May I, before we take the motion, move—

I object.

Then I give notice to move to-morrow. With the leave of the House, I wish to move the motion to go into Committee of Ways and Means in a slightly amended form, so as to include notice of Motion No. II. I think that will simplify the procedure and the discussion. I would like to move then—

That the House go into Committee of Ways and Means to consider the following resolutions:

I. Income Tax (Normal Tax and Super Tax).

1. (1) That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, and to such amendments of Act No. 31 of 1941 as may be provided therein, there shall be paid as from the first day of July, 1942, on all incomes received by or accrued to or in favour of or deemed to have been received by or accrued in favour of all persons from any source within, or deemed to be within, the Union-
   1. (a) a tax (to be called the Normal Tax), the rates of which for the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1942, shall be—
      1. (i) in the case of companies the sole or principal business of which in the Union is mining for gold, for each pound of taxable income, three shillings;
      2. (ii) in the case of companies the sole or principal business of which in the Union is mining for diamonds, for each pound of taxable income, four shillings;
      3. (iii) in the case of all other public companies, for each pound of taxable income, three shillings and sixpence;
      4. (iv) in the case of persons other than those referred to in subparagraphs (i), (ii) and (iii), for each pound of taxable income eighteen pence increased by one one-thousandth of a penny for each pound of the taxable income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of three shillings and threepence in every pound: Provided that for a married person the rate for each pound of taxable income shall be fifteen pence increased by one one-thousandth of a penny for each pound of the taxable income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of three shillings in every pound;
      5. (v) in the case of any company or person other than a company who derives any portion of his income from mining in the Union for gold, in respect of each pound of the taxable amount so derived, a percentage determined in accordance with the following formula—
         y = 40-500/x
         in which y represents such percentage, and x the ratio, expressed as a percentage, which the taxable income derived from mining for gold bears to the income derived therefrom:
         Provided that the tax determined in accordance with sub-paragraph (v) shall be payable, in addition to any tax determined in accordance
         with sub-paragraphs (i), _(ii), (iii) and (iv); and
   2. (b) a tax (to be called the Super Tax), the rates of which for the year of assessment ending the thirtieth day of June, 1942, shall be—
      For each pound of the income subject to Super Tax two shillings increased by one four-hundredth of a penny for each pound of such income in excess of one pound, subject to a maximum rate of seven shillings and sixpence in every pound.
2. (2) That the rates fixed by sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of paragraph (1) shall be the rates fixed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 5 and sub-section (2) of Section 23 of Act No. 31 of 1941, respectively.

II. Gold Mines Special Contribution.

That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending Act No. 25 of 1940 (as amended), the Gold Mines Special Contribution shall be calculated and levied at the rate of 20 per cent. on the dutiable amount.

III. Trade Profits Special Levy.

1. (1) That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be paid for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions, and exemptions as may be provided in the said Act, a levy (to be called the Trade Profits Special Levy), at the rate specified in paragraph (2) hereunder, by all persons deriving income from trade and having as a pre-war standard for purposes of the levy of excess profits duty under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1940 (Act No. 25 of 1940), an amount which is greater than the statutory percentage, and exceeds three thousand pounds, in respect of—
   1. (a) the additional amount on which any such person would have been liable for excess profits duty, and
   2. (b) so much of the amount in respect of which any such person is entitled to a refund of excess profits duty in terms of paragraph (c) or (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, as exceeds the amount in respect of which he would have been entitled to such a refund,

if his pre-war standard for the purposes of the levy of excess profits duty had been the statutory percentage or three thousand pounds, whichever is the greater.

1. (2)
   1. (a) The levy on each pound of the amount subject to the levy shall be eight pence for each completed one-tenth of the amount described in parapragh (b) which is contained in the amount subject to the levy: Provided that—
      1. (i) the levy in respect of the period of assessment ended upon the thirtieth day of June, 1942, shall not exceed six shillings and eight pence on each pound of the amount subject to the levy; and
      2. (ii) the rate at which such levy shall be payable in respect of any succeeding period of assessment shall not exceed a rate the imposition of which on the amount subject to the levy in respect of that period, would result in the payment of the levy on the aggregate of the amounts subject to the levy in respect of that period and of all previous periods of assessment at the rate of six shillings and eight pence on each pound of such aggregate.
   2. (b) The amount referred to in paragraph (a) shall be the amount by which the pre-war standard of the person concerned exceeds the statutory percentage or three thousand pounds, whichever is the greater.

IV. Personal and Savings Fund Levy.

That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions, adjustments and exemptions to be provided in such Act—

1. (a) there shall be charged, levied and collected annually for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund as from the first day of July, 1942, a tax (to be called the Personal and Savings Fund Levy) on every person, other than a company, based on his taxable income for the purposes of normal tax, the normal tax payable by him, his income subject to super tax and the super tax payable by him, as determined under the provisions of Act No. 31 of 1941 for the year of assessment ended on the thirtieth day of June, 1941, and each and every year of assessment ended on the thirtieth day of June thereafter, at the following rates—
   1. (i) a basic tax of five pounds if the taxable income for the purposes of normal tax plus the dividends of such person amounts to two hundred and fifty pounds or more for the relevant year of assessment; Provided that if such person is married and his taxable income for the purpose of normal tax plus his dividends does not exceed three hundred pounds, the basic tax payable by him shall be three pounds; and
   2. (ii) twenty per cent. of the normal tax payable by such person for the relevant year of assessment; and
   3. (iii) ten per cent. of the super tax payable by such person for the relevant year of assessment;
2. (b) there shall be paid from time to time to the credit of the Loan Account referred to in the General Loans Consolidation and Amendment Act, 1917 (Act No. 22 of 1917), out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, sums equivalent to fifty per cent. of the levy paid at the rates provided in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph (a) (other than the proviso to sub-paragraph (i)) and sixty-six and two-thirds per cent. of the levy paid at the rate provided in the said proviso; and there shall be issued to each person in respect of whose tax payment any such sum is so payable to the credit of the said Loan Account, a special redeemable stamp or certificate for the sum so payable.

V. Fixed Property Profits Tax.

That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament, there shall be paid for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, subject to such definitions, conditions, exceptions and exemptions as may be provided in the said Act, a tax (to be called the Fixed Property Profits Tax) on—

1. (1) the profit realised by any person on the alienation for any consideration of—
   1. (i) immovable property referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b), or
   2. (ii) any share referred to in the said paragraphs in any company which is a private company as defined in sub-section (3) of section thirtythree of the Income Tax Act, 1941 (Act No. 31 of 1941) and whose income, in the opinion of the Commissioner, is or will be mainly derived, either directly or indirectly, from immovable property or dealings in immovable property,

which was acquired for any consideration; and

1. (2) so much of any amount which accrues to any intermediary in respect of any such alienation as exceeds five per cent. of the consideration for the immovable property or shares, as the case may be, alienated, at the following rates:
   In the case of any such alienation of immovable property or shares, as the case may be, acquired—
   1. (a) on or after the first day of October, 1939, but before the twenty-sixth day of February, 1942, six shillings and eight pence; and
   2. (b) on or after the twenty-sixth day of February, 1942, thirteen shillings and four pence,

for each pound of the amounts subject to the tax in terms of paragraphs (1) and (2).

VI. Estate Duty.

That, subject to an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament amending Act No. 29 of 1922 (as amended), the rates of estate duty on the dutiable amount of the estates of persons who die on or after the first day of April, 1942, shall be:—

VII. Customs and Excise Duties.

That, subject to the provisions of an Act to be passed during the present session of Parliament and to such rebates or remissions of duties as may be provided for therein—

(1) the customs duties on the articles as set forth hereunder be increased to the extent shown.

(2) the excise duty on—

motor fuel manufactured in the Union, as set forth hereunder be increased to the extent shown.

1. (3) excise duties shall be charged, levied, collected and paid, for the benefit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund on tobacco manufactured in the Union, whether from imported unmanufactured tobacco or not—
   1. (a) ready for smoking in tobacco pipes or in the form of cake, plug or stick; or
   2. (b) in the form of cigars or cigarillos,
      at the rates set forth hereunder—

(4) that excise licence fees be imposed, as shown hereunder:

This is a general motion asking the House to approve in principle of our taxation proposals prior to the discussion of these taxation proposals in Committee of Ways and Means. Now I have already dealt at length on two occasions with our taxation proposals. I did so in my Budget speech and I did so again in my reply to the Budget debate. I do not therefore propose to burden the House by repeating details which have already been laid before the House. May I make one general remark before I deal with these taxation proposals one by one. The total amount that we are asking the country to provide by way of additional taxation is certainly large, but I do not consider that in present circumstances the additional burden which we wish the House to impose on the country is an excessive burden. I have already in that connection referred to the calculations which have been made of our war expenditure in relation to our national income. The hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) on a previous occasion talked of the desirability of having the figures taken out as to our national income. Well, it has been done. I referred to such figures in my Budget speech and since then the results of the investigation made have been published in the South African Journal of Economics. I would again remind the House that our war expenditure in 1940—’41 represented only 12 per cent. of our national income, that is of the income of South Africa as a whole.

For the same year?

Yes, for the same year. In Great Britain, for the same period, the corresponding percentage was 40. In Canada it was 25i and in Australia 22. Hon. members may have noticed a recent statement which indicates that in the year that lies ahead the United States of America are contemplating an expenditure of 50 per cent. of their national income for war purposes. Since 1940—’41 there has been a substantial increase in our national income as a whole. It is true that there has also been an increase in taxation and we are now contemplating a further increase, but I do not think that the percentage, even with this additional amount of taxation now proposed, will be considerably higher than that 12 per cent. figure—I doubt if it will be more than 15 per cent. or 16 per cent. The fact is, as shewn by these same calculations to which I have referred, that after allowing for our war expenditure, the national income which is available for consumption, is still increasing; despite the big increases in our war expenditure there is still, after the tax gatherer has taken all that is required for that purpose, an increasing amount available for the consumption of the nation as a whole. In 1938—’39 according to figures which I think can now be taken as pretty accurate, the national income available for consumption was £316.2 millions. In 1939—’40 according to figures which are very nearly accurate the figure was £357 millions and in 1940—’41 according to a preliminary estimate which is stated to be very conservative, the figure had grown to £367 millions.

After paying taxation?

After providing for the whole of our war expenditure. Not merely the amount provided for out of taxation …

Is that providing for ordinary expenditure as well?

That is available for consumption by the public. I do not know whether my hon. friend has seen the article to which I refer …

No, I have not.

I shall be happy to show it to the hon. member. Our taxation may therefore appear to be heavy, and indeed it is heavy in relation to the level of taxation to which we grew accustomed in the piping times of peace, but even with these additional proposals the taxation burdens of this country will be by no means excessive in relation to the capacity of the country to carry those burdens. Now, let me take these resolutions in turn. The first resolution requires hardly any comment. It is the annual resolution in regard to income tax. Hon. members are aware, no doubt, that as one of the conventions of our constitution the rates of income tax have to be voted every year. We do not lay down the rates of income tax for more than a year at a time and whether there is a change proposed or not a resolution has to be passed imposing the income tax. That is the resolution now before us. It contains no change in the rates imposed by the House last year, and embodied in the Income Tax Act last year. It is true that we are proposing a surchage on the income tax, but that does not fall under resolution No. 1; it falls under resolution No. 4. Resolution No. 1 therefore is merely a renewal of the income tax rates as laid down last year. Then resolution No. 2 deals with the rate of the gold mines’ special contribution. There we are proposing, as hon. members are aware, an increase on last year’s figure. Last year the rate was 16 per cent. We are now proposing to raise it to 20 per cent. an additional 4 per cent., which will bring us in £1,696,000 according to our estimates. I have already dealt in my reply to the Budget debate with the suggestion that we have left the mines off too lightly. I am not going to repeat all I said on that occasion—I only want to make this twofold point again—there are two points which really are connected. The one is that this taxation has to be paid not by the big companies but by the shareholders in those companies, spread throughout South Africa, and also outside South Africa. The other point is that here we are dealing with a commodity, the price of which is fixed. It is true that when the war began there was an appreciation in the price of gold. That has already been dealt with as far as taxation is concerned, but since then the price of gold has remained fixed while the cost of gold mining has been going up. That means that any additional taxation can only be provided for by way of a reduction of dividends. There is no elasticity in the case of gold today, as there is in the case of what is known as trade. I come then to the third resolution—to the most important of all our proposals, the most important as it is also the most productive—that is the trade profits special levy. Being as it is the most productive of our proposals, it has, not unnaturally, attracted most attention. This is, as the name signifies, a tax on trade. To that extent it is a differential tax. We are selecting one part of the national income for taxation, but I think it is a differentiation which under present circumstances is justified. We already have that differentiation as part of our war time taxation machinery. We accepted the principle of differential taxation in trade when we accepted the excess profits duty, and this principle of a special trade levy is merely an extension of the excess profits duty— not in the rate of that duty but in the scope of the duty. The 13s. 4d. excess profits duty rate is to be maintained, but we propose that a levy shall be imposed on profits below the pre-war standard level where that pre-war standard is in turn above the statutory percentage level, in other words, where the pre-war standard is not the statutory percentage of 8 per cent., but some percentage on capital in excess of that. The levy will apply to the difference. I said we have accepted the principle of differential taxation on trade in previous years as part of our war time taxation fabric. It is therefore hardly necessary for me to justify it now. I would merely say that trade is the part of our economic structure which is the most receptive to war conditions. Trade is therefore best able to bear special taxation, and if hon. members will again refer to that paper, to those calculations to which I have drawn their attention, they will notice that my statement is also borne out by the figures given there. Let me deal a little more in detail with this trade profits special levy. I think it has been felt by many for some time that our excess profits duty did not as a measure of war taxation go far enough. In itself, of course, it is a severe tax, a tax of 13s. 4d. in the £, even if only on excess profits, is a high tax. But the point is this: that the excess profits duty lets off lightly the taxpayer with the high pre-war standard which is based on his profits before the war, as compared with the taxpayer with a low prewar standard, in many cases with a pre-war standard calculated merely as the minimum standard. Moreover, the present tax gives the taxpayer with a high pre-war standard a distinct competitive advantage as compared with the trader with a lower pre-war standard. That means that the taxpayers with high pre-war standards have hitherto formed a favoured class in respect of war taxation. They have borne a smaller portion of the burden of war taxation than trade in general has done, or than other traders have done. If we were to propose, as some thought we should, an increase in the rate of the excess profits duty, we would merely be accentuating that differentiation. We have taken the other course of obtaining the extra money which we require, and at the same time reducing that differentiation, by imposing a levy not on the excess profits but on the advantage which the man with the high pre-war standard has over the man with the low pre-war standard. It may be useful, and I think it will be interesting if I were to compare the procedure of other countries in this regard. In Australia, as the hon. member for Kensington has pointed out, there is no excess profits duty. What takes its place is a war time company tax, which is superimposed on the ordinary Australian company tax, which in itself exceeds our normal company tax by 50 to 60 per cent. in its rates. Over and above that relatively high normal company tax there is in Australia a war time company tax, and under that war time company tax—it may be even worse now, but when I had the last details all profits over 5 per cent. were liable to taxation, whether they were excess profits or not. On the first per cent. above 5 per cent. there was a tax of 4 per cent. On the next per cent. it was 8 per cent., and so it went on until you reached the stage when all profits, over 19 per cent., I think, were liable to a tax of 60 per cent.

It now goes up to 78 per cent.

My hon. friend has later information than I have.

That is only as far as companies are concerned.

Yes, but there are high rates in respect of income tax. At the bottom they are very much higher than ours, though at the top ours approximate theirs. In Canada there is an excess profits tax. There you have the normal income tax on companies of from 18 per cent. to 20 per cent., according to the method of computation of profits. That, again, is more than our normal company tax. Over and above that there is an excess profits duty which is calculated in one of two ways. Either it is 75 per cent. of the excess over the pre-war standard, after the income tax had been deducted, or it is 22 per cent. of the net profits, the total net profits, before the income tax has been deducted, whichever is the greater. Now that means that every company, whether it is earning excess profits or not, has to pay in addition to its 18 per cent. normal company tax, a 22 per cent. tax on its total profits by way of excess profits tax. That means that Canada has faced the same position as we are facing now, and it has done it in a much harsher way than we are proposing to do. It is, of course, not easy to compare the Canadian system or any system with ours. I have, however, through the kindness of a very competent economist, had some calculations made and as the general result of these calculations it can be said that our system as it will be with excess profits plus trade profits special levy will be much less severe than the Canadian system on concerns with small and moderate profits, concerns with profits say up to 50 per cent.—if we may call that moderate.

Not very moderate.

Perhaps I should have said relatively moderate, but it is only when you get to concerns with very high profits that our system is more burdensome than the Canadian system—but only slightly. On the whole our system, if this tax which I now propose is adopted, will be very much less burdensome than the Canadian or the Australian system. Now of course, there have been criticisms of this particular proposal. I have heard a good deal of the inconvenience and the complexity of our systems and the addition of yet another tax. I do not regard this as another tax. I regard this as an extension of the excess profits duty, but on the general question of the complexity of the taxation system I can only say that I regard that as inevitable in present circumstances. This is a time of violent economic changes; the over-riding importance of war finances necessarily has to receive very special consideration, and in those circumstances some measure of complication is essential in any attempt to arrive at equity. If we had to resort to more simple measures I think those more simple measures would provide a less, rather than a more equitable system. It has been said that instead of having this trade levy we should have spread the burden by increasing the rates of normal income tax and super tax. That sounds alright, but when you come to analyse what would be the effect on the rates of normal income and super tax of taking an additional £4,000,000 from that source, you begin to sit up and take notice, when you realise the very serious hardship that would be imposed.

Why take it from only a portion of the community?

Because we are taking it from that portion of the community which reacts most readily to war conditions. I shall deal with that point in more detail later. I said that this levy is to be regarded as an extension of the excess profits duty. It is conceived in the first instance as a method of removing the present inequities attaching to the excess profits duty. Therefore we must limit this tax to trade just as the excess profits duty is limited …

Why leave out the professions?

We are not leaving out the professions. The question is asked: “Why not bring in employment, why not bring in the salaried man and income from investments?” If that were done it would involve the re-casting of the excess profits duty no less than this. If we were right in imposing the excess profits duty on trade as such then surely its extension as limited to trade is also right? I want again to make the point—and here I come to the question asked by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. Bell)—that speaking generally in time of war trade earns fortuitous profits by reason of the existence of abnormal conditions. I have already referred to these figures in the analysis of the national income to which I drew the attention of the House. The facts bear that out. In time of war trade earns fortuitous profits by reason of the existence of abnormal conditions. I do not say that that applies to every trader; I don’t say it applies to everyone whose income falls within the definition of trade …

It certainly does not apply to professional men.

I think it does. Speaking generally that does apply to trade, and I contend that the incidence of the tax, of the special tax which we require, should fall on those whose incomes are enhanced by these profits. When you come to incomes from investment the position is different. Under war conditions the rate of interest returns has been dropping. The rantier is no better off. His income does react unfavourably to war conditions. The other thing happens. When you come to the salaried man …

He earns more than ever before.

The man at the bottom, yes, but that does not apply to the man we are trying to get at. The bigger salaried man is no better off. His salary does not respond to extra profits. His salary tends to remain stationary, and in fact in many cases its real value is lower than before. That is the position. A special point has been raised in regard to professions. Under our legislation we group professions with trade. The definition which we re-enacted last year of trade is this:

The principle therefore which we have adopted in our taxation measures so far is that professions go with trade in the economic life of the country. If trade is good, the professions benefit, if trade is poor, the professions suffer. I think that is correct as a general rule, and certainly in time of war professional men also tend to benefit by the fact that some of their competitors are away on active service.

Does not that apply to salaried men too?

No, I don’t think so.

If business is good, salaries are higher.

Salaried people at the top don’t depend on profits. If they do I would point out that under the excess profits duty we can get at them. Where salaries go up with profits we have means of charging back these excessive salaries for purposes of excess profits duty. I don’t therefore see—and I am sure this House, which consists so largely of professional men —would not like to confer special favours on professional men as a class—but I do not see how we can get away from the procedure which we have followed in the past in this regard. It would indeed be very difficult to alter the definition of trade. I would like to see how it could be done. It is by no means easy to define “profession.” Of course, there are many men who regard themselves as professional men but whom others do not regard as professional men. We should be creating many anomalies if we started defining profession for the purpose of inclusion or exclusion from the definition.

What about professional politicians?

I would not go so far as to include them. But take a masseur; he might be defined as a professional man, but then there is the chiropractor—would he be defined as a professional man? And then there is the professor—you have the professor of music, but what about the professor of dancing or of palmistry? And then you have the old grievance of the analytical chemist against the gentleman whom he prefers to call a pharmacist, but who calls himself a chemist. It is not easy to draw the line, and I would be very loath to bring upon my shoulders and on the shoulders of those associated with me the very difficult task of defining what “profession” is for the purpose of exclusion from this tax.

Are you including the farming profession?

Yes, but not as a profession.

You are not depending on what you will get from the farmer.

No, but I think that in spite of what we hear of the farmers’ troubles there have been some farmers who have made substantial contributions to our excess profits duty—and good luck to them. Now I come to the fourth of these resolutions, that is the one dealing with the personal and savings fund levy. There I think there is very little I need say. That whole point has been adequately covered. That proposal, as hon. members are aware, provides for a flat rate varying according to the amount of income, and the marital status of the taxpayer, plus a percentage of income tax, and it allocates the amount paid in that way between the revenue and the savings fund. I have already, in reply to the Budget debate, said that having regard to the fact that this resolution speaks of exceptions, adjustments and exemptions, we propose to provide in the Bill itself for a rebate of £1 per child from the flat rate up to a maximum of £5. That, I think, is known to the House, and I do not need to enlarge upon it, therefore. Then I come to the net proposal, the fixed property tax, where I would draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that the original resolution as appearing on page 327 is replaced by an amended resolution on page 428. I gave my reasons for the institution of this tax in my Budget speech. Its main object, of course, apart from the revenue it will bring in, is to discourage speculation in land. Undoubtedly in present circumstances the imposition of a tax of this kind is to the advantage of the community as a whole, and as far as rural land is concerned I would contend that it is not least to the advantage of the farmer. We know what over-capitalisation means. We are still suffering from the overcapitalisation of the past, and in so far as we seek to check over-capitalisation, I think we are doing a national service. Generally, I think this tax has been welcomed as an attempt to deal with this particular problem. Of course, an attempt has been made to represent this tax as a land tax. It is not a land tax, it is a tax on the profit derived from the sale of land. As such, it is a temporary tax, having regard to the conditions of South Africa and of the world.

