasia. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think I had better reply at this stage to certain matters that have been raised up to now, and then I can deal with the remaining matters at the end of the debate. I shall begin with the hon. member for Jeppes, who together with other speakers on that side of the House, objected to the tariff increases that have been introduced. As I have explained in my replies up to now, I really had no other choice because the Post Office is a business enterprise, as the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark indicated. This is the principle we accepted when we became autonomous and it is the principle which underlies the investigation and recommendations of the Franzsen Commission, and we must act in accordance with this principle. When one acts in accordance with it one has no other choice than to act as we acted in this case. Merely to negotiate foreign loans now to solve this situation would be an unsound business principle; no reputable business enterprise would do such a thing. Why is the Post Office, which is a business enterprise, now being expected to follow such an un-businesslike procedure? Consequently I am afraid that there was no other choice in regard to this matter.

†The hon. member for Jeppes also put the question to me why we do not manufacture more equipment locally so as to import less and in doing so we save foreign exchange. We have been forced to import approximately 20% of our equipment in order to cope with the crash programme we are following in the Post Office today. Of course we would like to see that everything is produced here, but hon. members will agree that we have really been following a crash programme with this big capital investment we had during the last few years. This investment brought about that our local manufacturers were not able to provide for all our needs. Due to that we have to import about 20% of our equipment. Of course our aim, and also their aim, is to have all our needs manufactured in South Africa. I may point out that the hon. member’s approach is in sharp contrast with that of the hon. member for Orange Grove who wanted to bring in outside money and enterprise to provide the services. I think the two of them ought to get this clear between themselves; they ought to argue it out so that next year they can perhaps give us a more agreed version in this regard.

*The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark spoke with appreciation of the improvement there had been in the service in his area. He spoke of the waiting list which had diminished. It is gratifying to have hon. members mention things of this nature too, so that we can see the picture as a whole, for if we were to listen only to the United Party, it would really seem as if we had the worst service in the world. On the contrary; we who travel the world may well compare South Africa’s service with that of the other countries. Our service is very good in comparison with those encountered by the hon. members on their overseas visits in recent months. A word of thanks, therefore, to the hon. members for their contributions towards obtaining some perspective in regard to this matter. I shall reply to the speech of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City if he returns later on; I see that he is not in the House at the moment.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred with appreciation to the special postage stamps that are being issued and he pleaded that we should not try to overplay our hand and that although we are part of Africa, we should not follow the example of other African countries by issuing too many postage stamps. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we shall go about this matter with discretion. The hon. member also made a plea for special stamps for tourism. I think the hon. member is in a much better position than the Minister to get that idea piloted through. The reason is that the hon. member serves on the Postage Stamps Committee, which deals with the selection of special postage stamps. So that hon. member may be sitting much closer to the fire than the Minister. Therefore I want to ask the hon. member to raise the subject that interests him in the proper manner with the committee in which he serves. If it is then submitted to me as a recommendation it will certainly receive the necessary attention. In any case, I am very grateful that the hon. member takes an interest in this subject and finds the time to serve in this Postage Stamp Design Committee, where he does good work for us.

I see that the hon. member for Port Natal is not here.

Omit him as well.

I would rather reply to him when he is present. Therefore I shall return to him later.

The hon. member for Bethlehem made a plea in regard to the standardization of envelope sizes. We have been appealing to the envelope manufacturers in this regard for some time. In fact, the Postmaster-General has had several discussions with the envelope manufacturers and has thus obtained their co-operation, so that one does not have too great a variety of envelopes. I just want to say that we shall continue to give attention to that matter. The mechanical sorting of envelopes makes it necessary for the envelopes to be as close as possible to a standard size, of course. So we shall most certainly continue with these efforts. Then the hon. member raised a matter in regard to the provision of stationery— I am still replying to the hon. member for Bethlehem. It is true that we sell postcards and airmail postcards, but although we are a business enterprise, a Government business enterprise, we too have to draw the line somewhere. This is an expression we use in connection with many matters such as pensions, allowances, and so on. Here, too, that expression is applicable. Where should one draw the line? I do not think it would be fair if we, as a Government business enterprise, were to go in for stationery in a big way and print all kinds of stationery and sell it in competition with commerce. I do not think it would be fair towards commerce if the Post Office, which does get its income from other public sources, should also go in for this. Consequently hon. members must expect us to act with discretion as far as this matter is concerned. We should really exercise our discretion in favour of not having too much stationery issued by the Post Office because it would not be fair towards commerce.

The hon. member also spoke of electronic exchanges. We consider very carefully the matters raised by the hon. member, such as the effects of the climate on electronic exchanges. You know, Sir, electronic exchanges are very much like a woman; they are very sensitive; you have to treat them in the right way, otherwise you get the wrong noises. Consequently our people know that they have to take into consideration the circumstances in various regions. I can give the hon. member the assurance that we pay attention to these matters.

The hon. member for Houghton, too, raised a few matters which I want to reply to.

†She mentioned advertising of phone service during the weekends. We will, of course, consider this suggestion of the hon. member. We shall pay attention to it. The hon. member also wants to know where the diplomatic corps are listed. I do not know off-hand, but I shall look into the matter and let the hon. member know in writing what the position is. She also referred to the poor service between Johannesburg and Pretoria. Well, I suppose there is something to complain about. We know that the service is not what it should be. We must bear in mind, of course, that Johannesburg is really the crucial spot not only on the Witwatersrand, but also in the whole country. This is where we have to bring about the biggest development and improvement. I can only assure her, Sir, that we are giving the matter our maximum attention. We have the problem, to which an hon. member referred yesterday, of getting officials willing to go to the Reef to work there. For some reason or other, employees are not very keen to go to Johannesburg. I do not know whether they still regard it as a sort of Sodom or Gomorrah or something of that sort. In any event, we really have trouble in this respect. It is not merely a question of the money we can provide by means of loans as we are doing now; it is also a question of getting the people to do the job, and this is one of our problems. I can assure the hon. member that we are concentrating on that area and that Johannesburg receives priority attention in South Africa. The hon. member also referred to Soweto and the need for facilities there. No fewer than five exchanges for Soweto are in the pipeline and will be ready within the next few years; so we are giving that area our attention.

I see the hon. member for Port Natal is here now.

My apologies for being absent.

You did not know I was going to reply at that moment; so you need not apologize. Perhaps you can apologize for something else you have said and to which I am going to reply.

First of all, I would like to start with the accusation that I said that there would be no increases in 1971. The hon. member is not the only member who made this assertion or accusation. I see it has even been taken up in a leading article in The Cape Times which says the following—

We have heard this from the hon. member for Orange Grove, and we have also had it from other newspapers. Perhaps I should read again what I said.

*I quote from Hansard of 24th March, 1971, col. 3495—

That is very clear. I read on—

I hope this will be able to penetrate to hon. members. I read on—

Nowhere did I say that I gave the assurance that there would be no tariff increases for the next five years. That I did not say; after all, it is not recorded here. I said that we hoped there would not be tariff increases. In the same way I hope that we shall not have tariff increases again next year. What I am saying now is going to appear in Hansard exactly the way I said it. I hope we shall not have to increase tariffs again next year. We are working with that in view; that is our objective, but if one is confronted with a situation such as the Franzsen report, which recommended that 50% of our operating expenditure be met from revenue, then, after all, one is dealing with a different situation altogether. Therefore I really find it strange that in spite of this clear statement the United Party insists that I said there would not be tariff increases. Surely that is quite inaccurate. If hon. members were to persist in repeating this inaccuracy, it would remind me very much of the man they always quote against us with such relish, namely Hitler. In his book Mein Kampf he said that if we repeat the lie often enough, it is eventually accepted as the truth. Surely this tactic of the United Party in trying to pin me down now by alleging that I gave an assurance that there would not be tariff increases is strongly reminiscent of Mein Kampf.

The hon. member raised other matters as well.

†The hon. member also referred, of course, to the waiting list for telephones which has increased, which he offered as one of the proofs of my incompetence. Well, let it be. I think the public and the hon. the Prime Minister can judge about that. I have the facts with me and I think I should mention it again. The total number of phones has increased. In 1971 we installed 74 000 phones. Last year the figure was 90 000. We aim at 100 000 this year. There is therefore a definite tendency towards an increase in this regard. There was a decrease after 1971 when the number of telephones installed totalled 74 000. But I think the real point the hon. member wished to make is that in 1972 only 71 000 phones were installed. I said it previously and it is still our policy that we want to concentrate on quality. The quality of the service is of much more value to us than the available number of phones. I have said it over and over in this House and elsewhere. We want to concentrate on the quality of our phones in order not to get all the complaints that we hear in this House. If there should be complaints let people complain that they cannot get a telephone rather than complaining that they have telephones but cannot use them. That is what we are driving at in order to get a better service. It is with a view to that that we had this decrease of phones between 1971 and 1972. But I think that these numbers do indicate that the Post Office is doing its utmost under the circumstances.

Will the hon. the Minister be prepared to accept this? I admit that the hon. the Minister did say in 1971 that he hoped that he would not have to increase tariffs, but will the hon. the Minister admit that he said at the same time that he would dramatically reduce the number of outstanding telephones?

This is an indication of a reduction. Are these figures not an indication of the reduction in outstanding telephones? I have no control over the tremendous demand for telephones. We have a growing demand, a demand which is really exceptional for any country. Due to our high standard of living we have the position today that every telephonist and every typist wants a telephone. It is due to our high standard of living that we have this terrific demand. What really counts is what we have done and what we have installed. Those figures in fact indicate that the Post Office is doing everything that is humanly possible.

A point was raised yesterday to which I have not as yet replied. I wish to do so now. The hon. member made the statement yesterday that there were 4000 non-White workers who received R40 per month. I have gone into the matter and I would like to give the hon. member the correct figures in this regard. There are 3 764 non-Whites on a salary scale ranging between R450 and R936 per annum. That does not include the recent increase of 17½%. The hon. member also referred to workers earning an income below the bread-line. I can only say that this question of the breadline, or poverty datum line, is of course a thing that differs from place to place. There are different interpretations of what the poverty datum line in effect is. One university has an interpretation which differs from that of another university. It differs from university to university. Non-White unskilled workers in the Post Office are paid in accordance with the local rates of pay and in addition they also now get the increase of 17½%. I think that covers, for the time being, the points raised by that hon. member and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City.

Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I was out; I understood that the hon. the Minister would be replying at a later stage.

It does not matter. I am glad the hon. member is back now, and I shall reply to him. First of all the hon. member referred to the question of the improvement of services. In reply to this I can only say that the entire outlay of R148 million for the ensuing financial year is purely for the improving of our service. So really, we all realize that our service must be improved. I think this amount which we have put aside for the improvement of services surely goes to show our plans and our intentions.

Then the hon. member spoke about the question of overcharging. He wanted to know whether the system was really fool-proof in this regard. I can only say that the automatic metering system is specifically designed to protect the customer. It is designed in such a way that it should protect users against being overcharged. But one even has to check the machine from time to time, and with a view to that, we have now introduced a photographic meter system. The meters are now photographed and the details are fed into a computer. In this way we are minimizing the possibility of overcharging, because nobody likes to be overcharged. With the technological means at our disposal, we are therefore doing all we can to prevent such overcharging.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether full use was being made of females in the technical field. Well, I can answer quite positively that we have trained and employ hundreds of female technical assistants, and they render very valuable service. But apart from that, I may say that I was very impressed during my visits to the factories which manufacture our equipment. Two of the firms involved here are Siemens and Plessey; as the hon. member knows, there are four of them which manufacture items for the Post Office. I have visited a few of those factories, and I was really impressed to see the extent to which they make use of female labour. In the factory at Rosslyn, in the border area, they are making use to a large extent of Bantu female labour and also Coloured labour, because there is a Coloured township nearby. The manager told me on my inquiry that they are very satisfied with the type of work those females produce, because certain types of factory work are of such a nature that a female can perform that work better than a male. What the reason is, I do not know, but those are the facts; experience has shown that they can do certain types of work better. So I can say that we in the Post Office make use of females in the technical field, as do those people in the private sector.

Perhaps they are more intelligent.

That may be.

The hon. member then referred to Kameeldrif, and wanted to know whether it was experimental or whether it was linked to the system. Well, both are true; it is experimental, but at the same time it is linked to the system. If it were not linked, we would not be able to experiment on it properly. It is integrated in our national system, and we shall be able, in time to come—within a year or two—to give a much clearer indication of how it is working.

Then, lastly, he wanted to know how we are training technicians for electronic exchanges. Sir, we take note of this and we are fully alive to the necessity of training the necessary technicians. We send our people overseas quite often to see what developments are taking place there, and I can assure the hon. member that we are fully aware of the necessity of this.

*Sir, I think that with this reply I have covered the points raised in this debate up to now.

In the first place I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department very heartily on the development and the progress of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and its modernization over the past year. We know that the public is generally grateful for the fine service the officials of the Post Office give them. We are certain that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and its staff need not stand back for any other department in our own country and even abroad. We appreciate the service the officials are furnishing, because we know that on more than one day they have to do their work under very difficult circumstances. We know that there is a staff shortage in many places. Many times in the morning, when I am travelling early and drive past the Post Office, even before sunrise, I see the lights in the Post Office burning and I see that our Post Office officials have already begun to do the day’s work. We appreciate the fact that they carry out their work with the utmost responsibility, dutifulness and loyalty, frequently under difficult circumstances. We want to express our heart-felt appreciation because we know that the general public is grateful and appreciates what the Post Office staff are doing for them.

