I am sorry that the hon. Minister when he replied to my speech found it necessary to use the language which he did in connection with the suggestions that I made. His remarks have, of course, been taken up by the Government-controlled press this morning, and it would be really interesting to know what justification there is for what appeared in the “Cape Times” this morning in connection with my remarks yesterday. We have had occasion to criticise the press in this House and there has been some suggestion of control. But if the press is allowed to misrepresent the facts as they have done in this morning’s “Cape Times,” I think it is really time that some measure of further control be instituted, not in the interests of the Government Party only but in the interests of other parties. This is not the first time that the press has misrepresented what takes place in this House.

The hon. member should confine himself to the vote before the committee.

I am coming back to the vote; I am also coming back to the Minister who is probably responsible for the remarks of his paper, or should we say his Party’s paper. Let me say that this scheme which I suggested was no more than an extension of the law which exists at the present time. Perhaps the “Cape Times” is not aware of the fact that we have in being a repatriation scheme which, as I said yesterday, is an insult to the Indian community. It is an insult to Indians to offer them £30 to return to India. All I did was to suggest a more generous extension of the prevailing scheme, and when the “Cape Times” referred to the Dominion Party’s recent campaign against …

The hon. member is not entitled to read extracts from a newspaper referring to a debate in this House during the current session.

I feel it is only right that we should have an opportunity of replying when a Government paper fakes up the attitude which the “Cape Times” adopted in this case. What I put before the House yesterday is a practical scheme that can be put into force, but the Minister chose to ridicule it, and he says that the Indians are far better off in South Africa than they are in their own country. That is perfectly true. Many of them may be better off in India, but. this scheme which I have suggested would take these people out of the miserable conditions, the conditions of squalor, under which they are living today and which Government after Government of this country has allowed to exist. The Minister invited the cooperation of all sections. I agree that we have that co-operation which the Minister so glibly talks about. I want to say that unless he calls a voluntary scheme into being it would be useless. I would not be a party to driving anyone out of South Africa unless he is willing to go. How long are we going to allow this question to be bandied about from Party to Party? It has been said by hon. members in this House that the Indian community is not represented in this House. Let me tell hon. members that they have been represented by a section of the Labour Party in this House for many years; they have been represented in the Provincial Council and in the City Councils in Natal and they have paid very dearly for that representation. There have been people who have lived on the Indians for years and years, and I would like to instance a case that happened at the time when the Pegging Bill was under discussion. Representatives of the Indians came to Cape Town. We met them here and one of the leaders of the deputation said to me: “Where is the Labour Party?” They had scooted like a lot of rats; they had left the sinking ship. When I make a plea in this connection it is in an endeavour to remove this matter from the political sphere, to prevent the exploitation of the Indians. Only a few days ago this matter was discussed in Durban with one of the leaders of the Indian community. The question of the Bluff site was under discussion. One of the leaders of the Indian community turned to me and said: “The very man who engineered the opposition against the Bluff site, a member of the Labour Party, lived in the house of one of my colleagues, and then he objects to our having a site because it overlooks his property.” When these people get up and accuse the Dominion Party of using this as a racial issue, they are not being just and they are not being honest. We have never done so. We have in our Party men who were born and bred in Durban, and they gradually see Durban slipping into the hands of the Indian. Can you wonder at their being concerned as to the future of their children; can one be surprised that they use language that they do not like to use in order to impress upon the Government the necessity of not shelving this matter any longer? To give the Indians a few sites here and a few sites there is no solution to the problem. The City Council has been criticised extensively, and yet we find that the Durban City Council has to pay £1,000 per acre for a site for the Indians. Is that being niggardly? When I suggested to the Government and to the Minister that the whole of this matter is an economic question, that it is a finan cial burden that Durban and Natal cannot bear, why did he not reply to me? Why did he not reply to me when I asked him whether he would use his influence with the Government to open up the boundaries of the other Provinces to allow the Indians to spread throughout South Africa instead of concentrating in one Province? What right have hon. members got to talk about the Dominion Party being unjust to the Indian community when they are determined to keep the Indians in the Province of Natal. I want to put that question to the Minister again. Is he prepared to use his influence with the Government? We have a Minister today who comes from Natal; let him get up and tell us that he will use his influence with the Government to give us a solution to the Indian problem by opening up the borders of the other three Provinces. I doubt whether the Minister would be able to do so without strong Cabinet support, but if he is sincere in this question, he will put up to the Government the solution which is claimed not only by me but by every reasonable person in South Africa. That is the solution; but they are afraid. They will not have the Indians in the other Provinces; they are not prepared to have the Indians in the Cape or in the Transvaal or in the Free State. The Cape is the largest Province in the Union. Why do the Cape members not come forward and say: “We will help you people in Natal; we will endeavour to persuade the Government to open up the borders of the Cape Province.” They are not prepared to do that, and yet they have thousands of morgen of land in the Cape Province, in the Karroo, that could be cultivated by the Indians. Not one of them will hear of it. [Time limit.]

Yesterday evening when I raised the question of the Afrikaans film, we were very glad to hear from the Minister that he agreed with us 100 per cent. That the Afrikaans film should have its place in our bioscopes. There is another point in regard to which the hon. Minister agrees with me, and that is, however striking and thorough the report of the Cilliers Commission may be, it does not contain all the data which we require to deal with the matter which I mentioned. It therefore adds power to my request to the Minister to nominate a departmental committee which can collect information during the recess and give advice on the following points. The first point is this: How we can rapidly enough produce Afrikaans films in South Africa so that the bioscopes can be compelled to exhibit films in Afrikaans, even if it is only a small portion of the programme, even if it is a quota of five minutes, to begin with, in a programme of, say, 150 minutes. You may ask me how we can rapidly enough produce Afrikaans films. My reply is: Tn the same way as other countries do. If Shirley Temple speaks Portuguese in Portugal, French in France and Netherlands in Holland, there is no reason why she cannot speaks Afrikaans in South Africa. I want to read to the Minister a passage from the book of Harley’s from which he also suoted, in regard to voice doubling. In this connection Prof. Harley says—

equally impeccable German on the screen. Many of the pictures made in Hollywood with English dialogue are doubled for voice in Paris or Berlin, where little French or German girls speak for Shirley, and appropriate male voices are substituted for the male actors.

That is a well known procedure and the necessary machinery could easily be imported. That is one recommendation which could be made if South Africa has not got sufficient facilities to make Afrikaans films. Then it stands to reason that we can do in this country what is done in all other countries, namely, voice doubling or the synchronisation of voices. I just want to say this. Even if at the beginning we only get five minutes of Afrikaans in a programme of 150 minutes, the English-speaking urban child will be in a position to hear Afrikaans. South Africa would be rendered a very great service if the urban child could be enabled to hear Afrikaans in the bioscopes. In a country where 25,000,000 to 27,000,000 people visit the bioscopes every year, it is of the utmost importance that the other official language should take its rightful place in the bioscopes where it has been neglected for so long; and I therefore ask the Minister in all seriousness to get up and to give the country the assurance that he will have this matter investigated. Then there are two other things which the Committee can investigate. In my previous speech I made two accusations of a serious nature. My first accusation is that big companies are allowed to exploit the public in South Africa in a scandalous way by means of their admission prices to the bioscopes; that millions of pounds are taken out of the pockets of the poor public every year in an improper manner. Other countries have started to control the admission prices to bioscopes, but South Africa simply leaves it to the winds. It has been done in Great Britain; all the Dominions have done so; all the countries on the Continent have done so. But in South Africa for some unknown reason it has not been done. Only last week, for some reason or other, the admission prices were again increased, and the reason is clear; this is a monopoly, and one cannot get away from that fact. The Committee must investigate that aspect as well. That is the first accusation which I make. The other accusation is of an even more serious nature perhaps. I make the accusation that here in South Africa the censors have allowed films, which are not educational films, to come in free of customs duty—in the last few years to an amount running into thousands of pounds. That shows that there is something wrong with our film censorship. I do not want to accuse the censors of ignorance, nor do I want to accuse them of fraud, but if there is a third reason why films like “Mrs. Miniver” and “Blossoms in the Dust” are allowed to come in free of customs duty and exhibited in the bioscopes, I can only say that if it is not ignorance, if it is not fraud—and I take it that it is not one of these reasons— then there must be another reason, and I should like to know what that reason is. There is a fourth matter which I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister, and it is this. The last code which was laid down in connection with films was laid down in 1931. That is more than twelve years ago. That code is out of date. It was a suitable code for those days. The film code as laid down in the Act of 1931 was suitable for those days. But the time has arrived when we must keep pace with other countries of the world as far as the film is concerned, if we want to protect our children and our people. I want to refer the Minister to an article which appeared in the “Fortnightly Review” in connection with the film code. I just want to draw his attention to it. There is hardly a country in the world today which has not introduced a modern film code; only South Africa has not done so, and the Minister will render a great service to the country if he appoints an interim or departmental commission which will show South Africa the right path as far as the film code is concerned.

I want to reply at once to the hon. member for Mooresburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus). He rightly says that I am 100 per cent. with him in regard to the production of Afrikaans films. The hon. member made the point that only five minutes out of 150 minutes is not very much. As one who is anxious to do all he possibly can to further the policy of bilingualism in South Africa, that is a thing that I am fully in favour of. Afrikaans films are being produced in South Africa. The question is to get them on the circuit. The hon. member asked for a departmental committee to go into this question. I am quite prepared to have a departmental committee, because I am determined that South African culture, which includes Afrikaans films, shall have a place on our bioscope programme. The other question that that committee could look into is the question of admission prices. The main point which the hon. member made is that he wants to see on the circuits in South Africa more Afrikaans short films, which will take five or six or seven minutes. Now had the hon. member been free, there is a film being shown this afternoon, in Afrikaans, at 2.30. I hope that on another occasion the hon. member will have the opportunity of seeing that film, because it shows what can be done in that direction in South Africa. This is a very important matter and I am in favour of doing all I can to accomplish what the hon. member wants. But the bigger question is of control of our own film productions and things of that description. That is a matter that requires a great deal of consideration. I hope the hon. member will be satisfied with the statement that I have made that we will have a departmental committee to see what can be done in connection with the matter. The hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) has taken exception to certain reports in the press. I am not responsible for what appears in the press and I am not taking any responsibility for it. I have never in any of my criticisms referred to the members of the Dominion Party as members of the Dominion Party, because I do not want to drag party politics into this question. I have referred to hon. members as members for the divisions they represent. So far as repatriation is concerned, I cannot seriously consider the suggestion made by the hon. member. I do not think it is practical politics. That is all I can say in connection with the matter, that it is not practical politics.

Why is it not?

Look around the House and see whether they want the trouble we have in Natal.

It is a question of right and wrong.

It is not. It is a Natal question, and we have to deal with it as a Natal question. I make a final appeal to hon. members. I am very pleased to see that the municipality of Durban yesterday went out of their way to pass a resolution to say they are willing to co-operate with the Government. If hon. members will help, and I appeal to them to help, we will go a long way in settling a difficult question, and so far as Natal is concerned, the burning question of the day.

Mr. Chairman, I had not intended taking part in this debate any further, but since the House adjourned yesterday evening, something has happened which makes it necessary for me once more to intervene in this debate. Yesterday afternoon the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) in taking part in this debate, took up a very provocative attitude towards hon. members on this side of the House, and he confined his speech almost entirely to a very personal attack upon myself. Amongst other things he said the following—

I need not deal with the first two matters mentioned by the hon. member, viz., whether I was a successful business man or not, or the question whether I was a successful Minister abroad. The opinion of the hon. member for Troyeville and others of his class leaves me entirely cold. In any case, any compliments coming from that quarter would be a decided embarrassment to me. But, Mr. Chairman, I want to say in passing, with regard to those two matters, that anybody who goes to Beaufort West and enquires from the firm that took over my business there will be able to ascertain whether I left a flourishing business there or not; and if the hon. member and others will take the trouble to go to the Department of External Affairs and examine the files there, or if they will consult the Minister of Economic Development who took over from me in Paris, they will no doubt get a different impression from that conveyed yesterday. What I want to deal with is the statement by the hon. member for Troyeville, namely, that I am a “guinea pig director of a number of Afrikaans corporations which have a policy of interlocking directorships.” I rose immediately after the hon. member made that statement, to deny it, and I made the specific statement that I was a director of only one Afrikaans company, namely, an insurance company. Now I am intervening in this debate once more, because I feel it necessary in the public interest to expose the questionable journalistic tactics which one finds in this morning’s issue of the “Cape Times.” The “Cape Times” claims to be a leading newspaper in this country, and one would assume that a leading newspaper, such as the “Cape Times” claims to be, would maintain a standard of decent journalism. But what happens this morning? As hon. members know, the “Cape Times” publishes a review called “Notes in the House,” and in today’s “Notes in the House” the words of the hon. member for Troyeville are fully quoted, including the statement that I am “a guinea pig director of a number of Afrikaans corporations.” They quote all that on the front page of the newspaper, but they do not state that I got up to deny that statement. Mr. Chairman, I say that this was not a case of an expression of opinion. The “Cape Times” can have any opinion about me which they wish to hold. That leaves me entirely cold, as does the opinion of the hon. member for Troyeville, but here we have to do with a question of fact. Here we have to do with a charge which I took the trouble specifically to deny; but the “Cape Times” after quoting the charge does not state that I specifically denied that I was a director of any such companies. That report is written, I take it, by a member of the “Cape Times” staff who is supposed to be up in the gallery, but even supposing he writes these notes on hearsay or after consulting the report of his colleague, then we have the further fact that on the back page of the “Cape Times” in the usual Parliamentary report, which is very scanty and sketchy, it is stated that I got up to deny the hon. member’s statement. There is therefore no excuse, and there is no possible explanation whatsoever for what has happened. If the reporter was not in the gallery then I presume that he consulted the report written by the other reporter, and from that wrote his so-called impressions. He cannot have it both ways. Either he heard me make the denial, or he saw in the report of the other reporter that I had made the denial, and in spite of that he publishes that review of the debate on the front page of the “Cape Times,” with the deliberate intention to mislead. I make that statement deliberately and advisedly that the omission of my denial was with the deliberate intention to mislead its readers, and it is not the first case we have had from the “Cape Times.” What is happening is that the “Cape Times” is allowing itself to be used by the hon. member for Troyeville and his associates, and I say what has happened this morining in the “Cape Times” has distinctly lowered the standard of journalism in this country. I remember reading some time ago in the “Cape Times” of the “Yellow Press” in America. Compared with what happened today in the “Cape Times” the “Yellow Press” in America is as white as the driven snow. But one can understand why the “Cape Times” takes up that attitude. Some years ago they were threatened with a boycott by the Jews of South Africa. The following letter was written to the Secretary of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies by the Malmesbury Hebrew Congregation—

Evidently that threat has had the desired effect. Since that threat was conveyed to the “Cape Times” there have been no further attacks in regard to the question of Jewish immigration. I think it is about time that a voice was raised in this House to protest against such questionable journalistic tactics. We have had other instances especially during the past few years—and which I can testify to—where the “Cape Times” deliberately omitted certain news items and also sentences and paragraphs from overseas news because they were not in the interests of the cause which it supports.

What about “Die Transvaler” and what about “Die Burger”?

In this instance I specifically denied the truth of the statement made by the hon. member for Troyeville. The hon. member’s statement is published on the front page of the “Cape Times,” but it does not state there that I denied it. With regard to the hon. member for Troyeville, may I say that he yesterday adopted a high and mighty attitude towards hon. members on this side of the House, but it is as well that the hon. member spoke as he did, because now we know. Now we know what is in their minds. Now we know how they feel towards hon. members on this side of the House. Those people who came to this country from the ghettos of Eastern Europe….

[Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I was very surprised to hear the hon. Minister say that this question of the Asiatics was purely a Natal" question. If it is purely a Natal question why does the hon. Minister not let Natal settle the question? The hon. Minister is trying to settle the question, and he is suggesting they should now have the vote.

If the hon. member had listened to me yesterday he would have heard me say to the House that the municipality of Durban and the Provincial Executive of Natal asked the Government to intervene. I said it should be a Natal question.

I was on a Select Committee so was not here to hear the Minister say that, but I say then that Natal is not the only part of the Union where Indians exist. There is a very considerable number of Indians in the Transvaal, and I know the Transvaal is very agitated about the Indians there. There are also Indians in the Cape Province, and so I consider that this is a national problem and should be dealt with nationally. I have on a number of occasions asked the Minister whether he will agree to a referendum on this question of giving the Indians the vote. I notice the City Council of Durban has decided to have plebiscite on the Question, but why does the Minister not have a Natal referendum as to whether the people want the Indians to have the vote or not? I submit that point to the hon. Minister. I raised this question of a referendum on a former occasion, but the Minister did not deign to reply, and I should like a reply. Another point I raised on a former occasion was the question of a township being established for Indians on the outskirts of the City of Durban. I am told by the hon. Minister that the Government have the right of expropriation. They can acquire this land whereas the City Council has not got the right of expropriation. Now the Minister says he wants to solve this question. I submit here is the manner in which he can solve the housing problem, at any rate, of the Durban Municipality, and I earnestly hope he will consider the matter. I hope he will reply to these two points. With regard to the hon. Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) with regard to opening the boundaries, the Minister said: “No, the Indians are a Natal problem and the Indians must remain there,” but let me remind the hon. Minister that when we formed the Union in 1910 we formed Union for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, and why in those circumstances should all the benefits from Natal be retained and we are left with the Indian problem? Can the Minister answer me that? This, I submit, is a national problem, and the hon. Minister has no right, to my mind, to answer my hon. friend in the way he has done.

Mr. Chairman, I hasten to reply to the hon. member for Musgrave (Mr. Acutt) on the two points he raised. Yesterday and again this morning the hon. member referred to the Government expropriating 2,000 acres for an Indian settlement. This commission is appointed to enquire into that matter. I suggest that the hon. member gives evidence before that commission and puts this point before it. With regard to the plebiscite for Natal, the hon. member must have been away yesterday when I made it quite clear that the only people who can grant a municipal franchise to the Indians are the Provincial Council, and it is a matter they will have to tackle.

Mr. Chairman, I was one of those who opposed the Pegging Bill last year because I thought it was definitely wrong in principle and might have involved us internationally far more than we wished to be involved. At the game time I am glad to see the Minister is making a serious effort to settle this long outstanding question in Natal, and I sincerely hope, in spite of the inflammatory speeches we have heard here during the last two days, that he will succeed. But I must remind hon. members that the problem is a Natal question. It has been repeatedly stated that it is not a Natal problem. If hon. members will read the report of the Asiatic Enquiry Commission of 1921 they will find there was a specific request from the Natal people. I suggest to the Minister that the sugar industry of Natal is to Natal what the gold mines are to the Transvaal. The sugar industry is an industry upon which the commercial people of Natal grew up and without the sugar industry there would have been nothing worth while in Natal at all.

The Transvaal had the problem of the Chinese.