Why not confine it to land?

Does my hon. friend want to create another favoured class? I contend that exactly the same evils apply today to the sale of land with buildings on it, as apply in the case of rural land.

I do not agree with you.

Then I am afraid that we must agree to differ. The tax will only become payable in respect of the first sale of land subsequent to a transfer which has taken place since the 1st October, 1939. If property last changed hands before that date, and is now sold, the tax will not be applied.

What about property where the actual sale takes place, but where there was no transfer?

We shall have to deal with that when we come to the Bill. In the case of land last transferred before the tax was announced, and now transferred again, the rate will be 6s. 8d. in the £. In the case of land sold after the date of the Budget, and then transferred again, the rate will be the excess profit rate of 13s. 4d. A special question arose in connection with this tax in regard to the position of companies, who, in effect transfer land by transferring shares. I have already indicated that it is our intention to deal with such companies, and that is why the resolution was submitted after the Budget in an amended form. We propose that this tax will also be payable on the transfer of shares in private companies, as defined in the Income Tax Act, where the commissioner finds that the income of that company comes mainly from fixed property. A discretion is given to the commissioner to decide what is a property holding company, but we propose to make his decision subject to appeal. There are many points of detail which arise in connection with this proposal, and I have no doubt that the Bill will be carefully examined when it comes before the House. At the present moment we are only concerned with the principle. There is the position of the mortgagee who is compelled to buy in a property on the default of the mortgagor. There is the possibility of evasion by way of payment of option money, which is really a part of the purchase price. There is the question of allowances for improvements and other items. There is the question of the remuneration of the builder, whose sole or main occupation it is to buy land and to build houses, and then to sell the houses. These are all points we have had to consider in drafting the details of the Bill. I think the House will find when the Bill is before it, that these points have been satisfactorily met. The next proposal is that in regard to estate duty, and I think this is a proposal which was received with the largest measure of unanimity. I take it that we are all more ready to envisage taxation which is payable after we are dead than taxation payable while we are alive. No word of criticism was levelled at this tax during the budget debate. I would therefore only repeat that in this proposal we are making the progressive rate smoother and more logical, and in the second place we are increasing the rate at the top, raising it from 17 per cent. to 25 per cent. Finally, there is before the House a resolution dealing with customs and excise proposals. On pages 328 and 329 we have the budget proposals in regard to customs and excise. As hon. members are aware, we propose to impose an excise duty on tobacco and cigars, and that, despite what was said by hon. members during the budget debate, doubtless misled by Press statements, is to be balanced by a corresponding customs duty on imported cigars. Then we are proposing a customs duty on motor fuel which will be balanced by a corresponding excise duty on the locally produced article. And finally, there is a tax on films, to which I referred as something we are instituting to make good our losses in respect of the revenue from tea. Then there are other proposals which will be found on later pages. I would draw the attention of hon. members to page 414. There we have, in the first place, certain minor adjustments of customs duties which are put forward on the basis of recommendations by the Board of Trade in connection with industrial development and industrial requirements of South Africa. But these are all of a minor nature, and I do not propose to delay the House with that now. I can give any information which is required in that connection to hon. members at a later stage. Further, on that page, supplemented by the third list on page 532, there are provisions for the imposition of certain excise licence fees. In introducing the Excise Licence Bill, I stated that as part of that Bill, we thought it desirable to bring about more uniformity in the matter of excise licences. There are certain articles in respect of which licences are required, and other articles in respect of which licences are not required. We are proposing to make the position more logical and uniform now. In order to do so, the Committee is required to approve of our proposals before they can be embodied in the Bill. I hope I have, without undue detail, without repeating unduly what I have said before, indicated the scope of our proposals, and I now beg to move in accordance with the notice given.

I second.

When I was on the point of going to the Select Committee on Public Accounts this morning, I found out for the first time that the Minister’s taxation proposals were the first order on the Order Paper for today. That was the first time I heard of it. I don’t want to complain and I do not deny the Minister the right to change the Order Paper about as he sees fit. If the Minister imagines that he is doing something clever by trying to surprise the Opposition and by scoring a small political advantage over us, very well, let him do so; I only want to tell him that I do not think that by doing so he is rendering a service either to the House or to the country. I think the least we can expect from the Minister is that when he moves something from the bottom of the Order Paper to the top to inform us of it the night before.

May I say a few words in explanation? First of all, it is always possible for hon. members opposite to know what will be on the Order Paper the next day; all that information can be had, but I want to say that if the hon. member had asked me this morning to agree to the adjournment of the debate after my introductory speech, I would have been willing to do so. I am still prepared to do so if the hon. member wishes me to, but as the hon. member knows it is desirable to make the relevant Bills available as soon as possible, and he knows that we cannot introduce the Bills, before the resolutions, which we now have before us, are passed. So it is a matter of time. If I can get the assurance from the House that we shall get these resolutions passed by Thursday next, I am quite prepared to accept the adjournment of the debate. I only want to be able to introduce the Bills on Thursday so that they can be printed in time for consideration. I merely want to bring this fact to the notice of the House.

I only want to say that to my mind it is a matter of courtesy and politeness.

But the Minister is now meeting you in a reasonable way.

When the agenda is altered in such an important respect the Minister can at least notify us the eveningbefore, to give us some opportunity of studying the matter. It is for that reason that I took the unusual step today of objecting to the Minister’s motion for the House to go into Committee at once.

That was not the motion.

Now let us come to the Minister’s taxation proposals. When the Minister announced his proposals in his Budget speech, the main objection we raised was that the Minister’s proposals, as they looked to us, were half-baked. It seemed that the Minister had suddenly found that he needed more money and that he had to search around for sources of revenue, and that then, without having properly and thoroughly gone into matters, and without having ascertained how each of his new taxes would affect the public, and not only the public but also commerce and industries, he put forward his proposals. The charge we made against the Minister at the time was that the proposals were half-baked. We immediately drew attention to certain aspects of these proposals. For instance, I discussed the principle contained in the proposal about the personal tax. I told the Minister that his proposals meant that the married man with six or seven children and an income of £301 would under his taxation proposals pay just as much every year to the Exchequer as the man with four children and an income of £600. The Minister at once felt that that criticism was justified and he altered the scheme. We are glad he has done so. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) also pointed out in what respect the Minister’s proposals were half-baked. He pointed out that the profit tax on immovable property would not really affect the rich man but the poor man. It is the poor man, who buys a house for £1,000 and sells it for £1,500, who will be caught, but the rich man who builds a block of flats for £100,000 and who turns himself into a company, and who, if he sells one day, only sells his company, is not affected in any way. The Minister did not realise that. But it shows how half-baked the Minister’s taxation proposals were, and how little he realised what their practical effect was going to be. Now, let me give the House an instance to show how half-baked the Minister’s taxation proposals still are in their present form: I take the case of four people in South Africa today, all with an income of £10,000. This is not war profit, because I am taking the case of people who had the same income before the war. Before the war, too, these people had an income of £10,000 and they have the same income today, so that there is no question of war profit. Now, let us first of all take the case of the factory owner, the man who wants to build up something, to construct something, with his money—the man who takes a risk by investing his money in a factory. He does not make any war profits; his profits are the same as they were before the war. He is still making a profit of £10,000. Now he is penalised by the new tax on trade profits introduced by the Minister. He now has to pay 6s. 8d. on everything he makes beyond the legal percentage laid down. The legal percentage is 8 per cent. on his capital investment. But assuming 8 per cent. of his capital investment amounts to £7,000, then that is his legal percentage, and on anything over that he has to pay 6s. 8d. in the £. That is to say, he has to pay 6s. 8d. in the £ on £3,000. I am now putting the position broadly, because we have not got this Bill before us, and we cannot say exactly what the tax is going to be. However, he will now have to give up 6s. 8d, on the £3,000 because £3,000 is the amount over and above his legal percentage. That is the one case. That is the case of the man who invests his money in a factory and who takes a risk. Now let us come to the second man, the professional man, say, for instance, a doctor or a dentist, or a barrister, who has an income today of £10,000 and who also made that income before the war. Again there is no question of war profit. I think we all realise that if a doctor or a dentist or an advocate makes £10,000 a year he has to work day and night; he earns his money by the sweat of his brow and he has to work very, very hard indeed to make it. Now, what do the taxation proposals say? Everything he makes over and above £3,000, that is to say £7,000, is liable to a tax of 6s. 8d. in the £. Hon. members may perhaps say that that is how it should be in the case of a man who earns such a lot of money. Then let us take some other cases. Take for instance the Chairman of the Chamber of Mines in Johannesburg. Let us assume that he gets a salary of £10,000 per year. How much of that does he pay the State? Not a blue cent. for the purposes of these taxation proposals. He is a salaried man. He does not work half as hard as the dentist or the doctor who earns £10,000 per year; he is Chairman of the Chamber of Mines where he gets at least £10,000 per year and he does not surrender one penny of that for these purposes. Now, take the case of the rich rantier in Cape Town. I could mention quite a number of names, but I do not propose doing so. They do not invest a penny of their money in factories, or in anything involving risk. What do they do now? They look for safe investments. They first of all take bonds, perhaps they buy shares, Government Bonds; they sit still and they do not draw usurious rates of interest. Take the case of a man like that with an income of £10,000. He does not pay a penny to the State for the purpose of this particular tax. Here we have four different cases. Is that a fair allocation of taxation, of taxation burden, at a time of war? I am going to mention an instance from this House. We have the Minister of Finance; before the war he was not a Minister. It was just when war broke out, as a result of the war, that he became Minister and he gets £2,500 per year. I don’t begrudge the Minister getting that; he is one of the men in the Cabinet who perhaps really earns his money. There are very few who earn it. Under this form of taxation he does not pay anything. But what about the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Fagan). He was a Minister just before war broke out — just before the 4th September, 1939. As a result of the war he lost that and now he has to practice as a barrister. If he makes as much out of his practice as he got as a Minister then he has to give up everything, he has to pay 13s. 4d. on his earnings above £1,500.

That is not correct.

In terms of the law it is so. The Minister may make exceptions but in terms of the law that is the position. He is allowed £1,500 but on everything over and above £1,500 he has to pay 13s. 4d. in the £. In regard to the whole of the Minister’s taxation system I must say that I find it so objectionable that I cannot find a good word for it. I am not going to move the rejection of all the Minister’s taxation proposals but I can assure the Minister that when we go into Committee of Ways and Means we shall fight every one of his proposals as hard as we can. I have given the instance of these four people, all with incomes of £10,000, and their incomes do not arise from war conditions. The one has to pay 6s. 8d. in the £ and the other pays nothing. Can we defend such an unfair state of affairs? Now let us come to the second important point. The Minister proposes to increase the Gold Mines’ special contribution from 16 per cent. to 20 per cent. On another occasion the Minister went out of his way to tell us how much more the poor mines have been paying in the last few years. The hon. member for Kensington, too is always keen on telling us about that. They tell us how during the last few years, since 1937, the mines have been paying more and more into the coffers of the State. The question which I want to ask is this: what special contributions are the mines asked to make to our war expenditure? That is the only question I want to ask. The question is not what taxes the mines are paying, as a result of the gold premium having gone up, the question is what special contribution they are making and have been making to our war expenditure since 1939? I have a paper before me prepared by the Minister himself and in that paper he admits that the only contributions made by the mines to the war expenditure till the end of this year, that is to say for the past financial year, is £6,730,000. This year the Minister proposes to increase the special contribution from 16 per cent. to 20 per cent., that is to say he asks for an additional £1,640,000 from the mines. That in round figures amounts to £8,300,000.

Extra war taxation.

That is the amount the mines contribute to the war taxation. Now. I have to tell the House that the extra taxation which the public as a whole contribute to the war expenditure amounts to more than £35,000,000 today, namely, £35,750,000. The contribution of the mines is only £8,300,000, and the public in general contribute £35,000,000. The Minister talks of the increasing working costs of the mines. Why did not the Minister tell the House that when he imposed the first special contribution of 9 per cent. instead of the Havenga tax he provided for a £3,000,000 increase in working costs? This is the only industry in the country which the Minister has made an allowance for the increase in working costs, and the working costs again constitute the reason now why we must not put a heavier tax on the “poor” mines. I did not expect the Minister to have kept silent in regard to that particular tax. Unfortunately I have not got all the figures for 1941 to show the position of the mining industry today, but I have the details for 1940. Now, let me tell the House what the position of the mining industry was in 1940. The mining industry in 1940 reached a new zenith of prosperity in every respect. The production of the gold mines increased by 1,250,000 fine ounces, and rose to 14,000,000 fine ounces; the value of the production increased in one year by £19,000,000 to £118,000,000. We are all told to be satisfied with a little less during this time of war, but not the gold mines, because the dividends of the gold mining industry went up in one year by £1,250,000—they went up from £19,990,000 to £21,280,000. The dividends in that year went up by one and a quarter million pounds to twenty-one and a quarter million pounds. That was not due to the fact that the ore worked was of a higher grade, because the grade of the ore worked that year dropped from 4.2 to 4.1 dwt. The year 1940 was one of the best years the gold mining industry has ever had, yet that is the industry which the Minister selects for lenient treatment. It is the “poor” mining “bosses” who have to be treated so very leniently.

Because they are also the Government’s bosses.

I think I may as well quote a few more figures. The Minister of Finance told us what taxes the mines paid during the past few years. We know what was the result of our going off the gold standard, and of the fact that the price of gold went up. The price today is twice as high as it was in 1933. Now we know that that is not something which the mines have earned, but we know that that happened as a result of a stroke of the pen by the former Minister of Finance. The predecessor of the Minister of Finance himself stated in this House that the gold premium was actually a subsidy paid by the people to the gold mining industry. I have calculated what the amount of the gold premium is which the gold mines have received since 1933. Altogether it amounts to £283,000,000. Of that, the State has been paid £87,000,000 by way of taxes. The State’s share in the profits was £39,000,000. That is to say, that the State has got £126,000,000 of this gold premium which amounted to £283,000,000.

Does that include mining leases?

Yes, it also includes leases. The gold mines’ share was £148,000,000. That is what they got in dividends. It is interesting to know that the dividends paid out since 1924 amount to the enormous sum of £218,000,000. If we look at the report of the Government Mining Engineer, we find that the total amount of capital invested in the gold mines is £119,000,000. The dividend since 1924 amount to a sum of £218,000,000. That is to say, that since 1924 the amount paid out in dividends is nearly twice as much as the total amount invested in the gold mines themselves.

And on top of that they are still providing for the redemption of capital.

When one takes note of these figures one should also remember that the gold mines are the only industry in respect of which the Minister has made provision for an amount of £3,000,000 for the increase in working costs. And that being so the Minister should stop his inane talk about the “poor” gold mines being so heavily taxed. The attitude adopted by this side of the House is that at a time like the present, the gold mines are not bearing their rightful share of the taxes, which they can be expected to bear, and that they should be made to pay a little more by way of taxation. Now let us go on to deal with another of the Minister’s taxation proposals. First of all I wish to pause for a moment at the proposed profits tax on fixed property. The Minister’s argument is as follows: In this way he wants to try to prevent an unsound increase in the price of land. I believe that I understood the Minister correctly that that was the main reason why he was imposing this tax. He said that we had had experience of unhealthy rises in the price of land, and he told us that it had led to over capitalisation. Let me say this, to the Minister, that he is certainly not going to achieve his object by this tax of his. I think the Minister realises what the danger is in that connection. There is an amount of something like £30,000,000 or £40,000,000 lying idle in our banks. That is money which people are leaving in the banks free of interest so that the moment they see that the value of our currency drops they will be able to invest that money in immovable property. At the moment the people are not yet nervous about the value of our money. Nothing has happened yet to make them feel panicky, but the Minister realises that the moment there is a further drop in sterling and the Minister allows our money to drop with sterling, the public will get a fright and become scared of the value of money, and they will immediately take that money which is lying there without drawing interest and invest it in land. And if that happens this tax of the Minister’s is not going to have any effect in preventing that position from arising. Those people are not buying land for specualtive purposes, they are only doing so to secure their money. They will all buy at the same time and it will rush up the price of land. If the Minister thinks he is going to stop the price of property going up by that tax, he is deceiving himself. Now I want to put a few questions to the Minister in regard to this tax. Assuming I have bought a house after the outbreak of war, that is, after the 30th September, 1939, for which I have paid £2,000. I then have to pay a tax of 6s. 8d. in the £ on any profit I make on the resale of that house. Assuming I sell the house for £2,500. Apparently there is a profit of £500. The Minister has not said anything about the commission I have to pay on that money.

That is not profit.

Very well, I bought the house for myself to live in, and meanwhile I have effected improvements to a value of £100. Is that deducted from the profit I make on the resale?

The Minister has said so.

And the cost of transfer? I want the Minister to tell us clearly what the position is going to be in regard to all those things such as commission, costs of transfer, improvements—are all those costs first of all to be deducted before the amount of the profit is calculated?

And what about the rent? If I have lived in the house myself.

Assuming I have bought an erf. We have not got the tax before us and we have to guess.

But all this will be set out in the Bill.

Yes, but we have to accept the principle of tax now, and surely we should know what we are going to vote for. The Minister cannot ask us to accept the principle and then afterwards give us a Bill which nobody wants. Assuming I buy an erf for £400 and I build a house on that erf. A good house which costs me £2,000. If I sell that house at a profit, must I still pay that 6s. 8d. in the £? I have not built that house for speculative purposes. Assuming I bought the erf before war broke out, but I built the house afterwards. Now I sell that house, am I liable for the tax then—yes or no? All these questions are put to us every day. We like to know these things. The officials are very much concerned about this Bill; there is a terrible house scarcity. Officials find it impossible to rent houses, and they are compelled to buy. Now, assuming an official is transferred to Pretoria. He cannot rent a house and is compelled to buy one; he has been compelled to do so after the outbreak of war. Now he is transferred to Cape Town. The same thing happens here. He cannot find a house to rent and he is again compelled to buy one. He has to sell his house in Pretoria and he makes a profit on it, but here in Cape Town he has to pay the new price for a house, the new price caused by the taxes which the Minister has imposed. It is going to hit people very hard, and particularly the officials. They cannot get houses, and if this type of man sells his house in Pretoria at a profit and if he has to give up 6s. 8d. or 13s. 4d. in the £ to the Minister of Finance, it is going to be very hard business. He has to buy another house in Cape Town and he has to pay the higher price caused by the Minister’s taxes, because the seller will always bear in mind the fact, and take into account the fact, that he has to pay this tax. Now that is the point. The Minister wants to try and stop inflation. He is going to cause inflation. It is so clear that I am surprised that anyone with sound commonsense fails to see it. Let me put the position this way. I bought a house since the 26th February of this year. I want to make £100 profit on that house. Now I know that if I want to make £100 profit I have to sell the house for at least £300 more than what it cost me, because £200 has to go off that £300 for the Minister of Finance. The Minister must see that he is at once causing the price of the house to go up by £200. The house scarcity in the big towns is such that one can ask practically anything one wants for a house and get it. The price of the house is fixed by the man who has bought since the 25th February, so that he can put £100 in his pocket and £200 can go to the Minister of Finance. In other words, he has to make a profit of £300. That immediately determines the price of houses. The man who sold a day before makes a profit of £300 and he puts £200 in his pocket and the Minister of Finance gets £100. The man who bought before the war takes the whole of the £300. The effect will simply be that the price of property is going to be rushed up. This tax is going to hit certain classes of people very hard. One cannot find a house to buy. My main objection to this tax is that it is going to make people try to evade the law. It is going to turn them into crooks (“skelms”). In the Transvaal the Provincial Council had a tax of this kind. People could drive a cart and horses through the provisions of that Act. As an hon. member here said, they could drive a wagon and two spans of oxen through it. They are going to do the same thing with this tax.

That tax was a very productive one all the same.

We don’t want to turn people into crooks, but that is what we are going to do with this Bill. A man sells his house with all the furniture. The furniture is worth £200, but in the contract the value of the furniture is put up two or three times.

They sell the erf with a Jersey cow on it.

Yes, that is what happens. All I can say is that the man who has designed this tax shows that he only has a theoretical knowledge of trade and commerce in this country, and that is where the Minister fails—he only has an academic knowledge.

Well, academic knowledge is better than no knowledge at all.

Yes, the Minister without Portfolio knows all about that. Naturally, there are Ministers without Portfolio, and also Ministers without brains. I only want to say this about the special tax on trade profits, that we are opposed to it in principle. We asked the Minister to amend the Excess Profits Tax, so that it would not fall unnecessarily severely on new enterprises. That is all we asked the Minister to do. Now, the Minister is not making any concessions whatsoever to new enterprises; all he does is to impose this tax on old industries, and everybody will tell him that this tax is becoming unbearable. The whole of trade and industry tell us that at the beginning of the year they cannot say what provision they have to make in the course of the year for taxes. There are no two accountants in Cape Town who would interpret these taxes alike. They cannot understand them. We want the Minister to give an explanation of these taxes long before they are imposed, so that the public may know what the nature and the effect of the taxation is going to be. We are going to fight the taxation proposals Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 tooth and nail. We are not opposed to No. 1, and that is why I am not moving anything at this stage.

While I listened to the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) this afternoon I thought of a celebrated character in the classis called Procrustes. At lunch time I looked up the history of Procrustes. That was the surname of a celebrated robber of Attica. All who fell into his hands he placed on a bed which was either too long or too short, but to which he adjusted them either by racking or by amputation until they died. This he continued until Theseus overpowered him and made him suffer the tortures which he had inflicted upon others.

That is not very original. You made the same comparison some time ago.