Sir, I just want to express a few ideas about certain matters in my constituency, which in my opinion are very important. As you know, Sir, my constituency is one of the constituencies which is today undergoing the biggest development in the country. I should like to make a few requests to the hon. the Minister and the department in that connection. In the first place I want to refer to the building of new post offices, which has already been approved by the department, and the modernization of existing buildings. I refer, firstly, to the new Post Office that has been planned for Prieska; secondly, the new Post Office that has been planned for Postmasburg, and thirdly I refer to the modernization of the Carnarvon Post Office building. But, Sir, there is another matter that is very important as far as I am concerned, and that is something there is a great need for, particularly in my constituency. It does not only affect my constituency, it also affects the whole North-Western region. I am referring to the need for air conditioning in our Post Offices and in our telephone exchanges. Sir, I can assure you that the Post Office officials in the North-Western region have to carry out their work under the most difficult of circumstances in the heat of the summer months. As a result of requests made to me, and also on my own initiative, I visited certain post offices and exchanges to see under what circumstances the people there have to work, and I can assure you, Sir, that during the past summer the heat in the North-Western region was at times unbearable for both man and beast. I know of various officials, particularly ladies, in the post offices and exchanges, whose strength gave out and who collapsed as a result of the terrible heat and the conditions under which they must work. I really think we can give attention to that. Then I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention to this matter, because during the summer months, with the heat that is experienced, it is simply impossible for a person to do good work under such circumstances. I know we can depend upon the Minister and the department, and I want to appeal to him to do everything in his power to make the officials happy in this respect. I believe they could furnish much greaer production if these facilities were provided. I can confidently say that the department and the hon. the Minister know that these post office officials really deserve this in that part of the world. I trust that those circumstances will be taken into consideration and that the Minister and the department will give this matter sympathetic consideration and introduce air conditioning in all post offices and exchanges, in the interests of the workers.

The hon. member for Prieska discussed matters relating to his constituency, and he must therefore excuse me if I do not follow on what he said. I should also like to convey my thanks to the Postmaster-General and his officials, particularly to the head of the Post Office in Port Elizabeth and his staff who, on several occasions, have helped me with difficult problems. I really appreciate this—the co-operation and the willingness to help that I encountered there. My information is that there will still be a small shortage of about 2 104 telephones after the extensions have taken place in the Port Elizabeth urban area. According to the estimate capital expenditure for that area, there are still quite a few amounts that have to be spent, and I want to express the hope that provision has been made for the extensions that are at present taking place in Port Elizabeth’s various residential areas so that additional demand can also be accommodated.

Then I should like to point out that as soon as the St. Croix project has come into effect, which I hope will be shortly, there will be a chain reaction and industries will be drawn to that area, which will of course lead to the further expansion of the telecommunications system, particularly telex equipment and telephones, etc. I hope that advanced planning has been done for such extensions.

Then I should just like to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister and ask him whether he cannot establish better telephone facilities for the Bantu, Coloured and Indian areas in Port Elizabeth. I am aware of the work being done in this connection, but I have been told by leaders of these communities that there is a tremendous shortage of public telephones in these areas. I therefore want to ask that the department give attention to that matter.

The hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, must also excuse me if I do not follow up on the speech he made; it dealt with local matters. Sir, in the past year we have gathered in the Press, and also from other sources, that it has become essential for a micro-wave tower to be erected in the Pretoria area. It was indeed confirmed by the Postmaster-General that attention is being given at this stage to the erection of such a tower. It now appears from the preliminary research that has been conducted by the Post Office, that the best plot or site for this tower’s erection is on Lucasrand, which is at present still a quiet and peaceful residential area. The choice of the site is determined, inter alia, by the consideration of the point from which this tower could transmit most favourably to the area it must serve. It is influenced further, for example, by the aircraft traffic from the Waterkloof and Swartkops military air force basis. All these factors have led to the Lucasrand site being decided upon.

It is interesting, actually wonderful, to see how human beings are drawn to high places. Human beings are indeed fascinated by high places. Everywhere in the world these days we have some or other high place in the biggest cities. I am thinking of Paris that began it with its Eiffel Tower and of New York with its Empire State Building and the Statue of Liberty. London has, at present, its Shell Building. Washington has the Washington Memorial, and Johannesburg has the SABC tower in Brixton and the J. G. Strijdom Tower in Hillbrow. Many of these structures were built initially for purposes other than those they are now being used for. Some were purely functional, an office block, for example, like the Empire State Building. The same applies to the Shell Building. All these high points, whether obelisks, high buildings or towers, have in the meantime generated tremendous forces of attraction for the tourist public and human beings as such. I think that by means of entrance fees and lifts, these towers have indeed become a source of income for the people they belong to or for the people who control them. I shall come back to that.

The Pretoria National Party Council took note of this tower which is to be erected, and subsequently accepted a proposal in that connection on 11th January, 1973. I should like to quote the relevant portions (translation)—

I supported this proposal, and in the planning of this project I should like to mention three points which I find important and which must be given particular attention. The first is that architectonically speaking the tower must be something special. It goes without saying that the design is linked to the purpose for which the tower is to be erected. I understand, however, that such a design does not need to be absolutely stereotyped, and within the limits dictated by requirements, there is room for the flights of imagination of an architect. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister and the Postmaster-General would not consider real time and attention being spent on the architectonic design of this tower in Pretoria. Therefore I want to suggest that they even consider drawing up a competition with tempting prize money for a design. As I have already said, such a design is, for understandable reasons, restricted by the cost aspect. This is always a consideration that applies, but since these high points, like towers, etc., annually earn thousands upon thousands of rand in entrance fees—at least so it appears to me— one can in this case allow some play as far as costs are concerned, because some of those costs will very quickly be recovered. I think that one of the considerations applicable as far as we are concerned, is that this tower is going to be erected in Pretoria, which is the administrative capital of the country. I want to ask today that we should very seriously bear in mind the fact that this tower must be worthy of South Africa’s administrative capital.

Then there are two other small points I briefly want to mention. The one is that this tower is going to be erected in a residential area which is indeed a very quiet, peaceful and sought-after residential area at present. I therefore want to ask that when that tower is planned, particular provision should first be made for the traffic, which the tower is going to draw, to cause as few disturbances as possible in the vicinity, and to disrupt the traffic as little as possible. Provision must consequently be made for proper access roads. Secondly, from the very beginning provision must be made for sufficient parking space at a spot where this will not disturb the inhabitants of the area or adversely affect the area and the environs. I am asking, therefore, that these aspects be borne in mind and that this should be so planned that it will not spoil or disfigure the surroundings. I believe, however, that as far as the Pretorians are concerned, they would gladly welcome such a development in their city, and if this development is well planned, it is eventually going to be a proud contribution to the appearance of our capital.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Waterkloof will excuse me if I do not follow his line of reasoning. I want to raise certain matters in regard to the telephone service as it affects my own constituency with the hon. the Minister in the few minutes which are available to me. As a result, I believe, of the coming into operation of a new telephone exchange in Constantia, the telephone numbers of a great number of telephone subscribers, those subscribers whose telephones are to be connected to the new telephone exchange, are going to be changed. I do not have any objection to this happening, as I believe that developments like this have to take place, but I would like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that of these telephone numberss that are going to be changed, a great number have already been changed to different numbers within the last two years. In other words, these telephone subscribers have had two changes of telephone numbers within two years. For a telephone number to be changed once involves a subscriber in considerable inconvenience and frustration, even if the telephone number is changed at the time when a new telephone directory comes into operation. The hon. the Minister probably knows as well as I do that callers continue to use the old numbers, even though the new numbers may be in the telephone directory. They then either get an engaged signal, or they get connected with the subscriber to whom the old number has been given. This causes frustration to both the caller and the receiver and it is an unnecessary waste of money. Where businesses are concerned, when a telephone number is changed it involves changing the number on virtually every item of stationery that the business uses. Also, for the same reason as for private calls, businesses lose business when their customers continue to phone the old number and do not get through to place their business. As I say, one change of numbers can be accepted, but when two changes come within the short period of two years, this causes frustration, inconvenience and expenses which are compounded not in an arithmetical progression but in a geometrical progression. Not even the improved service we are hoping to get in our constituency as a result of the coming into operation of the new exchange, will compensate for this inconvenience and frustration. I appreciate that it may be necessary to effect changes of numbers on isolated occasions, but surely when it happens twice within two years, there is some lack of planning involved. I cannot believe that it is merely a lack of consideration for the convenience of telephone subscribers.

To sum up the position, in a large part of my constituency, as far as telephones are concerned, I have three classes of people. I have those who have a telephone and must now get used to the idea that their numbers are going to be changed on frequent occasions; I have a class of people who do not have a telephone but who have applied for one and just cannot get one, and I have the remainder who would like telephones but just cannot afford them, particularly as a result of the latest increase in rental. I realize that this change of numbers as far as this area is concerned cannot now be undone, but I do draw this matter to the hon. the Minister’s attention so that repeated changes of numbers within a short period of time can be avoided on future occasions.

I would also like to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that Wynberg, which is the exchange that covers a large part of my constituency, has a longer waiting list than any other exchange in the country. It has a waiting list of 5 325 telephones, which is nearly 5% of the waiting list of the whole country. It is more than the total waiting list of the Northern Cape, the Eastern Cape and the Orange Free State combined. I appreciate that a new exchange is coming into operation in Constantia, which may well take some of this waiting list away from the Wynberg exchange. I appreciate, too, that on the capital estimates there is provision for starting a new telephone exchange in Wynberg, but in view of the excessively long waiting list for this area, I would ask that the hon. the Minister give special attention to relieving the position here.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask the hon. member for Constantia to excuse me for not following him up in his arguments, and I am going to leave him to the hon. the Minister. Looking across the House today, one realizes that the United Party is a party that is going through deep waters. The little life that there still was yesterday, has been extinguished. One can say that the United Party is played out; they have no go left in them. They remind one very much of an old frog that was still jumping round yesterday; last night a motor car squashed him flat and now there is just the skeleton lying there. What a spectacle we witnessed yesterday: They want wages to be increased, and they advocate many fringe benefits, but they are not prepared to increase tariffs. On the one hand they praise the staff, but on the other hand they criticize them again and discredit them. It is quite clear that the staff of the post office is grateful that the National Party is in power and will remain in power for many years to come.

This debate has spelled out certain things very clearly for us. In the first case it is quite clear that the telephone and postal services we have in the Republic are still amongst the best throughout the Western world. In the second place, it has been proved here that our telephone tariff and installation costs are amongst the lowest in the world. Thirdly, it is clear that if we take the White population into account, we have here the biggest ratio throughout the world of telephones per 100 members of the population. It has also been proved that as far as the telephone backlog is concerned, we are better off than most other countries of the world. Lastly I want to state that it is also very clear that we have one of the best training systems in the world to provide for future needs. It is quite clear that we are dealing here with the selective increase of tariffs, and that this has become essential. We on this side are very sorry that we were compelled to increase these tariffs and that this had to happen, but we know that is is being done in such a way that it can, in all respects, be called reasonable. This is the only manner in which to be able to finance the development programme and the essential developments. I think there is also a lesson for us to learn in this. I want to emphasize very strongly today that this increase of tariffs, and also other price increases, that have recently taken place, should place the emphasis on higher productivity, and I therefore very strongly want to emphasize that. We must place the emphasis on greater efficiency, and this must lead to a campaign in our country against the wastage of time and manpower. These are surely the lessons we must learn from this situation; in the use of our telecommunications services we can also definitely adopt these ideas.

I should like to dwell on another matter, but before doing so I want to refer to remarks that were made yesterday, when I was not here, by the hon. member for Turffontein—and I see he is not here now— about myself and my colleagues, the hon. members for Brakpan and Boksburg. It is in any case very difficult to remain seated in the House when the hon. member for Turffontein is speaking, and therefore he must not blame me for not having been here. I can tell him that my colleagues and I know what is going on in our constituencies. I can boast of one of the prize constituencies in South Africa. I also know that in that constituency I can boast of the co-operation I obtain from the Minister and his officials. What applies to me, applies equally to my colleagues. But Kempton Park is not only a prize constituency; it can also boast of having a better member of the House of Assembly than that hon. member. This applies also to Kempton Park, Boksburg and Brakpan. We can boast of excellent Nationalist M.P.S. Just look what Turffontein is saddled with! We co-operate very well with the postal officials. We solve our problems administratively. We work and move about in our constituencies and do our work as M.P.s, during parliamentary sessions as well as during the recess. I want to tell the voters of Turffontein that they would do well to make sure that in the next election they send a Nationalist to Parliament. Those voters need not repeat the mistake they made in 1970.

I want to come back to my own constituency. Today, in particular, I want to speak to the hon. the Minister and his officials about the telecommunications services in that area. It is a fact that today the telephone is used to an increasing extent. The telephone is no longer a luxury article; it is an article that is taken for granted and is in every day use. We on this side of the House acknowledge this. The telephone is today of great importance to every housewife. She visits and arranges her day over the telephone, and even does her shopping with it. For our professional people, i.e. doctors, dentists and lawyers, the telephone is indispensable. For the businessman, industrialist and salesmen the telephone is an essential article. Young men even do their courting on the telephone, and for a date with his girl friend a telephone is essential. To arrange appointments with one’s doctor and dentist, the telephone is equally essential. One uses it to book one’s seat when one is going by air to one’s constituency. Telephone services are and continue to be one of the most serious bottlenecks in my constituency. This is being caused by the unprecedented and boundless development taking place in that area. It is an area with enormous residential and business development. By way of illustration I can say that in one building in Kempton Park there are 73 shops. This indicates what a tremendous burden this places on the telephone department. Large industrial areas are situated in the constituency, for example the first-class industrial area of Isando, the Spartan industrial area, the Sebenza industrial township, the Atlas Aircraft factory, the Ko.p. complex and Modderfontein. Consequently there is great distress here, and there are many people waiting for telephones. An efficient telephone and telex service is of the utmost importance to these people, industrialists and businesses. These industries and professions cannot function without telephones. That is why I feel free today to advocate that the programme for the provision of telephones should be speeded up.