That is a parallel case, and I wonder if Natal would have opened its doors to the Chinese. This is what the report says—

Later on we find that a situation had arisen where other commercial interests which had grown out of the sugar industry opposed indentured labour. Unsatisfactory and unreliable native labour compelled them to hold out every inducement to indentured Indians to renew their indentures when completed, and subsequently to remain in the country as free labourers. Responsible goverment came to Natal in 1893, and after that date certain Bills were brought into the Natal Legislature. In 1895 in moving the second reading of the Indian Immigration Law Amendment Bill, Mr. Escombe said—

The report goes on—

There is one other quotation I want to give. On the 16th April, 1943, I quoted a statement by Sir Liege Hulett in Natal in 1908, as follows—

Well, Sir, at the very least that seems to show that the Natal people were responsible for the Indian problem and that they owe a debt of gratitude to the Indian people.

Mr. Chairman, I do not find myself in any conflict with the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr. Hemming). I have never had anything to say about the virtues of the Indians, but I submit it is not a problem at all. I realise that the sugar magnates brought the Indians to Durban, and to Natal, but because any particular industry happens to import a section of the community which has over a period of years grown to such dimensions that that community is not a happy community—there is a volume of opinion which believes it is a danger to the white civilisa iton and the Government and the municipalities have done very little for that community —is that any reason for saying these unhappy people must be left in the misery and squalor that they exist in at the present time, and that nothing must be done? The Minister has told us it is a burning question for Natal. We sit here year after year and all we can promise them, with all this wonderful co-operation that the Minister so glibly speaks about, is that the Minister is prepared to offer them a site for a college, and as I have said before, a few plots of land.

That is no solution of this problem at all, and the Minister knows it. We have put up a concrete suggestion as to how this matter should be tackled by this Parliament. This Parliament is supreme, and if the hon. Minister will only use his influence this Parliament could be persuaded in the interests of South Africa to open up the borders and allow the Indian community to come through, and we would have no problem.

Ordr order. May I draw attention to Standing Order No 90 which deals with tedious repetition.

Certain statements are repeated by Ministers and others, Mr. Chairman, and if they are repeated sufficiently often they may possibly sink in. However, we have done our best to persuade the Government of the necessity for a very bold step in regard to this question. Never again let the Minister or anyone else in this House tell us that the Dominion Party is a racial party, and is using this question for political aims. It is a diabolical lie, and the gutter press of Cape Town this morning ought to be ashamed of itself. I challenge the “Cape Times” or anyone else to repeat where a responsible member of the Dominion Party has ever made a statement that will hurt the feelings of another section of the population, or say that we are a racial party. They say we are a racial party in order to cover up their misdeeds, but that is not playing the game by the “Cape Times.” The Minister told us this morning we must wait for the result of this commission. When the Government are in a jam they appoint a commission. They might have a hundred commissions dealing with the same problem. The Minister says : “Let us get the result of the commission and then we will act on the advice of the commission.” When a commission is appointed, Mr. Chairman, its report does not always come before this House, but new officials are appointed and they want certain powers from Parliament, and they bring forward some scheme or other whether the country wants it or not. How that is going to help in solving this problem I do not know. Might I say that the Minister appointed, rightly so, two Indians to the commission. I find no fault with that. He also appointed another gentleman, who is a most honourable man in Durban, Mr. Shepstone, who has the same opinion with regard to the Indian problem as a lot of other people. We cannot keep on shelving this problem by bringing forward twaddling measures that only postpone the day, and in many cases make things much worse. The other member of this commission is Mr. Power, a member of the Executive of the Natal Provincial Council. In my opinion these gentlemen will endeavour to carry out the wishes of the Minister. The City Council of Durban is not represented at all. Why, Mr. Chairman is it necessary for us always to endeavour to push the Minister in the right direction? Had this matter not been raised here the Durban City Council would never have been represented. Durban would not have been represented at all. This commission may be able to find some little pinpricks in connection with the attitude of the Durban City Council towards the Indian problem, but that will be no solution of it. Whatever the report may be, whether it is in connection with the franchise or anything else, it will not help the problem. As I said before, for the Minister to do his job he should just say to the Cabinet and the Government: “I have a solution. Natal has got a solution and I am prepared to stand or fall by it.” That is the attitude which he took un. If he cannot speak on behalf of the Government, knowing as he does what Durban wants, it may be necessary for us to reinforce his somewhat weak position—and if he does do what we want him to do, and what Durban wants him to do, I can assure him that he will be making a name for himself. It will not be necessary then for the Minister again to criticise us, he will not be able to tell us then that we are not co-operating. I feel sure that if all this is going to be suspended for another year, if no action is going to be taken, the position will become worse and worse. The Minister said yesterday that the Building Societies were responsible for this Penetration. Well, he cannot have it both ways. If the Indians are not allowed to have houses or land what are they to do? In one breath the Minister wants to confer rights on the Indians and in the next breath he takes all their rights away from them. When we asked for the Pegging Bill it was in the interests of the Indians—we were trying to prevent people from advancing money to the Indians to penetrate into European areas. I say in spite of what my friends will say that the Pegging Act is in the interest of the Indians. It may have the effect of bringing about harmony among the two races—we have quite enough racialism and discord as it is. We shall give the Minister every possible assistance if he comes forward with a real scheme. On every possible occasion when these matters are raised we on these benches try to defend the position, and then we are called racialists. Whenever the Republican issue is raised, we defend the existing position and we are called racialists. It is not, we who are the racialists. [Time limit.]

When my time expired I was referring to the attitude of the hon. member for Troyville (Mr. Kentridge) and his attitude adopted towards members on this side of this House such as: “Who are you, to say this and to say that? We, the Jews, have done this and that.” That was his attitude— it was a provocative attitude which was followed by a personal attack on myself. Well, now, we know what the attitude of these people is. Up to the present I have always discussed this matter of Jewish immigration on the basis of national policy—the general question of immigration, and particularly Jewish immigration. I have always left the more unpleasant aspects of the question severely alone, but perhaps it is as well now that the hon. member for Troyeville has now taken up this provocative attitude, because I can assure him that we on this side of the House will now fight with the gloves off. For these people who come here from the ghettos of Eastern Europe, to take up the attitude which the hon. member for Troye ville has done, is an impertinence. They come to this country, acquire an outward veneer of civilisation, and become accustomed to moving in decent society; and then they come to this House and adopt the sneering attitude which the hon. member for Troye vile adopted. From now on we are taking off the gloves. I shall no longer confine myself to discussing the Jewish immigration question, purely as a matter of national policy.

I shall begin straight away by pointing out that we are continually being told of the wonderful contributions which the Jews have made to the building up of South Africa. The time has arrived to show the other side of the picture—which up to the present I have not done. The time has arrived to draw the attention of the House and of the country to the other side of the picture—not to their so-called great contributions, but to the manner in which the business standards and the business ethics of this country have been lowered by these people. We have seen a lot of that during the past few years. I put a question a year ago to the Minister of Justice as to the number of Jews and Indians who had been convicted on charges of profiteering, or black market operations, and so on, but the Minister could not give me the information—he said it would take too long to look up all the details. Well, I have followed the Press reports carefully, and I am convinced that of the number of people convicted in the lower courts and other courts of profiteering, and black market operations, more than 80 per cent. consist of Jews and Indians. I have here an issue of the “Cape Argus” of March 7th. I direct the attention of the House to the fact that this is one single issue of the “Cape Argus.” If anyone doubts my word he can go and consult the files. What do I find? A fine of £1,000 was imposed on one Nathan Rosenfeld for profiteering. Then there is another conviction against Barnett Greenbio for black market operations. Then another one against the firm, Eliason and Goldberg, for illegal sales of timber—and another one against a man named Woolfe Glucksman for illegal transfer of money. I say the time has arrived when we should look at the other side of the picture. We should also tell the population of South Africa about the hold which the Jews are getting on trades and professions—that there are good reasons why the immigration of these people should be stopped. They come into this country from ghettos of Europe and they batten like parasites on the English and Afrikaansspeaking people. That is all I wish to say on this question at present. I rose mainly to protest against the example of the low standard of journalism which we have had in the “Cape Times” this morning.

I did not want to take part in this debate because I wanted to keep out of racialism. Now, the English Press says: “You are a racialist if you stand by your people.” I though that that was Nationalism. In England you find the Englishman standing up for rights, but here if you do so you are a racialist. If you say anything against the natives you are a racialist; if you say anything against the Jews you are a racialist. To us it has become something repulsive to read about these things—we are Nationalists, we are not racialists.

Tell us another joke.

I can hear the Jews laughing. The English-speaking section of this country and the Afrikaans-speaking section have cleared this country. This country belongs to the English-speaking people and the Afrikaans-speaking people, and the Jews have come here by the mercy of these sections.

By the sufferance.

I want to say this—there are Jewish friends—I don’t know whether to call them friends or enemies because the Afrikaner has always found them fair weather friends. In the days when they could make anything out the Afrikaner they were alright. Yes, I know the Jews—I have seen many of them come along with a parcel on his back; he is given a bed and shown hospitality. Yes, they call themselves God’s chosen people. Let me tell the Jewish people that the English-speaking people and the Afrikaans-speaking people are going to govern this country. And we are not going to allow Eastern Europe to come and interfere with us in the way to run this country. They are not going to tell us what Nationalism is. If they want their Nationalism let them go back to the country they came from, but they can’t—they have been kicked out of many of those countries because they were not good citizens. Let me tell them that if they come here they must behave themselves as decent citizens. Now, the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) has made certain statements. He wanted to tell us what Nationalism was. His Nationalism is Nationalism of the Jewish type of Eastern Europe. But we refuse to allow a man like that to dictate to us and to tell us what we should do or what we should not do. He has called the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) some funny kind of names. Let me tell him that if the Afrikaner and the English-speaking people stand together there will be very little place for the Jewish people. We are their markets, let them realise that. How can they trade among themselves—if there are only 6 per cent. in this country? If the Afrikaners and the English wanted to take up that attitude and if they were to say we must only support Afrikaans and English businesses where would they be, and that is going to happen if they are not careful. The days are past when they can make propaganda here of that kind. The Afrikaans and English-speaking people ….

You cannot speak for the English-speaking people.

I can speak for the English-speaking people because my wife is English-speaking, and I say again that the English and Afrikaans-speaking people are the people who will govern this country, and it is this Jewish menace which will bring us together.

How many English-speaking people have you on your side?

Lots. Now I come to Natal. Natal is part and parcel of the Union, it is not an Indian Colony, and therefore it is the duty of the Government to see that the Indian does not become a menace to South Africa, I support the hon. member for Drakensberg (Mr. Abrahamson) in the very fine plea which he put up on behalf of Natal.

Have you ever been to Natal?

Oh, yes, I have been right through Natal, and I have seen what goes on there. I have seen that the poor man is driven out of the smaller towns. The black market flourishes there. And let me tell hon. members this: the Indian is almost a bigger menace than the Jew is.

Is that possible?

You find that the Indian sucks the native dry. He is the parasite who lives on the native, and although I sometimes differ from my hon. friends over there, as far as the native is concerned, the native has the right to live in this country.

I am surprised to hear you admit it.

And when these two sections exploit the native I stand by the native because he is an asset to this country.

You might tell us what wages you pay your natives.

If you go to Nyassaland you find about 1,600 Indians there drawing the lifeblood out of the native, and I am surprised that the native representatives have not stood up here and tried to protect the native against the Indian. The Indian is a foreigner, he is not a South African and he can never be a South African, and the Jews and Asiatics can never assimilate together. Now let me say this— we don’t hate the Jews ….

You only dissemble your love.

But he is making himself hated in this country by the attitude adopted by people like the hon. member for Troyeville. The Jew is making himself hated by both English and Afrikaansspeaking.

You are talking nonsense as usual.

It does not matter what the hon. member for Mental Hospital says. The English and Afrikaans business people will work together and I can assure the hon. member that we are prepared to put out a hand of friendship to the English business man. Now, let me tell you what happened this morning. When I got on the train there were four Jews sitting there.

What a shame.

The first thing they did was to start laughing about the Minister of Lands—about the attitude he had taken up about the churches.

Did they really laugh? Did they not cry?

I asked them what there was to laugh about. Of course they could not tell me. I said: “Of course, I know the Jew hates everything that is Afrikaans”. The Jew hates everything that is Christian, and I said it is through the mercy of Christianity that the Jew is allowed to live here, and the last thing he should try to do is to touch the business of the Christians, but he should certainly leave the Christian churches alone. Now let me tell this House this: They must not touch our businesses—but they are interfering with us today. You go to Port Elizabeth and see what has happened there. Fifteen years ago there were five Jewish firms in the main street. Today 80 per cent. of the business concerns in the main street belong to the Jews. Fine old English business men had their stores there, men who gave you 20s. in the £, and who gave you 100 lbs. of sugar if you ordered 100 lbs.

Hear, hear.

And where are they now? The Jews are turning the business men into poor whites, and I say that it is the duty of the Afrikaans and Englishspeaking sections to put a stop to everything which is to the detriment of the Afrikaans and English-speaking people. I shall put out the hand of friendship to the Englishspeaking business man and I hope he will reciprocate. [Time limit.]

I am sure hon. members opposite will be disappointed that I am not going to say any more about the Jewish question. I want to put up a plea on behalf of the Public Servants.

The hon. member can raise that on the next vote.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 25.—“Public Service Commission,” £32,000.

I think it is right and proper that I should inform the House in connection with the report laid on the Table by the Economic and Planning Council where they recommend the appointment of a Commission to go into the Public Service of the Union. That organisation prepared that report without the knowledge of the Minister of the Interior or the knowledge of the Public Service Commission, or any senior official. When that report was received I communicated with the Public Service Commission and asked whether they knew anything about it and they did not, so it was decided that a Committee of the Economic Planning Council should meet the Public Service Commission under the chairmanship of the Secretary for External Affairs (Mr. Forsyth) and discuss this report. That meeting took place and that Committee issued a report and I just want to quote briefly from it: The Economic Planning Council were represented by Dr. Hans Pirow, Dr. Bernard Price and Senator Dr. E. H. Brookes. There were three Public Service Commissioners present and Mr. Forsyth was the Chairman. Now I shall quote from the report—

You don’t pay them sufficients—that is why you are short of staff.

I shall continue to quote from the Report—

Plans in various directions are being considered and will assume more concrete form as time progresses. Furthermore, all Departments have been instructed by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister to formulate comprehensive plans for post-war reconstruction. In all these fields an imperative condition for success is that the machinery available to Government be re-organised so as to be fully suited to the resulting tasks. Preparatory work here cannot be delayed except at the risk of failure by the State in fulfilling its unavoidable, urgent and far-reaching obligations. The Committee gave consideration to wavs and means of meeting the needs of the case, nothwithstanding the difficulties resulting from prevailing abnormal conditions. The Committee has arrived at the conclusion that the proposed Commission of Enquiry into the Public Service should not deal only with the organisation of the machinery of government. Recruitment, training and general service conditions, though incidental thereto, also determine the standard of the public service machinery, and cannot, therefore, be left for independent investigation. Moreover, the rank and file in the Public Service are bound to press strongly for the extension of the investigation to cover the entire field. But questions pertaining to recruitment, training and conditions of employment in the Public Service can be determined only after the adaptation of the Public Service to the present and future functions of government has been thoroughly explored. It, therefore, appears to the Committee that a comprehensive enquiry, instituted now, would have to be conducted by stages by the same investigating body. The result would be that the work which Departments and the Public Service Commission would have to undertake in supplying the investigating body with the data it would need would be spread over an extensive period and the immediate burden lessened. In view of the foregoing the Committee recommends that a Commission of Enquiry into the Public Service be set up forthwith, and that its terms of reference be so framed as to require it, in separate and successive reports—

1. (a) first, to examine the broader aspects, the machinery of Government appropriate to the present and prospective functions of the State, and the organisation necessary to carry out those functions;
2. (b) thereafter, to examine recruitment procedure and training facilities; and
3. (c) finally, in the light of the findings and the decisions of government thereon, to determine salary and general service conditions necessary for the attainment of the structure envisaged.

The Government have accepted this unanimous report of the Joint Committee and a Commission with terms of reference on the lines I have indicated—of course, they will be fuller than they are here—will be appointed as soon as possible.

Is there still a Government? Is that your own personal opinion or the Government’s?

That happens to be a Cabinet decision.

A more astounding statement by a Minister about an important matter of government I have never yet heard in this House—I have never yet heard a Minister say that the Government was not aware of an investigation made by an outside body into conditions in the Public Service, conditions which have prevailed for years, conditions about which there have from time to time been complaints and statements, conditions which have been developing over a period of twenty five years, and now the Minister comes here and states that the Government did not know that the Planning Council’s Committee had investigated this burning question of dissatisfaction in the Public Service, for which the Government primarily is responsible and has to accept responsibility. The Public Service can come to only one conclusion and that is that the Government has shut its ears to the appeals made to it over a period of twenty years, and that it was necessary for an outside body to make an enquiry. It will mean that in future the Public Service Commission and the public servants will have to look to an outside body like the Planning Council for protection and for consideration of their case. I find it difficult to think of a more startling statement than that made by the Minister this morning. The statement is all the more astounding because for years the Minister’s notice has been drawn to the fact that conditions in the Public Service are unsatisfactory. The Government’s attention has been drawn to the untenable position in the Public Service by the Public Servants’ Association and by other channels, and this expression of dis satisfaction did not come from irresponsible people but it came through the recognised channels—the Public Servants’ Association. These complaints about which we have been told through the responsible people in the organisation of the officials have come to the notice of everyone who takes an interest in the Public Service, but conditions have been allowed to develop with the result that we recently had a statement from the Chairman of the Public Servants’ Association that a state of deterioration, has set in in the Public Service. The fact that although complaints had been made for many years and that grievances had been ventilated for so many years, conditions were still allowed to develop to such an extent that the Chairman of the Public Servants’ Association was forced to describe them in the words I have mentioned, is most alarming to us. We can only come to the conclusion that the Government has refused to listen to the expressions of dissatisfaction and disappointment by members of the Public Servants, and that it has allowed this state of deterioration to develop in a Service which after all has to take charge of the administration of the country. I am glad to notice that the committee of the Planning Council has also taken notice of the statements made by the Chairman of the association, and that being so it is all the more unforgivable on the part of the Government not to have paid attention to this matter as it should have done. We are forced to the conclusion that the Government in general and the Minister in particular have neglected and ignored their obligations to this service which is responsible for the country’s administration. I declare that it is almost a public scandal that the Government can ignore the Public Service to such an extent that an outside body unbeknown to the Government has to take note of the conditions prevailing in the Public Service and hold an investigation. It is unheard of that an independent body consisting of temporary people, without any instruction from the Government, should find the position so serious that it found itself compelled to hold an investigation owing to the Government having turned a deaf ear to the appeals made by the Public Service itself. I find it difficult to conceive of such a position arising in any other country with a responsible Government. One of the duties of the Public Service Commission under the Act is to hold investigations into the grievances of officials. I do not at this stage want to go into the other duties of the Commission, but a strong suspicion about the interest of the Public Service Commission in the well-being of the officials is created if a state of affairs like that is allowed to arise. According to the report of the Planning Council the service has expanded tremendously. The number of European Government officials between the years 1923 and 1944 has increased by 10,000. These remarks therefore do not apply merely to a handful of people, but to the whole Public Service consisting of a large number of trained and cultured people who are entitled to expect the Government to listen to them, and who eventually are responsible for the administration of the country. Not only have the numbers in the Public Service increased, but the number of departments has also increased during the past twenty years. I believe that no fewer than five new departments have been established. The system of government has changed so radically since the First Report that while the Government in 1918, when the Graham Commission was appointed, was to all intents and purposes only responsible for the maintenance of peace and order, the Government system today so deeply affects our national life that it deals with practicality any aspect of our national life and to the extent that the interest of the Government and the interference of the Government increase so the Public Service should be trained and perfected, so that in view of the increasing powers which the Government is taking, it may have the necessary development and training and organisation to provide for the needs of the service. It appears from the report, however, that in that respect practically nothing has been done in the past twenty-five years. Irrespective, therefore, of the grievances of the officials, it is imperatively necessary that a thorough enquiry be held. While we are pleased to learn that a commission is going to be appointed, and I also hope that the officials will feel greatly relieved at the announcement, we still feel that mere words are not strong enough to condemn the attitude of the Government towards its officials. Now, I want to go into a few of the aspects of the service which particularly require investigation. I have taken notice of the Minister’s statement and I assume that certain aspects will receive attention, but I think it is very difficult for the public to be aware of conditions, and not only the public but the people as a whole, should have some knowledge of the conditions in the Service. As those conditions have been made public by the chairman of the organisation I think it is no more than right that the public should be made acquainted with the conditions inside the Public Service. It is not sufficient for the taxpayers to know that there are grievances. It is in the interest of national government, of Parliamentary government, that our people as a whole should see what the conditions inside the Public Service are. I have the report of the speech by the Chairman of the Public Servants’ Association before me, and he gives the figures of the starting salaries of Government officials. He gives these figures in consequence of an enquiry made into a possible insurance scheme in the service. The chairman completed his investigations into such a scheme and I just want to quote this from his speech—

I would like to say a few words on our civil service system and the civil service commission. I am firmly of the opinion that, with all due respect to the electors, it seems to me that Parliament is almost like our town councils; you do not always find the most able men coming forward to accept Parliamentary honours, and I think on that account our Parliament is deteriorating, and for that reason I am very much in favour of our civil service being strengthened as much as possible, and I would like to suggest to the Minister that it is high time that we devise a system of engagement in the civil service which will ensure the best brains of the country being induced to enter the civil service.