It is my misfortune if the hon. gentleman does not think it is very original, but I could not help thinking, when I listened to the criticism of the hon. member for George this afternoon, that the lot of the Minister of Finance is certainly a hard one. He makes his Budget proposals and those proposals are in due course criticised. If, Sir, he accepts some of those criticisms as reasonable, and adjusts his scheme of taxation accordingly, then he is jeered at by the Opposition for having introduced “half-baked” proposals. If, on the other hand, he hardens his heart, turns a deaf ear to every form of criticism, refuses to listen to any representations, however reasonable, then of course he is stigmatised as a reincarnation of Henry Burton. So, either way, Sir, it seems to me that the poor unlucky Minister of Finance is on a bed of Procrustes. Either he is too short or he is too long; if he is too short he has to be stretched out until he fits the bed; if he is too long, he has to have his feet lopped off at the hands of the executioner, my hon. friend, the member for George.

This one is too wide.

One thing I may say to the Minister and that is this. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the complaint with which the hon. member for George began his speech this afternoon. I admit that once notice is given of these resolutions, it is free to the Government to put them down on any particular day, but I do suggest Sir, that in future we might follow the same practice in regard to these Ways and Means resolutions, as we do in regard to the Budget. We know well in advance that on a certain day the Minister will introduce his Budget proposals. These taxation proposals are the very essence of the budget. They go to the very root of the life of the people of this country, and this discussion on Ways and Means is probably the most important discussion, certainly the most important resolution, in the whole session. I think, Sir, that it might offer a humble suggestion to the Minister that it would be wise for him in the future to fix a certain day and let it be known not only to the Opposition, but to both sides of this House that on that day the House will actually consider the Ways and Means proposals. Otherwise members like the hon. member for George and myself and others who take an interest in the finances of this country, are tied to this House by a string. We attend in the ordinary way, but it might happen that during the temporary absence of any one of us from the House, these proposals are discussed in which we take a very wide interest. The Minister has rightly said that compared with other countries this is a lightly taxed country; he has rightly said that, taking the proportion of State income which is raised by way of taxation, this country bears no comparison with any sister Dominion or with Great Britain.

[Inaudible.]

I agree, I am going to criticise some of the taxes myself, but I want to say that the country cannot complain and as far as I know, in spite of the hon. member for George, the country does not complain that £8,000,000 of extra taxation is sought to be raised this year. There is criticism, there has been very wide criticism in some directions as to the method by which it is proposed to raise this money. Now, what is the fundamental requisite of any scheme of taxation? Surely, sir, it is that taxation shall be fair, and the cardinal requisite of fair taxation is that it falls fairly and equally upon the shoulders of all sections of the community. A tax in my opinion is a bad tax which gives cause for A to say: “I am being taxed whereas B and C, who are as well able to bear the burden as myself, go scot free.” That, sir, is the standard by which you can judge even a war tax in war time. There is no disposition, sir, on the part of the section of the public of South Africa represented by this side of the House to shirk any share whatever of their bruden of taxation, but I find a very widespread disposition to criticise certain of these new taxes as bearing unfairly upon certain sections of the people. I want to begin by saying that two or three days ago I received a leaflet issued by the Labour Party of Durban in which a very strong class cry is raised that the rich people of South Africa are escaping their fair share of the war burden and that the present income tax system is unfair. I want to say straight away that I don’t think we will be able to escape in this country placing heavier burdens on the higher income classes of South Africa. Whether you take the limit at £1,500 or whether you take it at £2,000, which is the present super-tax limit, the time must come when additional revenue for this country must be raised by a very much greater steepening of the taxes upon incomes of that class of the community. In my Budget speech I gave figures to show that in Australia and New Zealand today your average middle-class man, or thousandpounder, pays four times as much or did pay four times as much as the South African was paying prior to the present Budget. Today he pays at least three times as much, if not more.

Is there a difference in the standard of living?

None whatever; the standard of living in Australia is much the same as in this country, the cost of living is the same, and you can more or less say that the members of the middle-class in Australia and in New Zealand live the same sort of life under the same sort of conditions as the people in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

My hon. friend on my right (Mr. Alexander) raises the question whether in making this comparison I took Provincial taxes into account. I did, I took Provincial taxes in South Africa and State taxes in Australia, where they have a State income tax.

What about indirect taxation?

Mr. Speaker both in Australia and in New Zealand they have a certain amount of indirect taxation as we have in this country, but that forms a comparatively small proportion of the general scheme of taxation. As a matter of interest to members, I would like to tell them that in a Budget speech made in the Australian House some six months ago, Mr. Menzies, the ex-Prime Minister, speaking as a private member of Parliament, mentioned that the total income of Australia was £800,000,000. The total income of Australia was £800,000,000, and of that sum incomes up to £400 per year totalled £560,000,000, and of that £560,000,000 of income, income taxes were paid only up to £4,000,000. Let me put it again. For the total income for Australia of £800,000,000 the lower income class earners up to £400 per year earned £560,000,000, and they paid in income tax only £4,000,000. I should like the Minister if he can get the information to tell this House what is the position in South Africa. In South Africa you will find virtually that until the new Budget was introduced, the £400—four hundredpounder—paid no income tax because most of these people earning these small amounts had children and did not have to pay income tax. Therefore the income tax in South Africa is paid by the people earning more than £400 per year. What the corresponding figures are in other countries I have not been able to ascertain, but perhaps the Minister may be able to obtain the necessary information. Now I want to deal with one or two of the taxes which the Minister is proposing to introduce. In principle I can see no objection to this fixed property tax. I agree that abuse will be easy. I agree that special vigilance will be needed on the part of the revenue authorities to see that people do not drive either one ox wagon or two or three through it, but what are you to say of the case of a man who buys a property very cheaply and sells it at an enormous profit?

That does not happen—that only happens in theory.

I know that it does happen.

There are no eonrmous profits made.

If that man’s business is speculating in properties then the income tax authorities say to him: “Your business is speculating in properties,” and they make him pay, but I am dealing with the profit which a man makes if he has only one or two transactions—then he does not pay. [Interruptions.] I shall be obliged to hon. members if they will keep a little bit quiet. I am trying to deal with some very complicated points and I cannot possibly do so if there is this continuous interruption and noise going on. Take the case of a man who buys a farm at a low figure and who sells at a high figure— he puts the profit into his pocket and even today he does not pay anything to the Government.

Well, what about shares?

Yes, I agree. The same argument applies there. The point I want to make is this, that every penny of income I make, in whatever way, is very carefully scrutinised and brought into the net by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. But there are instances where profits of the kind I have referred to are not taxed. So I say the time has come when I think the Minister is bound to introduce a tax of this kind. The only question is whether, just as he has given slight exemptions in other respects, he should not fix a slight abatement to protect the small man, whether he should not allow a certain basic profit before he begins to impose this tax.

What will that help?

Well, that is a matter which we can discuss in Committee, but I think this tax could be improved if a certain basic exemption were agreed to. But now I want to speak about probably the most contentious item, and that is the trade profits special levy. I want to say straight away that I do not often find myself in agreement with the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth), but on this occasion I do, and I want to give my reasons for that. The original mistake the Minister made was including the professions in the net of the excess profits duty.

Why should the professions not be included?

I am not going to appear this afternoon as holding any special brief for the professional man. I do not claim that he should be in any way exempted from burdens put on the rest of the community, but I say in its very framework the excess profits duty was never properly applicable to the professional man, and I shall tell the Minister why. A business, an established business, earns profit in its stride, almost by its own momentum. An established business in its daily buying and selling in the ordinary way makes profits and runs on its own momentum. But the professional man only earns his income by doing various acts of service to the public, and it is open to that man to do or not to do so according to his inclinations. A doctor can say: “Well, if all my income over £3,000 is to be taken, I shall take good care that I do not wear myself out and that I do not earn more than £3,000.”

Not very patriotic.

A barrister may say— I don’t say he will say that, but he may say: “After I have provided for the needs of my family I shall take no more briefs, or otherwise I shall simply act pro deo.” A professional man can do that, and I believe that in England professional men actually do it. The position there is such that if a man earns, shall I say £30,000, or would have earned £30,000 at the Bar, he is not allowed to keep more than £3,000 or £4,000 of that. And the result is that the days of big professional incomes in England have gone— they are no longer earned, and if you are not careful you will dry up professional incomes in the same way in this country. You cannot dry them up in a business which has so much staff and so much stock, which must carry on. But if you say to a professional man who carries on a one-man business: “We are going to tax you in such a way,” and especially if you say it to him and him alone, there is a danger that these higher incomes will dry up. I can speak to the House this afternoon—I shall take the House into my confidence. I have never earned a professional income of £3,000 a year, and I am never likely to. And therefore this particular tax does not affect me, but I cannot conceive of anything more unscientific than these proposals. What does the Minister do? He arbitrarily assesses the capital value of a professional man at £25,000. And then he says: “On that I shall allow him 8 per cent.” That brings his permissible income to £3,000 per year. You may have a rentier or a merchant whose income is £10,000 per year. No such arbitrary assessment is made in his case. The professional men of South Africa are told that their capital value is assessed at £25,000 and their permissible income at £3,000. I cannot see any logic in such a proposal. In almost every other country whose income tax I have studied a difference is drawn between earned income and unearned income. In England a difference is drawn, in Australia it is, and in New Zealand it is; I have not looked at Canada. And the difference is this, that earned income is taxed more lightly than unearned income. But here it is proposed to reverse the process. It is proposed that the rentier drawing £10,000—and some earn more from fixed investments, shall not be touched. They are allowed to go on earning that money, but it is proposed to say to the professional man who is earning that money by his own assiduity: “We shall tax you.” My hon. friend, the Minister, uses the argument that the income of the rentier class tends to be reduced. Surely that begs the question. If he has less income he won’t pay, but we are dealing with a man who has the income and still will not pay. I want to make my position clear. I am not asking the Minister to release the professional man from this new tax but I am asking him so to frame this tax that there is equality of sacrifice all round. I do not regard a tax as a good tax if it taxes A and omits B and C, when they all have the same taxable capacity. The Minister has given as his reason for the introduction of this tax the fact that the excess profits duty hits only one portion of the commercial community. That is so. That is an argument against the excess profits duty. It is a bad tax, you cannot defend it except on the ground on which the Minister does defend it, and that is, that it is a wartime necessity, and as such I accept it. And I also accept the necessity for the balancing tax, but my difficulty is that it does not balance. The excess profits tax is imposed at the rate of 13s. 4d. in the £, but this new tax is imposed at the rate of 6s. 8d., and you still will have the cry of disparity. The new man will say: “I am taxed at the rate of two-thirds, and the old established business only at the rate of one-third. The Minister referred to Australia. When I was there, I specially enquired into this. They had it there in the last war. The commissioner for taxation reported on the excess profits tax in these terms—

Well, now, that is the reason why Australia, as the Minister has said, made a clean sweep and said: “We shall bring everyone into the net.” “Private individuals we shall bring into the net by one of the heaviest income tax proposals anywhere in the world.” “Companies we shall bring in in two ways—the first by the ordinary tax which I believe is about 4s. or 5s. in the £, and then by the war time company tax, the principle of which the Minister has explained, which taxes all profits made by companies after a basic rate is allowed.” That basic rate used to be 8 per cent., and now it is 5 per cent., and the tax increases on the stepping up principle, until at 78 per cent. practically the whole of their profit is swallowed up. I think the Minister agrees with me that if we could start from scratch in this country he would be inclined to tax here on that basis. The trouble is that we have started with an excess profits duty which is unfair and unequal in its incidence, and that is why this new tax has been introduced to balance matters. I say again that this new tax will not meet the cry of inequality in regard to persons who suffer from the excess profits duty. Now, I want to come back to the professional man. In no country is the professional man asked to pay excess profits tax, and I believe his liability here arises simply from the fact that the definition of the word “trade” in the Income Tax Act includes “profession”. And, therefore, when the Minister introduced his excess profits duty he felt compelled to bring in professions. I do not make a plea for the professions as such, but I do repeat that the professions as such, that professional incomes as such, are not fairly assessible for excess profits duty. Now, when the Minister is seeking to restore the balance, he finds once more that he has to deal with the case of a professional man, and he can only deal with that by arbitrarily fixing a certain amount of assumed capital in his business, and fixing on that a sort of basic professional income above which he will be taxed. There is no answer as far as I can see to the case of the four men put up by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth). You have four men each with an income of £10,000 per year. One of the four will pay, and the other three will escape, and that is to my mind the weakness of the present proposal. The Minister has said in justification of the tax as a whole that trade profits in time of war are particularly susceptible to increase. That is true. But can it be said that professional profits fall into the same category as trade profits?

Yes.

Can it be said that the professions as a whole are making greater profits than they did before the war? In any case this proposed tax presupposes the same income as before the war and after a man has exceeded his £3,000, the excess profits tax is imposed. No, with all due respect to the Minister, I cannot see that the tax is a right or a fair one. I again repeat that if it is proposed to tax all incomes above £3,000 let it go, but if it is proposed only to tax professional incomes above £3,000 then I cannot accept the tax as a fair one.

Who pays the tax?

I am asked the question, “Who pays the tax?” Does the hon. member mean that the professional man does not pay it?

It is passed on.

I take it that the man who pays it is the man who earns it. Assuming a doctor earns £5,000 per year —he has to pay his excess profits tax on £2,000. He will have to pay that himself.

No, the patient will have to pay it.

Indirectly, in the same way as the consumers pay most taxes.

Cannot he put up his fees?

Does the Minister suggest that as an escape from this tax the professional men would band together and put up their fees in order to meet this tax? Surely that cannot be a serious suggestion. Surely the Minister himself would be the first to reprehend such a practice. No, the professional men will pay, and they will go on paying, but they will feel, and they will go on feeling, that they are being treated most unfairly. I take the case which I gave in my Budget speech of two doctors, one holds a staff appointment under the Chamber of Mines, and gets £5,000 per year. The other earns £5,000 by private practice. I am inclined to think that the first doctor does not work half as hard as the second one. Take No. 1 who holds this appointment. He gets his salary, he sits “pretty,” he pays nothing, but No. 2, who has to earn every penny by the sweat of his own body, and the blood of his own brain, has to pay one-third of the excess between £3,000 and £5,000. If he is ill, his employer will take care of him, he goes on drawing his salary just the same, but there is not a professional man in this House who does not know that the bugbear of professional life is illness. If you are laid aside by illness your professional income ceases from that moment. That person does not occupy a privileged position, but your rantier does, your salaried man does, your merchant who has a sufficiently high capital investment in his business bringing him in £8,000 or £10,000 per year, is protected to that amount. I am bound to reaffirm as strongly as ever the opinion which I stressed before, that this tax is partial and unequal in its operation, and will bring on the Minister very severe criticism in the future. I am afraid I have devoted an unusual amount of time to this particular tax. May I reaffirm that the general scheme of taxation has my entire approval. The raising of £8,000,000 has my approval. All these various taxes have my approval, but what I do not, and cannot approve of, is the inclusion of one class of earner and the omission of another and perhaps more comfortable class of earner. Before I sit down I should like to appeal to the Minister. Nothing gives the hon. member for George greater joy than if he can stand up and attack the mining industry, and suggest that they occupy a particularly favoured position in regard to the taxation or the public life of the country.

Well, don’t they?

I have entered one disclaimer already. Let me enter another one now. I do not own, and as far as I can recollect, I never owned a single mining share in my life. I am not connected either as a director or in any other way with any mining company, and I have always occupied a position of entire independence as regards the mining industry. But I would say this, that we as South Africans can be proud of that industry; we can be proud of the way it is run, proud of the men at its head, and proud of the standard it sets as an employer of labour. And let me remind the hon. member for George, when he talks of who pays for all these things, that it is the mining industry which pays for most things in this country. Who pays the Parliamentary salary of the hon. member for George, and all of his friends, but the mining industry of South Africa?

Excuse our laughter.

Let me now say a few words about the speech of my hon. friend. He says he has only been able to get the figures for the mining industry up to last year. If he had read his paper this morning he would have seen that the President of the Chamber of Mines yesterday gave certain illuminating figures. He showed that in the year under review the tonnage milled had increased from 64,500,000 to 67,250,000, that the yield of fine gold had increased from 14,000,000 to 14,375,000 ounces, in round figures. And the revenue of the mines had increased in the year under review from £114,000,000 to £117,000,000. And on the other hand—and I am sure this will rejoice the heart of the hon. member for George— the working profit had fallen from £47,500,000 to £45,750,000, and the dividends to shareholders had fallen from £20,000,000 to £19,250,000. So that the figures for this year—and that is before the new taxation had taken effect—show that so far as it is a super profit making institution the mining industry of the Witwatersrand is having a very bad time indeed, while other industries under war conditions are flourishing. The returns to mining shareholders are going down. Hon. members talk a good deal about the capital invested in that industry. Surely the position is this, that if I was lucky enough to buy shares in a mine when it started and those shares have gone up 300 or 500 or 1,000 per cent. in value, because of the rise in value of the mine, that is, profit not to the mine but to me and today if I want to buy shares in that mine I must buy at the ruling price, a price which is very delicately calculated in accordance with the yield of the mine. When they talk of the industry they must not forget that the industry is not something suspended between heaven and earth. It is a very real thing. And the great majority of these shareholders are South African shareholders, and live in South Africa.

Not the majority.

And they are spread over all classes of the community.

Not the majority.

I believe it is the majority. May I, in conclusion, for the edification of the hon. member for George, and some of his friends who complain of the burden of the war taxation when they pay an infinitesimal portion of it, read what the heaviest taxpayer in South Africa has to say about the Government’s proposals. Mr. Lawrence, speaking for the mining industry yesterday, said this—

And then I want the hon. member to listen to what he goes on to say—

I want to endorse that warning. As one, sir, who has only that interest in the mining industry which every representative of Johannesburg and the Rand must have, I want to endorse that warning. You cannot, as the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) thinks you can, go on piling burden after burden, and tax after tax on that industry. I have shown, and the Minister has endorsed my figures, that between pre-war times and to-day the yield from taxation on the mining industry has risen from £9,500,000 to £24,000,000. That industry is very near the point, sir, when the last straw will break the camel’s back.

I should like to express a few thoughts in connection with these taxation proposals. In the first instance I want to deal with the tax on the sale of property which is proposed here. However one may argue about it, it is going to affect the farmers very much indeed; it will to a very great extent, as I have indicated previously in a speech in this House, deprive a large section of the farming community which longs for and struggles to get hold of land, of that privilege. If the Minister had imposed this taxation in large cities where the gambling spirit has become rife, I could have forgiven it, but in levying this taxation on land which is frequently required for agricultural purposes, he will definitely not render a service to the country, and it will be a direct setback to a large section of the agricultural community. I would like to ask whether the Minister will not consider the question of allowing a percentage profit on agricultural land which changes hands before the date on which he applies this farreaching tax. If he is prepared to do that he will undeniably render the farming community a service thereby. With regard to the speculation tendency in fixed property, I maintain that the Minister’s motion, as it stands here, is an impossible motion, and will not render the agricultural community a service. The second point with which I should like to deal is this. The excess profit tax, as it will affect the farming community today, will be equally burdensome.

The excess profit tax? There is nothing about an excess profits tax in this motion.

I refer to the tax on trades. Today the farmer takes into account two bases; the one is the cash basis and the other is the increase in livestock. Now it happens in these times in which we live that it is frequently necessary for a farmer—sometimes circumstances compel him to do that—to reduce his stock in certain circumstances and to increase it in other circumstances. This tax which is proposed here will result in a large section of the farming community, which the State has rehabilitated to a certain extent since 1933, by means of far-reaching measures—this tax will result in that effort simply being neutralised now. I would like to give an example. It frequently happens that one has a drought season such as this year, for example, and then the farmer may decide to reduce his stock in order to give his land a rest. He may sell 2,000 sheep or 300 cattle. It is not profit which he makes then. It is his capital which is incorporated in that livestock; and under this measure the State will claim such a great portion of it that the person concerned will be paralysed. It is nothing but capital confiscation. I want to ask the Minister to go into this aspect of the matter, because it will affect the farming community very greatly indeed. I know of a farmer who recently invested nearly all his capital in livestock. Recently, in order to give his land a rest, he sold his livestock at a public auction. The amount which he collected was between £7,000 and £8,000. What is the position of that person? He did not make a profit of £7,000 or £8,000; this represents the man’s capital, and if the State intervenes by imposing this tax, it will simply confiscate a large portion of that man’s capital. I just want to draw the attention of the Minister to these points, and to ask him whether he cannot think out ways and means of abolishing the tax in so far as the farmers are concerned. The Minister may argue that that person can deduct a certain capital amount in respect of the animals with which he started, but one cannot determine precisely how much capital he invested here and there. Over a period of years he invested a certain amount of his capital every year. Why should the State now confiscate a certain portion of this capital? I would like to suggest that the Minister should discuss this question with the Prime Minister. I am certain that the Prime Minister knows what the circumstances are which sometimes exist amongst the farming community—I do not want to say that the Minister of Finance will not do it—but I think that he should consult the Prime Minister in connection with the matter. I repeat that this is nothing less than capital confiscation. I further want to point out that hon. members have from time to time compared these taxation tariffs with those of Australia, with those of Canada or with those of New Zealand. Hon. members do not understand that one cannot compare South Africa’s position with that of other countries which have had many years of peace and progress behind them. South Africa is placed in a different position and it is no criterion to make a comparison between South Africa and other countries. South Africa has experienced nearly a century of shocks and setbacks. South Africa is still undeveloped in comparison with those countries, especially in the agricultural sphere, and for that reason you cannot make a comparison between South Africa and New Zealand and Australia, where not only the climatic circumstances, but also the economic circumstances differ widely from the conditions in this country. Those countries ought not therefore to be taken as a criterion in order to justify taxes in this country.

I would have liked to say something about the land tax. I should like to propose the adjournment of the debate with the leave of the Minister, if he will accept it.

I am prepared to accept it under certain conditions.

I move, therefore—

I second.

May I just say then that I am prepared to accept the adjournment on the basis indicated by me at an earlier stage when the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) was talking; in other words, that when the debate resumes tomorrow and is completed, there will be no objection to our going into Committee immediately, and that my hon. friends will then lend every assistance so that we do not complete the Committee stage later than Thursday. I have no objection to the adjournment.