I have here a whole page of our local newspaper which indicates what tremendous extensions are being made to the exchanges in Kempton Park. I do not have time to go into that now. We would appreciate it very much if the exchanges, which are being built, and the telephone installations that still have to be done, could be completed as quickly as possible. We would appreciate it if everything possible is done to complete the cable network so that the connection of telephones will not be hampered by that. Serious attention must also be given to the supply of telephones to people on smallholdings in that area. I also want to lodge a special plea for those people. I am making this plea on behalf of my constituency and I know it will gain a sympathetic hearing. That is why I feel myself at liberty to specifically bring these matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister and his department. They are aware of these circumstances, but I nevertheless regard it as my duty to lodge this plea on behalf of my constituency.

In the short time left to me, I want to mention another matter by complimenting the department, in particular, on the trunk line telephone service and the quality of that service. We here in the House of Assembly can attest to the first-rate service we have. I am particularly proud of the standard and the high quality of our trunk line telephone services. People in Johannesburg are just filled with surprise when they are phoned from down here in Cape Town. It is as if the two people speaking were together. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I must tell the hon. member for Kempton Park that I was pleased to hear that there is at least someone in this world who thinks he is a good M.P. The same applies to my colleague, the hon. member for Boksburg. I must say, though, that if he had not said it, no one else would have. The hon. member is also probably very sorry he could not have taken part in the Second Reading debate yesterday, because he made a Second Reading speech here today. Unfortunately I do not have the time now to reply to what he said; my time is unfortunately very limited, and there are certain matters in respect of my constituency which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

In the first place there are quite a number of exchanges that serve various parts of my constituency. Firstly there is Aasvoëlkop that serves the Northcliff area. There the backlog of telephone applications is tremendous, i.e. 1 596. Of course, all those applications do not come from my constituency, but they nevertheless affect my constituency, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the position is in that connection. I notice that in the estimate of capital expenditure no provision is being made for any extensions or improvements to those exchanges, as far as I can see, and I therefore want to ask the hon. the Minister what is going on at those exchanges at the moment, and what is being done to improve the position there.

Secondly there is the Florida exchange. We know that a new exchange is being built there, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister what the position is in respect of that exchange. I notice that there is a backlog of 873.

Then there is the 763 exchange, the Roodepoort exchange. I want to say that that exchange is tremendously overloaded. I also see that there is no capital expenditure in respect of this exchange, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister what can be done to bring relief in respect of this exchange. Even at 7 p.m. I struggled for no less than 12 minutes just to get dial tone from that exchange. I think this is a matter that definitely deserves attention, particularly when it comes to the crowded business hours.

Then I want to thank the hon. the Minister, because I see that a great deal of progress has apparently been made this year on the Roodepoort/Panorama exchange. An amount of R120 000 is being estimated for this. In this respect I should like to raise the following point: the people in Honeydew are having a lot of trouble with their service. The hon. the Minister knows himself that this is so, because I have already referred many complaints from there to his office. The telephones of people who have telephones are continually going out of order, and they are experiencing tremendous problems. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the additions to the Panorama telephone exchange are going to relieve that particular situation.

I also want to say that I am glad to see that an automatic exchange is going to be built in Willow Park, an area that has developed very rapidly. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister when that exchange is expected to come into operation.

The only other matter that deserves urgent attention in my constituency, is the question of Quellerina. It appears there is a measure of confusion in this connection. There are certain people who have telephones, but to other persons who apply for telephones, it is said that they cannot get telephones at all, because there are no cables, etc. I receive many complaints from that area, complaints in which people tell me: “My neighbour on the one side has a telephone, and my neighbour on the other side has a telephone, but they tell me that I cannot obtain a telephone because there is no cable.” I would be very glad if the hon. the Minister could tell us what the position is in respect of Quellerina.

Mr. Chairman, according to the annual report of the Postmaster-General, there are 4 698 telephone applications outstanding in my constituency, a constituency which is, I may tell hon. members here, made up of about 50% Afrikaners and 50% English-speaking people—and look whom they have put into Parliament! This figure of over 4 600 comprises 30,4% of the total number of deferred telephones in Durban, and 25,9% of the total number of deferred telephones in Natal. To show that I am not entirely parochial, I want to say that the Durban South complex has 7 676 telephones which are outstanding, and this is 49,7% of the Durban total and 42,6% of the Natal regional total. It is not in the form of a protest that I say this, but I do want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to this apparent inbalance in the issuing of telephones to different areas. Amongst other things, this area is highly industrialized. It includes the Jacobs-Mobeni area, as well as the Prospecton industrial area along the South Coast, to say nothing of Chatsworth, Umlazi, Isipingo Hills and of course the residential areas Montclair, Woodlands and Yellowwood Park, and of course Wentworth itself. I have looked in vain to find out what the position is in respect of telephone services in the Bantu townships. There appears to be a lack of information in this regard. I do not know whether the townships are included on the local White exchanges, but I would suggest, if it is possible, that these exchanges should be shown separately so that we can see what progress is being made in the case of these very important townships. If the Government is true to its policy, they will one day become independent lands, and we should like to know what the position is in that respect. In the meantime we are concerned with the welfare of those people. We are concerned with what goes on in those townships, not only for our own sakes but also for the sake of the people who are living there.

Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by referring to a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Port Natal. I inadvertently failed to reply to it just now, and I think that it is important to reply to it. For that reason I shall now deal with it first. Yesterday, and again today, the hon. member spoke of the difference in the hours worked by White and non-White workers. I gained the impression that he wanted to imply that we discriminate against people because their skins are of a certain colour, and that we make them work longer hours on those grounds. Therefore it will probably interest the hon. member to know what the position is. The policy is that we determine the hours on the basis of the intensity of the work. This is quite apart from what I have already said to the hon. member. It is determined on the basis of the kind of work; the intensity is a determining characteristic of the work. Now I want to mention two examples to the hon. member to indicate that there is no discrimination against non-Whites, and to indicate that they do not have to work longer hours because they are non-White. These two examples are applicable in the department. Take in the first instance the position of Whites and non-Whites who do counter duty. The non-Whites at the same post office as Whites, who have the same grade, do not work longer hours than the Whites. They work exactly the same hours because they do exactly the same kind of work. The hon. member can go to the post office in Cape Town and that in Johannesburg, where non-Whites work at the counters, and he can talk to them. Then he will find that they work the same hours because they do the same kind of work. Another example I want to mention is the non-Whites whom we employ as telephone electricians. Those people, whether they are White or non-White, work the same hours. There are also different working hours for that section, namely 44 hours and 48 hours, but it is not as if the non-Whites work 48 hours and the Whites work 44 hours; it is determined on the basis of the nature of the work, on the basis of the characteristics I have mentioned here. Hon. members may therefore rest assured that we are not following a policy of discrimination between White and non-White as far as working hours are concerned.

The hon. member for Prieska made representations here, firstly, for the building of new post offices. There are a few post offices in his constituency which have been on the waiting list for quite some time. In the past few years we have actually been cutting down on the construction of post offices, and it was particularly hon. members on my side who suffered most from this as this side represents most of the rural constituencies in which the greatest need for new post offices really exists. In past years I simply had to tell members on this side that I regretted being unable to help them, but that telephone communication was priority No. 1 and that post office buildings would simply have to wait. That has been the standpoint up to now.

You should just not close down post office buildings.

No, we do not do that lightly. Post office buildings fulfil an important function and we shall retain them, but the point I want to make is that in past years we have not replaced the old post office buildings as rapidly as we would like to have done. I think we have now reached the stage when we must once again start making up the leeway as far as post office buildings are concerned. Sir, I do not want this announcement to result in hon. members all arriving at my doorstep tomorrow or the day after to ask for new post offices, because we are still short of capital, but I just want to give the assurance that we shall henceforth lend a ready ear to representations in connection with post office buildings. That also goes for the representations made by the hon. member with regard to air-conditioning in the post offices in his constituency. I can imagine how hot it is there. On the number of occasions I visited the North-West, I realized that a water-shoot could exist there; one must be very tough in order to exist there. I realize the necessity for air-conditioning in the post office buildings, and we shall definitely give our attention to that so that those people can do their work properly.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central asked in connection with the development which is coming to that area, such as, inter alia, St. Croix, for planning to be undertaken in advance. Sir, that is being done. We in the Post Office have the exceptionally fine arrangement of being informed by the various local bodies of their future plans. We have a planning committee which acts in consultation with the provinces and other state bodies, so that one may plan one’s telephone development in good time.

As far as the non-White areas in Port Elizabeth are concerned, I just want to tell the hon. member that this is a matter for which we are in fact making provision. I want to concede that there may not be as many telephones as they would like to have, but this has been included in our supply program and we are giving constant attention to the matter.

The hon. member for Waterkloof referred to the micro-wave tower in Pretoria, at Lucasrand. I can give the hon. member the assurance that it is definitely our wish to make it an architectonic construction. Every time I travel down from Pretoria to Johannesburg and look at the J. G. Strijdom Tower, I feel that it is one of Johannesburg’s most beautiful possessions. We are going to try to build a beautiful tower there, too, one which will be architectonically right. I shall give attention to the question of whether it is necessary to arrange a competition for it. Sir, there is one aspect which I want to deal with here today and that is the plea to have a revolving restaurant in that tower. Initially we had an idea of having a revolving restaurant there, just as in the J. G. Strijdom Tower, and then the people of Lucasrand and the surrounding areas raised very serious objections. They handed me a thick petition protesting against this idea. They pointed out that this was a quiet area; that moving to that area cost them a great deal and that if we should build an observation tower and a revolving restaurant there, people would be disturbing the peace until 3 o’clock in the morning. One must of course take note of representations of this nature. There is also another aspect which one must take into consideration. That is that these revolving restaurants are not such a tremendous financial success as one may think. The other day the hon. member for Orange Grove put all kinds of questions concerning the one up there and I do not know whether the replies led him to believe that that man was going to become a millionaire there. On the contrary; it is not at all such a paying proposition as one may think. But apart from whether it is a paying proposition or not, I really think that if the post office builds a fine observation tower there, we have at least rendered a service to the public. We are a business undertaking, but I do not think that it is necessary to take it as far as establishing restaurants as well. Therefore I think that you must take it as final that there will not be a restaurant in that tower.

And an observation tower?

Yes, an observation tower is something of a necessity. It can mean a great deal to Pretoria and to tourism to have the tower there, but an observation tower is something which is used in the course of the day. A restaurant will cause a disturbance right through into the early hours of the morning and it is not fair to the people living there.

†The hon. member for Constantia referred to the changing of telephone numbers twice in two years. Well, I would not like that either. We hate that sort of thing, if it happens, but probably it happened due to the fact that we had to serve certain of the applicants temporarily. I have not the full facts before me but I assume it must be so. But the intention was very good indeed. It was to help people, to get them talking; so that may have been the case. But in any case, this is not our method of doing things. If it happened with the hon. member I am very sorry indeed, but it was really intended to assist. The hon. member also referred to the long waiting list in Wynberg. I can only reiterate that we will be able to give relief in the very near future. So I hope it will not be necessary for the hon. member to complain here again next year.

*The hon. member for Kempton Park expressed his appreciation for the development there. I just want to say to him that Kempton Park’s situation is a difficult one for us because it is expanding at such an astonishing rate. In fact there is a population explosion there, but our planning has also been adapted to provide the services as quickly as possible.

The hon. member for Florida spoke about the exchanges of Aasvoëlkop. According to my notes, the position seems to be very favourable. Yesterday I heard the complaint that developments were taking place in Nat constituencies only. According to these figures the position seems different to me. At Aasvoëlkop an amount of R636 000 will be spent in the coming financial year. Apparently this falls into what is at present a U.P. constituency. I just want to give the assurance that we shall do everything in our power to bring relief there, whether it be a Nat constituency or a U.P. constituency. They form part of the public of South Africa and they are entitled to the best possible service.

†The hon. member for Umlazi also spoke about the waiting list. We can let him have full details about the planning in his constituency. In Natal we will spend some R29 million during 1973-’74, but apart from giving this overall picture we will write to the hon. member and tell him in detail what we intend doing in that constituency.

Schedules I and II agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this clause seeks to remove a possibly wrong interpretation which we may have had with regard to the awarding of bursaries and to put it beyond doubt that the Cape Province acted within its powers in awarding bursaries to students in the past. Perhaps it is necessary at this stage to recall for a moment the value of the work done by the provinces in various fields, especially the work done in the educational field. The bursaries which are awarded, are bound up with this.

On the face of things it may seem as though there is great prosperity in every sphere of our society and amongst all people. I think nobody will deny that this is so, but it is nevertheless very important that we should emphasize the fact that there are not only tens of students, but perhaps hundreds of students who can in fact use additional aid. Every year there are many clever pupils at the high schools in our country who are poor and whose parents did not, for some reason, make provision for these pupils to enjoy a tertiary education. Therefore it is extremely important for us to take cognizance of the fact that in this manner we can indeed give these scholars the opportunity of continuing their studies. It is especially important since one sometimes finds students who will be able to develop their talents in a much better way if they could receive additional aid. I think the provinces did very fine work during the past years by making these bursaries available to such students. Perhaps it is also necessary to say thank you on behalf of the students who have received this aid up to now and especially on behalf of those in the Cape, for the fact that the province have indeed thought of them. I believe that if we were to check the records of the students who received these bursaries, we would find that they subsequently became men and women who rendered excellent and great service to our community. Perhaps it will also not be out of place for us to ask such former students, who are possibly very wealthy people today, to give some thought in turn to pupils, who may be in the same position in which they found themselves then.