That means giving them decent wages.

I can see that the inore we appoint Ministers to portfolios of which they have had no previous experience, the more they will be in the hands of the civil servants. That is another good reason why we must strengthen pur civil service, and in order to do that it is necessary to have no less than a board of very able men specially selected for the purpose of selecting men for the civil service; and there can be no doubt that if you want to induce the best brains in South Africa to enter the civil service, it will be necessary to increase the salaries. Eighteen hundred pounds per annum is now the maximum for the head of a department. To think that the head of a department must only get £1,800 a year in 1944, a maximum salary which has been there ever since I came to Parliament, seems to me right out of date, and that is the reason why many able civil servants leave the civil service to take up better paid positions outside the service. Unless the civil service has a scale of salaries sufficiently high to induce the best brains of the country to enter the service, we can never have an efficient service. I am not casting any reflection on the members of the civil service, because in the past we have been very lucky, but we are fast approaching a position in this country where the civil service will be saddled with people who cannot hold their own in private employment. Once you have a system of selecting your men specially into the service, it is no good just leaving it there. Then again if you have a man specially suited for any position, you must have a system of specially training that man so that eventually, when he has been specially trained, he can gradually be absorbed in that direction and become an expert in that particular sphere. It automatically follows then that you must have a system of promotion which is not based on service but on merit. There must be a system of promotion on merit, and it seems to me a useless service where a man must wait for dead men’s shoes before he can get promotion. In that way you may keep some of the best men down at the bottom. I do not want to suggest this morning what ways and means must be adopted to do that, but it seems to me that that is a sound principle. We talk a great deal today about social security schemes; we talk of all sorts of involved matters, and it seems to me that as the country develops we cannot expect the Minister to be an expert in all the aspects appertaining to his department, and that is all the more reason why men should be specially trained in certain directions, so that the Minister can have able men who will be loyal to the service and give the country the best services and be helpful to the Government.

The Minister has announced that a Commission of Enquiry is to be appointed to go into the conditions in our Public Service, but I want to say here and now that it is most unsatisfactory and most deplorable that the Government has had to wait until the dissatisfaction and discontent in the Public Service reached the stage it has reached today before taking any action. We, as members of Parliament, and the public generally, felt alarmed when we learnt recently from the speech of the Chairman of the Public Servants’ Association what was going on and what they felt about things. It gives one a fright to hear that such feelings prevail among the members of the Public Service to whom the country’s administration has been entrusted and who have to do important work. It is a very serious thing if they have to come and complain to the public against their master, the Government, in the way they have done. As an outsider I have to assume that the Chairman of the Public Servants’ Association did not make the speech without having very good reasons for doing so. He is a responsible individual and he knows the conditions, and he knows that what he says will be noted by the Government and by the public. Now let me read what he says at the end of his speech—

I do not think I have ever heard a stronger expression of opinion by a public servant about conditions in the Public Service. He is at the head of a big organisation and he makes this charge against his employer— which is a charge against the nation, because the nation is the employer of the public servants. Nobody can tell me that this thing has come about suddenly, and that the leaders of the public service have suddenly found this out, and that it has never before been brought to the notice of the Chiefs, to the notice of the Public Service Commission and the Minister. This whole business must be the outcome of a process of many years of dissatisfaction in the Public Service. We on this side of the House—I have been in the Opposition for years—have continually urged that an enquiry be held. We have continually said that there is dissatisfaction and that this dissatisfaction will eventually become dangerous, and that the Government should deal with this dissatisfaction before we got to such a position as the Chairman of the Public Servants’ Association has now referred to. Why has the Government waited all these years? The Chairman of this Association has now come forward with this most serious charge against the Government. We as members of Parliament cannot allow this Condition to continue. I say that the Government has been playing with the position, that the Public Service Commission has been playing with it, in allowing it to develop to its present state. It is not in the interest of the country, that public service officials should feel as they do. The hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) spoke about the senior officials. But their position is not the most serious, the most serious is the position of the lowly paid officials and of the second grade officials. That is where one finds most dissatisfaction, and these are in the main the people who constitute the association. I am sorry the Minister did not announce the personnel of the Commission. We should like to see whether the personnel of the Commission will satisfy us. We are a little bit nervous of the Government’s appointments on commissions. Sometimes, commissions have been appointed which have caused great dissatisfaction. I want to ask the Minister to inform the House before the end of the debate whom he intends appointing? If he cannot mention the people’s names, let him tell us at any rate which bodies will be represented. I want to ask him, also, not to appoint people who adopt one particular point of view, not people who are dependent perhaps on the Government, or who are only there to whitewash the Government. The Minister must make the commission so representative that the Public Service can have confidence in it, and that this House, not just one side of the House, can have confidence in it and that the officials will feel that they can confidently leave this enquiry to it. Now, let me come along with another hobby horse of mine—it is necessary for me to do so. I want to ask the Minister to appoint bilingual people so that they can do their work properly. Don’t let him do what the Minister of Commerce and Industries did, who appointed a commission of nine members of whom only three understand Afrikaans. Six of them don’t know what is going on if evidence is given in Afrikaans, and they cannot read any memorandum unless it is in English. The Minister is unilingual, he does not understand what we are saying, and he needs an interpreter. Let him appoint a commission whose members are bilingual so that the officials can put forward their case in the language in which they want to. I hope the Minister will give this his attention. There is another question which if of great importance to the officials, and that is the question of the housing of Government officials who are transferred from one place to another. They don’t go from one place to another at their own choice. The State transfers them and we know of cases of Government officials who have had to suffer the greatest privations because they have been sent to a place where they have found it impossible to get a house. Perhaps they are forced to keep on their old home for their family and then they have to go and board and take up lodgings in the place to which they are transferred.

We are very careful in that respect now.

People have come to me and have told me that they have been transferred and that they cannot get a place to live.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

Before the suspension of business I was referring to the great diversity in scales of salary, the great diversity in commencing salaries in the Public Service. You find that the scales start at £84, £96, £98 £100, £110, £120, £130, £135 etc. There are a tremendous number of groups. Then we have the increments shown here and it appears that they also vary considerably. For people getting salaries between £100 and £200 the increases are £6, £10, £15, £17, £20 and £30. Between £200 and £400 there also a whole lot of different increases, as also between £600 and £800. In that way you get quite 1,000 notches in the service. Now, hon. members will quite realise the chaos there must be if there are such divergent starting sala ries and such a large number of notches. It is very necessary therefore to have a proper investigation made into commencing salaries in the Public Service, but also to find a proper basis for salary increases. We really fail to understand why there still are commencing salaries of £84 and £96 per year. I am not one of those who favour unreasonably high commencing salaries. On the contrary, I like to see young men, no matter what their position is, forced to be thrifty for a start. That is a lesson one has to learn early in life if one wants to be independent afterwards. But I do feel that in view of changed circumstances and the increase in the standard of living, and the expenses involved in living a decent life, and also in view of the standard which members of the Public Service have to maintain, those commencing salaries are really a farce. You cannot attract people by such salaries, nor are they an encouragement to young officials to achieve anything, particularly if you see the small increases they get. I contend therefore that the commencing salaries, and the increases are quite adequate under present conditions. I did not form this opinion merely as a result of the talks I had with officials and other people outside the Public Service, people who are not prejudiced in favour of the Public Service, but also as a result of talks I had with people who have to make a living on their present salaries. They feel that the existing scales are inadequate, especially in the lower grades, and do not make it possible for people to live decently. In view of the fact that the cost of living has gone up considerably I think it is an injustice, and this aspect of the matter has to be very seriously considered. I read with a certain amount of surprise the other day that the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in a speech had said that he regarded the statement that our cost of living had gone up by 26 per cent. as a huge joke. If that is the position, that the Prime Minister looks upon the returns about the increase in our cost of living as joke, while that is the basis on which the increased costs of living are calculated, and the allowances are calculated, then it is not only an injustice to the people in the service, but it is actually a fraud. Those are the data on which the compensation for the increase in the cost of living is paid, in consequence of the depreciation in the value of our currency. The commencing salaries are inadequate and the allowances for increased cost of living are also inadequate. We have been told repeatedly that many officials leave the Public Service. On one occasion the Minister of Finance had to announce that he was going to grant certain benefits to a section of the population but he could not do so before August because of shortage of staff. Possibly the shortage of staff is partly due to the war effort, partly due to the fact that people are kept out of the Public Service to induce them in that way to join the army.

But it is a incontrovertible fact that a large section of the young officials leave the Public Service because they can get better salaries in other positions. The work which has to be done in the Public Service for the public is of the utmost importance. And it is therefore a most serious matter so far as this House is concerned, when because there is a shortage of staff, certain benefits cannot be granted to the people. That also confirms the contention that young officials receive such small salaries that at the age of 25 or 26 they cannot think of setting up a family. It is contended that Government officials at that age cannot yet afford to set up a family. From a physiological point of view this is important but it is also important from a social point of view. It is a very serious thing, that young men who are in the service cannot marry until they are 26 years of age. It is a serious accusation. There is another serious accusation which is contained in one of the paragraphs of the report of the Planning Council Committee. I refer to Section 30. There the charge is made, that so far as the internal arrangements of the Public Service are concerned, graduates have not got the opportunity of making headway in the Public Service. I should like to bring this to the Minister’s notice. This is what is said there—

This is a very serious charge. The Government interferes more and more with people’s lives and the system of government is becoming more and more complicated with the result that the most highly qualified officials are needed for this particularly difficult work. This point therefore should also receive special attention. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) said. We have an assurance now from the Minister that a commission will be appointed, and in view of the fact that there has been no investigation for so many years, although the holding of an investigation has been urged, I hope that the commission to be appointed will be fully competent to go into all the details of the Public Service. South Africa, in view of its growth and development, wants to have a Public Service which can keep pace with that development, which can be in the vanguard of that development and give the lead. We want our Public Service to take the lead in that development. [Time limit.]

In regard to this vote I want to say that I think the House should be grateful to the Government for the decision it has already taken to appoint a Commission of Enquiry into conditions in the Public Service. Before coming to that, however, I want to bring a few matters to the Minister’s notice. The first question I want to touch on refers to our officials who are on military service today. They joined up on the understanding that those who are on military service will receive recognition for the time of their absence, so that when they return that time will count so far as seniority is concerned. Now, I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that some of the contemporaries of these people in the service have made tremendous progress while the other men have been absent on military service. When they return to their jobs eventually, the time they have been away is recognised, but we should not forget that the men who stayed behind have in the meantime perhaps progressed one or two notches. I therefore want to make an appeal to the Minister to meet these people further and to lay down that where a man has gone on military service in one grade he is not only to receive recognition for the time he has been away but he shall also be allowed to pass over one grade on his return; failing that the recognition of his time on military service will be of very little value to him. Let me give an example. Say a man has been earning £20 in the Public Service when he joined the army. While in the army he has perhaps been earning £40 per month. He has made great advancement in the army, but when he returns to the Public Service he may have to start off at the same wage again although his time is recognised, which does not necessarily mean an increase in his grade. We want actual recognition to be accorded to the people who have joined the army, we want to show our gratitude to them, and we should allow them to jump one grade at the very least. Now let me come to this question of the Public Service Commission. The Public Service Commission is one of those institutions in South Africa whose activities are not subject to Parliamentary criticism. We are always told that every civil servant so far as promotion is concerned is treated on the basis of merit and seniority. It looks peculiar to me that we get instances of officials who five years ago in a particular department had, say, only five people senior to them. In those days there were only five or say six senior to him, and now he suddenly finds that there are 25 or 30 people senior to him, and that they have to be promoted before he can get promotion. In other words, we are told that the Public Service Commission treats every case on its merits—but where is the evidence? If we accept the work of the Public Service Commission blindly and with good faith we also have to accept the work of any other department blindly and in good faith. I therefore want to insist that the work of the Public Service Commission, and particularly its work in connection with promotion, should be subject year after year to Parliamentary criticism. If that is not done we cannot say—how am I to put it— that the Public Service Commission has treated all the officials in accordance with the dictates of the Bible. We have no proof of it, and if we blindly accept the work of the Public Service Commission that should also apply to the other departments. I am strongly in favour of Parliament having an annual report by the Public Service Commission so that Parliament can be convinced that the Public Service Commission gives effect to the policy which we consider it should give effect to. I am not convinced that that is happening, and I think that I have already produced evidence to that effect. The main point I want to deal with is this, and I think this has also been emphasised to a certain extent in the recommendations to which my hon. friend (Dr. Stals) has referred, namely Paragraph 30 of the third report of the Social and Economic Planning Council. Let hon. members take note of this—what I find in the Public Service is this, that in no single respect is a young man given a chance to let his ability and his talents come to the fore. Take a department like the Department of Agriculture. I assume that there are very competent young men, particularly competent young men, in that department but they are in the lower grades, and assuming they are more competent than their chief, it means that such a competent young official has simply to be kept back. He is not allowed to write an essay or a thesis to work out a plan to show what are the problems with which we have to cope and how those problems can be solved, because as soon as he comes into conflict with his chief, his plan, or his scheme, has to be smothered at birth. The best talents are strangled at birth. It is only human but if the chief sees that the young man is more competent than he is and that the young man is going to overshadow him, all his efforts are going to be interfered with and he is going to be kept down. That is why we are landed in some of our Government departments with heads of departments who allow their departments to get into a state of chaos while there are subordinates who are much more competent, but those subordinate officials are not allowed to open their mouths, or put their hand on paper. The only individual who benefits from such a system is the chief of the department himself, but it should be perfectly clear that the country’s service is suffering as a result. The ability and the talent of young men are not made use of. Those talents are kept under because that young man is not allowed to talk; he dare not write, and yet we are told that every official’s position is treated on its merits. We should have a system under which the chiefs of departments need have no fear if a young man is very competent; we have the same thing in the army. As soon as they find that a young fellow is very able and very competent he is kept down. If we had a system under which we could give the young men in the departments the opportunity of working out schemes and plans we should long ago have got rid of the system of Rasputinism which we have today. But how can we in the circumstances say that in this country we give our officials the opportunity of giving expression to their ability—how can we say that everybody is treated on his merits? Seeing that there is an intention now to review the system in force in the Public Service I want the Minister to give instructions to the Commission also to investigate that aspect of the matter, and to see to what extent talent is being killed and kept under, simply because the heads of departments are afraid that young men in the department may overshadow them. If we do not do that South Africa must not be surprised if we continue to have one departmental failure after another. And we must not be surprised to see young men resigning from the Public Service. Let hon. members place themselves in the position of a young man in the Public Service. He is competent and he notices that the Department is run in an ineffective way. He is bound hand and foot and he can do nothing to put things right. He feels that he is not doing the right thing by the department, by the country and by himself, because he simply has to sit there and is not allowed to do anything to improve the postion. [Time limit.]

I think the announcement by the Minister of the Government’s intention to appoint this Commission will give very general satisfaction. It is some twenty three years ago since the Graham Commission reported on the Public Service.

What number was that report?

I am afraid the hon. member is so far behind the times that it is no use telling him. In 1921 the Graham Commission reported and on the report of that Commission has been based the building up of the Public Service of this country. The Commission was appointed in 1918 as a result of the conditions then obtaining in the country, and it was shown clearly that if this country was to progress a change was necessary, if I may put it that way, in the control and management of the Public Service. Now it has been very apparent during the past few years with the increasing development and with the increasing social progress that vast changes are needed in the control or the management of the Public Service, and I think the proposal now made by the Minister to give effect to the recommendations of the Planning Council, which is apparently strongly supported by the Public Service, should assist considerably towards remedying the position—the investigations of such a commision will assist in going into the problems which are now arising in connection with our public administration. I strongly support the remarks of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). Anyone who has had any experience at all of the Public Service will realise how urgently necessary it is to get men in who have been specially trained to do the work in certain departments where they are employed, and if you are to do that, if you are to get the proper men in, men who can do that work, you have to offer salaries which will attract good men into the service. In business you do not hesitate, it is not a question of money, so long as you can get the person you want— so long as you can get the person with knowledge, ability and administrative power to do the work required of him. One of the extraordinary things in the Public Service is this, that as far as I can judge, the more highly qualified you are, especially from the technical point of view, the lower the salary you are expected to draw. I have heard during the last few months of officers in the Public Service who have given notice and have left, and have been offered billets suitable to their technical knowledge in neighbouring provinces at very much better salaries. We are as a result losing men whom we urgently require, men whom we cannot afford to lose.

And we are never going to get them back.