I am not a lawyer, but I do want to ask the hon. Minister whether he does not think that as a result of these provisions the owner of a motor will be placed in a particularly difficult, position when he insures under the provisions of this Act. In the first instance, when is a person under the influence of liquor?

The court must determine that.

Although we take it that the court does its best to give the correct judgment, the court is surely not always right. The question arises, when is a person under the influence of liquor? How is that determined? If one smells of liquor are you under the influence of liquor then? If you take one glass of wine, are you then regarded as being under the influence of liquor? Assuming you take two glasses of wine, are you then under the influence of liquor? It is extremely difficult to determine when a person is under the influence of liquor. It is determined on the evidence of people who met the person concerned immediately after the accident. But I want to go further; when the owner of the motor does not drive the motor himself and someone else drives it while he is under the influence of liquor, is the owner then exempt from compensation? I want to put it in this way. A person approaches you and asks you whether he can get your motor car. He is perhaps really in difficulties, and you give him your car. It may be a person who normally does not drink excessively, but on this occasion he drinks too much. There is an accident; is the owner of the motor car protected under these provisions in such circumstances? What I especially feel is this, that in passing this legislation we put an onus on the owner of the car, a compulsory burden. Let us at least give him the necessary protection in imposing further financial obligations upon him. Let him be protected so that he will be protected in the same way he is protected today when he insures his motor car. The majority of owners of motor cars who insure under this Act, do not study the Act, and it is only when they cause an accident that they discover for the first time that they have to pay a large amount of compensation. In accepting this compulsory insurance, and since we afford the person who is injured in the accident every protection, I do feel that in these circumstances we should not altogether overlook the owner of the motor car. I want to make an appeal to the Minister. I want to say that I am sorry that he has withdrawn Clause 12, but since he has withdrawn it, I want to ask to put something in the place of Clause 12 which will afford adequate protection to the owner of the motor car in such circumstances. We know that sometimes a person who is not a drinker is under the influence of liquor. He takes a little too much alcohol; he causes an accident, and then he discovers that he is not protected under this Act. If the clause remains as it is, the companies— I do not want to say all of them, but some companies—will try to evade the obligations assumed by them. I want to ask whether the Minister will not be prepared to take this matter into consideration.

We have already decided to delete Clause 12. Now we have to put something in its place. What we propose here is to give a very limited right of redress to the companies. The proposal of the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) gave a broad right of redress to the companies. We only give the companies the right which they reserve to themselves today.

[Inaudible.]

They can simply repudiate their liability. Under the policy which is issued today they reserve that right to themselves.

What happens when your driver is under the influence of liquor?

I think my hon. friend will find that his policy will not protect him in those circumstances.

No, I am protected.

But you will find that the company reserves certain rights to itself, and under those circumstances the company will repudiate liability. All that we give the companies here is the right to recover in certain circumstances a right which in many cases will simply be worthless. The company is not in such a good position at all, therefore. But I think it is quite fair that where a person is under the influence of liquor, the companies should have the right of redress against him.

But when his car is driven by someone else?

But he should see to it that that does not happen.

But he is not present perhaps.

He must at least exercise a certain amount of control over his car. I think the owner of the motor-car should see to it that a person under the influence of liquor does not drive his car.

Why not the man who was drunk?

That is quite a different aspect of the matter.

There is another point in connection with the amendment which is not clear. I should like the hon. Minister to explain what he wants. I refer to (a) which reads as follows:

I should like to hear what the Minister’s intention is?

An amendment has been moved which I am prepared to accept. It reads as follows—

Sub-paragraph (a) will then read—

In that case I am satisfied.

I don’t understand the hon. member for Malmesbury (Mr. Loubser). He said it is difficult to prove that a man is under the influence of liquor, but that is the difficulty of the company, and not the difficulty of the owner. If the company is in a difficulty the owner will benefit by it, because the difficulty of proving that the man was under the infleunce of liquor is oh the company. These words are in existing legislation. The state of being under the influence of liquor is becoming a well recognised part of many statutes, and from the hundreds of cases that come before the courts, it is always a difficult question of fact which the magistrate has to decide. Cases have come under my own observation in which it has been difficult to prove that a man was under the influence of liquor, and especially is this the case when an examination by a doctor does not take place a short time after the accident. As a rule, if a man is charged with being under the influence, and if he knows that it is not true, he goes to his doctor, and the sooner he goes the better chance he has of proving his innocence. It seems to me the point raised by the hon. member has no substance. There is nothing more dangerous to human life than to have a man in charge of a vehicle who is under the influence of liquor. There you have a powerful weapon of destruction in the hands of a man who does not know what he is doing, and it is no better than putting an instrument of destruction in the hands of a lunatic. Every precaution should be taken to see that such a man is not placed in charge of a car. There is no guarding against such a man. Every precaution should be taken to see that such a man is not placed in charge of a car. It is one thing that should be rigorously guarded against, irrespective of consequences. Many of the accidents that take place on our roads are due to the fact that people under the influence of liquor drive cars.

Just let me point out that I do not advocate at all that a person should go unpunished if he drives a motor car whilst under the influence of liquor, but there is already legislation in that direction, whether a man causes an accident or not. Let us punish the person concerned, but not in this way. When a person who is under the influence of liquor does not cause an accident, he is not punished at all. When he does cause an accident, he is punished out of all proportion. I feel this is especially so when you car is driven by someone else. That is my main point. I could still understand it when it is the owner himself, but even in that case it is not fair. Surely he can be fined or his licence can be taken away from him, but he must not be called upon to pay compensation in this way. It sometimes happens that a person asks for your car and you simply cannot refuse it. Then that person causes an accident perhaps and you find yourself in an extremely difficult position. In this case you do not punish the person who was drunk, but you punish the owner of the car, who was not drunk. You might ruin him. It is for that reason that I feel that only the person who was drunk should be punished, and not the owner of the car.

I would like the hon. Minister to give me his attention for a moment. I would just like to tell him that if a person is charged with having been under the influence of liquor, he is brought before the court because he was drunk. That is quite a different matter. Here you say, “If he causes an accident while he is under the influence of liquor.” Some people, when they take one glass of wine, are under the influence of liquor, and other people can drink a whole bottle and still not be under the influence of liquor. In law that expression has not yet received the meaning which is alleged. It has not received the meaning which the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), says it has got. I feel that if a person is drunk and causes an accident, he should be punished, but then his condition must be the cause of the accident. Now you simply say, “If he is under the influence of liquor.” In other words, if he has taken a glass of wine and there is an accident, damages can be claimed against him. It does not seem fair to me, and I shall move an amendment in a moment which I think is acceptable.

Move the amendment in the report stage.

Then I move as a further amendment—

Then you express the Minister’s intention. Here you do not say so in the clause. It seems to me it is important that it should be stipulated. I should like the Minister to understand our difficulty in connection with the person who borrows your car with your permission. If anyone drives my car today under the ordinary law, in the course of my business and with my permission, and he causes an accident, then I am responsible for it, but if anyone borrows my car and goes out with it, not on my business but on his own business, and he causes an accident, then he is responsible and not I. But this clause makes me responsible if he takes out the car and causes an accident while he is drunk. It is only when anyone causes the damage in my service that I am responsible for it. Then I also want to tell the hon. Minister that when I insure, I cover myself. If I cause an accident the insurance company cannot claim compensation against me, whether or not I make a false declaration and whether or not I was drunk. Now the right is given in this clause, if I make a false statement in connection with the accident, to claim compensation against me even though I am insured. What is the use of the insurance then? It seems to me that if they want to hold the insured person responsible too, then they must do so under every circumstance, and not only in certain circumstances. What has the false declaration to do with it? Put me in gaol if I commit perjury; but this provision does not seem fair to me. The point is that it does not punish the person who possesses nothing, because the insurance company cannot get anything from him. The person who has something is the man who insures. The Minister’s intention is that if a man drives a motor car and he is so drunk that he causes an accident, he must be punished. We cannot simply insert the provision, “If he is under the influence of liquor.” He takes a glass of beer perhaps, and in the opinion of some people he is then under the influence of liquor. It seems to me that the provision is too loose, and for that reason I move my amendment. We must understand that the court will interpret the words in the section and for that reason we should make the position clear.

I really think it would be better if my hon. friend were to put his amendment on the Order Paper for the report stage. I don’t think his amendment is really necessary. To my mind the wording which is used, namely, “under the influence of drink” is a wording which is recognised by the court, and I do not think therefore that it is necessary to accept his amendment. I am prepared, however, to go into the question if he will put his amendment on the Order Paper for the Report stage. Anyhow I cannot accept it now.

I am prepared to do so.

I think I must move “to delete sub-section (c).” This sub-section refers to people who give false information about an accident, knowing it to be false. We may have this position now, that a man in a car by himself may have an accident with another car containing three people. That man will find it difficult to prove that he has not made a false statement.

The company has to prove that.

But the company will use the evidence of the people in the other car. Now I also want to say this: when a number of people stand watching an accident —they have nothing to do with it—has the Minister ever noticed how many different statements are made by people who see an accident happen when they are not personally concerned in it?

My hon. friend has apparently not noticed the words “knowing it to be false.” The company has to prove that the man’s statement is false and also that he knew it to be false. That is quite difficult enough, and I think my hon. friend can leave it as it is.

Does the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. S. E. Warren) want to withdraw his amendment?

I am prepared to withdraw my amendment and to put it on the Order Paper because I do feel that the Minister will agree that something has to be inserted—either my amendment or something else. The judge will interpret the clause as it stands here and that is why we should make it clear.

I should like to move the amendment printed on the Order Paper on pages 276 and 298. I move—

These amendments are consequential to what we have decided on new Clause 3, and I do not think I need say anything further in explanation of them.

I move—

This Bill is introduced in order to give effect to a promise which I made earlier on this session in the House. As hon. members will recollect we passed a Bill last year in regard to insurance against war damage. In that Act war damage was defined in such a way as to include damage caused by people committing public violence, or by measures for the suppression of public violence. According to the legal conception of public violence it only includes cases where it can be clearly proved that there was organised action. The matter was raised in regard to certain bomb explosions which have lately taken place. It was raised by way of a question put to me on the 28th January to which I gave the following answer:

That is the undertaking I gave and I want to give effect to that undertaking now. The result of the acceptance of this Bill will be that the definition of war damage will be extended as promised by me at the time. It will mean that people who are insured today under that Act will be covered against damage caused by this kind of violence, and as it can be made retrospective to the date of the coming into force of the Act it will also apply to people who were insured before that date when I made the statement. Hon. members will also know that we have gone further, and where there were cases of people who were not insured we appointed a special committee to go into all claims put in and to make recommendations in regard to ex gratia compensation to be made by the Government to cover the costs of such damage. That is outside the law, and any amount spent in that way will have to be approved of by Parliament afterwards. Meanwhile our intention is only so to extend the definition of “war damage” that it will also cover that damage which I have referred to.

This amending Bill, as the Minister has explained, is intended to distinguish between public violence and what is called in this Bill “other violence.” In the original Act we have sub-Section (d) in which persons committing public violence are referred to. This Bill refers to persons committing any other acts of violence, who in the opinion of the Minister have acted as members of an organised group of persons, who are influenced by a feeling created as a result of war conditions. Insofar as that distinction is made between public violence and ordinary violence there would be no objection, but this Bill now refers to any other violence which in the opinion of the Minister is committed by persons acting as members of an organised group of persons. We on this side of the House fail to see why it is necessary to insert this provision about an organised group of persons. The Minister himself admitted in a speech that the difficulty according to legal advice was to prove in cases of public violence that the individuals were members of an organised body. The Minister told us what this Bill more specificially referred to, but it may also happen that ordinary violence, not public violence, may be committed by people who are not really members of an organised group or body. What we have in mind, and which the Minister knows, is that numerous instances have already occurred in this country of acts of violence having been committed by soldiers. Acts of violence have been committed on trains and elsewhere which do not really constitute public violence. Those soldiers cannot be described as members of an organised body; on the contrary, when acting in that manner they are acting in an unorganised manner. There have been numerous cases of that kind and similar instances may occur in future. I therefore feel that the Minister can achieve the same object which he has explained in his speech if he is prepared to accept an amendment which I want to move in the Committee stage. My amendment is to delete all words after “and” in line 9 so that the clause will read as follows; with the insertion of certain other words after the word “and”:—“Or persons committing any other violence and acting in the opinion of the Minister as members of an organised group of persons actuated by feeling arising out of the existence of a state of war.” That will make the Bill have a wider application and will make it applicable not only to persons where the Minister is satisfied that they are members of an organised group, but it will also include the other cases I have mentioned. The Minister will admit that there have been numerous instances of that kind in South Africa. We are not really very taken up with the words “who in the opinion of the Minister,” but unfortunately the original Act throughout places the onus on the Minister and he is given the power, and if we want to amend that wording now then the original Act will also have to be amended. We therefore propose leaving that position as it is. I hope the Minister will keep that aspect of the matter in mind, and that during the Committee stage he will be prepared to accept an amendment in that direction. That will make the Bill of wider application and it will make the Minister’s task easier if he has to express his own opinion. We particularly have in mind the damage already caused and which still may be caused by soldiers who cannot be described as members of one or other organised group.

I wish to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). Our difficulty is the word “organised.” People may belong to a group which is not organised. That group of persons causes damage without being organised. It is difficult to prove that a group of people are organised. People may get into an argument about matters arising out of the war. Feelings run high and a crowd of people cause damage. They do not constitute an organised body, and if those people cause damage the Government does not acknowledge responsibility, whereas it does if organised bodies cause damage. I am convinced that the Minister did not mean that, but that what he meant was that if feelings in connection with the war were the cause of a crowd of people doing damage, that damage would also be paid for under the Insurance Act in regard to war damage. I feel that the Bill as it is before us does not go far enough. If a body like the O.B. causes damage the man is paid out. We feel that the Government should also pay if a soldier does damage, but in spite of that one wants these things to be clear, so that anyone who suffers damage as a result of war conditions, and the feelings caused by the war, may be insured against such damage. I think that that is what the Minister meant, but by putting in this word “organised” certain classes are going to be excluded. There are such things as public violence and private violence, and I take it that the Minister wants to see to it that provision is made in the Bill before the House so that it will be acceptable to all of us.

I should like to appeal to the Minister in connection with this matter —particularly in regard to the charges made. At present the charge is 1s. per month per £10; at present it is felt that this charge is too high in regard to the risk which we have to run in this country. I understand it is similar to the charge made in Great Britain, where, of course, the danger is infinitely greater and more real.

The charge is much higher there.

I was told it was 1s. per £100 there.

It was 10s. at one time.

At any rate this seems a very high charge. The reason why I mention this is because of the valuation in the different Provinces. If you look at the Annual Year Book it will be seen that the valuation of the Cape Province is about £150,000,000; the Transvaal is about £200,000,000 and Natal about £50,000,000.

What do you mean by that?

That is the municipal valuation; that includes the land, but you are now taking the risk on goods stored in buildings, which may increase the value of the land. Now, if you take £400,000,000 of property and reckon out the rate at 1s. per £100 it would work out at about £200,000 per month, which is what the Government would receive if everything was insured. If the Government were going to return this money to the people who insured, afterwards, or the balance, there might be something in it, but many people feel reluctant to insure because they think the rate is too high. The other day I had occasion to speak to a man whose property was bonded with an institution I belong to, and I asked him whether he was going to insure his property against war damage. He said, “What is that?” So I explained it to him. He said, “How much is it?” So I told him. He sat down and put his hands through his hair and said: “God help me; I pray to God to protect me from getting a bomb on my property.” I think many of us will hope for the same thing and also pray to God.

You should not do business with these people.

Unfortunately you have to do business with all sorts of people—we have even to do business with Nationalists. But still we get on fairly well with them, and we get on with all sorts of people. Is it not possible to reduce this charge, or at all events give people a rebate in case the amount is found to be too high?

In connection with this Bill I would also like to add a word to what the hon. member who has just spoken has said—I want to say that there is a difference in the risk between the coastal area and the interior. There are many places in the interior where the risk is practically nil, and to charge a flat rate throughout the Union seems manifestly unfair and quite regardless of the relative risk in the various areas which are insured. I also wish to say that I agree with the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that the word “organised” seems unduly to restrict the discretion which is vested in the Minister. Surely it is sufficient to say that if the damage is done by members of a group of persons … the Minister should compensate for such damage.

Why put in a group?

If you are going to say that it must be an organised group of persons that seems to unduly restrict the Minister’s discretion. I would ask the Minister to consider whether the word “organised” should not be deleted.

In regard to the rating of premiums the position at the present time is that in respect of war damage everyone is automatically covered up to the sum of £1,000. If they wish to, they can insure to cover damage arising from Section (d)— that is, damage done by persons committing public violence and the further provision of sabotage in the Bill before the House. I think there is an anomaly in the rating which should be corrected. If you go to an insurance company and take out a war damage policy they charge 1s. per £100 per month or 12s. per month on £1,200. But the policy gives £1,200 cover against public violence and only £200 against war risk, because people are covered automatically to the extent of the first £1,000 against war risk. So the whole matter, I feel, calls for adjustment. Then secondly, I wonder whether the Minister will not consider altering Section 3 of the Act and making the £1,000 free cover—cover in respect of war damage—also include public violence, and eliminate the present distinction which exists. I think the Minister might well consider this point and also the rate of 1s. per cent. charged, which I think amply covers the risk.

This debate has run the risk of becoming a general debate on the administration of the principal Act, whereas we are merely dealing with a Bill, the simple object of which is to give effect to an assurance which I gave on a previous occasion in regard to an amendment of the definition of war damage. We have already discussed this question of rates. We were told that we were charging too high a rate. Well, in spite of that, we have had a very considerable influx of persons applying for insurance during the last few weeks. So the rate cannot be as wrong as we have been told it is. We had been told the rate is so high that no one will insure. Hon. members must not forget that the Government is carrying a very heavy potential liability. It is very easy to come here and say that the rate must be reduced, but what would happen if, as a result of possibilities which we all hope will not eventuate, damage running into millions is caused?

Put on another tax.

That is not the way of looking at an insurance scheme. This charge is calculated on such a basis as to enable us to have a reasonable prospect of meeting our liability, and it is not appropriate for members to come here and plead for a reduced rate. As far as the point raised by the hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis) is concerned, where he said that the risks are greater in the coastal cities than in the interior, perhaps he will appreciate the point that this particular Bill to some extent alters that, because the risks which this amending Bill covers are greater in the inland cities than in the coastal towns.

†*The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) wants to move an amendment. He will have the opportunity of doing so when we are in Committee, and I do not intend asking the House to go into Committee today. He will therefore have every opportunity of moving his amendment and of discussing it. I want to say this, however, that our object in this Bill is to confine ourselves to the spirit of the principal Act, although what we want to cover here is perhaps not strictly public violence in accordance with the Act as originally passed. The hon. member wants to get away entirely from public violence.

Your amendment gets away from it.

No; the object today is to bring within the definition of war damage the kind of violence which we have in mind. What we have in mind are instances where public violence cannot be quite proved, but where the Minister is convinced that it was public violence. That is the object.

Why do you give it a different name then?

We cannot define it in any other way. The clause says—

The kernel of public violence is that it must be organised.

And if one person acts on his own, but is a member of an organisation?

If, in consequence of the actions of the organisation as a whole, he does such a thing, it would come under this.

How are you going to prove that he is a member of an organisation?

Order! Hon. members will perhaps discuss that in Committee.

Anyhow, what we have in mind here is acts which, in fact, amount to public violence, and it is intended to bring such acts within the scope of the Bill.

May I have the privilege of speaking for half an hour? The vote which is now to come before the House is one of those votes which we don’t like discussing in the way in which it has now become necessary to discuss it. One does not like to discuss it from a political point of view because it is a national vote and it should not be necessary for the Opposition to find fault with the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Unfortunately, the way in which these matters are being run, and the way postal and telegraphic matters and the radio service connected with that service are being controlled, makes it necessary for us not only to criticise the Minister’s vote but also to express our deep indignation at the way the Minister carries out his duties. I want to show our indignation in a practical manner by moving—

The reason why we do so is because notwithstanding the many efforts that have been made from this side of the House to see that Afrikaans has its rights in the Post Office, our efforts have been like a cry in the wilderness. It should not be necessary in this country for us to have to ask the Minister to maintain the policy of bilingualism, and I want to point out to him that we as Afrikaans speaking people have never yet raised any objections to having English speaking people as Ministers of Posts and Telegraphs, but when it comes to a question of our rights, then we expect the officials in the work they are doing, in the policy they are applying, to see to it that complete bilingualism is maintained. The Minister knows that all the forms and all the documents that have to be filled in—not those which are issued across the counter, but those which are dealt with behind the counter, are all in English. Not only are the forms filled in in only one language, but the Afrikaans speaking section of the Post Office staff, and also people who have any dealings with the Post Office, are afraid to fill in anything in Afrikaans because everything has always been unilingual so far, and they are afraid that if they use the other language they will be looked down upon, or they may be persecuted, or they may not get their promotion. That is why everything in the Post Office behind the counter is done in English. Secondly, we want to find fault with the fact that more and more work is continually being thrown on the very depleted staff of the Post Office. The Minister in replying to questions has admitted that many of the postal officials have joined up and gone to the front. And instead of the Minister of Posts protecting the people who are still here, he keeps on increasing the work which has to be done by the officials. More and more work is continually being loaded on to the postal officials. As soon as the Government gets anything into its head in regard to the war it is pushed on to the Post Office. The Minister says that he does not get any complaints. Of course not. The people are afraid to complain because they do not want to get into the Minister’s bad books. I asked the Minister whether a deputation had called on him to interview him. My question was this—

1. (1) Whether a deputation from one of the South African postal unions has requested an interview with him; if so,
2. (2) whether he has granted such request and whether it was in connection with the additional work caused by the petrol coupon system; and, if not,
3. (3) whether he will state in what connection they interviewed him and what his reply was.

The answer was—

1. (1) Yes.
2. (2) and (3) I intend to see the deputation but have not done so yet. The request for an interview is primarily on another subject.