Therefore I think the inclusion of this provision in this legislation is a fitting and essential step and a means of telling pupils who have received these bursaries in very clear terms that they have received them justly and legitimately. In this way we also want to address an appeal to parents and other persons and bodies to contact our provincial councils if they know of a pupil in their community who does want to make use of the services of the provincial council.

I find it surprising that the Opposition has nothing more to say on this clause. I find it astounding that they, having indicated that there is not really much work here, do not want to join us in stressing the importance of this clause. I should like to hear one of the members of their education group dealing with this matter. I am actually looking for the hon. member for Wynberg, but she is not here today. [Interjections.] It seems to me as though the interest in education ceased to exist altogether with the exodus of the hon. member for Wynberg. I think at this stage we should ask where the members of the education group of the United Party are. Surely they cannot allow this clause to pass without comment. Where is the hon. member for Durban Central and where is the hon. member for Wynberg? I think at this stage we should tell the hon. members of the United Party that we should like to hear their views on this clause.

Where were you when we had the Second Reading debate?

The hon. member asks me where I was. I am always here. The hon. member should remember that he sits with his back turned towards me. The hon. member should get up and deal with this matter and tell us what their views are on this clause. I think it is important for us to realize that there are pupils in our community who do need financial aid and that the Nationalist Party recognizes this, not only through this clause, but also by encouraging the provincial administrations to make some of their funds available to our talented young boys and girls.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member for Rissik that he has not raised any contentious matter whatsoever in his address on this particular clause. If he had been in the House during the Second Reading debate, he would have heard that we on this side of the House welcome this aspect of the Bill. I in fact took the liberty of pointing out to the House that it is as a result of a motion which I introduced in the Cape Provincial Council that this particular bursary scheme commenced. When I say that to the hon. member for Rissik, I want to suggest to him that instead of coming here and asking the parents and other people to do something about these bursaries, he should take note of the fact that the hon. the Minister stated that these were only being provided in the Cape Province. I wish that he would use his enthusiasm not to keep the Order Paper going but to persuade the Transvaal Provincial Council to introduce a similar system of bursaries in the Transvaal. That would be a little bit more useful.

There are other aspects of these bursaries in respect of which I would like to see extended powers being given to the provinces. However, this is not the occasion this should be discussed. First of all, it must come from the provinces themselves. It is a matter which can be discussed at a later stage, namely when we discuss educational matters. That is however the difficulty parents experience of keeping their children at school after the children have made Std. 8, to retain them there until they have reached the matriculation standard. Many of them leave school during that period. It is not so much a question of the cost of the education in that instance; a bursary is not necessary because there is free education in the provinces, but it is the maintenance of those children who in many instances have to leave school in order to help maintain their family and to keep them together. They do this to become bread-earners. However, that is a matter that obviously must be discussed at another occasion and should not be discussed under this measure. I mention again that the hon. member for Rissik, as I have already said, is trying to strengthen the Order Paper, to make it look a little fuller than it indeed is. It does not mean that these matters are being overlooked by this side of the House. We are well aware of them and I wish him luck with his endeavours in persuading the Transvaal to do what the Cape has been doing since 1961.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point has just said that amongst our people there are many children who cannot continue their schooling after Std. 8 because “they have to maintain the family”. I think he is being unfair, for this Government and this party introduced a system of free books and have done a great deal to encourage our children to remain at school after they have passed Std. 8. It is this Government that is doing this for them and I do not think many children leave school after Std. 8 only because they do not have the funds to continue their studies or because they have to go out to earn money to help maintain the family. He asked the hon. member for Rissik, “What about the Transvaal?” Why did he not also ask, “What about Natal?” Surely they too have a provincial government and they too can do this fine thing for their children by making bursaries available to those who do well. As a Cape man, I do not want to be provincialistic; that is far beneath me, but I want to say that we are proud of the fact that the Cape Province has been showing the way in this field throughout the years.

Say “thank you, Mr. Murray”.

No, I cannot thank the hon. member for Green Point; but I want to thank our Cape Provincial Administration very much. Surely hon. members know that the Cape Province is not a very rich province, but the Cape Province nevertheless felt that it should not neglect the education of its children. Because it has been making these bursaries available throughout the years, our Cape schools have been doing so well, that some of our highest officials and other people in the community hail from the Cape. Unfortunately we find that many of them are in the Transvaal at present, because that is where the money is and they go and work there but when they retire on pension, they return to the Cape. I want to say that by this method of making bursaries available to brilliant students, the Cape has created opportunities for our studying youth to do well. In this way they have enabled people to take up posts and to pull their weight in society, in all four of the provinces where they are doing very fine work. I want to agree with the hon. members for Rissik and Green Point that we sincerely hope the other provinces will use the door opened by the hon. the Minister, just as the Cape is using it. Now that the Government is giving the provinces more opportunities of collecting their own funds through taxation and from other sources, I think the other provinces will probably follow this province’s fine example by holding up this fine ideal of “Do well, then there will be a prize for you” to our studying youth.

The hon. member for Rissik referred to the hon. member for Wynberg in passing. She is conspicuous by her absence in the House these days. The hon. members on the opposite side tell us that we have forgotten the less-privileged people. If there is one party in South Africa that remembers the less-privileged citizens of this country and helps them, it is this Government and this party. Throughout the years the Nationalist Party has worked for and has been interested in the needs of these people. One of the reasons why the Cape Administration introduced this system of bursaries years ago, was to help the children of our less-privileged people and to give them the opportunity of continuing their studies. When they tell us today that we have become a rich man’s party, they are making an untrue accusation. The fact that the hon. the Minister is now also giving the other provinces the necessary powers, is only further proof of the fact that the Nationalist Party Government has sympathy with our children who have the ability but who may not have the financial means to continue their studies. Therefore we say to the hon. the Minister: Congratulations and thank you very much for opening this door so that the good things which the Cape has been doing for our studying young people throughout the years may now be done in the other provinces as well. If we were to make a survey of the students who had received these bursaries throughout the years, I think we would be able to say with gratitude that those people had made good use of those opportunities and are in the forefront of rendering public service today. I almost want to say that this is a rescue act, a “reddingsdaad” as one would say in Afrikaans, on the part of the province and the Government to give those people the opportunity of continuing their studies, in the same way as we had a “reddingsdaad” movement in the earlier years to help our less-privileged students on their way.

Mr. Chairman, I have always believed, ever since I met the hon. member for Green Point, that he is a very, very wise man. If ever that was borne out, it has been borne out here this afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I ask what the wisdom of the hon. member for Green Point has to do with this clause?

Order! That is not a point of order. The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is merely a reflection on the Chair. As I say, I believe that this afternoon the wisdom of this hon. gentleman was fully borne out. It was borne out in two ways: Firstly, it only took him one and a half minutes of the speech by the hon. member for Rissik to put his finger on what has been happening this afternoon, namely that we have this afternoon an attempt by Government members, for the first time since I have been in this House, to participate in the Committee Stage of a debate. Why? Because now all of a sudden they are under the whip of the hon. the Leader of the House to keep the debate going so that the Order Paper does not collapse again. That point was made by the very wise member for Green Point and I am not going to make it again. But I want to say that the speech of the hon. member for Worcester really bore out the wisdom of my hon. friend because if he had been here during the Second Reading debate …

I was here.

He says he was here. Perhaps he did not understand; perhaps I must repeat it for his benefit so that he will understand. Why did this come about and why did the Cape Province introduce such a measure ultra vires? Because of a private member’s motion brought by the hon. member for Green Point while he was a member of the Cape Provincial Council in 1964. Let me remind the hon. member what happened in 1964 when the hon. member for Green Point, as a provincial councillor at the time, brought his motion asking for the introduction of just this sort of bursary. The Nationalist members in the provincial council voted against it and the motion of the hon. member was lost because the Nationalist members in the provincial council refused to support it. What happened? It is now a matter of history. In 1966 the hon. member for Green Point did not seek re-election to the provincial council. He was in fact elected to this House and the Nationalist Party régime in the Cape Provincial Council could not wait to implement the good ideas which he had had in 1964. At the beginning of 1967, within 12 months of his leaving the provincial council, they implemented what he had asked for in that private member’s motion, but with one exception, of course. There was one very important exception; they did not carry out all that the hon. member for Green Point had asked for. What the hon. member for Green Point had asked for was in effect what the hon. member for Worcester now says the Cape is doing, which they are not doing, namely to help the needy student to remain at school where the parents cannot afford to keep him there. That was what the hon. member for Green Point asked for, but that is not what is in this Bill. If the hon. member had taken the trouble to read this Bill he would have found that there is no reference whatsoever in this clause to needy children or to needy parents.

I just reacted to what the hon. member for Green Point said.

There is no need for him to try to cover it up now. He made a long speech here about the needy people of the country and how they are being helped by the Nationalist Party Government and by the Nationalist Party régime in the Cape Provincial Council. But there is nothing in this clause about needy people. What the clause says is that any child who has obtained “such percentage as the said executive committee may from time to time determine the total number of marks obtainable in that examination”, can receive a bursary. What did the hon. the Minister tell us in his introductory speech to the Second Reading debate? If I remember correctly he repeated it in his reply. He told us what conditions were set down for these cases and the conditions were not that the family should be needy or that there should be a doubt that the student would be able to continue with his education, but that the child had to get 80% of the marks. That is all it was. Whether it is Harry Oppenheimer’s child or whether it is Piet van der Merwe’s child or whether it is the child of the lowest paid railway worker, it makes no difference whatsoever, as long as he gets 80%.

The member for Green Point started the story.

No, the hon. member for Green Point did not start any story. It is the hon. member for Worcester who came here with an awful lot of nonsense and kicked up dust. Why? To waste the time of the Committee, because he is acting under instructions from the Leader of the House who has told him that he must do something in order to save the Order Paper from collapsing again. That is what is happening. I want to say this: If the hon. member for Worcester is honest and if he is sincere in what he was pleading for this afternoon, he should have moved an amendment to this clause to allow the provincial councils to give bursaries to deserving children where there are needy parents. I want to ask the hon. the Minister that if I were to move such an amendment whether he would accept it.

I will have to consult with the provinces.

The hon. the Minister says he will have to consult with the provinces first. Will the hon. the Minister undertake to consult with the provinces before he takes this to the Other Place and if necessary move an amendment?

I will deal with that in my reply.

Thank you. The hon. the Minister says that he will deal with it when he replies. I want to make the plea that this clause should be so amended as to provide for assistance to children of needy parents, deserving children of needy parents. The criterion should not merely be the obtaining of an aggregate of 80% in an examination. The circumstances of the parents should also be taken into consideration even if a child fails to attain the standard of 80%. It is not only the brilliant children which South Africa needs. It needs all our educated children, be they Black, White, Coloured or Indian. If the hon. the Minister will accept such an amendment it will be no more than what we on this side of this House have been pleading for over the years. It has been our stated policy over the years that no deserving child should be deprived of the fullest possible education because his parents have not the finances to keep him at school. I hope the hon. the Minister will reply. I shall be glad to hear his reply. I hope he will see his way clear to move such an amendment, if necessary, in the Other Place. I am sure that the whole country will be indebted to this hon. Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District should rather talk about Boxing Day. He does much better when he talks about that than when he talks about matters of education. The hon. member wanted to suggest that these bursaries were introduced subsequent to the motion moved by the hon. member for Green Point in 1964. But surely that is the biggest nonsense in the world. After all, we know that these bursaries have been in existence for many years. I think these bursaries have been announced every year for the past 45 years by the Cape Education Department. I think I was still at school when these bursaries were already in force. How on earth can that hon. member now try to bring this House under the false impression this afternoon that the hon. member for Green Point initiated these bursaries? It is true that in 1967, some years after the hon. member for Green Point had introduced his motion, an amendment was effected with regard to awarding these bursaries.

His motion was rejected.

Yes, that motion was rejected and is forgotten. Now he comes along and boasts about it this afternoon. We want to congratulate the Cape Provincial Education Department on the fact that they have had this encouragement for merit for many years. Now the hon. member pleads that bursaries should be given to needy students. I would be the last person to ask that the needy children of South Africa should not be seen to. But we should really look at merit as well. Under this Government every needy child in South Africa who has the intellectual abilities has the opportunity after he has matriculated to go to university and obtain his degree, irrespective of the degree of his neediness. This Government cares exceptionally well for the needy child. I was at school in the Cape under a U.P. Government. I taught under a U.P. Government. At that time there was no provision for needy children. None whatsoever. A pupil had to struggle, and his parents had to lend a hand in that struggle, to get him through matric. Books and school fees had to be paid. If that was not done one was threatened with court proceedings. That happened while I was at school and long after that hon. member had been to school. Subsequent to that one had to struggle on one’s own to obtain funds to go to university. That was the situation under the United Party Government. Can hon. members opposite talk about needy children? They left the needy Afrikaner child in the backwaters; they did not look after him. Were it not for the initiative and the will to work of the Afrikaner children in those years, they would have got nowhere and they would never have seen the inside of a university. Sir, all these years there have only been a limited number of bursaries. Only the 12 best pupils in the Cape received these bursaries and they are not such tremendously big bursaries; they are only an incentive to meritorious scholars. I want to lend my strong support to this Bill, which legalizes a practice which has existed for many years. I think it is important that this practice be continued, that merit will be taken into account and that parents will be able to see that this number of pupils have achieved marks exceeding 80%. I think this is a fine measure and I should like to support it.