Take some of the problems which we have to face during the next few years, these social security problems, the problems of agriculture, the problems even of finance, it is no earthly good expecting to get people to enter the Public Service, properly trained and qualified people, unless you pay them proper salaries. So far there has been no special inducement for officers to undertake this particular work to which I have been referring except that they may be picked out for promotion for the higher posts, and that brings one to the question that something must be done to protect whoever is responsible—whether it is the Public Service Commission or whatever body—whoever is responsible for the promotion of men. If men are picked out for promotion because of their special ability for a higher post, whoever picks those people out for promotion should be protected—should be protected in this House against allegations of undue political influence.

You are always going to have that.

If you can create machinery which has the confidence of the Public Service, and of the public generally, the occasion will seldom arise when you will get opposition to appointments on political grounds. Everything depends on the machinery created to make these appointments. There we have one of the most difficult problems. It was suggested originally in the Murray Report that one commissioner should be appointed. I think in India one commissioner was appointed. That was not found satisfactory but it does seem to me that one of the main points which this Commission will have to go into is that of what machinery should be created to deal with the question of appointments and promotions. Now, let me touch on another point. The Public Service Commis sion has been criticised, but that, I think, is definitely unfair because the Public Service Commission are there to carry out the functions laid down by law, and if Parliament wishes to alter these functions and conditions, Parliament has the right to do so, but so long as Parliament has laid down the conditions under which the Commission acts, it is not fair to blame the commission if people consider that the machinery is not func tioning properly. Now I notice that the report of the Economic and Social Planning Council strongly stresses this question of specialised training of public servants in the higher posts. In section 32 they say this—

That seems to me to be vital. It is absolutely necessary if you are going to re-build your service and make it of value in the very difficult times ahead of us. I well remember many years ago coming into contact with some of the British Public Servants in what was then a new department—a Labour Department. It was under one of the first Labour Governments and the thing which struck me then was that although that department had been previously unknown it had been able to recruit men from the Public Service who had a thorough knowledge of labour problems, and were able to carry out the policy of the then Labour Government. They had the knowledge and it was a knowledge which they had obtained as a result of special training, and that training had enabled them to fit into the position.

It was due to James Brace.

Well, whoever it is the fact is that as the Minister has pointed out we have been able by good luck to find the men.

Not only by good luck, by selection.

But the field is very limited indeed, and I want to urge strongly that the Commission to be appointed should carefully consider these matters. And may I also suggest that if two members of the Public Service are to be members of the Commission, one of them should be a senior man who has had experience of the working of the Public Service—a man with special knowledge of working conditions. I have a large number of public servants in my constituency and from what I have heard I can only say that the appointment of this commission will be very heartily welcomed, and if the Government can bring about the conditions which are so necessary in view of the times ahead of us, it will be a step in the right direction.

On behalf of members on this side of the House, but more particularly on behalf of the public outside. I want to express thanks to the Public Servants for the courteous manner in which they are always prepared to assist us when we are in difficulties, or when we go to their offices with our difficulties. I think that in South Africa, so far as our officials are concerned, the country and Government are in the happy position of having very little corruption in our Public Service, particularly if we think of what is going on in other countries in the world. In saying that I do not want it to be understood that I feel our officials are not paid enough. What I want to say is that in spite of their small salaries, in spite of the way in which they are being used, because they are being used for many purposes in South Africa, and perhaps also by members of this House, we are in the happy position of being able to say that our officials are free from corruption. I did not get up, however, merely to pay tribute to our officials. We are told quite enough about our evil deeds while we are alive— it is only after we have passed away that our good deeds are remembered. But I want to express my pleasure at the fact that a change has come about in the Department of the Interior now that we have a new Minister. The Minister who now handles the Department of the Interior is not so susceptible to political views as the previous Minister was. I hope that when next year we come to look back on the promotions made during the course of the year we shall be able to feel that those promotions have been made not on a political basis, but that the people who are being promoted were entitled to their promotion. There are perhaps instances of promotions in the Department of Posts where the Minister did not act as he should have done, but we shall come to that later. I want to deal with two subjects and two questions which I put to the Minister of the Interior. I do not think that the Minister would deliberately give me a wrong reply if he had the correct information at his disposal, but the answer which the Minister gave me either proves that the Minister is not aware of certain things which take place in the Cabinet, or a different decision must have been arrived at immediately after he gave me his reply. On the 10th March I put the following questions to the Minister of the Interior—

To this the Minister’s reply was: “Yes.” I thereupon asked the following question—

And then I also asked this question—

In replying to these two questions the Minister referred me to question No. 10 which was asked on the 28th January, 1944, by the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy), the reply to which was as follows—

I asked the Minister so to fix the salaries that the most competent people would be attracted. I do not want to read out all the questions which I asked, but in reply to further questions the Minister told me what the salaries were of the Town Clerks of cities such as Cape Town, Pretoria, Johannesburg and Durban. In Cape Town the town clerk gets £2,000 per year and the city treasurer also gets £2,000. In Johannesburg the town clerk gets £2,000 per year, rising to £2,500. In Pretoria the town clerk gets £1,400 rising to £1,750, and in Durban the town clerk gets £2,650. Now, if we take the salaries of our senior officials as we have them on this list and compare them with those of the town clerks in our biggest cities, I think the Minister will agree with me that it is essential to raise the salary scales of our officials. But the point which I really want to mention is the further question which I put to the Minister on the 21st March—

The Minister abruptly replied “no.” In other words, he is not prepared to pay the chiefs of Departments serving under him a salary which is equivalent to that of the town clerks of the bigger cities. I just want to ask the Minister this: We are fortunate in having a Public Service in which so far as we know—and I think that we know a good deal—corruption is restricted to a minimum. We are fortunate in having a Public Service which is not susceptible to the corruption which one finds in public services in certain other parts of the world. But now we find the Minister giving a blunt “no” to the question which I asked him on the subject. The day after the Minister had given me that answer, the day after I had asked him whether he was prepared to appoint a Commission of Enquiry—when he told me he was not prepared to do so—the Prime Minister came to this House and told us that he was going to appoint such a commission. Apparently the Minister was not aware of what had happened in the Cabinet, or was that decision arrived at after he had answered my question?

I gave that answer because I knew that this commission would be appointed.

But then the Minister was wrong in saying “no.” I asked whether a commision was going to be appointed and he replied “no.” Surely he should not have said “no” when he meant “yes.” We know that ladies do so on some occasions. I am glad, however, to hear that the Minister is appointing this commission, and we had better forget this contradiction between his statement and the Prime Minister’s. But now I come to this point which the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has already put to the Minister. I want to ask the Minister to establish the Public Service on a non-political basis. And when he appoints this commission I want him to appoint an impartial commission. Let us appoint a commission which, without any prejudice, or without any other considerations, without any considerations of party benefit, or whatever benefits, can go into the absolute merits of the whole question. Appoint a commission which will do justice to all the people. I can assure the Minister that that is what the country expects of them. I am saying this with all due respect for Ministers, but we know, after all, that it is the officials who govern the country; we do not expect every one of our Ministers to be a walking encyclopedia. When we go to a Minister and ask him something he simply sends us to one of his officials, and when we get to that official’s office we usually get the information we want and he is usually able to satisfy us; I therefore want to urge the Minister to appoint a commission which, like Caesar’s or Potiphar’s wife, is above suspicion. [Time limit.]

Ever since I have been in this House I have lost no opportunity of drawing attention to the starvation wages paid by the Government to the unskilled workers in its employment, more particularly the native unskilled workers. Together with my colleagues on these benches I have contended that the Government, taking it all round, is one of the worst employers in this country so far as unskilled labour is concerned. Instead of setting an example to private employers in this very important field, they have lagged behind the private employer, even when the private employer has been bound to pay minimum wages under regulations laid down by statute. These strictures have been fully borne out by Report No. 3 of the Social and Economic Planning Council, and what I want to ask the Minister today is whether the Government is going to move in this matter and give effect to the recommendations of that council. I hope the Minister will not reply that this matter is covered by the commission that he is going to appoint, because there has been sufficient enquiry already into this particular matter. The Social and Economic Planning Council in Chapter 2 of its Report has recommended the appointment of a commission of enquiry in relation to the Public Service, but in relation to Chapter 3 of the Report relating to employment conditions of unskilled State employees the council has made very definite recommendations. Mr. Chairman, a very important issue is raised here as to whether or not the recommendations of the Social and Economic Planning Council are to be given effect to by the Government, or whether that council is to be a sort of debating society. I want to ask the Minister whether that is so, or whether the council is going to be a decisive factor in planning the economic life of this country. I notice that the council opens its discussion of this particular topic by saving that after it had collected most of the data, and here I quote—

I want to ask the Minister how that came about, and as to why the Council was not informed that the Public Service Commission was also dealing with this matter, and also as to what conclusions the Public Service Commission came to. Two years ago my colleagues and myself, representing the native people, both in this House and in another place made representations to the right hon. the Prime Minister on this particular subject, and we understood from him that he was going to get the Public Service Commission to enquire into the matter. However that may be, the Economic and Planning Council has done the work, has given the matter thorough consideration, and has made recommendations. The Council find, as a fact, that the Government as an employer of unskilled native workers is lagging seriously behind the wage rates and other conditions laid down by wage regulating instruments in relation to private employers. The report sets out the minimum wage rates in the large industrial centres, and in all conscience, those wage rates are low enough. For the Cape Peninsula the general minimum rate is 37s. 6d. a week according to the council’s report; in Port Elizabeth it is 27s. 6d.; in Durban £1—only £1; Withwatersrand £1 6s. to £1 7s. a week: Pretoria £1 6s.; Kimberley £1 6s.; East London £1 6s.; Bloemfontein £1. Nobody can call those princely wage rates. These are far below the figures found by any recent Social Survey as being necessary for a family of any race or colour to live upon. With regard to the smaller centres, the commission finds that the general minimum is about 18s. per week. Now compare what the Government is paying with these miserable minima. Ninety three per cent. of the unskilled native employees of the Government in the principal industrial centres are paid less than the minimum laid down by the Wage Board as applicable to the private employer. In the smaller centres where the figure for private employment is as low as 18s. per week, it finds that 92 per cent. of the unskilled native Government employees are paid a lesser figure. The Council also points out that under wage board determinations and the Factories Act two weeks paid leave are given. In the Government service, although theoretically there is paid leave the Council finds that 70 per cent. of the native unskilled workers receive no paid leave at all. These are the facts. Either they are correct or they are not, but these are the findings of the Social and Economic Planning Council, and based upon these findings the Council makes certain recommendations. The first of these is that in any centre where wage determininations are imposed upon private employers the Government should not pay less than the minimum laid down by the Wage Board or an Industrial Council. In other centres, more particularly the smaller places, where there are generally no wage determinations in force, it recommends that offically-sponsored enquiries into the cost of living of unskilled workers should take place, and wages based upon the result of those enquiries laid down; and with regard to leave, the Council recommends that the Government should apply to its own service the provisions of the Factories Act which are imposed upon private employers, and which provide for two weeks paid leave per annum. In other words, it is recommended that the Government should bring itself into line in relation to unskilled labour with the conditions that it itself imposes upon private employers. There is nothing unreasonable about that. The cost is comparatively low, because the Council estimates that £1,000,000 per annum would meet this demand. I do want to ask the Minister with all the emphasis at my command, whether or not the Government is going to carry out these very reasonable recommendations as a start to a policy of giving a living wage to its unskilled workers. There is no question of a living wage being given by the private employer, but the Government is lagging behind even the minimum which is laid down for the private employer. We contend that the Government should at least take an initial step towards a living wage by bringing itself into line with the conditions which it imposes upon the private employer. There are some of us who feel grave suspicion, which I hope the Minister will be in a position to allay, that unskilled wage rates in Government service are determined by considerations other than justice, or the needs of the workers; that they are determined by considerations such as political pressure from outside vested interests.

The hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) tried, when discussing this matter, to prove that the Government was doing nothing for the Public Service. I want to point out that in the days when he himself was a member of the Government, representations were made to the Government to improve the position of the officials but the hon. member never said a word about that. I want to compliment the Public Service on the way they maintain the position during the war. We all know that as a result of resignations, and as a result of a number of men going on active service, the personnel of the Public Service has decreased considerably, and I think this House owes debt of gratitude to our Public Service for the way they have carried on. It must be clear from the speeches which we have been listening to that very few members have made a proper study of the report of the Social and Economic Planning Council. Many hon. members have urged the Government to make a statement as to who is going to be appointed to that Commission. On page 4 of the report a definite recommendation is made as to who should be appointed to the commission and I think it is clear from the Prime Minister’s statement that that more or less will be the commission which will be appointed. I do not think there can be any objection to such a commission. What is more important, however, is the question : When is this commission going to be appointed? The view has been expressed that we are short-staffed and that this is therefore perhaps not the right time owing to large numbers of officials being on active service who will not have the opportunity of giving evidence. I think the fact that they are on active service is all the more reason for the appointment of such a commission because they will at any rate know what they are coming back to. Another important aspect in regard to which the officials are anxious to have some information is whether the Minister is going to appoint a commission in terms of Paragraph 40 of the Report. I connection with this matter I also want to say a few words about unskilled labour. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) put up a strong plea on behalf of the nonEuropean unskilled labour. It is peculiar that this report does not say a word about European unskilled labour, and the question is whether European unskilled labour will be included in this enquiry which is going to be held. What will the commission have to deal with—the whole of the Public Service in all its branches or only just a certain section? The Railways, which come under a different Minister, and the Police who also fall under a different Minister, are they to be included? If they are not going to be included then this enquiry will be worth nothing. The Commission must cover all branches of the Public Service, but the individual whom I am thinking of this afternoon, and whom I am particularly concerned about, especially because he is not mentioned by the Planning Council, and also because he is not referred to by hon. members here, is the unskilled white labourer in Government employ. So far as he is concerned things are very bad indeed at the moment. We employ white labour in Johannesburg, and our scale starts at 10s. per day and rises by annual increments of 1s. to 17s. 6d. per day. But what is the position in the Public Service? If a foreman does not like another man’s face, he kicks him out of the service, or otherwise the man gets no promotion. A man’s promotion depends on the mercy of the foreman. It is an unfortunate condition and creates poor whiteism. I want to suggest the following addition to Paragraph 40—

An organisation has already been created— the Minister perhaps does not know it— establishing unskilled labourers in the Public Service. It is only a young organisation, it has only been in existence for a couple of months but I do hope the Minister will pay some attention to that organisation. I have not got the time or the opportunity now to go into all the details, but I may have the chance of doing so later on. I want to say again, however, as I have said before, that I am not in favour of the machinery existing today in the shape of the Public Service Commission. There is the danger, however, that if one raises this question across the floor of the House, one may drag politics into the Public Service. I want to emphasise very strongly, however, the necessity, the absolute necessity, of salaries of public servants being taken into review periodically. For the past twenty years there has been no revision. In the meantime great changes have taken place in every possible respect, changes affecting all these people. But the Public Service has not been taken into consideration. I feel that salaries should be reviewed at least once every five years, and that principle, as a matter of fact, is accepted by municipalities right throughout the country. Hon. members have been talking here about the salaries paid by municipalities. Do they realise that some town clerks are paid bigger salaries than Ministers? It is most important for salaries to be reviewed periodically. Any number of difficulties and anomalies can then be removed as they arise. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. Van den Berg) has said, that this House should be kept better informed of the work, which is being done by the Economic and Social Planning Council. Now, there is one matter which I also want to touch upon, and that is the shortening of the period necessary to reach the maximum salary after a person has started at the minimum. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) remarked that it was a good thing for a young man to earn only a small salary and thus learn thrift at the beginning of his career. It is a dangerous doctrine. We know that there are many young fellows in the Public Service who support their mothers and who have to take all the responsibility for their homes. I say if you make the commencing salary low, the increases should be speeded up. It should take half the time it takes today, so that a young man, when he is 23 years of age—round about 23 years of age— can reach the top of his scale. He will then be able to look after his family if he has a family, and he will also be in a position to make provision for insurance policies and so on. I am of opinion that five years is ample to show whether a Public Servant is competent and able to do his work. There is no need for him to take fifteen years before he reaches the top of his scale. It means a slow death, and in that way you will not get the best results but you will destroy all initiative. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to have heard the announcement of the hon. the Minister that at last we have realised that there is something in South Africa like a Public Service. I incline to think, Sir, that we in this House and the general public ordinarily forget that this silent force of working men in the Public Service do an enormous task and contribute probably ten times as much as we think to the administrative machinery and the Government of this country. When we think of the difficult times that the Govern ment service has gone through during this war period, with reduced staffs, with unqualified and junior men being employed in senior positions, and when we think of the thousands of Government servants who do not agree with the Government’s war policy but have nevertheless carried out their official duties as faithfully as any other, we must consider that we have a permanent force that is really fighting for the progress of administration in this country. It is twenty-five years since the Graham Commission held an enquiry into the scales of pay of the Public Service. If a new commission is appointed I understand from the Minister that the terms of reference will be roughly these : First, the broader aspects of the service; then recruitment and training facilities; and then salaries. Well, I urge upon the Minister that in the broader aspects the commission will also enquire into the conditions under which the Government servant has to deliver his service. There is unfortunately in our Government service an enormous amount of unnecessary red tape. I was fifteen years in the Government service, and when I had to go and get a permit for an electric bulb the other day I had to go to seven different Government offices before I found out where I really had to go. Surely, Sir, this red tape is unnecessary and the men who are winding it up could surely be more usefully employed. The time is overdue that the Government service should be run on business lines. And when the Minister is considering how this can best be done I sincerely hope at the same time he will consider the enormous dissatisfaction which is caused in the service by the fact that no special pay is being given for special qualifications in the ordinary Government service. The Graham Commission at the time of its enquiry held that a man with a superior degree should get three years seniority and pay, subsequently increased to four years. Then all at once in 1928 the Government said: “We will cut the four years to nothing.” When I discussed this matter one day with a senior inspector he said: “We do not need highly qualified men in the service.” I hope the Minister does not share in that view. If the Public Service in this country has to come down to the state when we do not need highly qualified men, then we do not need a service at all. The time, thank goodness, is past when we can plead ignorance; it is only the qualified men who can give the best service, the most technical and the most highly qualified knowledge and skill is required. If the present Government service does not get that high degree of skill then we need a different Government service. Men with special qualifications should get some consideration. I strongly urge the Minister to consider this point that the highly qualified men in the service are the dissatisfied men, and I don’t blame them. You cannot expect that the highly qualified man should be content to remain on the same basis as another less qualified, with no remuneration whatever for it. I hope the Minister will take this point into consideration, and urge upon the commission that special enquiry should be made into this particular point. It is only by giving encouragement to the qualified man that we can have a satisfied and efficient Public Service. In regard to promotions in the Public Service, as far as I am aware, there are only two systems. The one is: “Is your hair curly enough and does your chief like you,” and the other is: “How many years have you been sitting on that same stool.” I cannot see why in the public service we cannot introduce promotion examinations. They have it in the Justice Department, and promotions in the Police are made on a system of examination and selection of the best man. What has that done to the Police today? I think this war period has proved today that there is no other service in the country as good as the South African Police service. Look at your men at the head of the Police Department; these men are an example of what an efficient civil servant should be. Now with regard to the salary scale, it is really amazing that the scales of pay in the public service have not received serious consideration and revision for a period of 25 years. Over the whole of this period continual increases have been made in the pay of journeymen and skilled workers, and surely the public service should receive the same consideration. What is the position today? We have resignations from the public service of the best qualified and most efficient men going on at a wholesale rate. I know of one instance of a very efficient man who said to me that he wanted to get out of the service, and he said: “Can you assist me?” This man was on a scale of £500 to £700, and he started with a private firm at £1,500. Now if he was worth £1,500 to a private firm, he was worth that to the Government service. We should keep these efficient men in the service, and if we had promotion by examination we would not have this dissatisfaction. A man in Cape Town told me a couple of days ago that he would leave the service as soon as he could get a better job outside. He will get a job outside; it is only a matter of time. [Time limit.]