The Minister says that the deputaation asked for an interview but that they had not yet been to see him, and that that was why he could not answer the question. Now I want to ask the Minister to tell us what the deputation of postal officials came to ask him? And now I want to refer to another position which not only constitutes a heavy burden on the postal officials, but also causes the public a lot of inconvenience, and discomfort. One gets places, often small dorps, where there are many troops, and naturally the work of the post office is greatly increased. They have to serve the troops, too, and when one calls at a post office on the day when pensions are paid out it is simply impossible to get attention. The position is almost hopeless. One cannot blame the clerks, because there are very few of them, and the staff is hopelessly inadequate. On the days when pensions are paid, there is a hopeless accumulation of work. I am astounded at the staff being able to do the work they do on those days, but it is the Minister’s duty to protect the people of his department, and to see to it that there is sufficient staff properly to attend to the public. The public are greatly inconvenienced by all this work being loaded on the postal officials. They do their best, but they simply cannot attend to everything they are supposed to attend to. Everything is pushed on to the post office. Now, again, they have the additional work connected with petrol coupons. One also finds that quite unnecessary work, additional work, is imposed on the post office. The Minister in his enthusiasm to make war propaganda has issued an additional lot of stamps, war stamps. Some people only want the old stamps, and others buy the war stamps. Every night the officials have to complete their returns to show how many stamps they have sold, and so on. By having two sets of stamps that work has been unnecsessarily doubled, and I want to ask the Minister to put an end to it. The Minister, I suppose, because he does not think sufficient war stamps are being bought, has given instructions that war stamps must be used for general postal work. I know that it is so.

No.

I know that instructions have been given for war stamps to be used. Surely the Minister will admit that these war stamps are very poor propaganda. Not a single man will be induced to join the Army as by seeing these war stamps, which show the head of a woman or the photo of a soldier. It is unnecessary extra work on the depleted postal staff. I therefore ask the Minister to cut out this extra work, but I go further. While I am dealing with the question of stamps, I want to ask the Minister whether he does not think the time has come—he must not regard this as discourteous or as an insult—to use the stamps which we use for postal purposes also as revenue stamps. Why must the King’s head still be shown on our revenue stamps, whereas our other stamps are typically South Africa? There is something else I want to ask the Minister, and that is this—it is something which he as an English speaking Minister can do more easily than anyone else—that is, to get rid of the “On His Majesty’s Service” envelopes. Why cannot we have on “South Africa’s Service” or something like that? We don’t say this just because we want to get rid of the King. I am not talking about my personal feelings now, but why should we not allow everything that is Afrikaans to get what it is entitled to? The King’s head is no longer shown on our stamps. Now, I come to the numbers of advertisements, the propaganda material that is posted up in the post offices. Wherever one comes, at every little post office, one finds posters stuck up with the headings “Do your bit”, and all that sort of thing. The Minister will admit that it is a waste of paper and money. Those pamphlets are not going to induce one single man to join the Army. Proof of the fact that the Government does not attach much value to that sort of propaganda is to be found in this, that men like the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) are sent specially throughout the Union to try and get recruits for the war. The Minister himself believes that these posters and things are not going to achieve anything. The post offices are pasted all over with this sort of stuff, and nobody takes notice of it. It is a waste of paper, and there should not be such waste. Furthermore, it disfigures our post offices. In this connection I also want to ask the Minister, in view of the fact that the staff of a post office has already been so much depleted, not to allow the post offices to be combed over for more recruits.

If more people are taken away the service will become even more unsatisfactory. I want to put a direct question to the Minister —whether he will give the House a guarantee that he will not allow the post offices to be searched and combed for more recruits. Now we come to another question about which we have a serious grievance. As the Minister always tells us, a lot of money is wanted for the war, and every penny we can spare has to be spent on the war. Economies have to be made, retrenchments have to be made, because we have to see the war through, and that is why no further post offices, many of which are badly needed, are being built today. Everything has to stand over until after the war. But while the Minister refuses to build the necessary post offices on the platteland, he proceeds to build a large post office in Cape Town, in spite of the fact that the war is on. When this question came before the House for the first time, the estimated amount of the cost for the new post office was £488,000. That was what it was to cost, but when we asked the Minister the other day what was the cost of the post office in Cape Town he mentioned an amount of £838,000, just about twice as much as the Minister’s estimate. We asked the Minister at the time why it was necessary to make the post office so much larger than was originally intended, and the Minister replied that Cape Town did not need such a large post office, but in view of the fact that the Old Mutual had erected a large building alongside he also had to build a large post office.

No.

But I still have my question on that point and the Minister’s reply. The Minister said that otherwise the post office building would be lost by the side of the big Old Mutual building. I want to ask the Minister if that was a sound reason, Is that a good reason for putting up such a large building when it is not needed? On the platteland no post offices can be put up but in Cape Town a large post office has to be built, which costs twice as much as the original estimate and which is not needed. I want to assure the Minister that we are not looking for faults just because we are in opposition. If the Minister does his best not merely just before the Budget but right throughout the year we from our side will give him whatever credit is due to him, but now it is impossible to do so.

What is impossible?

To give the Minister credit for being a good Minister. Now I come to the censoring of letters.

I don’t like interrupting the hon. member but there is nothing on my vote in connection with censorship; I have nothing to do with the censoring of letters.

I have moved a reduction of the Minister’s salary by £1,000, and the department of the censor surely comes under him. I asked the Minister a question in regard to the censorship and he replied to that question. I have the question here.

The Minister says that he has nothing to do with the censoring of letters; on what item does the hon. member want to discuss it?

On a point of explanation, if I post a letter I entrust that letter to the custody of the Minister or his officials for safe delivery to the person to whom I have addressed it, and if the Minister does not do so, and allows other people to open my letter, he breaks the contract he has with me to transmit the letter safely. He allows somebody from outside to come into his office and open that letter, and he allows the contents to be seen by other people. By doing so he breaks his contract with me, and I am entitled to hold him responsible.

The Minister says that he has nothing to do with the censorship.

He may also say that he has nothing to do with the thief who comes there to steal my letter. But the Minister remains responsible to me if my letter is stolen, because I have handed it to him for safe custody. It is a contract between him and me that he will deliver my letter in the way I handed it to him, and the Minister breaks that contract. Whether the Minister says that he is not concerned with those who come in and take the letters is no excuse. That has nothing to do with me. The Minister breaks his contract with me. He practically allows a thief to come into his office and take my letter, and I have to hold him responsible.

May I just read the question which I myself put to the Minister about the censorship of letters? I asked the Minister whether letters were still being censored and he, as Minister of Posts, replied: “It is not in the public interest …” That is what the Minister replied.

I understand that it comes under Defence.

I don’t want to be dragged into this, I cannot discuss it because I have nothing to do with the question of the censoring of letters. The hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) says that letters are handed to the post office and that it is the duty of the post office to deliver them. They do deliver the letters, but we have no control over the people who take possession of the letters for the purposes of censorship.

You allow them to take the letters.

We cannot prevent them. I cannot prevent them as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I am not going to object to this discussion, but so far as I am concerned I can do nothing about it, and I cannot deal with it.

The PostmasterGeneral has been given a military post. I asked the Minister a question about it and I asked why he had to be given a military post. He is a brigadier or something like that. Now we can understand why he had to be given a military post. He now has to give orders in his military capacity and he has to have letters censored. Now I want to proceed to deal with another point, namely, the listening-in to telephonic conversations. Possibly we shall get the same reply from the Minister about this. Private conversations over the telephone are listened in to. Is the Minister again going to tell us that he cannot do anything about it?

I have nothing to do with that.

If any people are suspected by the Government of not being good citizens, of not being loyal, take their telephones away from them. Surely the Post Office guarantees us that telephone conversations are private and I pay for my telephone and I think it is private. If people listen in to my conversations it constitutes an interference with my rights. It means that the Post Office is breaking its contract with me. Now I want to deal with the position of the Broadcasting Service. This also comes under the Minister and the broadcast service is a matter which gives us a lot of offence. In the first place, however, I want to confine myself to the secret transmitter— that dirty station which broadcasts. I want to tell the Minister straight out who is in contact with him in that connection.

What!

I shall mention a name, Montgomery. He is one of the khaki knights and a person who gives the Minister information about the broadcasts of the secret transmitter. The Minister pretends that he knows nothing about it. He pretends that they cannot find out where, or who the secret transmitter is. I asked a question from the Minister on that point. The Government knows where it comes from. This secret broadcast has descended to such a low and dirty level that it is a disgrace for any white man to have to listen to it if one happens to tune in to it. I put the following question to the Minister—

1. (1) Whether his attention has been drawn to information given by a certain person in a Rand weekly paper to the effect that the “Freedom” radio station would shortly recommence broadcasts and to the fact that the name and address of such person were given in that paper; and, if so,
2. (2) whether he has taken and steps to enquire as to the facts upon which this person gave such information and to obtain any further information he may have which will be of assistance in locating the station; if so, what was the information so obtained; if not, whether he will immediately take the necessary steps if not, why not.

What was my reply?

The reply was as follows—

1. (1) Yes.
2. (2) Yes; no information is yet available.

Now, I want to ask the Minister whether he can inform the House what he has found out about this person? This is not the first time we have put a question to the Minister on that subject. The first time the programme of the secret transmitter was advertised in a paper on the Rand we asked the Minister whether he would find out from the paper who the advertiser was. The Minister replied that the paper refused to give the information. Why did not the Minister get the information under the Emergency Regulations? He could easily have done so. Is the Minister going to allow honourable and prominent Afrikaners to be slandered in this scandalous way? What are foreign countries to think of us if they hear for instance what is said over the radio about the Leader of the Opposition? How can the Government allow such a filthy station to broadcast? The Minister has a name and an address there and he could have obtained the information. But there is something peculiar in that regard. At the beginning of the war the Afrikaans broadcasting station in Pretoria had to be removed. The military authorities suddenly required the station to use it for military purposes. The peculiar thing is that if this filthy station broadcasts, that radio station is not used for military purposes, but it is perfectly quiet. This fitlhy station is on the same wave length and it appears to me that that station is used by this filthy radio transmitter. The lowest and most filthy and dirty things are said about Afrikaners there, but the Minister says he cannot find out who the advertiser in the newspaper is. When this side of the House offered to assist him in finding out where the station was, the Minister said that he was not going to avail himself of that assistance. Why not? It is his duty as Minister also to protect the Afrikaans speaking people against such dirty slander.

In the short space of time at my disposal I want to come back to the secret transmitter, and I want to tell the Minister that we accuse him of knowing who the sender is and that it is happening with the Government’s approval and that the Government deliberately through him, as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, is slandering the names of Afrikaners on this side of the House over the radio, and that he refuses to take any steps to stop the secret transmitter. I now want to come to the broadcasting service itself, and I want to tell the Minister that we have seen big changes in connection with the radio under his vote since he has been Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. In the beginning we had a broadcasting service which kept itself outside of politics, which did not use the people’s radio to make political propaganda on behalf of one party against other parties. I also put a question to the Minister on that subject. The Minister bluntly refused to use his influence to have the policy now followed by the broadcasting service changed. That is why we are so bitterly disappointed, and we are entitled to criticise the Minister. We are entitled to tell him that he is abusing the radio service. We put the following question to the Minister—

The second question which I put to him is as follows—

Certainly not.

There is a son of England barking again. The Minister’s reply was as follows—

Where can one get a more impossible show than this V sign campaign? Even the Government’s biggest supporters realise how ridiculous this V sign campaign is in South Africa. They ridicule it, and that is a subject on which the Prime Minister gave a speech over the broadcast. The reply goes on as follows—

Where is Cairo?

The hon. member asks where Cairo is. Let me tell him it is not on the home front. Let him go to Egypt to find out where it is. I continue to quote from the reply—

Hear, hear.

I am pleased to hear members opposite say hear, hear; but I want to ask them whether they will allow our leaders on this side of the House, who hold contrary views, to talk about these matters? What did the Minister say? This was the Minister’s reply to the second part of the question—

He is not prepared to give people who hold contrary views the same rights to talk over the radio. Do hon. members know why not? He does not want to allow them to do so because the things they will talk about will look so bad in the eyes of the people that they are afraid the people will hear it. The radio does not belong to a political party, it does not belong to a Minister, it belongs to the people of South Africa. We should get educational talks over the wireless and not such inane stuff as the V sign campaign. We get nothing of educational value over the radio. Instead of that, we get talks about the kind of subject which I have mentioned. Then there is another matter I want to touch upon. We find that letters get lost in the Post Office. I am not casting any reflections on the officials, but there are bundles of letters or pamphlets which get lost. They are taken away by the Minister or by the Minister of Finance, or I don’t know by whom, but we want to ask the Minister, if we post letters and other people come to his post office to take those letters away he should notify the sender or the individual to whom the letter is addressed, of this fact. I know of letters dealing with Nationalist Party meetings having been lost in the Post Office. The result is that when those meetings have to be held nobody has received notice of them. We want to ask the Minister to have the people concerned notified if such letters are stopped. It is all very well for the Minister to say he can’t stop it. We know that the Minister of Defence is the autocrat in that Government, and that the Minister of Posts has to concur with everything he says. [Time limit.]

I just want to raise one point. Those who can cast their minds back over the last few years must have been impressed by the change which has taken place in the discussions which are raised in this House. At one time we used to spend a lot of time on the subject of the relations between the staff and the Administration. The position has now been changed, and everything is dealt with by the Post Office Departmental Committee and the Public Service Advisory Council, and these matters no longer have to be brought to Parliament for discussion. I won’t say that all grievances have disappeared. That would be too much to expect. But many of them are dealt with in such a way now that they do not have to be raised across the floor of the House. There is one serious grievance, however, which still exists. I don’t say it is the Minister’s fault that that grievance has not been settled. Rather does the fault lie with the Public Service Commission. I am referring to the unhappy class of 1933 recruits. There is always a feeling of unrest and uneasiness when there are men in the same department doing the same class of work as other men, but getting different rates of pay. Before these £8 per month were recruited, the men were better off. Afterwards, when the reasons for the employment of these low grade men had disappeared, men were taken on again at £10 per month but the position today is that you have in the same department men who have been longer in the service that others who have been employed since that time, but the men who were employed earlier have never been able to reach the men who were subsequently employed and who started at a higher rate of pay. It is a running score in the minds of many of these men—it is always causing a feeling of friction. We have been to the Minister, we have sent deputations to the Minister, and the reply has always been “The Public Service Commission has decided this, and therefore I can do nothing.” Surely that is not the final reply. The matter should be put right; it is a just claim, it should be brought before the Public Service Commission again, and if it is turned down again by the Public Service Commission, I want to ask the Minister to bring it before the Cabinet, because as we know, the Public Service Commission have not the last word in a matter like this. They have the last word so far as the Minister is concerned, but not as far as the Cabinet is concerned.

How many are there?

I don’t know what the exact number is today. Men have gone away, fallen by the wayside, and left the service. But what we are asking for is a simple act of justice for which these men have been clamouring for many years. And it is a matter which should be dealt with. It is not only the men themselves who are asking for this to be remedied, but it is regarded as a just grievance by the other men in the Postal Service, too. They are all asking for this injustice to be remedied. These men should not be working at this low rate of pay when others doing the same work are getting more money. I am not raising this matter this year on my own volition; I have been asked to do so by the South African Postal Association, the organisation which represents these men and their colleagues, and I would ask the Minister to put the matter again before the Public Service Commission, and if it is turned down once more to bring it before the Cabinet because the Cabinet can see that justice is done.

I should like to avail myself of the half hour privilege. The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was probably of the opinion that his vote would have an easy passage, because he probably thought that for all the requests that came from this side of the House he would be able to give the answer that his department has no money to spend, but by this time he must realise that if we cannot have his money we are going to have his blood.

Or his life.

Before I treat with more sanguinary matters I should like to make a few remarks with regard to our sea mail contracts between South Africa and England. Now this contract is a very old contract which was drawn up in 1912 or 1913, between the Union-Castle Company and the South African Government. And it was drawn up by people who placed the interests of South Africa first, and the interests of the UnionCastle Company very much in the background. And a contract was drawn up which was very favourable to South Africa indeed. Now, since 1912 that contract has been amended. It has been amended on various occasions and except with regard to one item—the transport of pedigree stock to South Africa, which is a very small matter indeed, it has always been amended in favour of the Union-Castle Company and not in favour of the Union of South Africa. There was a time when our fruit was transported to England at 45s. per metric ton. Now, most of that fruit is transported at a rate of 65s. to 75s. I might also point out that since the inauguration of this contract the subsidy which is being paid to the Union-Castle company has not decreased; where the company is making profits which have increased every year so also has the subsidy of the Union Government to the Union-Castle Company increased. I must mention one other thing—the Minister will probably say that this is a great concession to South Africa, and that is that the time which the mailships must take between South Africa and England has been reduced from 16½ days to 14½ days. That is not a concession to South Africa, that is a matter of business. South Africa demanded that the period should be decreased by two days, but whether we demanded that or did not demand it, the Union-Castle Company in its own interests had to decrease the time, because there were competitive lines running between South Africa and Europe in 13½ days, so they had to reduce the time. So it is no concession, but whatever concessions there have been have been concessions by South Africa to the Union-Castle Company. We have allowed them to increase their rates and we have increased their subsidy. If the Union-Castle Company were a struggling company, if they were carrying our mails and giving services at a loss to themselves, no one would have had any complaint to make, but that is not the case. From the inception of this contract, with the exception of a few years during the period of depression, the UnionCastle Company have steadily increased their profits, and while their profits have increased our Government has been steadily busy increasing the subsidy, and the advantages which the Union-Castle Company have gained from South Africa. Now they are contracting to carry our mails between South Africa and England, but even though it is a bad contract which the Minister has made we would not complain if the Union-Castle Company carried out their contract. But they are not doing so. It has not been possible for them to do it, but we from our side are helping the Union-Castle Company where they are not helping us. This year we are voting them a subsidy of £190,000 or something like that—and they are not doing what they should do. There is another strange clause in the contract which says that we shall pay the Union-Castle Company £225,000 to carry mail between South Africa and England, but if these mails are taken and carried by our own aeroplanes or other aeroplanes, there is no provision to pay them proportionately less. We still have to keep on paying them that for ten years even if they do not carry our mails at all. The contract says that the Union-Castle Company must run a weekly service to South Africa, and if they do not do so there are various penalties provided for. The Union-Castle Company is not running a weekly service, it is not even running a fortnightly service. I maintain that we should pay that company for what they are doing and not for what they are not doing. We should not pay them a large subsidy where they are not fulfilling their part of the contract. So we have the fullest right to demand that the contract shall be taken into review. They are not fulfilling it and we have the right to revise that contract and start afresh and get a new contract which will be more in the interest of South Africa and less in the interest of the UnionCastle Company. Another matter I want to deal with is the question of the appointment of new people to the post office service. I thought that where a civil servant or a prospective civil servant wrote the various civil service entrance examinations that he would be granted—that he would be appointed from the successful candidates in the order of merit. I find that that is not the case at all. If you will allow me I should like to quote from a speech which the Hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made a short while ago—a speech which will probably be news to South Africa—showing the methods employed by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in carrying out his duties. This is what he said—

Now, what enquiries are made? Surely a man is appointed on his ability?

His political persuasions.

No, in the post office a man is not appointed on his ability. If he were we would have another Minister of Posts.

Very cheap.

The Minister went on to say this—

Yes the Minister is very frank, sometimes he is too frank for his colleagues—

What takes place in this: If a man applies for a position in the Post Office then the Minister sends one of his political lackeys out to go snooping to see what the man’s envirornment is. If the man’s environment is suitable he will be immediately appointed. If he comes from Parktown or from District Six he passes with honours, but if the unfortunate applicant comes from Stellenbosch or from Humansdorp he cannot gain admission to the Post Office. This is a very serious matter indeed. It is something which is so alien to the whole spirit in which South Africa has been administered in the past, and so alien to the whole spirit of our Public Service, which is a spirit that holds that no matter what a man’s political convictions may be, the only question which is asked of him is that he should serve the Government faithfully — and I might say that probably in no Civil Service in the world will you find more faithful service from the public servants to the policy of their Governments than is found in South Africa, no matter what the political convictions may be of any of these servants. But the Minister says—

That was Dr. Malan’s policy.

The Minister then goes on to say—

Now, he expects postal officials to give loyal service to the Government. So do I. No matter which Government is there, I expect that, but I would ask the Minister this—are the Nationalists in the Postal Service not giving loyal service to the Government?

There are none.

Is the Minister going to answer my question. Is he going to nod “yes” or “no” or is he going to ignore it? Are the Nationalists in the Postal Service not giving loyal service?

Yes.

Very well. We have it now, the Nationalists in the Postal Service are giving loyal service to the Government.

Are you quite sure of that?

I wish the hon. member would keep quiet. Then I want to ask the Minister why he won’t employ youths who apply for employment in a Post Office if they come from a Nationalist environment?

Well, he shouldn’t.

Oh, shut up. Will the Minister tell me that. That sphinx like look on the Minister’s face will not convince anyone. Now let me quote a little further from what the Minister said—

It is not a case of may be, there will be.

If it is immaterial to the Minister, what their views may be, why are Nationalist candidates refused employment in the Post Office.

Who says they are?

The Minister reminds me of a story told of Henry Ford. In the olden davs the old Fords were all painted black, and the selling agents wanted a diversity of colour to attract buyers and they petitioned Ford to paint his cars in various colours, but he refused. Well, they kept on, and afterwards Ford agreed to meet the salesmen, and after parleying he said: “Well, I have decided to give in. “You can give them these Fords in any colour you like so long as it is black.” It seems to me that the Minister feels that the man can have any bally politics he likes so long as he is Sap, and when I say Sap I mean Sap in the South African connotation of the word—and also the American. In fact, if a man is not as big a Sap as the Minister is he has no chance of employment.

Order!

Oh, I also mean it in the South African meaning—as well as in the American meaning.

Principally the American meaning.

Now let us see again what the Minister says—

So long as they are Saps—

Let me again put the question: Why don’t you appoint a man if he is a Nationalist?

Who says that?

You say that. If he comes from an environment hostile to the Government he is not employed.

No, no.