Mr. Chairman …

[Inaudible.]

Sir, today, that hon. member has come closer to education by taking part in this discussion than he has ever done in his life. The hon. member also underlined something else for us, and that is that he has no imagination whatsoever. After all, it is absurd to think that needy children are excluded from this clause; this is an absurdity in which the hon. member has indulged. The hon. member must use his imagination in order to perceive a few other matters in this regard as well. The points which come out very strongly in this clause are, inter alia, that we are underlining merit by means of this measure and that we are trying to give those children who would like to compete and obtain a bursary through achievement, the opportunity to do so. What is more, we are affording a province the opportunity of competing for its children, in other words, to have them attend schools within the provincial boundaries. But, Sir, the measure also contains the interesting provision that those children need not necessarily attend a university in that province after the completion of their schooling; in other words, they may cross the provincial boundaries. It is very clear to me that we should also look at a further implication of this clause and that is this: As I know the Free Staters …

They will come to Stellenbosch.

… they will succeed in making an attack on provincial funds through their superior academic achievements; that is how I know the Freestaters, and in time we shall very definitely have to look at the size of this cake from which all the funds will have to be derived and as a result I should like to make a plea at this stage that when we consider other measures, we must see whether we cannot make the cake a little bigger for the Free State.

Sir, then I should like to ask the hon. member for Green Point why he voted against this measure yesterday?

He voted against the principle.

Here he has a measure which he presumes is the outcome of his zeal in the provincial council, and he opposes it and votes against it. Why did he not walk out? The other measures which are contained in this Bill, are not so important to him, but this concerns his personal contribution and achievement in the provincial council, and, upon my word, he comes here and votes against it. It is simply too much for one to understand. I think that he owes this House an explanation. Sir, I can well understand the hon. member fox Pietermaritzburg-District voting against it, because most of the time he does not know what he is voting for or against.

We cannot allow the hon. member to get away with many of the things he said this afternoon. The first point the hon. member made, was to maintain that this side of the House had never spoken in a Committee Stage. You will agree with me, Sir, that that is really very wide of the mark. The hon. member is, among other things, a cricketer and if I may describe this in cricket terms, the balls he bowls are all wide; they mean nothing. He made that statement here, but we shall return to it later, in other debates. An indication of the interest which we have witnessed here this afternoon on the part of the United Party with regard to this important clause is the absence of the hon. member for Wynberg; the hon. member for Durban Central is also absent. The hon. member said we should give needy students bursaries in terms of this clause. What right does the hon. member have to make this statement? What right does he have to say that the students and pupils who received these bursaries were not needy? After all, the hon. member has not conducted a scientific research or survey in this regard. The hon. member alleged that we did not want needy students to have a part in these bursaries because we laid down a certain percentage requirement. In other words, the hon. member wanted to suggest that needy students or pupils did not obtain good percentages at school. That is obviously an absurd statement to make [Interjection.] When one gives these pupils bursaries, there is one thing one wants to achieve thereby. One wants to help the pupil who requires it, financially and materially, and for the rest one wants to encourage that particular pupil. It goes without saying that that is why it is a bursary and not just a loan. One wants to encourage the pupils. [Interjection.] Do not involve the hon. the Minister in this. He will answer in his own time. I want to make the statement that we have here this afternoon a number of Opposition members who have not prepared for these things. They pushed a few men into this debate who know nothing about education. There is also another important point I want to make, and that is this. If one looks at the record of the National Party, one sees that it was this very party that had its attitude and its ideal, i.e. that our children should receive the best education, written into the statute Book. This clause contains in very clear terms the commitment the provincial councils will have in respect of pupils who will subsequently proceed to university. One of the problems we have today in respect of the student body is the very fact that either parents who send their children to university or bodies awarding bursaries, such as the provincial council in this instance, do not retain their interest in the students at the universities. I think that in confirming this legal provision, we must once again urge people or bodies who award bursaries to pupils, to retain their interest in those pupils when they become students.

May I ask a question? How many bursaries were awarded to students by the Transvaal Provincial Council in the past five years?

There is endless interest on the part of the Provincial Council of the Transvaal. I myself studied at the University of Pretoria and at the Teachers’ College of Pretoria with bursaries which I obtained from the provincial administration. [Interjection.] Sir, I now find myself in the uncomfortable position of having the bursaries which I did in fact receive questioned by this hon. member. I studied there and I received bursaries for my training. I think that it is unfair to ask that question. I think even the late Mr. Jan Hofmeyr, with all his wisdom and intelligence, would not have been able to give that figure off the cuff. I could have done what Gen. Smuts did when they asked him what the Second World War had cost. He just mentioned an amount. However, I am not a U.P. supporter.

In conclusion I should like to say that bodies which award bursaries to students must retain an interest in those students even when they are at university, because in so doing the university, as a community within the larger community, will display the same responsibility as the broader community would like to have it in respect of its individuals.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to assure the hon. the Minister that we on this side of the House will do our best to try to get his side of the Committee to understand what this clause is about because we are as keen as he is to see that this clause is passed. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you will excuse me if I repeat what the hon. the Minister has said during the Second Reading debate so that certain hon. members who have been talking very far away from this clause will know what the clause is all about. I should like to use the words of the hon. the Minister to clarify the position. I quote the hon. the Minister’s speech on page J2 of the Hansard manuscript of the 19th March, this year—

Hon. members should take note that it was not 1952 but in fact 1967—

Now read further.

I want to assure the hon. the Minister that we on this side will help him to get this clause through, because it seems as if he is having difficulty on his side as to exactly what they want the hon. the Minister to do.

Why did you vote against the Second Reading?

For the benefit of the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, I may perhaps just refer to page 136 of the Minutes of Proceedings of this House. There the hon. member will see exactly on what we voted on Tuesday. That was on clause 3 on which we shall have something to say a little later, because we feel that there has not been proper consultation. I think if he will consult with the hon. the Minister, he will learn that the hon. the Minister or his secretary has had a busy time in dealing with telephone calls and correspondence on clause 3. It was on clause 3 and not on clause 1 that this Bill was opposed at the Second Reading.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Green Point was trying to clarify confusion, as he said, but there is in point of fact no confusion. I want to return for a moment to what the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District had to say in the absence of arguments and for the sole reason of keeping him on his feet. He was unable to debate this clause intelligently. He pleaded for bursaries for the needy as though there were no needy students who were deserving students. I think it was a very derogatory accusation which the hon. member made about our less-privileged pupils, namely that in the past they did not have the merit or the intellectual ability to enable them to qualify for these bursaries. I think it is an accusation to which one should take the strongest exception. [Interjections.]

I want to point out that we in the Cape are particularly proud of these bursaries awarded to deserving scholars in the past. The fact is that these bursaries are different from the usual provincial bursaries around which the argument is often centred. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central seems to think that the other provinces do not have bursaries available, but had he known a little more about education, he would also have known that all provinces do have bursaries which they make available freely. In this regard the position in the Cape does not differ from that in the other provinces. However, there are certain conditions attached to those bursaries. In other words, a person may still study where he pleases, but he must make his services available to the province. For teachers’ bursaries they have to serve for a period equal to that covered by the bursary. If the bursary covered three years, he has to serve that province for three years; otherwise the bursary is converted into a loan which is repayable. When such a person has served for three years, he is relieved of the obligations imposed on him by the bursary. Now the hon. member comes along in his ignorance with his assertion as though no bursaries whatsoever exist in the other provinces. He tries to imply that these are the only bursaries which have ever existed. The bursaries with which this legislation is concerned, are the merit bursaries to which no conditions are attached. In other words, these people may move across the provincial boundaries and study in other provinces; they need not give their services to this province as a quid pro quo. That is the only thing we are trying to authorize. I thought hon. members would jump at this opportunity, since the door is being opened now, to encourage their provinces to elaborate on the pattern which the Cape set as example. The position is that these bursaries which came from the Cape’s coffer, which is not the richest coffer in the national set-up, benefited the whole country. If one could make a survey today of students who studied on these bursaries, one would find that they rendered excellent services throughout the Republic. In other words, throughout the years other provinces have had the benefit of the expenditure of the Cape Province. Therefore I feel that a very strong appeal should be made to the other provinces to introduce similar bursaries, without any conditions attaching to them, so that these people may also be of service in the Cape Province. I am experiencing to an increasing degree that there is an attempt by the provinces to draw students from other provinces. Take for instance the University of the Orange Free State. At present this university has the very fine habit of keeping a very watchful eye on who the new head prefects are who reach matriculation standard in every school. Offers of bursaries come to our children in the Cape Peninsula from the University of the Orange Free State. With these bursaries they have to continue their studies at the University of the Orange Free State. The example set by them, is a very fine one indeed and worth following. I think this may be supplemented by the provinces.

The question was asked where the veterans of the education group on that side of the House were. It was asked where the hon. member for Durban Central was. I mention his name in particular this afternoon for he is conspicuous by his absence, and that while we are dealing with a clause concerning education. Yesterday while we deliberated about the adjournment, a charge was levelled at the hon. the Prime Minister that he was not disciplining his Cabinet and that there was no legislation as a result of that. It was that very member who had the arrogance to ask, “Where is he tonight?” He had that arrogance to ask from the back benches that the Prime Minister should be on his post during a debate of lesser importance. However while legislation concerning education is being discussed, he is, in his arrogance, conspicuous by his absence. I am sorry that I have to say this while he is absent. Where is the hon. member for Wynberg?

That is the fourth time you have asked that question.

It may be the fourth time, but does the hon. member know that even after the fourth time, she is still not here. It is [Interjections.] What has happened to the hon. member who always waxed so lyrical about education and who donned such a moral cloak of righteousness as far as free education, etc., was concerned that she even resigned as shadow-minister? Now the United Party is even without a shadow-minister.

I want to give my strongest support to the legislation. I hope that other provinces will be scrupulous in following this example set by the Cape Province from her poor coffers throughout the years.

Mr. Chairman, any person in South Africa who is concerned about the erosion of our brain potential, should certainly be very thankful that this legislation has been introduced in the House.

What does that have to do with the clause?

Order!

We are living in an age in which scientific knowledge has to be acquired on such a tremendous scale that there is a justifiable shortage of scientists in South Africa. I see this Bill as a stimulus to encourage our talented and meritorious students to study further. Since they are meritorious students, they will probably help to ease the great shortage in the sphere of research. What I appreciate in particular is that this Bill makes it possible for talented students to avoid being bound by a contract of service to pursue their studies in a specific direction only. It so often happens today that a talented student, because of the available bursaries, is not afforded an opportunity of following his interests and choosing a field of study in which he can realize himself to the full. He has to let himself be guided by the availability of bursaries. As a result he is often forced into a field of study in which he cannot be of value to our country to the same extent that he could have been in another professional field. Because students are forced to pursue such a field of study by a particular bursary, it often leads to their not enjoying the same measure of happiness and satisfaction in their eventual career and field of study than they could have enjoyed had they had a free choice in choosing a field of study. This Bill enables the provinces to award bursaries to meritorious students to continue their studies in a field of study of their own choosing.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District said that there was no provision in this Bill for needy students. Certain hon. members have already replied to that, and I only wish to enlarge on it. This Bill also provides for needy students if they are talented enough. This Bill provides for any student; also for the student who does well in sport provided that he, apart from his sporting achievements, is still able to produce work of that standard which will comply with the requirements, the percentage, which will be determined from time to time. Therefore we cannot but see this Bill as a stimulus which will lead to much fruitful study at universities. I should like to express the hope that other provinces will follow this example and will afford their students the same opportunities to qualify themselves further in a field of study of their own choosing.

Mr. Chairman, the behaviour of the Opposition here today is typical of the confusion prevailing in their ranks. The hon. member for Wynberg, their former shadow-minister of Education, resigned because she had no confidence in their leader. Their prospective shadow-ministers, the hon. member for Berea and the hon. member for Durban Central, are not even present here today. To my mind this is an extremely poor show on their side, that those people who want to form the alternative Government are not even present here today. As usual the hon. members opposite once again got hold of the wrong end of the stick. This clause only provides for cases of merit over and above the ordinary bursaries awarded to those children, something which should serve as an incentive to them. I have often experienced it in my career as a teacher that some of our most brilliant pupils …

May I ask the hon. member a question? Where is the Minister of National Education today?

Order! That question has nothing to do with the legislation.