I feel that I ought to intervene at this stage of the debate, and I would like to say that I appreciate the arguments that have been advanced by the various speakers, in keeping this very important matter on a very high plane, and I also want to pay my tribute to all sections of the services for the magnificent services they have rendered during a very critical period in the last four years. Many of them are working overtime and do not get any extra remuneration for it; others do; and particularly the heads of the Departments who have been putting in 10, 12, 14 hours a day in order to keep the wheels running smoothly, deserve to be congratulated. I informed the House of the arrangements which have taken place as the result of discussions between the Economic Planning Council and the Public Service Commission, and this debate will be very useful in ascertaining the general feeling of members in connection with this very important matter. The members without exception have felt that the public service should be made more attractive, that there should be better training and that promotion should be easier than it has been in the past. But these are matters that will be covered by the terms of the enquiry. I would like to point out that the Public Service Commission and the Government have not been unmindful of the services that have been rendered. It is true that the basic salaries have not been altered for a period of many years, but as the result of discussions between the Cost of Living Committee of the Public Service and the Railway Service, the Government has paid a cost of living allowance and has paid a special allowance of 5 per cent. on the salaries of the public servants, and in the case of some of the lower paid people, these allowances have been the means of increasing their salaries by 50 per cent. until they got over £500, when it is 27 per cent. The same advantage has accrued to the natives. The lowest increase that the native has received is an increase of 32s. 6d. per month. That is in addition to the amounts that are quoted in the report of the Planning Council.

That applies also to private employers.

These figures show how necessary and desirable it is to have full information in connection with the matter. One of the points of complaint has been the question of promotions. I have only been Minister of the Interior for a short time but I have been Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for a long time, and in the Posts and Telegraphs Department seniority is not the only deciding factor; merit is the deciding factor.

Political influence.

No, not political influence.

Where is the proof?

The proof is the present Postmaster-General in the Union.

We are not talking of one specific case.

He is the head of the Department at the age of 44 years, and that is due to absolute merit. There is no question about it. Other heads of the Department were juniors in the Service and merit was the guiding factor. I agree wholly with the sentiments that have been expressed here that promotion should be on merit, and I go further and agree that I hope that the report that we are going to get from this Commission will be such that one could consider it as a charter for the Public Service.

Will you be good enough to tell us this. Say a junior proves himself to· be more competent than his chief, what is the position?

There will be a Cabinet crisis if you ask that.

I am not even going to attempt to answer a question such as that, but what I do say— and I say it with knowledge—is that juniors are promoted over people who are their senior on the ground of merit.

Not on bilingualism.

We have had the question of bilingualism from this direction and now we are having it from that direction. The Post Office is a completely bilingual service today, when it was practically a unilingual service 11 years ago. Bilingualism is no longer a question in the Post Office, and it should not be a question in any other Government Department. I have no hesitation in giving the House the assurance that this Commission when it is appointed will receive the confidence of the public and of the Public Service. This Planning Council’s report refers to the Public Service Association. There are three very important postal associations that were forgotten when this report was prepared. I am meeting the Public Service Association next Tuesday to discuss matters with them, ánd I have had communications from various postal associations.

Will the postal associations also be included?

All people concerned will be considered, and I feel confident that they will be covered in connection with the matter. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) complained about the grading. That is also a matter that this commission must go into. I cannot make any promises. I have no power as Minister of the Interior to make the arrangements with regard to rates of pay and grading, but I do want to say this: My knowledge of the Public Service Commission, extending over a period of many years, and particularly over the last eight or nine months, during which period I have been the Minister of that Department, has been that they are doing everything they possibly can under the existing laws to give general satisfaction. You will always get someone who will complain because someone else is promoted when he thinks that he should have been promoted. It is an enormous service, and I agree that it should be made attractive. I want to say frankly that the recruiting that is taking place at present is not in the best interests of the service. We want a better type ánd when I say that I am speaking of both sections.

What is wrong with them?

I will give you an example in a moment.

The training is not as satisfactory as it should be. All you have to do is to look at the report of the Public Service Commission to see the point that I am making. The service is supposed to be fully bilingual, and these people are supposed to be fully bilingual when they enter the service. But what do we find? In the English examination the results were as follows: 193 passed in Grade A, 98 in Grade B and 172 in Grade C—less than 40 per cent. knowledge in English. In Afrikaans the figures are 59 in Grade A, 99 in Grade B and 26 in Grade C. I am hoping that this commission will be able to bring forward a plan and a scheme which is long overdue, to deal with the service in such a manner as to place it in the position that all members from all sides wish to see. The hon. member for Gezina (Dr. Swanepoel) rightly raised the question of the professional man in the service, but the remedy is a very difficult one. In the Public Works Department we are very short of architects and quantity surveyors and engineers. In fact in the last six or eight months we have lost nearly 30 of them. They have gone outside the service. It is going to be very difficult in the future to compete with the attractions outside.

Why should it be?

I will tell you the difficulty. Eighteen months ago I had the architects and the quantity surveyors of South Africa on my doorstep begging and praying me to do what I could; they were all out of work. We gave out a certain amount of Government work in order to keep them going. Today they do not know how to handle the work. Men who were in our employ at £60 per month are being enticed out of the service with salaries of £100 per month. We cannot, because a man has been offered £1,000 a year outside the service, offer him £1,000 a year to stay in the service.

But you have got the money.

The hon. member for Gezina knows perfectly well the point I am making and I subscribe to his point that that salary at £600 ought probably to be £800 or £900 a year. That is a totally different nosition, and that is one of the questions that this commission will have to deal with. I think I have explained the position as clearly as I can in connection with this matter. I, as the Minister, also welcome the appointment of the commission, and I feel that progress will be made in a matter that may have been unduly delayed, but that is due to circumstances over which I and mv predecessor have had no control. I do want to say this, that the heads of the departments and the members of the service generally have been working at a constant pitch, and it is going to be difficult to super-impose on these people this work of supplying the information that will be required by this committee. I am very glad that this debate has been conducted on all sides on the high plane in which it has been conducted, and I hope it will continue on that plane.

I think that every member in this House and in the country is grateful for our public service. We have found during these difficulties years that the civil servants have always done their duty under very difficult circumstances. What I object to strongly is the fact that the Minister cast doubt upon the standard of efficiency of the boys and girls who are now being appointed. I think that is a reflection on our educational system. We in this country are proud of the fact that our educational system is on a high level, and now the Minister wants to appoint a commission of investigation to judge the efficiency of our boys and girls. I think that is a reflection on our educational system.

We want the best brains in the country.

Of course, the best people go to the steel works or to Vereeniging!

There is no need to be personal.

We must keep our Civil Service outside politics, and this side of the House has always done so. I feel that no official ought to receive promotion unless he possesses the necessary qualifications. As far as I am concerned it does not matter to which party a man belongs. Young boys and girls are being appointed today, and I just want to read to the House what they require when they enter the Civil Service. A boy, when he is appointed in the Civil Service may leave his home, and he must have a certain amount of clothing. I just want to tell the House what his pre-war requirements were, what they cost then, and what they costs today. Take a youngster, for example, who is appointed to the Civil Service. He goes from a small town to Pretoria. In the first place he must have a blazer. Before the war a blazer cost him £2 5s.; today it costs at least £5. In Cape Town it cost £7. Then he must have a pair of flannels, and that cost him £1 5s. before the war; today he has to pay 35s. The cost of living allowances are based on a rise of 27 per cent. in the cost of living. I do not think it is less than 67 per cent. Those figures are false. The next item is a pair of white trousers. Before the war that cost £1 5s.; today it costs £2 and perhaps even £3. I have gone into these figures very carefully. Then the youngster must have about six shirts. That costs him nearly £2 5s. On the pre-war prices his requirements therefore cost £21 8s. 6d., and then he has only one item of each kind, except in the case of shirts. Today his requirements cost him £36 14s. 6d. Then he has only two pairs of trousers, six shirts and a blazer. What is the allowance which he gets today? It is so low that it cannot cover those expenses. Now we come to girls. I do not know very much about ladies’ clothing, but I am going to mention the various items.

Rather give us the total amount.

I want to give the details, because the Minister is a married man. In the first place the girl must have at least two pairs of stockings. Before the war it cost 8s. Now it costs 10s., and I want to ask the Minister whether he can buy two pairs of stockings for his daughter at 10s. Then she needs five dresses. Take them at £1 9s. 6d. each; that costs her £7 7s. 6d. Then she needs a handbag, £1 10s. and a hat, £1 9s. 6d.

What about lipstick?

I did not even make provision for that. In the old days the girls did not use all these new fangled things. The total amount before the war was £21 10s. and today it is £35 5s. I have only made provision for one item. In the case of certain articles she may require more than one item; I do not know. Now the Minister says that we must have capable people in the Civil Service. How can you expect to have capable people in the Civil Service at these low salaries? The Minister admits that the civil servants during the past few years have served the State faithfully under the war conditions. What do they get in return? They get this miserable allowance, and they have to spend double that allowance in the form of increased costs of living. What do they gain? Nothing. They are Europeans; they have to maintain a certain social position. They have to associate with members of the public, with the highest to the lowest official, and they are not compensated accordingly. It is no wonder that they are leaving the Civil Service and seeking employment elsewhere. It is no wonder that some of them are in the employ of a man like the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) because he pays them more. We must bear this fact in mind. The Civil Service knows no politics. The Civil Service carries on, whatever government is in power. I am grateful to hear that the Civil Service will not be dragged into politics. For my part I want to say that I have been treated very civilly by the Civil servants, from the highest to the lowest official, and I found a certain amount of bilingualism. The bilingualism may not always have been in my favour; it may have been in the Minister’s favour. I am glad to see that the Civil Service will now be re-organised. We have been struggling for years to get bilingualism in the Civil Service.

But you got it.

You ought to assist me.

I am assisting you.

I am not unreasonable. I am reasonable, but I demand my rights. I want no less and no more than my rights. But I want to say with all due respect, that I am not treated fairly. I demand this because it is no more than reasonable. I want to ask the Minister to treat the civil servant fairly; do not come here and say that the cost of living has only risen by 27 per cent.; admit that it has risen by 67 per cent., and base the allowances on that figure. If the civil servants are decently remunerated, they will not ask for their discharge; they will not leave the Civil Service, and then you will have a satisfactory service.

In expressing my appreciation of the appointment of this commission, I want to bring to the notice of the Minister three specific points which I think should be considered by the Minister or the Public Service Commission before this commission is appointed. The first is in regard to the question of salaries paid to dental officers. I believe there are some seven appointments in the service, six of which are on a salary scale of £500 to £700, and in my opinion a salary of £500 to these professional men is out of all proportion to the services they render. One need only compare their salaries with the salaries of dental officers in the employ of other semi-state organisations such as Iscor who are employing two dentists at the moment, one being paid at the rate of £1,500 per annum and the other at the rate of £1,000, I do ask the Minister that this matter should be reviewed by the commission. It has already been presented to the commission, but they have given the usual stereotyped reply that as far as possible there will be no alteration in the scales of pay during the existing state of emergency. I take it that the words “as far as possible” mean that some exceptions may be made. I hope that an investigation will be made into the salaries of these professional men. I would like to point out in regard to at least three of these men in the service of the province of Natal at Addington and King Edward Hospitals they are expected to provide a service for 250,000 people. I do not wish to deal with the conditions in that particular province, because the Minister may argue that that is a question that falls within the purview of the province. However I do think that on the basis of the essential services that these officers are rendering to the State, and on the comparison with the salaries paid in semi-state institutions, that it is a matter that warrants the immediate attention of the Minister. The second point that I want to deal with is in regard to salaries paid to nurses. I do not want to deal with the salary question as such at this stage, except in its relationship to pensions. I know of one nurse in Natal who went on pension after 30 years of service and who got the grand pension of £6 per month. I think the Minister will agree that it is unfortunate that in Natal these nurses are civil servants and as such they have to make the same contributions that are laid down in the Civil Service rates, and I think the Minister will agree that it is most unfortunate that these girls who are earning salaries which are comparable with the salaries of messengers in the service should find after 30 years of sacrifice to the State that their pension amounts to £6 per month. Of course, that is tied up with the question of salaries. I am sure the Minister will agree that the whole question of pension and pension contribution is one which should be immediately investigated. There is another point I want to raise, and that is in regard to the number of nurses who have gone on active service. We know that at the commencement of this war the provinces tried to allow only a certain percentage of their staff to go on active service. It is all very well to be wise afterwards, but there were many who were imbued with a high sense of patriotism, and unfortunately they were not brought into the category of those who were released for active service, and with that end in view they resigned and went on active service. While I think it is a matter with which the province will have to deal primarily, I think that the Minister, as Minister of the Interior in so far as the nurses in the province of Natal are concerned, should make it clear that not only will he use his influence with the Public Service Commission to see that the break in the service of these girls will be condoned, but that he will use his influence too with the various other provinces to see that these girls are taken back into the service without any loss of their existing rights. The nurses in the other provinces are not civil servants.

The civil servants have been very dissatisfied for a number of years, and that dissatisfaction has increased from day to day. On a previous occasion in this House I referred to the fact that a congress was held in August last which was attended by more than 700 civil servants, where they protested most strongly against certain things. I also pointed out what attention the then Minister had given to the matter. The Minister simply did not take any notice of the representations which were made to him at the time by that congress. I want to tell the present Minister that the civil servants in the country cherish great hopes as far as he is concerned, and I want to express the hope that he will not disappoint them. We must admit, in the first place, that we are faced with tremendous problems which will have to be solved immediately after the war. The Government lays down the policy, but what will be the use of the Government laying down a policy when the Civil Service which has to give effect to that policy, is not capable of doing so? The whole Civil Service is gradually going from bad to worse, and there are a few big reasons for that. I just want to point out that the Minister expressed his appreciation to the civil servants this afternoon for the valuable work which they had done, especially during the war period. But at the same time the Minister made an admission. He admitted that these people work up to fourteen hours per day without any extra payment in respect of overtime in some cases, nor have they received any wage increases. If that is the case, it is absolutely scandalous. I want to confine myself, for a few moments, to the lower-paid officials. We will have to start putting the Civil Service in order from the bottom, not from the top. We find that last year the Committee of the Withwatersrand District of the Civil Servants’ Association submitted a petition to the Government. In that petition full details were set out as to what they want. It appears that at that time the position, as far as the salary scales were concerned, was that women clerks and temporary clerks received £8 11s., £9 10s. and £9 15s. respectively. I admit that the scales have been increased, but only temporarily. I want to bring to the Minister’s notice the position at the Witwatersrand, in order to show that it is impossible for the civil servants to live on that salary. In the present circumstances I would not say that those people are working for a meagre wage; I would say that they are working for a starvation wage. We are aware that many of these clerks who are in receipt of this meagre salary have to pay £7 per month for board and lodging. In the majority of cases they are not able to afford the boarding charges. They cannot afford it, with the result that they hire a room and have their meals out, until their cash is exhausted, and then they have to live on practically one meal per day, which they obtain at a club which was established by the workers of the Department of Native Affairs, and where it can be had at a small charge. In these circumstances, is it wrong to say that these people have to live on starvation wages? The price of clothing has arisen enormously, and the girls in the service are expected to dress decently. We find that the lower-paid male group is no better off. They still have to continue their studies on the meagre salaries they draw, and the Minister will agree with me that it is in the interests of the Civil Service that they should continue their studies. It costs them a minimum of £40 a year, and if the Minister does not decide to improve their salaries it will mean that those young men will not be able to carry on with their private studies to qualify themselves for the Civil Service, or they will have to live under the bread line to be able to pay this £40 per annum. That is the position at present. In commerce and in industry we find that there is a tendency to increase the salary scales, but we do not find that in the Civil Service. We find that the native labourers in the distributive trade, together with the increase of 9s. per week, are now earning an amount of £8 3s. 3d. per month. These natives who do unskilled work receive more than £8 per month, and young girls in the Civil Service who have passed Standard VIII have to work for £9 per month. That is a scandalous position. The Minister said that the linguistic knowledge of the people who enter the service today is poor. I can well understand that. The Minister cannot expect to get the best candidates when the salaries are so poor. The best qualified candidates avoid the Civil Service. They regard the Civil Service merely as a stepping stone to something better. The boy or the girl who enters the Civil Service only waits for something better to turn up. We have had the statement from Mr. Van Wyk, the retired chairman of the Public Servants’ Association, in which he says that he issued a warning that everyone was leaving the Civil Service, that the Government paid no attention to the warning, and that the nosition became worse from day to day. Since the Civil Service has to give effect to the policy of the Government, we must attract the best boys and girls to that service, and we will not get the type of service we want if we do not give satisfaction to every individual in the service. The present position causes great dissatisfaction. Take the group of men who are in receipt of £200 to £300. They can hardly obtain houses on the Witwatersrand and in Pretoria, and when they do get a small house they have to pay a monthly rental of £9 and £10. They pay 33 per cent. of their salaries in rent alone. We notice in the case of magistrates and native commissioners 12½ per cent. is deducted from their salaries in respect of rent. That is quite correct, but if the Minister admits that 12½ per cent. is reasonable in the case of an official with a high salary, then he must admit that 33 per cent. is scandalous in the case of an official drawing £200 or £300 per annum. There is all the more reason therefore to augment the salaries of those people in order to retain them in the Civil Service in the interests of the State. We find that the costs of living are rising in every respect. A cost of living allowance is granted, but in our opinion the increase in the cost of living is not covered at all by the cost of living allowance. The Witwatersrand branch of the Public Servants Association has pointed out that fact, and has shown, inter alia, that women’s clothing has risen by 100 per cent. and men’s clothing by more than 90 per cent. Nevertheless we expect these people to work for the same wage and to be dressed as well as they were before the war. The position is critical, and I am very glad that the Minister is going to give his attention to this matter. We are bitterly disappointed that the Civil Servants have had to protest for so many years through their association and congresses against the position which came into being, and that the Government turned a deaf ear to their representations throughout all these years. Today we learned that the Planning Council had recommended the appointment of a commission. Does the Government want to say that it was not acquainted with the position? The officials have brought it to the Government’s notice time and again. Apart from that, I want to express my appreciation in that the Government has finally decided to nominate a commission, and we want to express the hope that the Minister will not, as his predecessor did, turn a deaf ear to, these representations but that he will heed the representations of the officials and see to it that the Civil Service is placed on a proper footing.