May I read again what the Minister said—

That is exactly what we compalin of. These are the Minister’s own words. Not only his own words, but his own words which he has acted on subsequently, which he has gone over again and endorsed again. And then the Minister goes on—

Now I should like a direct answer from the Minister. He says he will employ a youth, no matter what his politics are, he only expects that youth to be loyal to his employers, but on the other hand he says that if the youth comes from Nationalist surroundings he has precious little chance of being employed. This matter is very serious. Is this going to be laid down as a precedent? Are we going to have the American system which they have in the Post Office Department and in other departments, that as soon as there is a change of Government there is also to be a change of personnel? If he lays it down that a Nationalist is unacceptable and cannot serve the South African Party Government faithfully, then the corollary also holds good that a South African Party supporter is incapable of serving the Nationalist Party Government faithfully. And, Mr. Chairman, if we were to carry out the precedent laid down by the Minister we would start with a change of Government by not only firing the Minister and the Secretary of his department, but probably firing half of that department. Is that what the Minister would like to see introduced into South Africa? Surely not. Why does he not carry on the old tradition, the old South African tradition in the civil service that a man is appointed no matter what his political convictions may be, and the only thing asked from him is that he serves the Government faithfully.

What about bilingualism?

Well, what about it? Before I close, I would like to refer to another matter which was referred to by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), and that is the so-called freedom radio station. The hon. member for Mossel Bay used very strong language about this freedom radio, and, Mr. Chairman, I must say that this is the most filthy radio station probably anywhere in the world, and when I say filthy I use the word advisedly. I can see by the look on the face of the Minister of Finance that he has never listened to it, and he is probably the better man for that.

Are you a worse man for listening to it?

Probably. Mr. Chairman, one cannot listen to the slime and filth which is vomited out by that station without recoiling form it.

The hon. member is using strong language.

You may say my language is too strong, but I can assure you if you were to listen to that station you would agree that every word I say is true, and that the broadcast is not only vile and filthy, but pornographic as well.

The hon. member should remember that we are in Parliament now, and that such language is unbecoming.

Yes, we are in Parliament, and other members will bear out what I say. I could not in polite conversation repeat the things that are said by it. I say it is vile and filthy and pornographic. I say that advisedly, because I want not only the Minister, but the whole country to know what is being broadcast, I may say under the auspices of members of this Government. It is common knowledge that the funds which are used for this radio station are funds collected under the patronage of members of this House. I hold the Minister responsible for this filth. I don’t know whether he likes it, but he is responsible, and the spate of filth is spread over the whole of South Africa. There is one man that can stop it, and that is the Minister; he can stop it quite easily. Technically, it is possible to find out …

[Inaudible.]

There is somebody who likes wallowing in filth. Technically, it is possible to find out where a radio station is situated. With modern apparatus you have no difficulty at all to find out where that station is situated, and not only is the Minister able to find out where that station is situated, but evidence has been given to him, evidence has been brought to his notice by people who know about the activities of this station, and who were advertising the activities of this station in a Rand daily newspaper. And what is the excuse of the Minister? The newspaper, he says, would not tell him who these people were; they would not give evidence. Under the Emergency Regulations hundreds and hundreds of innocent South Africans are clapped in prison because they don’t want to give evidence before the courts under the Emergency Regulations. Has the Minister taken any steps to stop this filth which is being poured out, and which he can stop? Has he taken any steps against these people? He knows that radio station is broadcasting under the patronage of members on that side of the House, and that is why he won’t take steps. I hold him responsible, because he can put a stop to it, the necessary evidence is being brought to his notice and under the Emergency Regulations he can put a stop to it at any time. But, Mr. Chairman, he does not; but as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs I hold him responsible for this filth that is spread abroad by that radio. The people of South Africa, everybody knows, it is a public secret, where the funds came from which are used for that radio. It is there for no other reason than to make propaganda for this Government. Mr. Chairman if that is the sort of propaganda which this Government is going to use, all I can say is that anybody who has anything to do with this Government is worse off than he was before. I know the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has not listened to this, I know the Minister of Finance would be shocked if he knew the things which his colleagues are not putting a stop to. I say this, that the country holds the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs responsible for allowing in South Africa one of the most disreputable radio stations in the whole world, and something, Mr. Chairman, which is not only degrading our public life in South Africa but it is something which is making anybody who listens to it feel contempt for the methods that are used in South Africa.

I hasten to reply to the speeches of the two previous speakers, and I will deal, first of all, with the remarks that both of them made in connection with this Freedom Radio Station. Whether hon. members believe it or not I am just as much against that Freedom Radio Station as anybody on the other side of the House.

Why don’t you stop it then?

I said so last session, and I have done all that has been possible to stop it. It is not functioning now. A question was asked by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) as to whether we would obtain the facilities available to try and locate this station, and the reply given was in the negative, because the station had closed down, and I say without hesitation that if there is any attempt for this freedom station to start again, then steps will have to be taken to try and stop it.

Have any attempts been made?

Yes, several attempts. Nothing that I have seen has been left neglected. The “Rand Daily Mail” had in a little paragraph that the Freedom Radio Station would again operate. The editor was communicated with in connection with the matter, but he could not give us any information, he said this thing had slipped in. That is the reply we got.

Who paid for it?

I think it was the “Sunday Times,” and not the “Rand Daily Mail.” In “Barlow’s Weekly” there was a reference there to this radio, and a request was made to that paper by the Postmaster-General in connection with this matter.

You could compel them, and not request them.

It is difficult to talk about compelling them. There was a subsequent reference in “Barlow’s Weekly” by Mr. Perl who writes the weekly notes. He was sent for by the Postmaster-General and interrogated.

Did you put him in prison for seven days?

I am not going to use the strong language the member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has used, but I say frankly that is not propaganda in the interests of the Government or this side of the House.

Then why don’t you stop it?

I have told you that I cannot do more than I have done. Some of my colleagues know the attitude I have taken up in connection with this matter. It has got to stop, and if necessary, if the authorities that exist could check this kind of thing cannot do it, other means will have to be employed. The hon. member for Humansdorp dealt with some remarks which I made in another place in connection with the candidates for the post office service. I am not going to repudiate what I said there, but I would like to amend those remarks to this extent, that what I intended to convey was that the information has to be given by a candidate for entrance to the post office. A circular is sent to the postmaster in the area where the candidate is. The postmaster or some suitable officer visits the candidate at his home with a view to establishing that the antecedents of the candidate are unquestionable. There is not one word here as to his political convictions.

You said …

I know what I said, and I want to tell hon. members what I had in my mind. No one who is connected with the sabotage that has been going on or with subversive activities is a suitable candidate for the post office service. I want to be perfectly frank and candid. Here is the form they have to study, and they have to get the signature of two persons who are not relatives of the candidate, and who have known the latter for at least twelve months. Besides that all the requisite forms have to be completed, and then the candidate can be admitted. People are not automatically appointed. I want to make that clear to hon. members, who can see this list.

Since when was that instituted?

I cannot give you the date, but it has been in existence for some considerable period. Here is a list of candidates who have been appointed since September 1st, 1940. You can look through that list, and I say without hesitation that over 80 per cent. of them bear Afrikaans names. Then the hon. member for Humansdorp dealt with the Union-Castle Company’s contract. As he rightly pointed out, this contract was negotiated in 1913 at a figure of £225,000, of which the post office is debited with £195,000 for carrying the mails. At that time there was a freight contract, but later on the freight contract was divorced from the mail contract. The Fruit Board took over the control and made their own arrangements, and the complaint the hon. member has made with regard to increased freights for fruit had nothing whatever to do with the post office. One need only mention the period of the existence of the contract from 1913 to 1942, and the growth of South Africa in that period, to realise that the freight which the Union-Castle Company is carrying is about four times the amount that this contract was originally created to cover. It is quite true, as the hon. member pointed out, that the mails are not running weekly. That is due to the war, but I want to point out that there are penalties in the contract, and although we are due to pay them £198,000 in the year, we have already debited—that information has been given to the hon. member for Bethlehem (Mr. R. A. T. van der Merwe)—we have already debited the UnionCastle Company with £153,000. Although we are paying them £198,000, we are able to recover from other countries a good proportion of that, and the actual amount we pay the Union-Castle Company, or the amount the Union Government is responsible for prior to the war, is in the region of £45,000. The hon. member for Cape Town Castle (Mr. Alexander) has dealt with these 1933 recruits, and all I can say is that he knows perfectly well I sympathise with the case that he has made. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) said in his opening remarks that no politics should enter into an appointment, and I entirely agree with the views he expressed there. When I brought in the Broadcasting Act of 1935, the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Havenga, said “You are making a mistake, you are putting a rod in pickle for yourself.” And these words of his will be perfectly true, because hon. members know most of my time on my estimates is devoted to the question of broadcasting. Hon. members know that there is a board to control broadcasting, but I have the power to take over in an emergency the control of broadcasting. I might do so if I felt that I could improve on the present position. I want hon. members opposite to realise that we are at war, and the radio is a means of propaganda that the Government intends to use in connection with the matter. All the speeches and broadcasting that has taken place, and which the hon. member has referred to, have been in connection with the war effort. We have only used the radio for that, and I don’t think the board would approve of my using the radio for a purely party political propaganda.

What does the party pay for broadcasting?

They are getting it for nothing.

I am not making myself as clear as I would like, but do hon. members wish the Government to take it over and use it Simply as a means of Government propaganda?

You are doing it now.

Nothing to the extent which would be done if we were to take it over.

You told us what a wonderful man the Prime Minister is. Is that propaganda?

No, it is the truth.

The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the terrible scandal arising from the fact that the internal correspondence being conducted in the department is in one language. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is a thing which has been in existence long before ever I was a Minister, in the days of the old Nationalist Government. It has never been altered, and I am not going to do it in a time of stress like the present, when paper has got to be looked after very closely. The other point the hon. member asked me about was whether I would give him an undertaking that nobody else would be released for service from the post office. Now, Mr. Chairman, I certainly will not give that assurance, but I want to tell hon. members that there are hundreds. I was going to say thousands of men in the Post Office, who are dying to leave to go to the front to fight. We cannot let them go because we have to carry on the service. Many of them have actually resigned, joined up and sacrificed all their benefits. Unfortunately we had to treat them as resignations, and when the war is over and they come back, we will have to consider the position. The hon. member complains of the extra work placed on the post office officials. It is quite true that the post office is the only department that can undertake this additional work, but he is not correct when he wants to make out that all this work is placed on postal officials at particular periods. Pensions are paid out at particular times, the pearol coupons are issued between the 6th and the 16th of the month, and we had to stipulate that we would not grant them after the 16th, so that they would not interfere with the payment of pensions. In another place I gave the figures of the amount that the post office handles in connection with these matters, and I say without hesitation that the post office officials have acted magnificently in carrying this extra and additional responsiblity. The one trouble we suffer from most in some of the smaller places, is the accommodation that the post offices have been called upon to provide. We endeavour, wherever possible, to increase the accommodation, but in many cases unfortunately we have not been able to do so. We have investigated the position of the postmaster at George. Quite definitely the place is inconvenient, but it is the only place in which he can carry on. The hon. member referred to the question of revenue stamps. I am not going to alter the revenue stamps that have been in existence since Union, and I am not going in for alterations of a system that has been established for many years. As to the question about envelopes, I am not responsible for the issue of those envelopes, that is a matter under the control of another Minister. The hon. member complains about the notices posted up in post offices. Well, the post office is a place that most people go to, and we have not hesitated to allow our post offices to be used for propaganda purposes, and we shall continue to do so. As to the reference to the Cape Town Post Office, the figures the hon. member gave are perfectly correct. But for the war many reasonable and legitimate complaints would have been remedied by now. With regard to Mossel Bay, we have got money on the estimates to erect a modern post office there, but unfortunately owing to war conditions we cannot get the material. There is another one at George, and at Beaufort West there is another case. The hon. member for Pretoria East (Mr. Clark) has given me the opportunity for saying something I want to say, and that is that as long as I have occupied this position I have endeavoured to provide accommodation and facilities, no matter whether it is in an opponent’s constituency or in a Government supporter’s constituency. The post office does not know politics, notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. member for Humansdorp. I thought I would intervene early. I don’t want to stop this debate.

You have a hope!

I wanted to reply at once to the remarks of the two previous speakers. There is nothing they have said which is new or unexpected.

There are a few matters I would like to bring to the Minister’s notice. The first is in regard to public telephones. We know that practically no private telephones are being installed today, and I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the public telephone service is very unsatisfactory, especially between the Rand and Pretoria. Sometimes it has taken me as long as twenty minutes to get a connection. One has to dial nought, and when one gets a reply one has to give a number, because there is no automatic telephone in operation to every part of the Rand and to Pretoria. I want to say a little more about that. I have had some peculiar experiences with these public telephones. One may dial the right number; in Pretoria I rang up and got connected with a totally different number. I dialled again, and again I got another number. It happened to me when I tried to get into touch with the Minister’s former secretary. We pay our money into these public telephone boxes, and we expect proper service. In another instance I dialled somebody in Pretoria. The line was engaged. I rang somebody else about the same matter to try to get what I wanted in a round about way, and when I got a reply I could talk to both numbers. I was talking at the same moment to two places. I don’t know how these things happen, because I have not got the necessary technical knowledge, but these things did happen, and I hope the Minister will give the matter his attention and will see to it that the telephone service from the Rand to Pretoria and vice versa, but especially to Pretoria, is improved. In regard to telegrams, we know that in war time the lines sometimes have to be cleared for use by the military authorities. But surely that does not happen every time. I have sometimes sent a telegram away from here at half-past two in the afternoon and it has only been delivered on the Witwatersrand at half-past ten the next morning. Even when we mark our telegrams urgent, which means that we pay double rates, they are not sent through.

I suppose your friends have cut the wires.

No, that only happened once, and I did not send any telegrams in that direction. One gets these complaints from all sides, and there are members here who will confirm what I say. I also have two instances of telegrams which have never been delivered. Nor have I been notified that they have not been delivered, although in actual fact they have not been delivered. If it has happened twice to me, how many other people may not have had the same experience? The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) spoke about telegrams which get lost. That complaint also comes from various quarters—one gets complaints about letters disappearing without any trace whatever being left. That hon. member, or the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), said that no notification whatsoever is given if letters are not delivered. I don’t think it’s fair to the public generally if they have paid postage to allow letters or pamphlets to disappear without leaving any trace. If the authorities are not prepared to deliver certain types of mail, the least they can do is either to send it back to the sender or to let people know. I know of pamphlets which have been sent from Pretoria—not once, but several times —the one week after the other—which were never delivered. What becomes of them? Have we got a Censorship service in South Africa, to stop letters and pamphlets, and to consign them to the waste paper basket? Is it fair to expect the public to pay postage for things which are never delivered, and then not let the people know that they have not been delivered? So far as the service across the counter is concerned, even that is not quite in order, and there are many complaints. In many of the small post offices —I am not talking of the small outside post offices now—but even those on the Rand— one finds the public waiting at the counter in queues—there are even notices to the effect that they have to queue up, and they have to stand and wait until they are served. I have seen several people turn away, and, as a matter of fact, I myself have repeatedly walked off. One simply cannot get attended to and, what is more not only are inexperienced girls or women appointed to attend to the counters … women are more and more used to replace men who have to find other work … but I also find that pensioners are employed and many of those women as well as the pensioners are apparently unilingual only. If one talks Afrikaans one is answered in English. What is to become of that section of the people which does not know both languages? The position is becoming entirely impossible. If the Minister wants to employ women, let him, at any rate, employ women who are bilingual. I must say that I have never yet come across a unilingual Afrikaans speaking official; I have only come across unilingual English speaking people. So far as the radio service is concerned, I want to add a little to what the two hon. members over there have said in regard to this secret transmitter. I think the way they have pressed themselves is quite strong enough. The Minister has now assured us that if the secret transmitter comes on the air again he will try to stop them. That is what I understood him to say; and I hope we can depend upon that. It is really not to South Africa’s credit; but so far as the ordinary radio service is concerned, I particularly want to refer to the early morning service at 7 o’clock. I wonder whether there is any station in the world which sends out such a poor news service as the South African stations do at 7 o’clock in the morning. It lasts four minutes, at the utmost five minutes, and one gets a few news items— they are hopelessly one-sided. The people on the platteland like listening in at that time of the morning as they want to hear the news. To many of the farmers that is the time they have an opportunity of listening in. They are not in the towns or the dorps, where they get an early morning paper to study for the news. They like to know what the principal war news is. If one listens to London at 8.15 a.m. one does get a sort of summary of what has happened in the past twelve or twenty-four hours, even if it is only one-sided, and only represents the English point of view, and has been sharply censored. The news is really very unsatisfactory. [Time limit.]

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the kind of service which his department is giving to the native and coloured members of the public, and also the terms of employment in his department of non-Europeans. It has been increasingly the policy of the Post Office of late to divide our post offices into divisions for Europeans and non-Europeans.

Why not?

I am not concerned at the moment with the principle of that, except in passing to say that in certain parts of the Cape Province that policy has never been indulged in before. And it is causing considerable resentment. But my point is this: the Minister knows perfectly well that it has been laid down by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court that where a division is made between non-Europeans and Europeans in post offices equal facilities have to be given. That was laid down in Rasool’s case in the Appellate Division. And in that portion of the country where I represent the non-European population, several cases have been brought to my notice where that has not been done.

I wish you would bring it to my notice.

I have brought such cases to the department’s notice. I shall do so in one case now. In the De Aar post office the space set aside for non-Europeans is quite inadequate. Also there is no separate clerk to attend to the non-Europeans. I have brought this to the notice of the department already, but I have not yet received a reply. The effect there is that the non-Europeans almost invariably have to wait until European customers have been attended to. I had a similar case of this kind brought to my notice at GraaffReinet. I brought the matter to the notice of the Minister’s department and they replied, I am glad to say, that they would appoint a separate clerk to attend to the non-European people. There was no denial of the justice of the complaint. The point I want to make at the moment is this: that it should never have been necessary for me to complain about the Graaff-Reinet case at all. The law is quite clear on this point. There are instances where the law allows discrimination but this is not one of them. The native and coloured people in this country have a right, which has been laid down by the Appellate Division, which should be observed by the Minister’s department, and I hope that where such instances exist they will receive attention. Another point is this: In most towns the native, and in some cases the coloured location, is a considerable distance from the town, and therefore there is a case, having regard to the population, at any rate for a small post office to be established in such places. In some cases that has been done, but in many cases there is no delivery to the location. I mention Prieska as one instance, but that is not the only place. Now, with regard to the appointment of native and coloured clerks in the Post Office Department, I understand that it is the Minister’s policy to appoint natives or coloured men as, what are termed, “sub-postmasters”—the Minister will correct me if my phrase is wrong—where there are post offices in native areas or other nonEuropean areas, villages, locations, etc. Now I want to ask the Minister how many of these appointments have been made, because on the estimates I cannot see the designation of “sub-postmasters” at all. I should like to know what they are called on the estimates. Incidentally, if in a particular place there is a justification because of the size of the place, or the population, for the establishment of a post office, I cannot see why a postmaster should not be appointed, and why such a post should not be given to a non-European. There may be some reason why full postmasters should not be appointed, in which case I shall be pleased if the Minister will tell us what it is. Also, in these cases where a post office has been divided up, or where a separate post office has been established for non-Europeans, why cannot the celrks also be non-Europeans to serve the non-Europeans? That is not an unreasonable request, it is in accordance with the professed policy of this country in regard to segregation. That policy is said to mean that the native or coloured people will always, where possible, serve their own people. That is the policy laid down by Gen. Hertzog when he was Minister of Native Affairs. I do not know what pay is going to be given to sub-postmasters and native clerks in the department, but the pay of the labourers that are employed in the Post Office Department is certainly not encouraging, because even having regard to the level of wages of unskilled labourers in this country the pay is miserable. I notice that native linesmen are paid from 2s. to 4s. per day. 2s. per day paid by a Government department when the latest wage determinations lay down a minimum of 5s. or 4s. per day for private employers. Even 4s. per day, the maximum paid to the department’s labourers, is lower than what recent wage determinations have made binding as minima on private employers. This pay by the Post Office is as bad as what the Railways are paying, which is saying a great deal. I notice also that there is provision for post boys. They start at the princely wage of £2 per month and can go up to £7, which presumably is after many years’ service. I hope the Minister will take into consideration improving these rates.