The Minister of National Education is occupied in the Senate, but I can help the hon. member out of his ignorance. If he cares to look at the front page of the Bill, he will notice that this Bill was not introduced by the Minister of National Education but by the Minister of the Interior. To proceed, however, I have quite often experienced it in my career as a teacher how we have lost some of our most brilliant pupils because they did not have the means to continue with their studies. For those children this additional incentive is now being provided here. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central spoke about bursaries in respect of the Transvaal, but many additional bursaries over and above the ordinary bursaries are awarded in the Transvaal, for example bursaries of merit. Unfortunately this only applies to teacher training colleges at present. Bursaries for bilingualism are also being awarded. But this storm in the tea-cup we have had is only their conscience accusing them for neglecting education while they were in power, I am not even mentioning bursaries. They did not even create the necessary facilities for our children. I am also thinking of the shortage of high schools which existed at that time. It is their poor record which is accusing them now. We want to congratulate the Cape Province on this fine gesture on their part; may this serve as an example and an incentive for our other provinces to award bursaries over and above bursaries for teacher training, i.e. also for other spheres of study as is provided for in this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I want to express my gratitude to hon. members on both sides of the House who have given their unanimous support to this clause and expressed themselves so strongly in favour of the principle embodied in this clause. It is gratifying to know that there is at least unanimity in our country with regard to this matter, i.e. that only the best is good enough for the youth of South Africa and that nothing but the best will be acceptable. On the other hand. I should like to put the record straight at once so that this discussion does not create the impression that no bursaries of any nature whatsoever exist in the other three provinces. It seems to me this is the impression which is being created here now. This is not the case. This type of bursary, which is being provided for in this specific clause, does not, it is true, exist in the other provinces, but this Bill now authorizes such bursaries to be established in the other provinces. But numerous bursaries exist in the other provinces. I want to say in advance that there are numerous city councils in some of the other provinces which award merit bursaries out of the funds of the city council concerned, and that there are specific clauses in the provincial ordinances in terms of which they may do so. As was said here by an hon. member, there are various bursaries, such as bursaries awarded for bilingualism and merit bursaries. The fact remains that the impression must simply not be created to the outside world that it is only the Cape Province which has bursaries, while the other provinces do not have any. However, I want to admit straight away that this specific type of bursary which is awarded purely on merit and merit alone and which allows a person a free choice to study in any field he wishes, exists only in the Cape Province at the moment and is now being extended to the other provinces. To this I want to add that, although I want to give the hon. member for Green Point full credit for admitting that he is father to this idea, I unfortunately also have to tell him that these bursaries have been awarded in the Cape Province for the past 45 years.

What about 1967?

In 1967 the specific decision was taken that the bursaries be increased to R200 per annum and that they would be valid for three years. But merit bursaries and the principle of merit bursaries have been in existence in the Cape Province for the past 45 years and I do not think the hon. member for Green Point was a member of the Provincial Council of the Cape Province 45 years ago. But let us give him the credit which is due to him. Apparently he raised this matter in 1964, while the decision was taken in 1967.

I now want to deal with the request made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. The position is that the principle of this Bill was accepted during the Second Reading. The principle which has been accepted, is that bursaries could be awarded on merit. To introduce the concept he has in mind, that is that this may be done in respect of needy students, would amount to a new principle which I, from the nature of the case, am not in a position to introduce at this stage of the Bill after the principle has already been approved. Sir, you will not allow me to accept such an amendment. For that reason I cannot go into that aspect now.

There is of course another aspect tied up with this, and that is that the provinces as such are responsible for all education excluding higher education as defined in the Constitution. Higher education as defined in the Constitution does not include the specific type of education mentioned by the hon. member. If the provinces were to initiate this from the start the Minister of the Interior would, within the powers he has, give sympathetic consideration to this matter. I want to thank hon. members once again and since there is a fair measure of unanimity on this matter I now ask that the clause be accepted.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, I move the following amendment—

On account of other legislation already approved by this House but yet to be considered by the Other Place, Van Riebeeck Day as a public holiday as defined in the Public Holidays Act, will fall away. I therefore have to make provision here for Van Riebeeck Day, not under the public holidays but under those other days such as, for example, Delville Wood Day and other days which are not public holidays as such but which are entitled to these privileges. I therefore move this amendment to keep abreast of the legislation which is being dealt with at present and which will be placed on the Statute Book in the near future.

We welcome the amendment which the hon. the Minister has introduced. It gives some measure of response to the reaction of responsible elements of the public to the Bill which is presently being piloted through Parliament by the hon. the Deputy Minister and which is now in the Other Place. In restoring this recognition of Van Riebeeck Day. I think he would be doing a service to the country, even at this late stage, if he were to heed the representations which have been made and are being made, that not only should there be a committee to buy the necessary wreaths for a Van Riebeeck Day celebration, but that it should be fully restored to the position which it now holds. As the hon. the Minister will be aware these representations were made public by most responsible persons and church organizations. There were representations from the Nederduitse Gereformeerde Kerk and from the principal of the University of Stellenbosch. There were also representations from three out of the four directors-general of Education. These people were asking for the retention of Van Riebeeck Day because of its historical and educational position in South Africa. The hon. the Minister will be aware that these ceremonies which take place are accompanied or preceded at schools by a talk to the children on the significance of Van Riebeeck Day. It is not too late at this stage while the measure is still in the Other Place to heed what we felt would be the position when this Bill was brought up without consultation and without proper investigation as was done in the past by way of commissions and Select Committees, namely, that there would be a detraction from the value of Van Riebeeck Day. This expenditure by provincial councils is going to be for a ceremoney for the privileged people, those who work in offices whose positions are such that they can leave their work to attend a ceremony on Van Riebeeck Day without loss of pay. But this very ceremony, which we now regard as important enough to have this provision included in this legislation, is not to be open without financial loss, if it is during normal working hours, to the ordinary people of South Africa, and I do ask the hon. the Minister sincerely to reconsider this matter. I notice in today’s newspapers again that disquiet has been publicly expressed at doing away with Van Riebeeck Day. This matter can still be rectified. In that light, Sir, we will certainly support this amendment which the hon. the Minister is moving to clause 2 of the Bill.

Sir, there are two matters under this clause in respect of which I want to express certain ideas. The first matter is that hon. members will notice that it is stipulated here that a provincial council may provide for certain matters. The importance of this is that the United Party, for the sake of petty politics, is the party which often accuses us outside this House of wanting to take away the powers of the provincial councils and of having no respect at all in our own minds for the historic and administrative and other values of the provincial councils. Hon. members of the Opposition cannot get away from the fact that, as was said by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West, they voted against the principle during the Second Reading. With this we once again emphasize that we want to see the provincial councils, as far as certain important days of the year are concerned, in a very marked position. The second point I want to refer to briefly, is this very amendment inserted by the hon. the Minister i.e. that Van Riebeeck Day should also be included in this specific clause. Sir, in the past the Government has deemed it fit to do away with the holiday atmosphere associated with Van Riebeeck Day and the impression this created among the general public. But in this respect I want to make it quite clear today that the National Party has never wanted to create the impression that we want to do anything that affects the content and the value and the meaning, the richness, depth and significance Van Riebeeck Day has for us as a people and a nation in South Africa. I admit that there were various people and bodies recently which felt that we had done Van Riebeeck Day an injustice …

Even some of your most prominent cultural leaders.

As the hon. member says here, these include some of our most prominent cultural leaders. But, Sir, if there are members who still wanted to celebrate, in the company of the most prominent cultural leaders in our country, the value and the content and the meaning of Van Riebeeck Day, it is members on this side of the House. This side of the House has a record as far as this is concerned, a record which hon. members opposite, even if they grow ten times older than Methuselah, will never be able to equal. I want to say that Van Riebeeck Day has been changed only as far as its status—if I may call it that—is concerned because we wanted to see more important and more useful work being done in South Africa. This clause in itself means that all the bodies which have previously participated in the solemnity on Van Riebeeck Day will still be able to participate in it to the full. We go even further and with what is contained in this clause we want to direct and equip the provinces to use all their energy and everything they are capable of, to make Van Riebeeck Day a real festival day to commemorate our founder in the true sense of the word. In addition, what we are actually doing, is to make a dual demand upon our people— this we do not request from them, this we ask of them—on the one hand that we should devote our energies and talents on that day to serve our country and our people with all the ideals which form part of the past, and also for the future; and, secondly, that we want the festivity and the harmony and all the beautiful things that surround Van Riebeeck Day to remain part of all this. I want to state in no uncertain terms that we on this side of the House, as we have tried for years in conjunction with our cultural leaders and our predecessors to have Van Riebeeck Day recognized, so we want to retain it in this legislation, in this particular clause and in other legislation we may introduce. I want to give all cultural leaders the assurance, the majority of whom, as I know them, support the basic principles of our policy, that henceforth we want to celebrate Van Riebeeck Day with even greater significance and pomp than we have done in the past decade.

I wish the hon. member for Rissik had said, when we were debating a previous measure in Committee, what he has said this afternoon regarding Van Riebeeck Day, He will recollect, Sir, that that is exactly the line that was taken by the official Opposition. We on this side asked that this day should remain and that it should be dealt with in the spirit in which the hon. member for Rissik has just pleaded it should be dealt with. But I want to ask how that can happen when we have to work on that day. I know that we have to work here on that day, but I am referring to the people outside. I do not intend to waste any more time of the Committee, but I want to make one thing quite clear. It is no good hon. members opposite now taking up the tactics which the Progressive Party have adopted. Because we voted against the Second Reading of this measure it does not mean that we were against all its provisions, and I want to say that hon. members opposite know it, and from now on any hon. members who come with that story will be guilty of propagating a deliberate untruth. I am now putting it quite clearly. They know that we voted against this measure, for certain reasons which were made clear during the Second Reading debate. I repeat that anyone on that side who once again says that we voted against this particular clause or any of the other clauses which we made it clear in the Second Reading we were not opposed to, will be guilty of propagating a deliberate lie.

I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister for a moment a question of interpretation or of translation. We have the position in the English text in the very last line that provincial councils may now provide for wreaths to be laid on certain days including Remembrance Day. Now I know that many years ago this day was known as Armistice Day, but in recent years it has become known as Remembrance Day. We believe that we respect that day as a remembrance day, the remembrance of the peace which took place on that particular day. It became Remembrance Day after the end of the Second World War because the Armistice Day of that particular war— you will remember that there were two armistice days—did not coincide with this day, 11th November. In the Afrikaans text we find that the old term is still used, “Wapenstilstandsdag”. That is Armistice Day and it would perhaps have been the right and proper word in days gone by. In exact ly the same way that we had a change in South Africa from Dingaan’s Day to “Geloftedag” I believe that we should today not perpetuate this term “Wapenstilstandsdag” and therefore I wish to move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg City has now emerged as a great expert on the Afrikaans language and he wants to dish out names for public holidays left, right and centre. I myself do not know precisely what one should, say about it, but I do not think that one can speak of “Dag van Herinnering” (literaally day of remembrance) in Afrikaans. I do not think such a name would be quite correct idiomatically. What does one remember? I think one would have to go much further if one wanted to make use of that expression. However, it is for the hon. the Minister to indicate whether or not he wants to accept the amendment, and I do not want to comment on it.

Your day of remembrance is 26th May, 1948.

The clause now under discussion deals with the powers of provincial councils and confers upon provincial administrations the power to buy wreaths out of their revenue account. We are very grateful that such action is now being legalized, for our provincial councils are bodies of high prestige and we should like them to be continually held in high esteem by the public. It often happens that on the occasions mentioned in the clause a fine wreath is laid, a wreath which comes from the provincial administration. Surely the provincial administration may not now be placed in the humiliating position of having to make a collection in order to obtain funds for the purchase of such wreaths. This is therefore a very meritorious measure, and we should like to support it.

The hon. members of the Opposition are now engaging in a rearguard action in regard to Van Riebeeck Day. When we decided to make Van Riebeeck Day a working day, it was a decision taken 20 years after the Government had decided to proclaim Van Riebeeck Day a public holiday. It is this Government which, in 1952, proclaimed Van Riebeeck Day a public holiday, and not the Government of those hon. members when they were in power. At the time we were riding on the crest of the wave of Van Riebeeck Day celebrations on the occasion of the commemoration of the founding of our country 300 years previously, and we then felt that Van Riebeeck Day, the day on which we commemorate the establishment of the White civilization in Southern Africa, had to be a public holiday. At the time we felt very strongly about the matter.

Whereas we have now decided to make Van Riebeeck Day a working day and to make the celebration of that day more spectacular, we are now creating the opportunity for doing so in that we are making it possible for the proviciai administrations also to lay fine wreaths on the occasion of such celebrations. Furthermore I want to express the view—I make bold to say that in this regard I am also speaking for the hon. the Minister—that if the people of South Africa should show that Van Riebeeck Day does mean such a great deal to it, this Government will not hesitate to reinstate Van Riebeeck Day as a public holiday. That is to say, of course, if the people of South Africa clearly shows that it wants to observe Van Riebeeck Day in the form of a public holiday.

Now I want to concentrate on the question of wreaths. In my city, the city of the British settlers, Port Elizabeth, Settlers’ Day is a public holiday and consequently wreaths are laid and celebrations take place. Hon. members may ask my colleagues from Port Elizabeth, whom I do not see here now. I may also tell hon. members when we have those wreath-laying ceremonies and commemoration services. We have them early in the morning, at 7 o’clock in the morning, so that those people who nevertheless see their way clear to rising early, may attend them and may still enjoy the public holiday afterwards. The hon. member for Green Point is so concerned about the clerks, the shop attendants and people of that kind who will now be unable to attend the wreath-laying ceremonies but who will nevertheless be earning money on this day. If the hon. member for Green Point is as concerned about them as all that, the services may still be held early in the morning, before office hours. They can still be held at 7 a.m. in any case, even if it is a public holiday. They are held early because we have fallen victim to the holiday spree and because we are anxious to be on holiday.

Another occasion which is a very suitable occasion in Port Elizabeth for a wreath-laying ceremony, is Settlers’ Day. I think that the provincial administration will possibly use this opportunity for that purpose as well, in view of the fact that the arrival of the settlers is commemorated every year. I do not wish to throw any stones, but I nevertheless want to mention the fact that the Afrikaanse Kultuurorganisasie organizes Republic Day, Kruger Day and the Day of the Convenant on its own. We do not ask outside bodies to do it for us; we do it ourselves. In Port Elizabeth the practice is that Settlers’ Day is organized and financed by the City Council. I find no fault with that; I just want to point out that there is something of a difference between the Afrikaans and the English-speaking people as far as these matters are concerned. Wreath-laying would perhaps be fitting on the other days as well, on days connected with military matters, such as Remembrance Day and Delville Wood Day. We very rarely—unless it is a special occasion—lay wreaths on the Day of the Convenant. I also want to refer to wreaths for funerals. From time to time deaths occur of prominent people in the service of the provincial administrations, and I think that these are very fine occasions for wreaths to be laid in honour of the persons concerned. This clause now confers upon the provinces the statutory power to lay wreaths on such occasions as well.