I want to associate myself with other members who have said that if you want to attract the right type of Public Servants you must make it worth their while. The Minister has said that he finds it very difficult to get the right type of recruits in the service. It is quite true in these days, particularly where a form of inflation has taken place and where people are prepared to pay for service, that it is only natural for young men not to turn to the Government service where the staff has been underpaid for many years. How can you expect efficient young men and women to join the Public Service? And now we are told that the Minister wants to appoint a commission. It seems to me that whenever the Minister is in difficulties today he says: “Very well, we will appoint a commission.”

Every Government has done that.:

Yes, but this Government has done it more than other governments and this Government will go down to posterity as the Government of Commissions. Still, one does not mind the Minister appointing commissions so long as when a commission brings out a report Parliament will have some say about the adoption of the report or otherwise. It is no use the Government simply delegating additional powers to officials, as has been done in the past—particularly ’in regard to the meat scheme. Under certain conditions we have no objections to commissions being appointed.

Then why worry about it?

But we do not want the Government to shift their responsibilities on to commissions. We think that matters connected with the Public Service can be dealt with by the Minister in charge. Now let me say that there are a number of matters which are exercising the minds of the public. Take a man like your Receiver of Revenue here in Cape Town. If he wants to appoint a typist, a messenger or a clerk, he cannot do it on his own. Everything has to go through the Public Service Commission. A high official like that cannot even appoint a sweeper—it must go before the Public Service Commission first. I quite agree with the hon. member over there who said that a lot of red tape connected with Government Departments should be cut away. Another fault I have to find with the Public Service Commission and with Government Departments as a whole is this: A man is appointed to the Public Service, and unless he commits murder or rape he has a job for life. He may be the biggest dud in the world, but if he is bilingual he can get into the public service.

If he is bilingual he cannot be a dud.

Of course, I quite agree that a man should have some security of tenure, but I don’t like what’s going on in a great many of our public service departments. You take the attitude they adopt towards the public. You go into a number of these departments and you see that a lot of your public servants look upon the public as interlopers. Go to the Post Office and look at the way they treat people. You are scowled on and they look upon you as if to say: “How dare you interfere with us?”

No, no, it is not as bad as all that.

I don’t say it is as bad as that everywhere but in many places it is. The Minister knows the trouble he had with the Durban Post Office, and he said himself that he would not tolerate the treatment which was meted out to the public. But, of course, these people don’t care, because they just sit there—they look at the clock and the moment it is time for them to go off they are gone.

Now, now, now, be fair.

What incentive is there in the public service for a man to do his best? A man with brains is on a par with the biggest dud. There is no incentive for promotion, and that is definitely wrong. The Minister of Railways has realised it because he said that so far as his department was concerned he would not continue this old system of promotion based on length of service, he was going to promote on merit. And it was interesting to hear the Minister say this afternoon that he, too, was only concerned with merit. Well, let me tell the Minister that there is no question of merit in Natal. Your Natal public servants are today suffering because they do not know the second language. Why should not these people be promoted in Natal where a large number of people are unilingual—and that is due to the Government’s policy of unilingual schools. The Minister himself unfortunately is unilingual, so he knows what the position is. The Minister said that a great tribute had been paid to him by the public servants for enforcing the present system. Well, I can’t see it. I can see that there is a lot to be said for bilingualism in the other provinces, but I can’t say what there is to be said for it in Natal, and being unilingual himself the Minister should have some sympathy with people who as a result of circumstances are also unilingual. I want to say again that the present system does not add to the efficiency of the service. A man may be the brainiest man in South Africa but if he is unilingual he cannot get on in the service. In fact, today he cannot get into the service at all. How are you going to get merit in your service if you keep out people of such outstanding ability as we have in Natal?

It has been an unfortunate weakness of hon. members on those benches over there—the Dominion Party—that whenever they have a good case they ruin it by overstating it, and I want at once to repudiate some of the statements made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) with regard to bilingualism being a sure entry into the public service, quite irrespective of other qualifications. I have some acquaintance with the public service myself, having been in it during the past two or three years, and I can speak from some knowledge, and say that statements such as those made by the hon. member for Durban (Central) are quite untrue.

I said it applied only to a small number—not generally.

If it only applies to a small number then it it unfair to use it as a generalisation in this House. Having said that, I want to go on to say that I welcome very much the assurance which the Minister has given us with regard to the necessity for reform in the Public Service, but I missed one note in his remarks, namely the note of urgency. The debate drew from him several concessions which I made a note of at the time, namely that the public service should be made more attractive, that at present the type of recruit who was drawn into the public service was far from satisfactory, that the salary scale at present is far too low, and that reforms are long overdue. All these concessions the Minister made, but he said nothing about any immediate action.

That is the point.

A commission is to be appointed but we do not know when it will report and the Minister has given us no indication when we may expect a report.

How can I say that?

I agree that a commission of enquiry is probably the most effective way of dealing with a complex question of this kind. Thorough-going reforms can hardly be introduced without thorough investigation, but I am far from satisfied that the investigation need be a long one, nor am I satisfied that certain reforms cannot be introduced immediately without waiting for any report. I would say that I would welcome one further assurance from the Minister. First of all, that so far as that can be arranged, the investigations of this commission will not be prolonged and secondly, I would like a further assurance that immediate steps will be taken to introduce whatever reforms the Minister is satisfied are necessary and which can be introduced without waiting for any enquiry. This whole matter is one which I regard as being of considerable urgency. We are moving into a stage where, as the Planning Council has pointed out, more and more difficult tasks will be devolving upon the public service, and if our attempts at reconstruction are to be carried out very sweeping changes will have to be brought about in the machinery to which our plans are entrusted. So I ask the Minister to regard this question as of considerable urgency and to assure us that where reforms can be introduced they will be introduced without delay.

I want to endorse largely what has been said by the previous speaker, particularly on the one point, that if reforms can be introduced immediately there is no reason why we should wait till the proposed commission investigates and reports. Now, I want to bring to the notice of the Minister one particular case where a reform can be introduced. It is with regard to applicants for posts of social workers in the Department of Social Welfare. The position was previously that males employed as social workers started at a salary of £240 per year and females started at £200 per year. Now, a short while ago the salary paid to males was brought down to that of females, which means that a man starting in the Department of Social Welfare starts at £200 per year. The Minister need not look round in that nervous manner. I can bring evidence from the Secretary for Social Welfare to, prove what I am saying.

I have yet to learn that you want to mislead me, so don’t worry.

The position is this, they are qualified people—they are all university graduates, and not just people with an ordinary university degree, but with a specialised university degree in this particular type of work. It is for all practical practices a fairly modern course—when I say it is a modern course I mean it is a course which has been fairly recently introduced. It has been introduced into at least three universities that I know of, and it has been introduced and developed to satisfy a demand which has come to the universities from the departments concerned to have trained social workers, and not only from the departments concerned, but also from very many bodies that are helped by the department to obtain these people to do social work in their areas. The churches are helped, the boards of aid, the A.C.V.V. and various other organisations can employ social workers with a subsidy from the State. The demand for these social workers has been so great that I know in the case of one university which had between 30 and 40 graduates last year, all have been offered and accepted posts—they were offered those posts before the actual examination results came out. I mention that to show the demand there is for these people. I saw an advertisement in the Press a little while ago, that on the Witwatersrand 15 social workers were asked for in one department There is a tremendous demand for these people, and the course has been one which has become very attractive, both for girls and for men students but with this reduction of salaries for some obscure reason. For a man with a degree after a specialised course to have his starting salary reduced to £200 with a maximum of £400, any young fellow coming to university is apt to be advised by the Professor of Sociology: “Don’t take our course, because the payment offered is so low that we cannot advise you to go in for it.” Most of the people employed are girls, but there are quite a number of posts for which men are more suited and for which men are employed, and we require these men, and with the development of social centres and with the new lines developing in South Africa in regard to social security in the future, the opening for these trained social workers will not become less, it will become more. We shall require more and more, and we want qualified people to fill these posts. We can only get qualified people if we encourage them to go to our universities. The Minister said he wanted a better class of person to enter the Civil Service. Here you are getting a very fine class indeed, because many of these people who took up this social work took it up because they had an honest feeling that by doing that work they were also doing their part towards the upliftment of their country. It is a very fine instinct which is at the back of it, but if you are going to start your young men at £200 per year when they qualify—and not only when they start, but if you are going to reduce them from £240 to £200 after they have started, you are going to defeat your own ends. The Minister tells us he wants a better class, and now, when it comes to the better class he tells them: “Well, we are going to keep your salary down to such an extent that no one will follow in your footsteps,” I want the Minister to investigate this matter with the Public Service Commission because I think a very serious mistake has been made, and I think I am correct in saying that various departments of sociology have also made representations to the Public Service Commission in regard to this matter.

In reply to the hon. member, the information I have is that qualified social workers start at £250 with notches for experience. Those who start at £200 are unqualified. They are also notched for experience. But let me say that I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) on this particular question, because we want this particular class to be develeoped in South Africa, and it will be developed, as he rightly points out, in very many directions. I shall take this matter up personally with the Public Service Commission and with the Department of Social Welfare. He, like the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) has asked for urgency in connection with the appointment of this Commission. I have no hesitation in saying that I shall see to it that it will be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

When will the commission be appointed?

Very soon, it will not be held up.

Within a year?

I hope this month. And the other point which the hon. member raised, the reforms which we are able to carry out—well, if they are reforms which are recommended and can be carried out that also will be attended to.

Will the commission be a judicial commission?

Well, I hope it will be presided over by a judge. The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Dr. V. L. Shearer) has raised the question of dentists’ salaries. The maximum is now being increased from £700 to £800, and with regard to nurses who are on active service, Natal nurses who are members of the Civil Service, they are being provided for in the Bill that the Minister of Finance is introducing in order to enable them, when they go back, to count their service. In regard to nurses in the other provinces, they are under their own professional pension laws, but I will do what I can with the various Administrators to see that they come into line with the policy of the Government and do not suffer in consequence.

I did not wish to speak again in this debate, but a little earlier I put certain questions to the Minister, and he has not replied. Therefore I feel I must repeat them, because they are matters of very great importance. The third report of the Social and Economic Planning Council has made two sets of recommendations. In Chapter 2 the report deals with the functions and expansion of public service, and recommends the appointment of a commission presided over by a judge to investigate the matter. In Chapter 3 it has made specific recommendations on the subject of unskilled workers in Government employ. The Minister has told the committee what he is going to do in relation to the recommendations in Chapter 2, but he has not told the committee what the Government is doing in relation to the recommendations in Chapter 3. That was the question which I put to the Minister, and I hope before the debate closes he will reply to it. In Chapter 3 the report recommends what amounts to three things in relation to unskilled workers in Government employment. It recommends that wherever wage regulating instruments are in force in particular areas, that the unskilled wages paid by the Government should not be less than those imposed by wage regulating instruments upon private employers. Further, over 90 per cent. of the native unskilled workers in Government employment are paid less than the Wage Board determinations and industrial agreements forced on private employers. Secondly, the Council deals with wages paid unskilled workers in Government employment in smaller centres, where no wage determinations are in force. In relation to these areas the Council recommends that the Government should, in co-operation with the universities, order the conduct of cost of living enquiries in such areas and base the wages it pays upon the result of those enquiries. Thirdly, the Council recommends that certain leave privileges which are imposed upon private employers by the Factories Act should be applied by the Government to its unskilled workers, and in this connection it points out that 70 per cent. of native unskilled workers in Government employment get nd paid leave at all. It is in relation to these recommendations which are quite independent of Chapter 2, that I ask the Minister what the Government intends to do. The hon. member for Johannesburg (Wést) (Mr. Tighy) said that I paid too much attention to the report so far as the native unskilled employees are concerned. I only did that because they are the vast majority affected. According to the report 90 per cent. of the native unskilled workers are paid less than the minimum wage laid down for the private employer. That statement only applies to 6 per cent. of European workers. To that 6 per cent. the same considerations apply. The Minister pointed out a little earlier that I, in quoting figures from this report, had left out of account the cost of living allowances paid by the Government. I did leave these out of the account, because I was simply giving the figures in the report, which points out that they are irrespective of cost of living allowances. I also left out any reference to cost of living allowance paid by the private employer. Whether both are included or both excluded for the purposes of comparison makes no difference whatever; the point is that the disparity is there, and it is that disparity that I was drawing the attention of the Minister to. I do hope the Minister will favour me with a reply as to the Government’s intention in regard to these recommendations. There have been a number of enquiries into this subject already. In 1937 there was an interdepartmental enquiry into the wages and conditions of unskilled workers in Government employment, and that enquiry resulted in the same recommendations as those of the Planning Council, that is that the Government should not pay less than private employers had to pay under Wage Board determinations. Nothing has been done since then. Unknown to the Planning Council a committee of the Public Service Commission was requested to make an investigation into this subject, and the Planning Council apparently was surprised to find that such an investigation was proceeding. What the result of the Public Service Commission’s investigation is remains a mystery, but the fact of the matter is there has been enough investigation upon which recommendations have been founded by the Planning Council, and I do suggest to the Minister that this, at all events, is a subject that has been thoroughly investigated. We know all about it, we know that unskilled workers in Government employment are paid starvation wages; and we know that the Government is paying less than it forces private employers to pay. I press the urgency of this matter and again ask the Minister to tell the Committee what the Government’s policy is in relation to the recommendations of the Council in Chapter 3 of its latest report.

I am sorry I did not reply to the point the hon. member raised, but I will try and do so now. My information is that the wages paid to our unskilled native workers is equal to the minimum laid down by wage determinations in the bigger centres.

The report says it is not.

In the country it is even greater. I frankly acknowledge that the Government should not pay the unskilled natives less than the wage determination. That ought to satisfy the hon. member in connection with this matter. The committe of the Public Service Commission, which the Planning Council has referred to, considered this very question you have raised.

And the white European labour?

Does not that naturally follow?

I think, Mr. Chairman, most citizens realise that during the last 25 years the functions of the Civil Service have developed to such an extent that an entirely different organisation is called for. There is very little now left to the citizen to do in which in some respect or other he does not come into contact with the Civil Service, and I think the third report of the Social and Economic Planning Council has done a service in bringing home to the people in a very clear manner the tremendous development in the work which the Civil Service has to do today in comparison with what it did a generation ago. In paragraph 13 of this report it says—

I think, therefore, it must be realised that the type of man who is to control that type of function is very different from the type of man who was recruited for the Civil Service when that type of function was not called for. I do not suggest for one moment that the Civil Service is, or in fact was ever in competition with private enterprise, and I think it obscures the issue very much to suggest that such a state of affairs is possible because in private enterprise the servant is judged by his capacity to “deliver the goods,” whereas in the Public Service he is judged by his capacity to serve. There is a great distinction between these two qualifications. Moreover, Mr. Chairman, it must be realised that while there is a very strong case for improved pay in the civil service the civil servant does not join for the purpose of improving his general financial condition. He requires an adequate salary, but his primary duty is to render service to the country and to the people, and I think it obscures the issue to suggest that civil servants should be paid on a scale comparable with the payment made to persons outside the service who are engaged entirely on improving their own personal position. On the other hand, it is necessary that an even balance should be held between these two. The civil servant has security of office, he is entitled to look forward to a pension, and to claim that if he does his work efficiently he will eventually reach the highest standard of his calling. But it is an unfortunate thing that in the civil service there has not been adequate payment for what I may call self-improvement. Only the other day an instance was brought to my notice, a very glaring instance, of that want of recognition of a man’s self-improvement in the service. A young man, after twelve years in the Department of Justice was drawing £22 10s. a month. He had meanwhile become a B.A. and an LLB. and had been admitted to the bar as an advocate. The department made use of him in a professional capacity, and he claimed that if he were used in this manner he should be paid on the same scale as young professional men recruited directly from the universities into the department, who started at £500 a year. These young men were brought in at £500 a year without any previous experience, whereas this young man who had worked himself up and was doing the very same work, was kept on the £22 10s. per month notch. He was told that it was against the regulations for him to be moved up to the new notch, and the consequence was that he resigned from the service and is now practising at the Bar. I think that is really a scandalous state of affairs, and I think that type of man should be given special treatment, and his ability and industry given recognition in the service. Unless that sort of thing is done I do not think you are going to get the right type of man in the service. The blame for that kind of treatment does not lie entirely with the Government. I also blame the universities. It is a most peculiar thing that the universities regard academic qualifications as being only capable of commanding very low pecuniary rewards. The other day I saw an advertisement from the University College at Maritzburg, inviting applications for the position of research assistant in economics at a salary of £150 to £200 a year, depending on qualifications. I suppose if he was a Master of Arts, he would get the remarkable salary of £150, whereas if he was a Doctor of Philosophy he might get £200 a year. In the same paper there was an advertisement by the Van der Bijl Steel Works at Vereeniging asking for a rat-catcher at a commencing salary of £300 a year. That just shows that if the universities are prepared to pay graduates on that scale, you can hardly blame the Government for offering low scales of pay to such people. I should be sorry indeed if the Government were to take a leaf out of the universities’ books in that respect, and I hope that the scale of salaries which will be finally decided upon by the proposed commission will be adequate and even generous. It has been suggested, I think by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) that the scale of salaries which should be paid to heads of departments should be higher, because certain municipalities paid their heads of departments on a very high scale. I believe some municipalities pay their heads of departments as much as £3,000 a year. Well, in the first place I think the heads of departments in those municipalities are over-paid. I do not think they should receive anything like that. But it seems to me if there is one class of person that is underpaid, it is our Ministers who, when they go out of office drop everything. They should at any rate be paid on a scale comparable with the payments meted out to the heads of departments in municipalities. I do not think you can compare the status of a head of a department in a municipality with the status of a permanent head of a department of state quite apart from pay. I have not very much more to say, I only want to emphasise that I hope when this commission is appointed, its terms of reference will be very wide indeed, and that it will direct its attention also to obviating competition between departments of state, and in place thereof encourage co-operation. Very often we find that one department is jealous of the work or powers of another department, which instead of leading to co-operation, very often leads to friction. That sort of thing should be done away with. It is often due to the personality of the head of a department, and it is unsatisfactory from every point of view. It is to be hoped that anything of that sort between departments will be eliminated with a single eye to what is in the public interest.