We have listened to the Minister’s reply to the charges levelled against him by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), and also by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). The Minister has protested his innocence, and he has told us that he is just as much shocked as we are by what is going on, and that he has done all in his power to stop the illegal transmission. Now, let us test the Minister’s attitude by his own remarks, and by his own replies to questions put to him. In April last year the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Tothill) asked the Minister of Posts whether a radio transmitter on the 50 meter band broadcast anti-Nazi propaganda on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays, whether the stations had been identified, and where it was situated. This, of course, was a disguised advertisement for that radio station. Every one realised that at the time. Now what was the Minister’s reply? At the time this question was put to the Minister the station had been operating for some time. The Minister said—

As I have said, at this time the station had been operating for some time. His attention is directed to the station. He does not know anything about it. We are supposed to have an up-to-date and modern Post Office Administration, and we are supposed to have the necessary experts. They are supposed to keep their eye—or, rather, let us say, to keep their ear on the air, to see if there is any illegal transmitting. Here is this transmission going on for some time. It has been brought to the Minister’s notice and he tells us he knows nothing about it. Nor do his experts. This transmission continued throughout the year. This question was put to the Minister in April. In January I also put a question to the Minister, and I asked him, inter alia, to whom was entrusted the duty of allocating unlicensed transmitters, and whether the official so responsible was advised of the information conveyed to the Minister by the hon. member for Bezuidenout in April last year in regard to an unlicenced transmitter broadcasting on specified days, and on a specified wavelength. What was the Minister’s reply? No definite reply. No reply which one would expect from a Minister, who is supposed to be very much concerned about this illegal transmission. He says—

One would have imagined that as soon as this matter was brought to his attention, be it by way of an advertisement or otherwise, that he would have immediately taken up the matter. It is a serious matter. He said he knew nothing about it and a year afterwards this transmission has been going on regularly twice a week, at the same hour on the same wave length and when the question was put to him, whether the officials had the matter brought to their notice all he could say was: “I am advised he was informed.” In other words, the Minister who now protests his innocence had taken no trouble whatever in his capacity of Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as the man responsible for his department, to take any steps to locate this transmitter. We have had a further admission from the Minister this evening in his reply to the hon. member for Humansdorp. I took his words down as he spoke them. He said this—

Why did the Minister not take these steps long ago? Why now give the House the assurance that if an attempt is made to start again steps will be taken? In case the Minister may not have realised what he was saying he repeated something similar later on and he said this—

May we ask the Minister, in view of the fact that this illegal transmission had been going on throughout last year, why he did not think then of taking other steps? Why did he not think of taking other means? I wish to associate myself with the remarks which have fallen from the hon. member for Humansdorp, and also from the hon. member for Mossel Bay in regard to the filthy language and the filthy sort of propaganda which was put out by this illegal transmitter? I agree with the hon. member for Humansdorp, that nowhere in the world has anything so disgustingly foul been put over the air as was put over by this transmitter which the Minister was not aware of, and which he did not take the least trouble to put a stop to. The Minister has now realised to what extent it has gone on, and he has realised that people even on his own side have recated, and now he comes and tells the House that he is going to do his best. In the question which I nut to the Minister. I put this further point to the Minister. I asked the Minister whether he would be prepared to make use of outside assistance? I asked if he did not have the necessary people in his department with the necessary qualifications for locating the unlicensed transmitter, if we were prepared to give him outside assistance whether he would accent such assistance? And all he says is that in view of the fact that the transmitter had stopped, it would not be necessary in the circumstances. The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) also put a question to the Minister, and no doubt he himself will deal with that. And again the Minister gave a most unsatisfactory reply. I want to put this to the Minister: if an unlicensed radio had been operated by the people of the other political complexion, had there been a Nationalist radio, sending out Nationalist propaganda, I am prepared to wager my last penny that the Minister and his department would have managed to locate that radio long ago. But nothing of the sort has been done. He knew what was going on, and he was warned by questions from this side of the House, and meanwhile this filthy stuff was going over the air. The reputation and characters of members on this side were being besmirched in a foul manner. I sincerely hope after what has been said, and after the publicity that has been given to this matter, that we shall be able to rely on the Minister’s assurance, and that we shall not have a repetition of what has been going on for the past year.

I had not intended intervening in this debate but now feel I must in order to reply to the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop), and also to a remark made by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). The hon. member for Mossel Bay when criticising our radio activities and the work of the radio on behalf of the Government, in an interjection said: “Yes, all the wireless tells us is what a wonderful man the Prime Minister is.” I am a bit surprised at a remark like that from the hon. member for Mossel Bay. Apparently the wireless does occasionally put over news which may sink in as far as he is concerned, but thank goodness the majority of the people in this country do not need to be told by anyone what a wonderful man the Prime Minister is.

Is that all you have to say?

The hon. member for Mossel Bay was followed by the hon. member for Humansdorp. We had another violent attack on the Minister, and it really boiled down to this—it was an attack on the Minister because of the activities of the freedom station.

Do you defend it?

I was a bit surprised that the Minister paid so much attention to this attack on himself by these two gentlemen. Because in my opinion in this country there is far too much freedom of speech allowed, not only to members inside this House, but to people outside.

Is that what the Captain says?

Well, I realise that these speeches came from two very temperamental men—and they were temperamental speeches—probably ninety per cent. was temper and ten per cent. mental, and the Minister paid too much attention to them. Now let us come back to this freedom station. The hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said that the characters of members on the other side had been besmirched, but surely the besmirching of characters is the technique of the Opposition. The characters of members on this side of the House are always being attacked—we are never left alone …

That is all we should do— leave you alone.

Let me say that I have never listened in to that station yet, but one incident was repeated to me, and possibly in that instance the character of an hon. member was inveighed against. I have never heard a reply to the query which was put over by that station. It appealed to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) and asked him where he got nine one hundred pound notes from.

Sis.

Hundred pound notes are unusual in this country. I have only seen one.

On a point of order. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) is now saying slanderous things about the hon. member for Wolmaransstad, and I ask you to call on him to withdraw, and to apologise. He will never dare repeat these remarks outside. This is a slanderous story broadcast by that radio service, and he is now repeating it.

What has the hon. member said?

Is that a point of order?

What did the hon. member say?

I made a statement that it had been broadcast by this freedom station that nine one hundred pound notes had been paid in; but I was not allowed to complete my statement before hon. members opposite got up on points of order. I wanted to say that the freedom station said that nine one hundred pound notes were paid in to the bank by the hon. member for Wolmaransstad—and I go further now. I don’t know whether it is true or not. I sincerely hope it is not …

On a point of order. The hon. member added that he wondered where it came from: “Where did it come from?” I contend that it is a slanderous allegation which he dare not make outside the House. He is repeating a slanderous allegation which was made outside by this secret radio.

What did the hon. member say?

I personally did not make any insinuation. I am not making any insinuations at all.

The hon. member must not make any imputations against the character of members. If he says he is not making any imputations he can proceed.

I personally am not making any imputations.

You must withdraw.

I have said nothing. I am prepared to consider withdrawing any reflections, but will the Chairman tell me what I have to withdraw.

If the hon. member has made an imputation he must withdraw it.

I have not made any imputation.

The hon. member must not repeat ah imputation made outside the House.

Very well, if you will allow me to finish what I was saying …

I think the hon. member should not repeat what the radio said.

May I ask whether the hon. member has withdrawn it?

You have ordered him to withdraw and he has not done so.

I said the hon. member must not repeat an imputation made outside the House.

On a further point of order, is the hon. member entitled to repeat anything that is libellous in this House?

The hon. member for Rosettenville said that he was not making any imputations and he undertook not to repeat what might be taken as an imputation. I told him that he must not repeat it, and if he does repeat it I shall call him to order.

On a point of order, he should withdraw, he repeated an imputation which was made outside.

The hon. member may proceed.

Have you asked him to withdraw or not, Mr. Chairman?

The hon. member says he does not make any imputation.

But the hon. member repeats it.

If the hon. member repeats again I shall call him to order.

Then I ask that Mr. Speaker’s ruling be obtained.

This is not a matter for Mr. Speaker’s ruling. The hon. member may proceed.

I now want to refer to the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). I may say I am sure he won’t ask me to retract this, because there will not be anything to retract. He made a statement— you were not in the Chair, sir, at the time— when he was defending the servants of the post office. He said there were no more loyal servants of the Government than our present civil servants. There I am with the hon. gentleman. I was very pleased to hear him say that, very pleased indeed, because it is this side of the House that has always to defend our officials. The attack always comes from the other side. More than once have I had to sit here and hear attacks from that side of the House on our officials, when these poor unfortunate officials are not here to defend themselves. I hope this portends a change of policy as far as the officials are concerned. Only a few days ago, during a debate we had, there was an attack on a very senior official by a prominent front bencher on the other side. I hope that this is a change of attitude as far as the Opposition is concerned, and that more consideration is now going to be shown our officials than has been shown to them in the past.

What has that got to do with the matter?

The hon. member asks, what has this to do with the matter? Well, we on this side are pleased when an opportunity occurs to get something off our chests which has been sticking there for some time.

It does not come out of your head.

I want to make an appeal to the Minister about the post office at Cullinan. Has the Minister ever been there? I am confident that if he went there he would go past the post office thinking he was passing a little shop or a little room. That post office has to serve thousands of troops up there, and how on earth the postmaster and his staff manage to stand behind the counter is a puzzle to me. If four people who wanted to do business there went into that office, it would have to close its doors as it will hold no more. [Time limit.]

After the vain effort on the part of the hon. member who has just sat down, to repeat those filthy propaganda methods, I shall not take up the time of the House to reply to it. I want to deal immediately with the Minister’s reply. He expressed his complete powerlessness to put a stop to what he himself described as undesirable propaganda. The hon. Minister reminds me of a young boy who was asked: “Who made the world?” He replied: “I did, but I shall not do it again.” That is precisely what the hon. Minister did. He admitted that he was guilty of a gross neglect of duty because he did not put a stop to this sender. He said this in his reply, that he was powerless to compel witnesses to give evidence. It was suggested to him by various representatives here that he could compel those witnesses to give evidence in terms of the emergency regulations. And we want to know why he did not do so; and then we want to know whether he will do so in the future. The result of the manner in which the hon. Minister acts is that honourable people are behind bars, and crooks are at large in the country. I want to protest strongly against the attitude which the Minister adopted here. He said that he would allow the post office to be used as such, as much as it may be necessary, for that war propaganda. I want to ask him where he gets the right to allow the post office to be used for that propaganda? The money which is put into that department is not the Minister’s money, nor is it the Government’s money; it is the taxpayers’ money, and nevertheless the Minister makes the statement here this evening that he will use the department as much as he likes for war propaganda. The whole department is a machine for war propaganda. When you walk into the post office, you can see that it is nothing but a machine for war propaganda. Numbers of these officials sit there with uniforms on, wearing red tabs. I say that when the Minister allows that in a civil service department, he is shamefully discriminating between official and official. Hence I am not surprised that he made a slip of the tongue in another place, and said that he would not appoint people who come from an area which is opposed to the Government. I think it is sad enough that the Minister said that, and the least he can do is to admit it. In another place, he advanced a proposition which he had to repudiate in this House this evening. I think he dropped a brick in the other place. He said there what the actual position is, but under the attack made upon him this evening, he tried to cover the thing. I also want to bring another matter to the notice of the Minister. Things are not faring too well in his department. There is bungling in his department. I want to mention a specific case now. I refer him to the case of the Kruger Day celebration at Klerksdorp on the 10th October. The 10th October is a day of particular import to the Afrikaans speaking community. It is a day in which we commemorate one of the greatest men South Africa has ever produced. What happened this year? The programme of the Kruger Day celebration was sent through the post. The speakers who had to take part —I happen to be one—received a letter from the secretary in which he said that he was forwarding the programme. The letter arrived without the programme, however, the programme had been taken out. The pin mark was clearly visible; the names of the speakers were taken out, and only the letter arrived.

Why do you tell me that only at this stage?

Similar cases have been brought to the notice of the Minister previously. I want to tell the hon. Minister that when he is attacked here, then he does take steps; but such cases have been brought to his notice previously and no steps were taken. I object to this thing. I say that it is nothing but deliberate plotting which took place there. Every single day the post arrives we receive propaganda pamphlets from this country, and sometimes from overseas, about every doctrine which the world has ever known, and that passes through freely, but when it comes to the Kruger Day commemoration, those things are removed from the post. There are also cases where letters simply disappear. I personally had cases where letters were sent from Bloemfontein which did not arrive here. The other day I had a case where a letter was missing for nearly fourteen days, and then it appeared that that letter was censored. I want to ask the hon. Minister to keep better control over his department and to see to it that his department is used for the purpose for which it was instituted, namely, to provide the people with a proper postal service. I am not surprised that those things take place if we listen to the Minister himself; he was prepared to use the Department of Posts as a machine for war propaganda purposes. I want to tell the Minister that he should come back to his civil service. He is not an official of the war department; he is an official of the postal service and of the people, and we expect him to give his attention to this case, and to see to it that the Department of Posts is not used for war purposes. I just want to make a few remarks concerning the radio services. The Minister admitted in so many words that the only people who supported the Government, inter alia, Ministers, were allowed to broadcast, while the Opposition has not the use of the radio. I am not surprised that that happens. If the Minister wants to adhere to what he said this evening, namely, that his department will be used for war propaganda, then I am not surprised that he first waits until a professor A. C. Cilliers, for example, is prepared to declare himself a war supporter before he gets an opportunity to give radio talks.

That has only happened since he supported the Government.

The hon. member says that those talks by Professor Cilliers have only taken place since Professor Cilliers declared himself a supporter of the war policy.

Since he has become a S.A.P.

Yes, since he has become an avowed S.A.P. I understand that those radio talks are issued in pamphlet form, and sent through the post.

Officially.

They are then sent through the post officially. I want to tell the Minister that he has not the right— he has not the moral right or the official right to use the Department of Posts for that purpose, and we want to make an appeal to him and to ask him to make a promise to this House, before his vote is disposed of, that he will return to his own function and use that department for the purpose for which it was created.

When I sat down I was speaking of the post office at Cullinan and showing the Minister how small it was. I know the Minister’s reply will be that it is only a temporary arrangement, but surely with the development of the Defence Force of the Union it is more than likely that this large base camp will remain as a permanent feature of the Defence Force. The most tragic part of the position there is that the telephone exchange is situated alongside the post office, also in a small room and actually, Mr. Chairman, if a member of the forces at Cullinan wants to get through to Johannesburg or Pretoria, he is very lucky if he can get through within two hours, and the distance to Johannesburg is only about 70 miles. If he can get through in that time he pats himself on the back. The trouble, I am told, is that at Cullinan they have not a trained staff. They have no living accommodation there and they cannot get an expert staff.

It is a question of traffic.

The Minister says it is a question of traffic, but I would ask him if the traffic is less from the Johannesburg side than from the Cullinan side when they are both trying to get each other. If a subscriber wishes to get through from the Johannesburg side, he can get through in a matter of about two seconds, but if you want to get through from Cullinan to Johannesburg you have to wait anything up to two hours, and sometimes very much longer. You have thousands of troops out there, and if the Minister can do something to improve matters there he will earn the undying gratitude of the troops stationed there. Another point before I sit down is the shortage of telephones in the military camps in this particular area. I would hate to see the officers of the various units in that camo should take the lead that has been given to the Australian Government by the Americans stationed there. They commandeered the public telephones and in this way overcame the red tape that existed there, and I would not be at all surprised if the troops in the camp in the Cullinan area were to do the same thing if the Minister does not provide more telephones.

After listening to the innocence pleaded by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs here this evening, we want to go into the matter in order to see whether his department is really as innocent as the Minister pretends. There are people in the internment camps today who tried to make transmitting sets. Two days ago I heard of the case of a man whose house was broken into during his absence, only because they suspected that he was making a transmitting set. Here we have the Freedom sender in the country who transmits. I do not want to say this evening what has been broadcast by that sender: the language used would ill-become this House, and nevertheless the Minister and his department are unable to get hold of them, or to ascertain their whereabouts in the country. This evening the Minister told us that the transmitting station is quiet at the moment, and that he will have to take steps if it comes on the air again.

He should prosecute them now.

Eleven days ago the Minister replied to a question put by me that he was making investigations. Which of the two is true? What he told us this evening or the reply he gave eleven davs ago? One does expect that when a Minister tells one something, he will be consistent. I very clearly asked the Minister—

What is the reply of the hon. Minister? The man who testified to his powerlessness in the House this evening, cannot put his finger on one person who can give him a clue so to get hold of that sender. What is his reply? He replies—

He does not want to receive information. Now, I want to challenge the Minister this evening. I want to give him certain informa-, tion, and I challenge him to investigate this information. There is a certain person named H. W. Haupt. I will give the Minister his full address: care of the newspaper “Vryheid”, 84, St. Andrew’s Buildings, Johannesburg. This person is a proxy who acts in the place of a namesake—according to the Minister of Justice—who is a director of the newspaper “Vryheid”. This person went to the heads of advertisement agencies and to the heads of practically all the big businesses in Cape Town. The Minister need not therefore go far in order to get people whom he can compel under the Emergency Regulations to give evidence. He goes to these people and tells them that he represents the newspaper “Vryheid”. In this way the head of the business allows him to negotiate. Then, in the first place, he asks for an advertisement for the newspaper “Vryheid”, but he adds that all profits which are made go to the “Freedom” sender. Furthermore, this person definitely uses another name at each one of the businesses to which he goes. It seems to me that there are plenty of these names, and then we get a chain. He tells these people that he was sent to talk to them by a certain Mr. Louis Esselen. Well, if one looks a little further, one ascertains who the directors are, for example, of the Union Unity Fund, on which Mr. Louis Esselen is, one finds the names of Mr. Higgerty, Mr. Louis Esselen, Mr. Max Sonnenberg, Capt. Hare, and Senator Conroy. I say that this reveals a chain; there are more people in this country, and also in this House who know more about this “Freedom” sender than the Minister wants to make us believe. As I said, I challenge the Minister this evening to use this information which I have given him here, notwithstanding the fact that he replied to me that he did not want information, and that he himself was making investigations; and he said here this evening that he was doing nothing. Now, we would like to know …

Wait a moment; he is getting advice now.

We would now like to know, in view of the fact that the Minister officially replied that he was making investigations, what he is going to do. I have assisted him now. I have given him the name of Mr. H. Haupt of the newspaper “Vryheid.” I gave him the further information concerning the connection between Mr. Haupt and Mr. Louis Esselen, and also the connection between Mr. Louis Esselen and his own Cabinet. We hope that he will now investigate this matter further, and put a stop to the freedom station which contaminates the air of South Africa as it has never before been contaminated. I just want to say a word or two in connection with what the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) said, in connection with people who get posts in the Department of Posts, according to the statement of the Minister in anther place. Here he shows that he is discriminating as between the races in South Africa, and he is discriminating between people on the ground of political convictions. I want to give him an example from my own constituency. The Minister came to me in a friendly way and told me he had installed a public telephone at Mount Leonard. Who asked for it? Not my predecessor, Senator Raubenheimer, nor I; but it is the five supporters of the Government who got that telephone, while ten miles further on the main road from Upington there are 30 people and they cannot get a public telephone. But at this place where there are no people, except the five supporters of the Government, they get a telephone. I should like to know from the Minister who applied for that telephone? I say that that proves to us that here too the Minister is discriminating between people according to their political views. There are other parts of the country where telephones are vitally essential for the development of the country. These people apply for it but they do not get it. The Minister tells us that his difficulty is to get hold of material. Now I want to ask the Minister, if Reivilo is prepared to build a post office with its own funds, on its own ground, and if it were to let it to the Minister at a reasonable rental, in order to get a decent post office, which they have not got now, will he be prepared to take such a proposal into consideration?

I should like to take the opportunity this vote gives me to draw the Minister’s attention to the difficulties that prevail in the various suburban post offices in Johannesburg. In Jeppe, sir, at certain periods of the month, a person has to stand from twenty minutes to half an hour before getting served. I quite realise the Minister’s difficulties, but it is hardly conducive to the good conduct of business when people should have to wait so long for an ordinary post office service. In my own experience, I wished to send a telegram at the post office in Yeoville. It was one morning about 8 o’clock, and from the time I joined the tail of the queue to the time I reached the counter and was able to send my telegram was 22½ minutes. The staff there was doing its best to cope with the business, I am not imputing any negligence to the staff, but the position is that the work is more than these suburban offices can cope with, and I would like the Minister to realise that, and to see if something cannot be done to increase the staffs at these suburban post offices. They have had an enormous burden placed on them owing to the war, and they are providing the public with all sorts of extra services, and in my view the increase of staff is not commensurate with the burden of the work, and the public is seriously inconvenienced.

The Minister promised that in future he would take steps against the so-called freedom sender. I take it that the Minister will take steps in the matter and do his best to put a stop to that freedom sender. But I want to tell him that there are people in his own post office who are in touch with that sender. I shall tell him why I say so,. I had a conversation in Bloemfontein over the telephone with two people in the afternoon, and a week later …

The Minister knows very well who it is.

A week later the freedom sender made use of that conversation, although it was distorted. That is celar proof that there is someone in Bloemfontein who listens in to the telephone conversations in order to give information to the freedom sender. Insofar as that is concerned, there can be no misunderstanding. I said certain things over the telephone which were distorted and then broadcast. That shows that there are certain people in his department who are in touch with the sender, and I want to ask the Minister whether he will make a point of putting an end to this freedom sender. I also want to draw the attention of the Minister to the Budget. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in the Budget provision is made for three under-secretaries, each at a salary of £1,200, which increases annually by £50 up to £1,350. The Minister will remember that when he became Minister of Posts, he appointed Mr. Redlinghuys, who was Assistant Postmaster-General, to the position of under-secretary. He appointed other people along with him, to undersecretaryships. On our side we immediately protested against the fact that Mr. Redlinghuys, who was the senior, was placed on an equal footing with other under-secretaries, and the Minister then told us on the floor of this House that Mr. Redlinghuys remained senior to the other person. This evening we notice in the Budget that all three under-secretaries receive precisely the same salary. In other words, the other persons who were the juniors of Mr. Redlinghuys, are now on an equal footing with him. We level the accusation against the Minister that this is a move on his part and on the part of the Postmaster-General, that it is a deliberate plan which is carried out with premeditation, in order to prevent Mr. Redlinghuys from becoming the next Postmaster-General. In the post office, Afrikaans speaking people are treated shabbily in a scandalous way. There is no other department in our civil service where the Afrikaners are as shabbily treated as in the post office. Another department where the same position exists, is the Department of Public Works, which also falls under this Minister. The Minister tells us that he does not want to differentiate on the ground of race and political conviction of people in the service of the Department of Posts, but then I want to tell him that he should take steps through the medium of his inspector to put an end to this unfair discrimination which takes place in the post office, as between English speaking and Afrikaans speaking persons. What was the position with regard to Mr. Redlinghuys? If the position of Mr. Redlinghuys had not been altered he would now have been the second highest official in the postal service, and he would have been the next Postmaster-General. But now we had this policy of the Minister to make him an under-secretary along with two other persons. As Assistant PostmasterGeneral he occupied an important post. He dealt with the staff and promotion. But he has now been rendered harmless by the Minister. The other two persons have been placed on an equal footing with him and he has been placed in a section where he cannot exercise any influence in relation to promotions in the postal service. We cannot leave it at that; the Minister must rectify this thing. I also want to ask the Minister why such a deficient news service is broadcast over the radio in the mornings. The morning news service is of the greatest importance to the platteland, where people do not get their newspapers in the morning, and they would like to have their news in the morning. In the big cities people can buy newspapers in the mornings before going to work, but in the platteland people cannot do so, and they would like to have a radio news service which in broad outlines will give them the news of the day. Why is such a brief service given? In the evenings a complete news service is given, and why cannot that be done in the mornings too? The Minister must explain the reason to us. Only a few items are broadcast, and the platteland is complaining about it. Perhaps the Minister has an agreement with the Press not to transmit a full news service in the morning. I can think of no other reason. I hope that the Minister will give his attention to these few matters.