Mr. Chairman, in the first instance, I want to thank hon. members for this discussion. As far as the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is concerned unfortunately I am unable to accept it, and I say this for two reasons. I want to thank him at once for his resourcefulness. After all, there is a saying that if one is not wealthy, one has to be resourceful. That is something the hon. member definitely is. However, I do not know whether he is perhaps wealthy as well; I do not know him as well as that. He is definitely resourceful. He suggested that we translate “Remembrance Day” with “Dag van Herinnering” in Afrikaans. My problem with this suggestion is that “Dag van Herinnering” is a direct, literal translation of “Remembrance Day” and that the Afrikaans meaning of that is vague, for it does not specify what day is being called to mind. It can be anything.

Would you accept “Herdenkingsdag”?

That does not specify what is being commemorated either. For that reason it makes it a difficult matter. The concept “Wapenstilstandsdag” (literally meaning armistice day) definitely points to a war action, where an armistice has come about, and that is much clearer. I may just add that we consulted, as we do with all this legislation, with the various provinces. The province of Natal, of all provinces, suggested the word “Wapenstilstandsdag”. We accepted it on their recommendation. I think the hon. member should simply accept now that his provincial people, whoever they may be, are giving him the necessary guidance in this sphere. I just want to add that “Wapenstilstandsdag” as such has become known in Afrikaans. It has already acquired the character of a remembrance day. It need not be a literal translation from the English, just as little as “Boxing Day” and “Gesinsdag” need be the same.

With regard to the general concept I just want to say that I do not wish to exchange any views on the merits of Van Riebeeck Day as a public holiday, since this is a matter which has already been accepted and disposed of in previous legislation in this House. All I want to say here is that Van Riebeeck Day too, because it has for us the significance it in fact has, will not, even if it were to disappear as a public holiday, disappear as a day of great moment in our history. We should like to have the opportunity to commemorate the day. Even if it were not a public holiday and even if we were to commemorate Jan Van Riebeeck by way of a decent day’s work, I feel that I must insert this day here, in order that, if wreaths should be laid on such an occasion, Van Riebeeck Day will not be excluded. In the light of the circumstances I therefore do not wish to elaborate any further on Van Riebeeck Day, except to say that I should like to retain the amendment as it appears here.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the remarks made by the hon. the Minister in regard to the Afrikaans for Remembrance Day, but I want to ask him to be good enough to check—I am afraid my memory fails me at the moment—as to the correct word to be used.

*This is not a day on which we only commemorate the First World War and the Second World War. The Korean War and the other campaigns in which our Defence Force was involved, are also commemorated on that day. Every year the Sunday nearest 11th November is the remembrance day. This is what was decided by the State President. I am of the opinion—I may be wrong—that the word used in the Afrikaans text of that notice is “Herdenkingsdag”. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to see whether it fits in with the words used in November every year. This could perhaps be dealt with in the Other Place.

I shall go into the matter and if there are any merits for such a case, I shall deal with it in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, may I withdraw my amendment in the light of the undertaking given us by the hon. the Minister?

Amendment proposed by Mr. W. T. Webber, with leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed by the Minister of the Interior agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, we debated this clause at some length in the Second Reading and, as I anticipated at the time, there has been a reaction from various sections of the public in regard to this particular clause. This reaction has come since the debate when it became known that this Bill was being given to us in such rapid doses. Many of the matters which are concerned with this clause, have been impossible to follow up and investigate. I believe, for instance, that the question contained in this clause, which is in the nature of a capital gains tax, was one of the matters which was raised in the Report of the Franzsen Commission. As far as this particular aspect of taxation is concerned, even the Franzsen Commission, which did in fact recommend the forms of capital gains tax, excluded this type of taxation on property appreciation. I realize that we have had the Second Reading and that the principle embodied in this clause has been accepted at the Second Reading, so I cannot do anything to change that principle. However, as a result of the approach of the hon. the Minister that he did not want to go into the merits of it but that we were dealing here merely with an enabling clause, I want to move the following amendment—

This amendment is moved to enable the provincial councils, in dealing with this particular power in terms of the Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, to do two things. The first is that the provincial councils should determine or lay down the method of the determination of the value, viz. whether the value has increased or decreased as a result of rezoning. The second is for provincial councils to provide a right of appeal against any decision, in such circumstances as the provincial councils may feel is necessary, by an affected person in regard to such valuation. I am perplexed and worried as to how this can be done effectively. In the evaluation of a property —without going into any elaborate details one must realize that one has a valuation for rating purposes, which is determined according to special legislation and a valuation for special purposes. The second point is that a valuation is determined by a sale if a sale can be effected. Without a sale it involves a good deal of guesswork. For certain purposes it is laid down that it is what a willing buyer would pay a willing seller. There is also a number of other tests that could be applied in determining the value. There is an appreciation in value which takes place day by day because of the depreciation in the purchasing power of the rand. It has the effect on property which continuously increased in value. Throughout the country there has also been the effect on value of property of devaluation. All these matters are very intricate and I believe that if we are going to have a just system and if this is going to be adopted by the provinces, it should be applied by local authorities in such a manner as is decided by the provincial council and that the provincial council should also be able to provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court against disputes that take place. It is for this reason that I moved the amendment and I hope that the hon. the Minister will see his way clear to accept it. It is an empowering amendment only giving the additional powers to provincial councils.

Mr. Chairman, I have considered the amendment very thoroughly. In the meantime I have also been in touch with all four of the provinces in regard to the matter and I have also consulted the law advisers. In the light of all the representations and all the consultations I am unfortunately not in a position to accept the amendment, and I want to motivate why not.

In the first place, the amendment deals with two additional powers: Firstly, there is the method of the determination of a betterment levy or compensation, and, secondly, the right of appeal to the courts. Now, the advice given by the law advisers, which I must take in this regard, and I also do so very gladly since they are experts in this field—is that in both cases this power is unnecessary because they are tacit powers which have already been included in the proposed power in clause 3(1)(a). In other words, the law advisers’ standpoint is that both of these powers which the hon. member now wants to create by way of this amendment, have already been incorporated in the provision as it reads at the moment.

According to them a distinction must be drawn between, firstly, the right of appeal, i.e. the power of a court to substitute its own decision for the decision of a statutorily authorized Act—for instance, an administrator’s decision can be substituted by a court—and, secondly, the power of review of a court in terms of which a court can decide whether a procedure laid down by ordinance was followed or not, or whether any mala fide action was taken in regard to the matter. It does not empower the court to substitute its own judgment for the discretion of the authorized agent. This power of review is inherent in the courts and cannot be eliminated by way of provincial legislation, unless the provincial councils are specifically authorized by parliamentary legislation to do so. Clause 3(1)(a) does not do that. In other words, the court’s power of automatic review is not excluded by this provision which we have at present, but automatically forms part of it. The right of appeal in respect of statutory decisions only exists if it is so provided by the relevant Act or ordinance. The right of appeal to the courts against, for instance, the amount of betterment levies, may in the discretion of the relevant provincial council be granted specifically in its legislation, but this is an aspect for consideration by the relevant provincial council and not for consideration by Parliament.

That is the standpoint I also adopted here yesterday. If the amendment therefore seeks to force the provinces to make provision in their ordinances for the right of appeal to the courts, then it does not succeed in doing so, because clause 3(1)(a) is only an enabling power and not an instruction. The provinces can also exercise or refrain from exercising, as they deem fit, the authority to grant a right of appeal, and that would encroach upon their powers as such. For that reason, and after thorough consideration—I shall, if it is necessary and the debate progresses further, also quote the standpoints of the various provinces—it is considered to be unnecessary to accept the amendment and to insert these powers which, according to the standpoint of the law advisers, are already implicit in the existing legislation. I am sorry, but I merely wanted to take up a standpoint immediately and tell the hon. member why I cannot accept his amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. the Minister for having gone to all the trouble. As always there are differences of opinions amongst lawyers when it comes to these matters. The advice which I have received and the advice on which I put forward this amendment—and I agree with the hon. the Minister on this point and with the advice he has received from the legal advisers—is that the power to review does exist, but that it is a very limited power, usually where there is mala fides or where some obviously incorrect procedure has been adopted in regard to determinations. But the conference of power on the Supreme Court to deal with the merits of the determination of value must be specifically accorded to provincial councils. I think that is inherent in the advice which the hon. the Minister has received. The point is that I am not dealing with the question of the automatic right of review. Anybody aggrieved through the mala fides of any form of government has a right of access to the courts. Our concern here is that the provinces should be empowered through their legislation to give this right of appeal to the courts in matters of determination of these development charges. They run into considerable sums of money in some instances.

There are other reasons, too, why I believe access to the courts is necessary. By using these provisions under this particular section, a local authority can in effect expropriate property from a private individual for public open spaces and not pay the full compensation for such expropriation, but only 50% of the then depreciated value of the property or the extent to which the property has been depreciated in value. In other words, an area of ground owned by a private individual can be rezoned for a public open space, or a private open space for that matter, while the value of that property may be diminished from, say, R30 000 to R10 000. The owner will then only get by way of compensation one-half of the difference that is R10 000. In fact he has been deprived of the ownership of his property.

There are cases like that.

The hon. member for South Coast says there are cases like that. I accept that there are. What happened is that that person has no right to go to the Supreme Court to have that set aside. It is not something in the procedure that is wrong. He cannot prove mala fides. It forms part of the town-planning scheme. He then sits completely helpless in the hands of the local authority. It is for that reason that it is necessary to give to the provincial councils the power when they pass ordinances providing for this type of development charge or compensation to include in that some provision for a right of appeal on the merits to the courts.

My advice is that they have.

It has not been held so. It would be interesting if one could have a test case to see what the courts do in fact find. Even the powers which the provinces have been exercising at the present moment are suspect in some 13 cases that are pending now before the courts. Those are purely on a matter of the ultra vires rule so far as these are concerned. I do not want to carry on a legal argument with the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House. But I do believe that this is a matter which is going to create difficulties and that is the reason why I feel that this particular amendment should be accepted.

The second point of this amendment which the hon. the Minister has, with respect, not really gone into is the determination of the method of the increase or decrease. With the method of the increase or decrease in value there are so many factors that can be taken into account. One municipality might quite easily say: I am just going to take what the rateable value was before rezoning, what it was afterwards, and that equals the difference. On those figures the development charge will be levied. I believe that that is a power for which provision should be made here. It is not an inherent power and it does not just follow automatically. The power here is merely to authorize them to make payment or to levy charges. But it does not in this clause as it stands entitle the provincial authorities in their ordinance to say to the municipalities that in determining the values for the levying of these charges or the payment of compensation that it must be done on such-and-such a basis. I think it is essential that that power should be provided for. I will stand by my amendment which is on the Order Paper. I believe it is a correct one. As I have said, I do not want to continue a legal argument with the hon. the Minister across the floor of the House. Perhaps a judgment of the Supreme Court will one day show which one of us is right.

Sir, I think, with respect, that the hon. member for Green Point completely failed to understand the reply given by the hon. the Minister in respect of this matter. What the hon. the Minister has said, is that the provincial councils already have the power to determine the method and, if they deem fit, to establish a right of appeal to the courts.

That is where we differ.

The provincial councils have the power which was conferred upon them, and this is a general power on the basis of which the detailed powers as to how they are going to regulate the specific matter, are also conferred upon them automatically. In the enabling legislation authorizing the provincial councils to pass ordinances on education, they are not dictated to as regards the exact method by which they are to do so and what they may do and what they may not do. It is merely stated that in respect of education they may pass ordinances, and the same goes for the establishment of townships and various other matters. What we are inserting now, is therefore the mother provision, and from this mother provision flow the provincial council’s powers to determine an equitable procedure for causing the imposition of a development contribution to be effected in such a way that no injustice is done. I want to tell the hon. member that the Transvaal has in fact determined such an equitable procedure. In the Transvaal, if rezoning takes place and the owner is assessed for a development contribution, that owner can raise an objection. If his objection is not upheld, he is given the opportunity to raise his objection, also to the new valuation that has been made, at the next general sitting of the valuation court, which takes into consideration all objections to all municipal valuations and which consists of three experts. If his objection is upheld, he receives a pro rata repayment plus 6% interest.

Sir, inherent in this amendment one finds a motion of no confidence in our provincial councils and the insinuation that they are supposedly not capable of protecting owners; and then the hon. member conjures up even more spectres by saying that one town council can do this and that another town council can do that, as though the provincial councils do not in any case have an ordinance telling the town councils precisely how they are to act. In the Cape Province the ordinance lays down that the Administrator shall decide—not a town council—on what the development contribution shall be; the Administrator has the discretion; and I have just explained what the position is in the Transvaal. Sir, I think terrible spectres are being conjured up here merely for the sake of political gain, for I cannot see any other factual or legal grounds for the standpoint adopted by the Opposition.