Mr. Chairman, as an exGovernment servant, I came down to Parlia ment to ask the Minister under this vote to try and do something for the civil service, and I was therefore very pleased to read in the paper a few weeks ago that the Prime Minister had agreed to the recommendation of the Planning Council, and it was pleasant Indeed to hear the responsible Minister in the House saying that he intends appointing this commission almost immediately. I would also like to mention that when I came to this House as a new member, I was given advice by Ministers as well as old parliamentarians, not to speak on subjects that I did not know too much about. I was therefore sorry to hear the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) not taking that advice. I want to assure him that whilst he may have commissions on the brain and be against them, that if he has any civil servants in his constituency I am afraid they won’t thank him for his attitude in ridiculing this commission, which is very long overdue. The last investigation into the civil service made by the Graham Commission in 1919 did a great deal for the service, and the personnel were very pleased; but times and conditions have changed, and I need only refer to the presidential address at the Public Service Association Conference in Bloemfontein last February, delivered by a Mr. Van Wyk, to show that something liad to be done, not only in the interests of the civil service, but in the interests of the public. I feel that the Minister, when laying down the terms of reference should ask the commission to issue interim reports on special points such as rates of salary, and methods of training public servants. I feel that much of the criticism of the so-called inefficiency in the service is due to lack of training facilities. We find that after many years in a particular department, individuals progress to the maximum of a certain grade, and then on the grounds of seniority are promoted and transferred to some other department, and the result being that they are found to be square pegs in round holes.” I do feel that the juniors should be allowed to have a training in the various departments whilst in the lower grades I would also like to support the remarks of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) when he referred to salaries of senior officials remaining at £1,800. It has been stated by the hon. member for Pretoria (City) (Mr. Davis) that he does not think salaries paid by local authorities are justified. Well, Sir, I am sure that they are, and merely to argue that because of public servants’ security of tenure, these individuals should not be treated the same as in private enterprise is definitely wrong; because, after all, they are entitled to be adequately paid for the service they render, and unless they are given satisfaction or encouragement we cannot expect the efficiency that is demanded of them. I appeal to the Minister to favourably consider the submission of the interim reports, and that early consideration should be given to them.

I trust the hon. Minister will not feel that we are pressing him too hard at this early stage of his responsibility for the Public Service Commission, if I follow up for a moment the question put by my hon. colleague. I do so because the matter is of very great importance to us, and we consider it of very great urgency. The replies of the hon. Minister indicate that he is not quite so convinced of the grounds for that urgency. The Minister says he has been informed that the conditions of service of unskilled workers in the Government employ on the whole are as good as outside employment, and in some cases better. I wish to refer him to this report, which says that 93 per cent. of the unskilled workers in Government employ in the larger towns are on a wage less than that imposed by wage regulations on private employers, and that in the smaller towns the percentage is 92; 93 per cent. in the larger towns, and 92 per cent. in the smaller towns have conditions less satisfactory than those imposed upon outside employers under wage regulating machinery. That has been our case ever since we came into this House, and now it has the scientific backing of this report based on exact information which we were not in a position to get. Our case is fully substantiated and that substantiation is the justification of our renewed urgency in this matter. We feel that there is now no possible excuse for the Government not putting its own house in order. I am quite sure, knowing the Minister as I do, that we shall have his sympathetic support, but what we want is more than the simple statement that he favours the imposition upon the Government of at least as good conditions as are imposed on private employers. We want that and we want something more. We want the implementation of this report as it stands; and this report demands considerably more than that; it demands that the Government shall not only continue to employ people on less satisfactory conditions than those under which they are employed by private employers, but that it shall set about establishing uniformity in the conditions of employment for the whole service. It recommends also that the Government shall progressively decrease its employment of casuals. The employment of casual employees in the Government service is enormous. In the larger towns 70 per cent. of the natives employed are on the Railways casually employed, and in the smaller towns the casual employees represent 71 per cent. of those in that department’s employ. Now, we hope these recommendations are not only going to have the serious consideration of the Public Service Commission, but are going to be accepted by the Public Service Commission. On the showing of this report, this is the third investigation into this matter. There is really no necessity for any further investigation. The situation was investigated in 1937; it was again investigated after the Prime Minister gave us his assurance two years ago that it would be investigated, and now this is the final survey. There can be no reason for further delay under the terms of the recommendation of this Council. And in addition to the adoption of these recommendations which should take place now, should be the initiation of these surveys which are recommended by the Council. The Council has made it perfectly plain that at present we have no reliable information showing the extent of the gap between the wages paid to unskilled workers and the cost of the minimum necessaries of life. It suggests that enquiries in that direction should be initiated at once, and I trust that the Public Service Commission will support that recommendation also, that we shall get an extension of our information in this direction, and that we shall find, and find very soon, that it is the Government’s intention, publicly stated, to establish in its own service a living wage for all its servants.

I just want to reply briefly to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) and the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf). I don’t want to do the hon. member for Parktown any injustice but I certainly never suggested that all our public servants were discourteous to the public, and looked upon the public as a kind of a nuisance. What I said and what I tried to convey was that a small number of members of the Public Service did not treat the public as they should do. We have people in the employ of the Government and also in the employ of the municipal councils who are certainly not treating the public as they should—of course, if they were all perfect angles it would be a wonder. I was merely criticising certain members of our Public Service who are not courteous to the public, as they should be. Who do not realise that they are the obedient servants of the public. But that does not mean that I am condemning the whole of the public service. I thought I was doing the very opposite. I was making an attack on the Minister for the remuneration in the Public Service to be as low as it is as compared with the remuneration paid outside. I want to make that perfectly clear. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) said that public servants would not thank me for what I had said. Well, it does not worry me what the public servants think of me, or what anyone else thinks of me. I am not concerned.

Chuck out your chest and show what a big fellow you are.

If my conscience is clear why should I worry about anyone else? And then the hon. member for Pretoria (West) talks about what the Public Service wants. Well, their association have already told the Government what they require—there is no need for another commission to travel round the country and in a few years’ time tell the Government what is wanted.

The Public Service have said that they want a commission.

I have said that a number of the requirements of the public service are long overdue, and I say it is no use appointing a commission for that purpose. I have said before that we shall never get a perfect public service on the miserable wages which we pay. My hon. friend here is quite right. If a private concern were to pay the miserable wages which the Government pays—somebody in that private concern would be in gaol, so is it right that the Government should be allowed to do it?

Of course it is not, you change it.

Or change the Government.

Well, we don’t want a commission for that. It is high time we all realised that in the Minister’s own department the worst sweating in the whole service is going on. The wages paid there are a perfect scandal. Before the war you had married men getting £8 per month, and in the railway service, too, you have hundreds of men with wives and families, getting less than £15 per month. A private employer of labour would have been prosecuted if he had done so. The reason I mention this is because of a little incident which occurred recently. This rather refers to the way the public are treated. There was an individual who had been waiting for a long time to get back to England. All his papers were in order. This individual had very little money, and if he was kept waiting too long it would mean that all his money would be exhausted, so he went to one of these offices where he was interviewed by a public servant and he was asked : “How much money have you got? How much money are you prepared to pay to get back? Why does not the British Government send out ships for people like you? Why cannot you get a job?” And that is the sort of thing which I want to stop. This man, if he did not get back, might become a charge on the State. I remember instances which we had to bring to the notice of the House of natives standing in long queues for days waiting to pay their poll tax. Yes, waiting to pay their £ poll tax. A private employer would not be allowed to do that sort of thing, but a poor unfortunate native sometimes had to wait a whole week before he could be attended to. Yes, hon. members may smile but we have had cases like that, and there is no justification for that sort of thing. I have just risen to make my position perfectly clear. We have as good a public service for the remuneration we pay as any other part of the world. All we have to do is to pay them better. Today you are getting what you pay for. Yes, take members of Parliament; see what you pay them—what can you expect for it. Pay them £2,000 or £3,000 and you will get something to be proud of. I just want to say in conclusion that I hope the present Ministers and other Minister will not put up the Public Service Commission as a screen behind which to hide. We know that Ministers have often done that in the past. They have told people here and outside the House: “Yes, we are in favour of it but the Public Service Commission will not allow it”. I hope Ministers will in future be able to persuade the Public Service Commission if a good case is put before them. And I say again that the very least the Public Service Commission can do is to accept a ruling when it is given by a Minister. That is all I want to say.

When I sat down I was trying to point out to the Minister that in the report of the Economic and Social Planning Council no reference is made to the unskilled European labourer in the civil service. Reference has been made to the unskilled native labourer and no doubt their interests have been very well defended by the native representatives in this House. Following on an interjection the only reply I got from the Minister was that it follows naturally. What follows naturally? That is my question. And don’t forget we have thousands of these men in the public service. Now, would it be fair to tell the people that certain steps will be taken to improve the position of various classes of workers but that nothing is going to be done for the unskilled European worker? I suggest that it is wrong to single out one group, the lowest paid of all, and say: “We are going to ignore you”. The only thing I ask the Minister is, in view of the fact that it is obvious that these men have been forgotten by this commission, to give some attention to these people. And let me say that a very large percentage of them are working for the Minister’s own department.

Are you referring to the Post Office?

I am not only talking about the men who put in your telephones; I am also referring to the men working in this House. I am referring also to others working in the Lands Department—the Irrigation Department—scattered all over South Africa. Those men are at the mercy of their immediate charge hand. I am speaking as one who is the leader of one of the Unions of the Johannesburg Municipal Unskilled Workers Organisations, and a similar organisation has been formed to include the unskilled workers working for the Government, and I have said that the minimum wage should be 10s. per day.

They get 3s. 6d.

Yes; the minimum should be 10s. and the maximum 17s. 6d. And there should be overtime paid. We should not trade on labour. Labour has to be sold, but we have no right to trade on it.

That is what your Party is doing.

Wherever we use labour in its spare time without paying for it my submission is that we are trading on labour.

You are in the wrong seat.

Public holidays should be paid for.

Parliament works on public holidays.

They are not paid for today by these various Departments. Let me tell this House that most of these poor fellows do not even know when there is a holiday.

Neither do members of Parliament.

We at least adjourn for one day, although it is true that we sat on Monday which was a public holiday. But most of these fellows don’t know when there is a public holiday. When they are sick they get nothing and if they are sick for any length of time they get into trouble, and they cannot pay their debts or their daily requirements. They should be entitled to sick pay. If a member of this House feels that he is entitled to a holiday he can use the Railways to travel to a seaside resort— surely these people are also entitled to a rest? As a matter of fact it should be a criminal offence if a man does not take leave once a year. Then, take the question of promotion.

You should be promoted to the Labour Benches.

I am not attacking the Minister personally, I know that he is sympathetically inclined towards these men, but I know very definitely that he does not know about these things. I have had cases of these poor unfortunate beings who perhaps because they have been a day off, due to the illness of their wife or of a child—or perhaps due to the funeral of a child—have been told: “You have been off a day and you cannot get your regular increment.” How many members of this House miss a few days during a Session?

Don’t you?

Yes, I know I do. Why should we discourage these men and stop their increments in those circumstances? No, there are numbers of anomalies which I could point to this afternoon, but it would serve no useful purpose to mention them all. I just want to draw the Minister’s attention to the critical condition which exists as far as the unskilled workers is concerned. I humbly request the Minister that if this Commission is appointed in terms of this report, to bear in mind that large body of men—those unskilled men—and see that they are included in the investigation of the Commission. I don’t know whether the Minister is going to reply again. I have a few other points I really want to raise. The question is to what extent the various Public Service organisations will be able to present their case. To what extent will individuals be able to present their case, and even members of this House, if they so desire? Another point which I think the Minister should consider is whether the Commission will deal with the whole service in all its branches. There are two major organisations which are outside the scope of the Minister’s vote—the Railways and the Police. Here we are going to appoint a Commission which will cost a lot of money. Which will cover the whole of the Public Service. Are we next year, or the year after, going to be faced with the demand for another commission to go into the position of the Railways, and another one to go into the position of the Police?

Why cannot we face the whole thing now and do the job properly?

There are three types of employees in the Government service whom I specifically want to plead for. The Minister has not given us any assurance that he will include them in the terms of reference of this Commission. No. 1 is the same type which the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) (Mr. Tighy) has referred to. I want the Minister first of all to make a start in trying to lay down the foundation for a minimum wage for unskilled workers. Why I plead for that is this: In the various wage boards we find that the boards have determined a wage scale which applies favourably to people working for private employers. But what about Government servants? I want the Government to make a good start. Then there is the trouble of men who never become permanent workers. They are casual workers and they are the first to be retrenched very often. Now, these people, especially in the unskilled trades, are never secure, their position is always uncertain. And that makes it very much worse for these people. They are the first to be discharged if anything happens, and then they have to go and hunt for other work. They go to the Labour Department, the Labour Department succeeds in finding them employment. For a time they are employed, but again on temporary jobs and after a few months they are again looking for employment. And low though their wages are these men are never sure of employment for any length of time. I don’t know whether the Minister missed my other point; he did not reply to me. What about those men who joined the army? I want the Minister to assure these men that when they return they will be allowed at least to skip one grade. If we only allow them for the time they have been absent it is not going to help them very much.

There is a Bill before Parliament dealing with that matter, you can raise it then.

Well, I won’t pursue that any further. Then, there is another point. That is your drivers of motor cars.

That does not fall under this Vote, it came under the former Vote.

I want them to be included in the terms of reference.

I am making notes of all these points.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 26. — “Printing and Stationery”, £520,000,

I want to refer to a few points in regard to printing where I think improvements can be effected. First of all let me take the envelopes which we use here in Parliament. Hon. members will notice that they are all marked “On His Majesty’s Service.” This is a practice which has been in force for many years, but still we have made progress since and this “On His Majesty’s Service” is an anachronism which should be done away with. In the days of the Republic we did not have our envelopes marked: “On The President’s Service” but “On The Republic’s Service.” In the United States official documents are not stamped “On the President’s Service” but “In service of the U.S.A.” You can go to any other country but you will not find this form of marking official documents anywhere else. In the past we used to have the King’s head on our stamps. That was done away with because it was an anachronism and we now have all kinds of very fine drawings on our postage stamps. In war time unfortunately, those drawings have assumed a military character, and at the moment we get all sorts of military drawings. I want to draw attention to another thing on our envelopes and our documents which I certainly think is unnecessary. First of all let me say that Knighthoods and Peerages have disappeared from this country. Why cannot these other things, which have also become obsolete, be done away with as well? On coins we still get the King’s head and we hope that will also disappear. I definitely take up the attitude that these customs are survivals of the, old Crown Colony days. Those days have gone, and we must make our people South Africa conscious instead of Empire conscious. All we have to put on our envelopes is “On service” or “In service of South Africa.” That would be very much more South African in character and it would remind us less of the Colonial period. A large proportion of South Africa’s inhabitants do not want these things. Their ideas are not in the direction of a Monarchy but rather in the direction of a President. Now let me come to another point. Why must a language which we do not understand be used in our documents and so on? Why must we still have words like this on our official papers: “Honi soit qui mal y pense.” Why should we have “Ex unitate vires” on our Coat of Arms? It would be traditional and genuine Afrikaans to say: “Eendrag Maak Mag,” and in English “Unity is strength.” To use these French and Latin expressions is an anachronism, and it should be done away with. I do not know under which vote the printing of postage stamps comes,

It comes under the Postal Vote.

Then I shall deal with that later.

The hon. member wants us to alter, in the year 1944, something that has been in existence for over 30 years. It is impossible to deal with it at the present moment whatever the future may have in store and the same thing applies to the coat of arms of South Africa. If Parliament wants to alter it then you may take it off the envelope.

I think the Minister’s excuse is really so childish that I cannot leave it at that. He says that because this has been the position for 30 years it must remain so. I agree that it is unnecessary to insert the Latin words. We have two official languages. I cannot see why we should not use the words “Eendrag maak mag” (unity is strength.)

The position is this that this is not the proper occasion to ask for an alteration.

That is not what the Minister said a moment ago. If the Minister thinks it will stir up feeling, I can understand it, but he said that this had been the position for 30 years, and therefore it must continue. In other words, because your grandfather used a wooden plough you must still use a wooden plough today. The Minister can say so if he thinks that this is not the appropriate time. I do not see why we should ape other countries and put words there which other countries want. I think this is an important matter; it is a mistake which we have overlooked up to the present, and since the Minister’s attention has been drawn to it I hope he will go into this matter.

He will do so.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 27.—“Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones,” £5,585,000,

I want to bring a special case to the notice of the Minister. I have already written in regard to it, and I have also seen him personally, but this case is so important that I want to raise it again in this House. It is in connection with his control officials. I just want to read this letter. It was addressed to Mr. Boshoff by the Divisional Controller in Pretoria. This letter reads as follows—

I raise this matter because it seems to me that to a certain extent we are being overcontrolled. Here the Controller writes to Mr. Boshoff and says, in the first place, that the expenses will be too great. Mr. Boshoff has a farm near Wolmaransstad, and he has a second farm a short distance away. He is now building a new house about a mile from the other house. All he asks is to shift the telephone from the old house to the new house which he is having built. The Controller writes that it will be too difficult, that it will cost too much. That is the first difficulty. In the second place, his objection is that there is a shortage of material. Mr. Boshoff says: “Very well, if your difficulty is that there is a shortage of material and that the costs are too high I shall provide my own wire and poles to transfer the telephone. I will go further. I shall take my own electrician to put the telephone in order in accordance with the conditions laid down by you.” But notwithstanding that the Controller says that he is not prepared to accept the offer of wire and poles and the services of the private electrician. It seems to me that this is a case of malice. Because Mr. Boshoff is a Nationalist he must be discriminated against, and he is told that he cannot transfer this telephone. I brought this to the Minister’s notice.

That is not a fair statement to make.

I take it the Minister will put this in order. But I bring it to his notice so that it will come to the knowledge of this official and so that he will be more careful in the future. In the first place the Controller says that the expenses are too high, in the second place he says that there is a scarcity of material. Mr. Boshoff comes along and says: “If that is your objection, I have the material. I will provide the material. One of the mines on the Witwatersrand belongs to me. I have wire and poles there, and I am prepared to give that material.”. He goes further and says: “Since the costs of doing this work will be high, I shall have it done at my own expense.” The reply of the Controller is that it is against the policy of the department to accept assistance from the public. If that is the way in which the people in the platteland are treated, it is scandalous. We all know that there is a shortage of petrol and tyres. The people are faced with all these difficulties. Mr. Boshoff has a large business, and it is necessary for him to have a telephone to conduct his business, but now the Controller refuses to allow him to transfer the telephone from the old house to the new house. I brought this matter to the Minister’s notice, and he said that he would see what he could do.

I told you that I would go into the matter. I have not yet received the information.