I want to ask the hon. Minister why, seeing that we are 5,000 or 6,000 miles away from the theatre of war, the principle has been introduced that weather reports are not to be published? I don’t know whether the Minister is aware of it, but this is a valuable and important service to which the farmers in the past used to look forward. I am not going to say that the whether predictions were always 100 percent. correct, but they were certainly of great value to the farmers. It was most valuable to the farmers to know twenty-four hours ahead more or less what weather he could expect, and, instead of the Minister helping them by supplying the weather reports, not only for twenty-four hours, but even for longer, we find now that since the outbreak of war the sending out of these weather reports have been stooped. We know that weather conditions fluctuate, but I understand that it is possible to make weather predictions more than twenty-four hours in advance, and if the Minister realised how much value those weather reports were to the public he would review his decision in regard to the sending out of the weather reoorts. If the war were close to us there might be some reason for the department’s statement that it cannot send out these weather reports, because it does not want to supply information to the enemy, but surely in the circumstances, with the war so far away from us it seems very improbable that the enemy could get anything out of those reports which might help him. The Minister should review this matter, and should start sending out the reports again. If the enemy should come near, then it would be another question. Now, I also want to say something about the delivery of telegrams. I have a telegram in my pocket which was despatched from Victoria West at 9 o’clock this morning. It arrived in this town at 11 o’clock. At half-past twelve I put through an urgent telephone call to Victoria West, and this telegram was only delivered to me at 3 o’clock. People incur the expense of sendiing a telegram, and surely they have the right to expect it to be delivered within a reasonable time. I hope the Minister will see to it that telegrams are more speedily delivered in future.

It took five hours to deliver it.

Yes, there was a five hour delay in this town. I understand that the excuse is that they have not got enough people to deliver letters and telegrams. If the wages are not sufficient to attract people to undertake that type of work than the wages should be increased. But it is an impossible position if one has urgent telegrams despatched to have them delayed five hours in this town before they are delivered. Now I have another matter of more general importance, a matter which I have already discussed with the Postmaster General and which it is somewhat difficult for us to understand. The PostmasterGeneral was very sympathetic and I must say he has always been very sympathetic when I have raised any subject with him, but I want the Minister to give his attention to this matter, and I want him to see whether he cannot remedy the position, because the public do not understand it. As matters are today we find that where a farm telephone is connected up to a station which serves as an exchange, they have to pay for that privilege by paying for calls as if they go through an exchange. Now I want to tell the Minister what happened in my own district. I can quite understand that if a telephone is connected with a station, the station staff has to do the work of the Exchange. The Railway Service is used in such cases, and if the calls are free the railway staff would perhaps be worried too much, but after 5 o’clock in the afternoon the exchange is closed and the telephones are put through to the town, and then we find that the people have to pay 3d. per call if they want to be connected with another farm line. This is an injustice to them. Assuming I am on line 17 and the other man on line 18. He is in the position that in the day time he is connected with the station, and for that reason he has to pay his 3d. after 5 oclock to be connected with line No. 17, although both use the same exchange. I hope the Minister will realise that those people are not getting any special privileges. They have to pay for every call they put through and I hope he will take steps to ensure that those people at least get the same privileges which other people in the district have, that is that after 5 o’clock in the evening, when they have all to go through the same exchange, they will all be treated alike. We know that at the moment there is little or no material for the extension of telephone connections, but I should like to know from the Minister whether he expects new stocks to arrive shortly and I should also like to know whether many orders have been placed? I further want to know whether if new stocks come in the extension of the telephone system will be carried on with. I also want to tell the Miniser that if there is any extension of the telephone service he should realise that there are areas where telephones are very badly needed, especially now that petrol is being rationed. We have this position, that in a small place there may perhaps only be one garage, and it will be beneficial to all the farmers in the district, and not only to the benefit of that garage, if such a place can have a telephone. I want to know from the Minister whether there is really such a shortage of material that it is impossible to instal telephones in cases where a telephone is very urgently needed? I hope the Minister will give his special attention to such cases where it is not only in the interest of the individual but where it is in the interest of the whole district for a telephone to be installed. I notice that the Minister is a little more awake now after the bloodthirsty attacks which have been made here, and I hope he will make notes of the points we are raising, and I trust those points will have his attention. We on the platteland do not enjoy many of the privileges which the towns have. In addition to that our means of transport have been taken away from us to a very large extent. The Minister should realise the position of the farmer whose farm is sixty or seventy miles away from the nearest town—the Minister should realise what that man’s position is now that petrol has been rationed. If that man has to drive his car to fetch a doctor his 400 miles are practically used up. If he can ring up a doctor, or if he can use a telephone, in connection with urgent business, it is most valuable to him. I hope the Minister will make a special effort to come to the assistance of these farflung parts of the country.

I want to tell the Minister that I have always been proud of our Post Office. Our postal service has been a good one and it is a service which was given to the country by these servants of the public. I feel sorry having to complain now of the fact that the Service is getting worse and worse every year. We are no longer getting the service we used to get, the public are no longer being catered for in the way they used to be. I don’t know what the reason for it is. The public are becoming dissatisfied, and the officials are becoming dissatisfied. The clerks who hold political views different from those of the Minister are nervous because they are afraid of victimisation. I want to get a definite reply from the Minister, and I want the Minister to tell us that so long as an official in the Post Office does his duty in the way he should, and does not concern himself during his service with political matters, that that man will have the same chances of promotion as the Minister’s own supporters have. I expect that from the Minister, but I want him to give us an unambiguous statement so that our minds can be put at rest, and so that the officials in the Post Office can also have their minds put at rest. It may appear to be a small thing to the Minister, but we who live among those people and associate with them know that they are very uneasy about the position. It is no use my giving them the assurance, and others giving them the assurance that it is not the Minister’s money and the PostmasterGeneral’s money which is paying them their salaries, but that it is our money and that they cannot be victimised. The feeling is there and I want the Minister to make a solemn statement in connection with the postal service so that those people may know that they are safe. Now there is another question I want to put to the Minister. I am told that the Postmaster-General is an officer in the army, a colonel or something like that. I do not object to that. If he wants to give his services to the army, by all means let him do so, but what is the position now? If the Minister gives an instruction to the Postmaster-General as the head of the department, and the Postmaster-General gets an order from his commanding officer which is in conflict with the order he has had from the Minister, whose instruction is the Postmaster-General going to carry out? If he wants to be an officer in the Army let him be an officer. If he is so patriotic let him join the Army and leave the Service while he is an officer. If he does not give up his position in the Service we are going to have confusion. That is one of the causes which has given rise to the fact that the officials in the Service are not sure of their positions. That is why I am asking the Minister to make a statement as to whose orders the Postmaster General will carry out in the circumstances which I have described. Now I come to another matter which my hon. friend next to me has already raised, namely the telephone service on the platteland. Telephones on the farms are no longer used simply for people’s pleasure. They are a necessity. They are no longer there for pleasure, or simply for convenience. They are a necessity for the farmers’ work—the farmer needs a telephone for his business. It is so to a greater extent where the farmer is concerned than it is where the people in the towns and the dorps are concerned. Last year telephone costs in the town were reduced. I used to pay £7 10s. for my telephone, and I was notified that in future it would only cost me £5. In my business I used to pay £10. The farmers need their telephones just as much as the townsmen do, and I want to know why the cost has not been reduced so far as the farmer is concerned. I want to make an appeal to the Minister, and I want to ask him to try and meet those people. He should realise that the price of products has been fixed on such a low basis that the farmer cannot make any profit out of the war. The cost of living is going up; the implements which the farmer requires have gone up in price; the cost of labour is going up; the cost of fertiliser is going up, yet the farmer gets more or less the same price for his products. Now, that being the position I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot see his way to grant these people some relief so far as their telephone service is concerned. The Post Office is making large profits. It is making a lot of money, and the Minister should avail himself of the opportunity to help these people. There was a time when the Department was very keen on the farmers taking telephones. Today it is impossible to grant any extensions on account of the shortage of materials, and that is why we want the Minister to come to the assistance of the people in the way I have suggested, and these people do need help. The Minister of Finance wants to keep down the cost of living, but it cannot be done. The cost of living is going up although the prices which these people get for their products have been fixed, and we ask the Minister to try and meet these people in that respect. Now there is another matter in connection with which I should like the Minister to tell us what his policy is—I am referring to the Telephone Exchange. Why should there be two or three Exchanges in a district like Robertson? Why cannot the telephone system be so arranged that we have only one exchange in the town? It would serve us much better because the telephone will be used to a much greater extent. The whole system could be better organised then. Today the position is that if I want to ring up a certain part of my district twenty fives miles away from the town, there is only one exchange, but if I want to talk to a place five miles away from the town I first of all have to go through another exchange, and if I talk to a place ten miles away there is yet another exchange. That sort of thing is not fair. It is unfair to the various subscribers and I think the system should be so arranged that they can all be treated alike. It is only a question of money, but the people who are connected with the Central Exchange in the town get a night service while the others who are not connected with the town have no night service. If we change the system, and if we have one exchange, the same hours can apply to all, and all will have the same service. That is why I should like to know from the Minister what his Department’s policy is in connection with the exchange. Now I have another point I want to raise. I have made requests to the Department several times on behalf of the farmers in the Koo. These people live some distance away from town, in the Montagu district. They get their mail twice a week and the telephone exchange is at the home of one of them. That man is not friendly with his neighbours round about him. They want a change to be made so that all of them can be attended to, and I should like to know why they should not all be attended to.

I want to raise a question which I have repeatedly brought to the Minister’s notice. He will remember that on one occasion he was very hospitably received in the North-Western part of the Free State in the little dorp Bothaville. On that occasion he promised Bothaville that the post office would be rebuilt. The main street of Bothaville is one of the nicest one can find in a platteland dorp, but in that same street there is a post office which is really a disgrace not only to the Department of Posts but also to Bothaville, and to the whole Free State, as my hon. friend here remarks. I should greatly appreciate it if the Minister of Posts and the Postmaster General would remember to carry out their promise to the public of Bothaville. They should remember, if they delay and if they leave that building there any longer, that they are in danger of the public burning it down, or getting somebody to do it, because I can give hon. members the assurance that if the Minister wants to keep the public of Bothaville as a peaceloving community and does not want them to commit some act of violence against this post office building, he must do something for Bothaville and put up a building worthy of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, worthy of a progressive dorp like Bothaville. The Minister made a promise as far back as 1934 and I am quite convinced that if the Minister would only instruct the PostmasterGeneral, the zealous secretary of Public Works would very quickly see to it that the people of Bothaville were satisfied. There is another question I very briefly want to touch upon. It strikes me as peculiar that the Department continues to follow the old policy towards those postmasters who are not on a fixed establishment, and that the amount on the Estimates keeps on increasing from year to year so far as those people are concerned. This seems to be an anomaly which should be done away with as far as possible. I realise the difficulties of the postal authorities, and I know that they need postal agents of that kind occasionally. On the other hand, we have this position, that these postmasters have been in the service of the State for the last twenty, twenty-five and every thirty years. They have faithfull served the State. Sometimes they are buried in those far distant districts, they are not transferred, and they have no chance of promotion. It is really high time the Minister and the PostmasterGeneral revised their policy and the Department’s policy in regard to these people. I feel that if a person has faithfully served the State for ten, fifteen or twenty years as postmaster, he should be appointed to a fixed establishment and he should be considered for promotion and for transfer. After so many years service I do think that the postal authorities should be sufficiently aware of the merits of such an official. It should be impossible for a man to be in the service for fifteen and twenty years and still find himself in the rediculous position of not being on a fixed establishment. I strongly want to urge the postal authorities to revise their policy in this regard so that these people may be placed on a different footing. I do feel that we owe it to those officials, that the State owes it to those officials, to place them on a sound basis in the service.

In passing I want to say a few words about the matter which has been raised here, namely the secret transmitter. The Minister made a very poor excuse, namely that he knew that there was a secret transmitter which was broadcasting, that his Department had already made attempts to discover the transmitter, but that so far they had not succeeded in doing so, and then he raised his hands in innocence and told us that hon. members were attacking an innocent man like himself. He told us also that he was powerless to take any action against the particular paper which had published letters about the secret transmitter. There we have a Minister who is a member of the Government which possesses special powers today, such powers that the Prime Minister today in actual fact is the dictator of South Africa. Yet a member of that Government declares that he and his Government have not got the power to compel the Editor of the paper to disclose the name of the individual who has written that letter! I have the letter before me. At least I have before me one of the letters that was written on the subject. It appeared in the “Sunday Times” of the 16th November of last year under the heading “Freedom Radio”. In that letter it is stated that the difficulty which had existed had been overcome, and that they would broadcast again on the 16th November at 6.45 over wave lengths 50 and 83. The letter was signed “Fighters for Freedom”. This letter emanated from a person who used the freedom radio. I asked the Minister a question in that connection and the Minister replied that he had read the letter and that he had asked the Editor of the Paper to inform him of the name of the writer, but that he had not the power to compel the Editor of the paper to disclose the name of the writer, and that in this particular case the newspaper had refused to disclose the name. Now I want to put a question to the Minister, a pertinent question, in the way the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) usually puts his question: If the letter which was published in this paper had been a letter from a person who had a radio transmitter, and who was hostile to the Government, would the Minister in that event have done nothing? Assuming a letter of that kind had appeared in one of our Nationalist Papers, a letter announcing that a certain secret transmitter which was hostile to the Government was going to broadcast at a certain time over a certain wave length? Would the Minister not have taken steps to obtain the name of the writer of such a letter, if the sender had continually broadcast propaganda against the Government? Would the Minister not have taken steps to arrest the particular individual, and to stop the transmitter? Would the Minister not have had the power to obtain the individual’s name and address. I take it that the Minister would certainly not have hesitated in that particular case to compel that paper if necessary under threat of imprisonment to disclose the name, and he would very quickly have put an end to the secret transmitter. The Minister tells us that if it happens again he will perhaps take steps. I assume that the individual who during the past twelve months has been responsible for the broadcasts by the secret transmitter has contravened the law. Any radio transmitter not licenced by the Government is prohibited. In other words, the people who are connected with the secret transmitter are criminals, but the Minister refuses to take any steps against them. They have been breaking the law for months, but the Minister says he is not going to do anything about it. If it happens again, however he will take steps. I think the Minister is just as guilty, and the Minister of Justice should give instructions to have him arrested. The Minister is an accomplice to the crime, and the Minister of Justice should take steps. Now there is another matter I want to bring to the Minister’s notice. On Friday, 27th March, the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) put a question to the Minister in regard to the non-delivery of the periodical “Stryd” of the Youth Bond of the Transvaal. Two issues of that periodical which were posted in the usual way were not delivered to the subscribers, and the question put to the Minister was whether those two editions had been destroyed by the Department, and whether the Minister would, if that was the case, consider compensating the publishers. It is the official organ of the Youth Bond of the Transvaal. What was the Minister’s answer? That the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had no knowledge of the matter. In other words, we had another display of the Minister’s lack of knowledge of what is going bn in his own Department. I want hon. members to take note of the fact that we are dealing here with a periodical of which thousands of copies are despatched every month to regular subscribers. In two instances these copies were not delivered and the publishers were never informed of the reason for the nondelivery. Representations were made to the Post Office and to the Minister, and now the Minister comes here and tells us that he does not know what happened to them. I want to know from the Minister tonight why this periodical was confiscated? Was it done on the instructions of the Department of Defence, or on the instructions of the Board of Censors?

The Minister’s own secretary probably ordered the Minister to do so.

Quite possible, because his own secretary is a high military official, but what has happened to these periodicals? Is the Minister going to tell us that the contents were such that they were calculated to undermine the safety of the State? Was that the reason? I read every one of them and I can tell the Minister that very little political matter was published in the paper. Only facts and announcements in regard to party political matters, similar to what we find every day in our papers. Only the ordinary news reports which we find in cur papers every day, but in a most inexplicable way two issues of this periodical disappeared completely, and nobody can account for it. The Minister owes us a reply and should tell us what happened. If he does not know he should order an investigation to be made, if he finds that the books, the periodicals, have been confiscated, he should pay compensation to the publishers. The organisation has not got a lot of money and the publication of the paper had to be stopped because they did not know whether the subscribers would receive the books in future.

I should like to know from the Minister what the policy of the Department is in regard to attending to Europeans and coloured people in our various post offices. Are the officials in our various post offices obliged to serve Europeans and coloured people over the same counter? I may say that certain cases have been brought to my notice where this has happened and I have brought the matter to the notice of the Minister and his Department. In dorps on the platteland one sometimes finds one room, and not a large room at that, put aside for postal work, and coloured people as well as Europeans have to be attended to there. The work of the post office has increased tremendously of late. Pensions and similar things have to be attended to, coloured people have to be paid out, and on certain days of the month the post offices are full of coloured people and it is impossible for the Europeans to get into the place. I wrote a letter to the Department about the condition of affairs in one of the dorps in my constituency, and the reply more or less amounted to this, that as soon as things were better and something could be done the matter would receive attention. I ask the Minister whether it is fair to leave these matters over? It conflicts with the feelings of the Euroepans that they have to be served across the same counter, and I don’t think it unreasonable to demand that an immediate change be made.

Which place are you referring to?

Uniondale. It is a fairly large dorp, and it is impossible for people to be attended to during certain times of the month because the place is full of coloured people, and it is almost impossible to get near the counter. I hope the Minister will give the matter his attention. There is just one other point I want to raise. In some of the dorps of the platteland the post office is closed on a Wednesday afternoon. I don’t want to object to it because I admit that in most cases on the platteland Wednesday counts as a half day, and shops and everything close, but the objection is to the telegraph office also being closed. The Telephone Exchange is kept open for the use of the telephone, but if anyone wants to despatch a telegram on Wednesday afternoon he cannot do so. One only sends telegrams if it is urgent, and it often happens that an urgent telegram has to be despatched on a Wednesday afternoon, but the office is closed then. I think it could easily be arranged for telegrams on Wednesday afternoons to be sent to the Telephone Exchange, because there is always somebody on duty there to attend to the despatch of the post. It can easily be arranged so that telegrams can be despatched on Wednesday afternoons in that way. It is definitely necessary.

When hon. members ask the Minister for extension of services we are always told that there is no material and that there is no labour available to extend ordinary services during the war, but now I want to ask the Minister what the reason is that at Dasville, where a farmer’s commercial business has been set up, a postal agency was first of all granted which was afterwards taken away again. A postal agency was asked for, and a fine building was placed at the Minister’s disposal free of charge, and a staff free of charge was arranged for, and transport of the mail to the post office at Grootvlei was also provided for. It would have cost the Minister nothing and the postal agency was started for the convenience of the farmers in that area. The Department approved of it, but without consulting the Department the Minister suddenly gave instructions that the agency was to be closed. I want to ask the Minister what was the reason for closing that agency? And the same applies to the telephone there. The Department allowed a telephone but said that they did not have the necessary material to establish the necessary connections. We pointed out that there were two lines in the area which had been given up for years and were not being used and the farmers were prepared to take out the poles, to carry them free of charge, and, if necessary, put them in again under supervision of the Department. That, too, was refused. We also applied for petrol. We approached the Minister of Commerce and Industries and convinced him that it was necessary for us to get a petrol pump there. The Minister of Commerce and Industries sent out a man and immediately consented to a petrol pump being put up there. But after twenty-seven days the postal agency was suddenly closed. In the twenty-seven days it was open it took £30, but the Minsiter refused after twenty-seven days to allow it to remain open. And now I must mention something which made a very bad impression on the public there. The Jew at Grootvlei—that is where the post office is—told the public when we got our post office that he was going to spend £2,000, but he would get the postal agency closed. And the postal agency was closed, but the Minister has not said why it was done. He did not even consult his Department; he simply gave instructions that it was to be closed. Hon. members will realise the impression this sort of thing made on the public, especially as what the Jew said would happen actually did happen. I called on the Minister and he promised that he would come out himself. If an agency is of such importance in busy times like the present that the Minister himself has to go out to investigate matters, then it creates a lot of doubt in one’s mind, but I hope the Minister will give us an explanation why this agency cannot be kept open for the benefit of the farmers? The Minister has written to me and told me that his information is that practically speaking the only people to benefit from the agency are my relations. There are 131 shareholders in the Co-operative Farmers’ Shop an all the people in that area got their mail there. Now the Minister says that it is only my relations and my people who got their letters there. I hope we shall get a more satisfactory reply.

The hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier) made certain revelations in regard to a Mr. Haupt who went round the country to get advertisements for the paper “Libertas.” One Minister and several members of Parliament are on the Board of that paper. The paper is financed by the Union Unity Fund. Where do the finances of the Union Unity Fund come from? I want to draw the attention of hon. members to a communication dated 21st December 1929 on behalf of the Union Unity Fund to the General Managers of Insurance Companies in Liverpool. They wrote a letter to the Insurance Companies in which they stated that on the 20th December, 1939, a meeting was held at Cape Town where Mr. Sutter, M.P., had met the representatives of various insurance companies and gave them an interview in regard to the activities of the Union Unity Fund.

We have had that story before.

It will do you good to hear it again. In the letter sent to those insurance companies which have their head offices outside of South Africa, we have the following—

And what does the memorandum say? It says this—

And they go further and say—

And then they go on to say that it was important to combat the neutrality propaganda. Here we find the link, Haupt comes to canvas for advertisements for the paper “Libertas.” The Board contains a Minister and several members of Parliament. The paper is financed by the Union Unity Fund. The Union Unity Fund applies for money from outside companies in England. Now it is clear to us why the Minister cannot stop this freedom radio. He is afraid to stop his own Prime Minister; he is afraid to stop the Minister of Lands; that is the position. I now want to accuse the Minister of being afraid to call his own Ministers to order. I go further, and I say that the Minister knows perfectly well where the freedom radio is. Let him ask Haupt; let him ask the Minister of Lands, or he can ask other people. He can compel them to talk and to say where the freedom radio is. They have collected £500,000 and they have used that money to establish the freedom radio. The Minister can compel those people to tell him, let him start with Haupt.