Then there is another spectre that has been conjured up here. Reference has repeatedly been made here to the so-called “capital gains tax”. Surely this is not a capital gains tax which is being introduced here. Capital gains would be made if I bought a property for R1 000 and sold it for R2 000; then I would have to pay tax on the profit. That is capital gains tax. But if I have a property which I bought for R1000 and which goes up in value to R2 000 because I selected it well in a developing area, and the town council then comes along and rezones the area and grants business rights on that property, with the result that the value of the property increases to R3 000, then I am not going to pay on the difference between R1 000 and R3 000; I am going to pay on the difference between R2 000 and R3 000. And I shall tell you why this is fair. It is fair because the value of the property in the example I have just mentioned here, increased from R2 000 to R3 000 as a result of an act by a public body. Through its consent, the public body increases the value of that property. Without the consent, the value of the property would still have been R2 000. Therefore, in the example I have just mentioned, the public body gives the owner a present of R1 000 and asks the owner to pay it merely a third or half of it, depending on the province in which the property is situated. Therefore, even if a discretionary error is made with the exact amount of the increase, we still have the built-in safety factor of an extra percentage which the owner need not pay, and he would still make his profit if he sold his property immediately afterwards. No, Mr. Chairman, I think that spectres have been conjured up in respect of this matter and that there is no factual basis for the fears expressed by hon. members of the Opposition both in the course of the Second Reading debate and the Committee Stage in regard to this clause.

I do not understand the hon. member for Vereeniging at all. The hon. the Minister, in his introduction of this measure, made it quite clear why we were being asked to do this today. We were being asked to do it because there was a doubt in the minds of the legal advisers as to the competence of the provinces to legislate in this matter. But now we have this hon. member coming here and saying that they have this power anyway. That is what he tells us now. They really have the power anyway. He is contradicting his own Minister. I think we must have some unanimity on the other side, and let us fight one enemy and not chase all these different “spoke” being put up by the other side. He says this is not in fact a capital gains tax. Sir, it was pointed out by two of us during the debate, and if the hon. member was here he would have heard it, that there is already a Supreme Court decision which says that this is in fact a capital gains tax. What difference does it make what the article is on which there is a capital gain? If that capital gain is taxed, for whatever reason, it remains a capital gains tax. That is why I want to put this to the hon. the Minister now. The Minister must tell us whether this Government is now accepting the principle of a capital gains tax? Because that is in fact what they are doing here this afternoon. This is what this Government does periodically, in this way, in this devious manner, to introduce some sort of principle, and then all of a sudden we are faced with a fait accompli, and when we object they say the principle was accepted long ago, so why do we suddenly oppose the principle now of a capital gains tax? In regard to the argument of the hon. member for Vereeniging, that in the Transvaal a landowner may object at the next general valuation court, the same applies in the Cape Province. I think the same thing also applies in the Free State. If there is a member from the Free State present in the House, he might tell us, but I think so. But the important point which has been made over and over again by my colleague from Green Point is that there is no access to the Supreme Court, and we believe that this is the body which should decide in the event of a dispute. Why should the person mentioned in the example given by the hon. member for Green Point, be deprived of R10 000? Surely he should have the right, or at least the satisfaction, of knowing that it is the highest body in the land which decided his particular case, and if he is to be deprived of R10 000 then, let him be deprived by the highest body in the land and do not leave it in the hands of the Administrator.

He got R20 000 as a gift.

Where is that gift? I do not see that he got R20 000 as a gift. That was the value of his land. He did not ask for it to be rezoned, and if he did ask for it, I believe he deserves the increase, if it is increased. But in the example that this hon. member was talking about, the example given by the hon. member for Green Point, the value of the land in fact decreased from R30 000 to R10 000, but he only got R20 000 for it. Where is the gift the hon. member mentions? There is no gift at all. In fact, the only gift is a sort of left-handed one, the sort the people of South Africa are used to getting from the Nationalist Government.

During the debate, in the Second Reading, the hon. member for Parow also raised this question and asked of us whether we believed that the provinces should have the power to legislate in this matter. I want to make it quite clear to him this afternoon that we agree that they should have this power provided these other powers are included and provided we get from the hon. the Minister the assurance which I asked for yesterday, that this will not compel the provinces but that it will be merely permissive. The hon. the Minister has not given us that assurance. We have heard different lawyers arguing it in different ways this afternoon. I do not know what the position is because I am not a lawyer, but I would like this assurance from the hon. the Minister so that we will have it on record that it is merely permissive. I am doing that deliberately because we have the situation in Natal, which is a different situation from that which obtains in the other provinces. What is the position in Natal? I challenge the hon. member for Newcastle, the ex-member for Umhlatuzana, to get up and to tell us what the position is in Natal. The hon. the Minister said he knew what the position was in Natal, but he did not really know. I know that the hon. the Minister read from a document and I want to quote what he read from that document. I do not think that I am giving away any secret when I say that the document is a letter which the Provincial Secretary of Natal wrote to the Provincial Secretary of the Cape on this very question. The Provincial Secretary of Natal makes the situation quite clear and I quote—

Yes, I said so.

All right, the Minister says he said so, but it goes further.

“Karig” (scanty).

Yes, thank you, “karig”. What does that mean? It means in fact, that it has never been applied in Natal.

No, not never, but very, very seldom.

No, he says it has never been applied, because there is not one single final townplanning scheme in Natal. This is the point and therefore the hon. member for Klip River and his colleague, the hon. member for Newcastle, and the hon. member for Parow, who said the day before yesterday that in Natal the contribution was 75%, must not continue to mislead this Committee. They spoke in complete and total ignorance. They were not aware of the facts, but they tried to mislead the House and it was done deliberately to make political capital.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word “deliberately”. It was a reckless disregard for the facts. They chanced their arms, in other words. That is what they did. I admit that I was unaware of the situation, because, as I have pointed out, I did not have time to find out. However, these hon. members did have the time. They neglected to do so but then they came with these reckless statements in an attempt to mislead the House. I hope the record has been put straight now that in Natal there is no contribution made.

There is another point which I must make in regard to Natal. One of the reasons why the hon. member for Green Point has phrased his amendment in the manner he has is that in Natal there is a provincial arbitration board which was set up in terms of legislation passed by the Natal Provincial Council, legislation which, to the best of my knowledge, is valid. We did not want to have this tied to the Arbitration Act. I believe the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point is a good amendment and I believe it is necessary to make absolutely clear what the intention of this Committee is when we pass this clause, namely that Natal may retain the services of that arbitration board and that the other provinces may follow suit or, on the other hand, apply the Arbitration Act.

But there is nothing to stop them.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister. He started this whole debate when he moved the Second Reading of this Bill by saying that there was a doubt in the minds of the legal advisers and that he was setting out here to clear that doubt. I want to put it to him further. There still remains a doubt in the minds of certain legal gentlemen, including the hon. member for Green Point who disagrees with his colleague, also a legal gentleman, the hon. member for Vereeniging. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister: Let us remove that doubt in the mind of the hon. member for Green Point in exactly the same way as we are trying to remove the doubt in the mind of the hon. the Minister and let us accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point. I do not believe it can do any harm; it can only do good.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is confusing two issues. When he says there is a doubt whether this is legal, he refers to what the hon. member for Vereeniging has said, but the hon. member for Vereeniging spoke about a completely different issue. Firstly, if there is a doubt which necessitates the introduction of this clause, then this doubt concerns the present legal right of the provinces to impose this sort of levy. There is a doubt as far as the Cape is concerned. In the Transvaal it has been tested in the court and has been found valid. In the Cape it is being tested in the courts at the present moment and no decision has been made yet. In order to put it beyond doubt, this clause is being introduced. The other question which affects the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Green Point is the question of how the valuation shall be decided, which is a completely different matter, which does not deal with the right of the provinces to impose this sort of tax, but it deals with the method of fixing the increased value. Just to put this …

And the second leg of the amendment?

I must admit that the Afrikaans version of the second leg of the amendment is not quite clear to me. I have tried to read it carefully but I have not been able to get down to brass tacks, to exactly what the hon. member means. To put this whole issue in perspective, I would, first of all, like to read the long title to the original Act, Act No. 38 of 1945—

It thus deals with the right of this Government to transfer taxation powers. This particular amendment deals with the second schedule. The second schedule reads:

In other words, this whole clause deals with the right to pass on certain powers to the provinces. This amendment by the hon. member for Green Point would go far further than merely passing on powers. It would impose on the provinces a certain method of how those powers can be judged.

No.

It imposes on them, because it says here, “the matter of valuation by the Supreme Court.” It does not deal only with empowering, but goes far beyond the mere empowering. As has already been said, the method of valuation is within the powers, the existing powers, which are beyond any doubt, of the provinces. The provinces have the right to decide themselves how the valuation shall be done. In Natal the position is being handled as the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has said by a provincial arbitration board. I would also like to deal with the particular issue raised by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District. He seemed to accuse myself and the hon. member for Newcastle directly that we stated that the position in Natal was that 75% was imposed. At no stage ever did the hon. member for Newcastle or I make any statement that that was the situation in Natal. In fact, the position in Natal is that this levy is not being imposed anywhere yet. Durban has asked …

The hon. member for Parow is the man who said 75%.

The hon. member for Parow might have said so, but the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District when he spoke of this just now, continually spoke in the plural. He repeatedly said:“They … "

He mentioned your name too.

He mentioned my constituency and that of the hon. member for Newcastle. So he must not try to run away from his false statements in this House. The position in Natal is that this right has not been made use of there. This right has been asked for specifically by the Durban municipality. They have asked the provincial council to give them the right to impose this sort of betterment tax. It is being discussed at the moment by the provincial authorities. This clause would put it beyond all doubt that Natal will have the right if they so decided to impose this sort of betterment tax. It is therefore merely an enabling measure, giving them the power to decide for themselves how to go about introducing this sort of betterment tax. Both the amendment by the hon. member for Green Point and the United Party opposition to the Second Reading and the Committee Stage are completely unnecessary and far-fetched. It shows a distrust in the provincial system. This clause is an enabling clause, enabling the provinces to impose a certain tax. Therefore I see no reason whatsoever why the United Party should oppose this clause 3.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the discussion that has taken place so far. For the sake of the record of this House it may perhaps be a good thing for us just to ascertain more or less, as we did this morning, what the position is in some of the provinces which are under discussion here. In the Transvaal, so I have been informed, the position is as follows: The relevant ordinance provides, firstly, that objections to the valuation may be lodged with a valuation court specified by the ordinance before and after the alteration of the town-planning scheme has taken place; secondly, that if an interested party is not satisfied, he may lodge an appeal against the said valuation with a board of appeal specified by the ordinance, i.e. a board of appeal of which a magistrate shall be the chairman; and, thirdly, that the betterment levy of 33⅓% shall be the difference between the aforesaid valuations. In practice this whole procedure, as applied in the Transvaal, amounts to arbitration. This is the system that was accepted and approved by the courts in the Transvaal. When the relevant ordinance was being drafted, the Transvaal Municipal Association was consulted beforehand and they agreed to it. The Transvaal feel—and I specifically sounded them out on this matter—that to force the amendment of the Arbitration Act on the provinces is undesirable and is in any case unnecessary in the case of the Transvaal. In other words, the approach of the Transvaal—and I quite understand this— is that if we want to grant them powers, we should grant them the power and the right to implement them. One does not grant the powers with certain conditions attached to them; in other words, one does not stipulate that they must do it in this way or in that way. One either trusts the provincial authorities or does not trust them. That is the crux of the matter. Now, much reference was made here to Natal. For that reason I should like to quote what the position is in Natal—

1. (a) In the case of Natal the betterment levies are imposed by the Planning authority, i.e. the local authority or the Town Planning Commission and not the Administrator.
2. (b) The betterment levies can be paid by instalments over a period of up to 30 years.
3. (c) This provision has been in the relevant Ordinance since 1949.

†That seems to be the crux of the matter as far as the argument of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District is concerned. I have something more in connection with Natal:

They are trying to get in line with othe other provinces and to do it in exactly the same way. Then there is a note which specially refers to the amendment we have before us today:

In other words, Natal actually asked us to trust them and to give them the power so that they can handle it in their own way. That is what we are prepared to do with this legislation. We are prepared to trust the provinces as such.

*Now I want to come to the Cape Province, with which the whole fight at the moment is concerned. I just want to state what the situation is in the Cape Province (translation)—

They want the power to judge the matter for themselves. The quotation goes on to say—

Then the situation is stated very clearly—

That is to say, and I quote (translation), “the valuations before and after rezoning will in the event of disputes be referred to arbitration and not the amount of the betterment levy itself”. Arbitration will be permitted on the valuation itself, but not on the levy itself. I have now read out the standpoint of these three provinces. I also have here the standpoint of the Free State, if it should be required, but I do not think it is very much to the point here, for the matter is in order as far as they are concerned. Let me now state the case briefly as I see it: We have here enabling legislation in which we authorize the provinces to handle certain matters in a certain manner. We on this side of the House say we trust the provinces, to such an extent that the particulars of arbitration and reference to the courts and everything connected with it are left in their hands. This is nothing but enabling legislation; there is no restriction, nor is there any obligation. It is enabling legislation which they can deal with, and the fight that may ensue in this regard, can be fought out in every provincial council by the various political parties represented there. We trust them and therefore we are granting them these powers. Under these circumstances I feel that I must adhere to my standpoint and to all the advice I have obtained. I myself am not a lawyer, and with a view to the opinion of the law advisers I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member and I should like to ask that the matter be left unchanged.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to put the record straight. The amendment which is before the Committee, and which I move is not one of compulsion. It is extending certain powers which we believe the provincial council should have, namely to determine the method of valuation and to permit them to provide for an appeal to the Supreme Court. The difference between the hon. the Minister and us is that he says it is not necessary while the people we have consulted say it is necessary. It has nothing to do with any enforcement, that this or that must be done. There is no mention whatsoever of the Arbitration Act in the amendment I have moved.

Mr. Chairman, I agree. The only difference at the moment is that according to my advice and according to the provincial councils themselves, they believe that they have the right already and that it is not necessary. That is the difference between us and we agree to differ on this.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and W. M. Sutton.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.