I believe the Minister will do it, but I raise this matter so that in future this official will be more careful. It seems to me that the people in the platteland are being trampled upon and neglected. It is for that reason that I bring this matter to the Minister’s notice. I want to express the hope that where a person in the platteland is prepared to pay all the expenses, the Minister will issue instructions that the work must be under taken immediately. If that is not done, I shall not rest in this matter until justice has been done to this man. The Minister has often met me in the past with regard to things of this nature. I hope he will issue instructions telegraphically that this telephone must be installed immediately; and if the Government has not got enough labour and material, Mr. Boshoff will make provision for the necessary material and labour. That is the first case I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. Then there is a second case in regard to which I wrote to the Minister. I know that there is a shortage of wire, but a little while ago when we discussed the Additional Estimates, we saw that a large quantity of wire, poles, etc. had been ordered from England. I think it was for a sum of approximately £40,000, and the Minister told us that it was in connection with the improvement of telephone services. I drew the Minister’s attention to the question of providing a telephone to Welverdiend, and I hope the Minister will give his attention to it when the wire and poles arrive, and grant the desired extension. The Minister must realise that the people on the platteland receive petrol for only 200 miles per month. The farmer has to visit his lands; he has to inspect his stock, and he gets petrol for only 200 miles per month. He may have to send for a doctor. He has no telephone, and he may have to go into town to go and fetch the doctor. He cannot get petrol and tyres, and we feel that the platteland must be better provided with telephones. It will help the people to reduce their expenses, because petrol is expensive today; tyres are expensive; all forms of transport are expensive; and we can therefore perform our farming operations more cheaply if we are properly provided with telephone services. The farmers may want to send their products to the market. They would like to know what the market conditions are, but if they have not got a telephone, it means that they have to drive to town specially in order to find out what the position is. I hope, since there is a shortage in my constituency, that the Minister will favourably consider this matter. I felt that it was my duty to raise this matter, because in my opinion this official exceeded his powers. I do not blame the Minister, but I want to emphasise that these officials must not exceed their powers. In this case a challenging attitude was definitely adopted, and a stop must be put to that sort of attitude. After all, the officials are there to serve the members of the public.

I shall be glad if you will bring such cases to my notice, because I am as anxious as you are to see that these people are civil.

I take it the Minister will do that.

I should like to avail myself of the half hour rule. I have a few matters to bring up, and I should like to do so at once without having to jump up every now and then. In the first place I want to draw the attention of the hon. Minister to the matter of broadcasting. I said something on this subject earlier in the session, and up to the present there has been no statement by the Minister, and I trust the Minister will tell us what his answer is to the various criticisms that were made on the Budget with regard to the present state of broadcasting. Incidentally, I see that there has been a printed report in the paper of a document laid on the Table of the House. This is the first time the newspapers have had the report of the Broadcasting Corporation so early. In the past it was not printed and never produced so early. I do not know whether this had anything to do with the debate on the Budget. I understand that criticism is very much resented by those in charge of the Broadcasting Corporation but one is only performing a public duty, so I shall not apologise for putting certain pertinent questions to the Minister on this subject. Can he tell us whether any educational programme is visualised by those gentlemen who run the Broadcasting Corporation, and is it going to be equivalent to the programme run by the broadcasting stations in other countries? Are any active steps going to be taken to give the children a good musical education on the air? Is there going to be regular broadcasting with a full orchestra, something for which we have been pressing for some time? Johannesburg recently has had the benefit of the orchestra from Cape Town up there. That was done by private enterprise, and the orchestra did not go on the air, and the question is why we should lag behind other countries and not have regular operatic performances. Then I would like to ask the Minister whether they have talent scouts who go round the country to the big towns and the small towns and the platteland to bring out the lurking talent which is there and which at present has to waste its sweetness on the desert air. With regard to the non-Europeans, many of them have licences for radio sets. I would like to know from the Minister whether something could not be done at least once or twice a week for them and for their talent, whether it be singing or playing?

What about vastrap music?

Then we are told in this report that owing to the difficulty of getting radio artists, owing to the war and the limited reservoir of talent within the Union, it is necessary to import first class talent into the Union. I say that there is first class talent in the Union. I can give the Minister the names of any number of artists who have retired from the stage and who are living in this country today.

Have you given the Broadcasting Corporation the names of those people?

Am I to tell them that there is this talent in the country? They are aware of it. Everyone knows that Sir Seymour Hicks for example is here. I have no doubt that the reason why these artists have not be employed is because the Broadcasting Corporation pays such miserable fees. They made a profit of over £62,000 during the year, while they starved the artists. The other day a world-famous violinist was in South Africa, and he could not get any decent engagement out of the Broadcasting Corporation. Well, we now hear from Australia that he had no sooner arrived when he got a marvellous engagement from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. A brother of this world-famous violinist brought out a famous pianist from overseas. But there the same thing happened. Why not call him in in an advisory capacity re programmes. Then there is another matter I should like to raise. May I ask why the Broadcasting Council should be preponderant in professors? I would like the Minister to give me an example of any other country in the world where it is considered that the best qualifications to be a member of the Broadcasting Corporation are that you should be a professor or an ex-professor. Why they must necessarily have professors on the Council I do not know. Have they got any experience of broadcasting? Have they had experience of broadcasting in other countries? These are things the public would like to know. What about these advisory councils? Have they ever reported? Do they ever meet? When did they last meet? I have been unable to find any report which they have submitted. These local advisory bodies are supposed to advise the Corporation, and I never heard anything of it. Then I would like to know this. Are the men on the local advisory bodies chosen because they know something about broadcasting? Or why are they chosen? They should meet at least six or eight times a year, and report and consult together, and they should meet at least twice a year the General Manager of the Council. I do not think they do. According to this report they made a profit of £62,138 during the year. The whole of this sum has been transferred to the reserve and development funds and in the meantime the artists are being starved. It is quite evident that the income from broadcasting in South Africa cannot be equal to that of Australia or Canada because we have not got the population. But they make quite enough to be able to put their house in order, and it is about time that this reserve fund was dynamited and that it started to do good work instead of the money being put into the reserve and development funds from year to year. I would like the hon. Minister to deal with this because the public is very much interested in this question and they do want some information from the Government.

What about you playing the harp?

I do not mind, but I am a modest man. I do not like to take on a job for which I am not fitted. I suppose my hon. friend is referring to the real harp and not the little variety. Now I want to deal with two vital questions affecting the men in the Post Office. I have here the case of the 1933 recruits—one of the most lamentable cases of injustice that has ever occurred. That only concerns a comparatively few people. There is not much money involved. And these men are in a desperate position. I do not know whether the Minister has received this memorandum. I do not want to go into it in detail, but we all know what happened in 1933. At the time of depression the commencing salary was lowered, and these men were appointed at the lower salary. The scale has never been adjusted, and these men have been unable to catch up with the men who were engaged on the higher scales. The Minister has received deputation after deputation. He interviewed one deputation in the presence of the present Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation. They were both sympathetic and they thought that something should be done. The present Minister said that the matter would be brought before the Cabinet. It was brought before the Cabinet, I believe, and we were told that it was turned down by the Cabinet. I say it is a crying injustice, and I want to urge that the Cabinet should reconsider the matter. These men are not asking to ˙be paid back the amount of money that they would have had if they had been put on the higher scales. That would amount to some £30,000 from 1933 to 1943. They are only asking to be put on the notch they would have been on today if they had started on the higher scales and not at the depression wage. They are asking that they should now be put on the scale they would have reached if they had started at the higher rate, and I am given to understand that that would cost the State less than £3,000 a year as there are only about 150 of them still in the service. Then I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the sorter class. In that case I am told that the Minister got a copy of the memorandum, and therefore I would like to ask him what he has done about that. This is one of the things that a Labour Minister introduced when he was Minister of Posts and Telegraphs—at any rate it was an attempt to give a chance to the humble fellow who started as a messenger. But now apparently they have been left stranded. Many of them are disappointed at the lack of promotion; and in this memorandum a concrete and constructive suggestion is put before the Minister. I would like him to tell me whether this memorandum is in his possession and whether he will give effect to these suggestions. The suggestions they make are on page six of the memorandum. What is asked for is that Public Service Regulation No. 142 should be relaxed to enable a general division officer to be appointed as Post and Telegraph assistant. Then they asked that all circulation branches should be staffed entirely by sorters. It would widen their prospects of promotion and do away with the present-day dead-end position of the sorter class. They point out that they are not endeavouring to create a precedent. They are just following on the same lines as the sorter-revision that took place in 1938. Then I want to come to the case of the postmen themselves, and that is the last of these matters that I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. First of all, let me say that they feel indebted to the Minister and to the Postmaster-General for the new scales that have come into operation. I may say incidently that when that first memorandum to which I referred just now, in relation to the sorter class, was drawn up, these new scales had evidently not yet come before them; they did not know about that, because there has been a slight improvement in regard to the sorter class. Instead of the limit of the sorter class being £330 per annum, they can now go to £360, but there are still a number of things that they want to put right here. There are postmen, Grades I and II, and the sorter inspector, Grade II, wireless outdoor officer, Grade II, caretaker and native supervisor and overseer postmen. In these items they have not got the improvements which they think they should be given, and while thanking the Minister and the Postmaster-General for the benefits under the new scale, they say that the benefits are not sufficient in the particular instances I have mentioned. Take the Grade II postmen. They say that with their numbers the relief of giving them the maximum of £240 a year one year earlier is of very little benefit to them. Living costs may be said to be cheaper˙ in the smaller towns, but it is not so in actual practice.

All this will come under the commission.

I hope it will. I would like to know whether the Minister makes any recommendation to the commission? I hope the department will make some recommendation.

I am sorry you were not here when we discussed this question. This question will be dealt with by the commission.

I was here, and I do not remember the Minister saying anything about postmen.

Their position will also be investigated by the commission.

I am dealing particularly with the case of the postal officials, and I hope that the commission will go into their case as well.

They will, of course, be able to give evidence before the commission.

I shall certainly advise them to do so, because in my opinion they have a very sound case indeed. I saw an item in the Press at the time when the new scales of the postmen were announced. There was news from Johannesburg that the postmen were not satisfied with the new salary scales, although they appreciated the advance. If there is a Department which merits the consideration of the Government it is the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Among those who have loyally helped the war effort and carried on under exceptionally difficult conditions, I do not think there is any Department that has done as brilliantly as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. They give an enormous sum to the revenue every year, and it would cost very little indeed to put right the grievances under which they labour. The Government will get good value for the money they spend. After all, this is a Department that does not take money out of the Treasury. It gives money to the Treasury—and in very large sums. I hope the Minister will take these three postal matters into serious consideration, and I also hope he does not mind criticism of broadcasting being advanced, because I understand that those who are actually connected with the broadcasting look upon it as a heinous offence for anybody to criticise their methods; they look upon it almost as a personal affront. I am simply advancing the case of broadcasting listeners in the public interest, it has nothing to do with any personal question as I have no personal grievance against the Corporation or the individuals composing it, I have personal friends amongst them. I advance these points in the public interest and having had the Post Office in my constituency ever since I came into public life, I do say that the case of these three groups of postal officials merits more serious consideration.

If the matter is coming before the commission I hope the Minister will do all he can to present their claims in as favourable a light as possible.

May I be allowed to avail myself of the half hour privilege? When we speak about Posts and Telegraphs and criticise the particular Department, we do so firstly because we are dealing with a Minister who stands at the head of a Department which is of the greatest importance to our country. I feel that in discussing this Vote we are discussing one of the Departments which is more concerned with the development of the country and the population generally than any other Department, and consequently when we criticise that Department we do not do so in order to find fault with the people employed in the Post Office itself, but we do so because the Department deals directly with the people; not with a section of the people, but with the people as a whole. I therefore want to start my remarks in a pleasant tone. I shall leave my criticism over until later and first say something about the Department which meets with our approval. We do not only want to criticise, we also want to give credit where credit is due. I put a question recently to the Minister about the Broadcasting Corporation, and I want to repeat this question here, word for word. I am doing so because I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding later about the meaning of the Minister’s reply—I don’t say there will be a misunderstanding, but I want to be sure. I asked the Minister on several occasions whether he would use his influence to see that talks on sport, sporting results concerning all sporting bodies, over the wireless, were accorded the same treatment? I saw from the Minister’s replies that he tried to see our point of view. Recently I put this question—

1. (i) Whether he will ascertain and inform the House if news and results of sporting events, including rugby football matches, will be broadcast during the Winter season;
2. (ii) whether all sports clubs, including the Cape Western Union, will be accorded the same treatment; and, if not,
3. (iii) whether any clubs or union will be excluded; if so, which and why?

The Minister replied—

I understand from this that all the clubs are going to be treated alike. I think I can assure the Minister that the people of the rural districts are very glad that the Corporation’s policy has been changed and that it is not going to be the same as it was last year. We are glad to see that the results, and everything in connection with sport, will in future be treated alike. That is the pleasant side of the case. When I say that all will be treated alike, then that is the attitude which I want to adopt throughout my criticism. We are not asking for special privileges; we are not asking for anything which we begrudge others, but we ask that the feelings, the respect, the ideas of the whole population will be taken into account. The Broadcasting Corporation belongs to the people and politicis should be completely kept out. I well remember that when we used to talk about the Broadcasting Corporation here in the past, Ministers, previous Ministers of Posts and Telegraphs, always gave us the assurance that so far as politics were concerned they would be kept out. Now let us honestly go into the merits of the case. We do not want to ask whether it is necessary or whether it is right; whether we are wrong, or who is right, but let us start from this point of view—whether we can say that the Broadcasting Corporation is absolutely impartial so far as politicis is‧ concerned? Originally it was very exceptional to hear a political person talk over the wireless. I think the Minister of Finance was the only man whom one could regard as a politician and who in the past ever spoke over the wireless. The Minister of Finance every year broadcast a summary of his Budget speech over the wireless. A few objections were raised—I am speaking subject to correction. I believe the Minister of Finance said at the time that if there were objections to his giving a summary of the Budget speech after the Budget speech had been made in the House, he would discontinue giving a summary. The position today is different. Today it is very exceptional not to have somebody connected with politics speaking over the wireless almost every day of the week.

And they are all members of the South African Party.

Yes, that is exactly my point. I do not know whether I agree with the Prime Minister on one single point, but let us leave that. The Prime Minister is the Leader of a political party, and night after night, week after week, one hears the Prime Minister being praised up to the skies. You cannot treat the Minister as an individual without dragging in the political party of which he is a leader. Then we hear day after day what is being done in regard to the war; how much South Africa is doing, and how well the Prime Minister is leading the people. I do not want to go into the question of how he is leading the people, and who is right, so far as the war is concerned, but I am pointing out that politics are being dragged in all the time. And not only that. You continually hear a talk over the wireless praising up British Imperialism. I want to ask the Minister to mention one single individual in politics, or one single individual sharing the political view of this side of the House, who has been allowed to express his views over the wireless. If that is not allowed what right has the Minister then to allow the Corporation to broadcast the political views of the other side of the House? The Minister is responsible. I know he cannot scrutinise every speech or every talk which is going to be broadcast, but what he can do is to appoint a staff which will keep broadcasting neutral and which will be fair to the whole of our population. Then he won’t have to worry about the talks which are broadcast. Just let me mention the names of the members of the Broadcasting Corporation, and I will then ask hon. members opposite whether these people, in their opinion, can really consider matters impartially. I ask the Minister this—

The Minister replied—

1. (1) Prof. L. Fouche.

A Nationalist.

I do not think one can take notice of the hon. member’s remarks. I don’t want to attack a person if the individual concerned cannot defend himself here, and I shall therefore only mention the names and leave the House to say whether these people can really judge impartially.

Yes.

The hon. member says “yes” but he does not even know who are the members on the Board of Governors. I challenge him to say who they are.

Prof. Fouche is first class.

Who are the others? Let me mention their names: Col. L. W. Deane, Brig. G. M. Molyneaux, Mrs. C. M. Edeling, The Hon. J. D. F. Briggs, Prof. T. J. Haarhoff

A good Afrikaner.

Oh, I see, there is one good Afrikaner. The others apparently are not.

I don’t want to go into the merits of any of these individuals, but I think that even the other side will admit that Prof. Haarhoff is one of the political professors in this country, one of those professors who take an active part in politics. Is he a man who can judge impartially? And then there is Dr. S. H. Skaife. I think the Minister himself will have to admit that if he were to search the length and breadth of this country he would not find a greater lot of Imperialists than the members of this Board. I want to ask the Minister to get away from party politics for a little while and realise that he is a Minister of the people. Why does he appoint a Board which cannot possibly, even if it wants to judge the broadcasts impartially to see whether they are good or whether the people as a whole want to hear the things that are broacast. I fail to see why we must continually have talks broadcast by Prime Ministers of other countries. Why is it necessary to tell us day in and day out about the people who are collecting funds for war purposes? Will anyone ever be allowed to talk about people who contribute to the Reddingsdaadbond? I don’t want to go into the merits of the pase, but it would be regarded as sectional. Rightly or wrongly a large section of the population are of opinion that we are wrong in taking part in this war, but I go further. If you take certain talks which are broadcast you feel sometimes that some of the things which are broadcast have a bad tendency. On the 8th February, for instance, I asked a question in regard to the coloured problem. I asked about a talk which had been broadcast and which affected the colour question. My question was this—

1. (1) Whether in a talk broadcast by the South African Broadcasting Corporation on 22nd October, 1943, reference was made to the question of encouraging Europeans to attend a dance for coloured people and to spend an hour in a coloured man’s home;
2. (2) whether such reference was made with the previous knowledge and consent of the director or manager;
3. (3) whether steps have been taken to prevent similar broadcasts; and
4. (4) whether he will take immediate steps to stop the person who gave the talk from broadcasting over the South African Broadcasting system; if not, why not?

The Minister replied—

1. (1) and (2) I lay the script of the talk in question on the Table for information of hon. members.
2. (3) and (4) No.

Now let us see what this talk which was broadcast contained. I don’t want to quote the whole thing. I just want to read how it starts and then quote a few sentences here and there. If any hon. member wants to have it in full I shall hand it to him. It was in English and I shall quote it in English—

That must have been the lady who was announcing what was happening—

There you are. If anything is done to collect funds for the war or to see the war through then it’s all in order. That is a good excuse to do anything. I am quite convinced that in normal times this talk would not have been broadcast. But why is it allowed? It is allowed because they collect funds for the war. Now let me go on to quote—

This is the great thing—the money they make. Now listen to what the Broadcaster goes on to say—

This is a direct invitation to Europeans to take part in a coloured dance.

No.

Well, what do you think it is then? And then the broadcaster goes on and states what this young man had done to train waiters, and he finished up by saying—

It was only an open air dance at Green Point. There was no invitation to take part in the dance, but only to go and look at it.

Here we have a clear invitation to attend the dance. It is the kind of invitation which you give to people to take part in sport, and whether it is in the open oir or in a hall does not make much difference. I don’t think the Minister would like to see his son or daughter attend such a dance. Now let met come to the Postmaster himself. If you go into any post office—even in small towns—you notice large posters. The clerks are terribly busy. I don’t say that they work more than any other department does—I don’t want to draw any comparisons, but in any case one can say they do more work than they do in other Departments. If you want to buy a stamp or send a telegram you have to wait in a queue to get to the counter. These people work hard. They work as well as they can. But I do think that the Minister in his ardour for the war is loading these people with more work than is really necessary. There is a great scarcity of paper, but if you walk into a post office you find the walls plastered with war propaganda posters. The other day I was in the Post Office at Somerset West when three soldiers came in. They looked at the walls and the one said to the other: “Look at the paper that is being used, and we get hardly enough to write to our people at home.” And besides, these posters have to be put up by the men employed in the Post Office who already have their hands full. They are not pasted up by the men who sit at home wearing their uniforms, they are posted up by the hardworking men in the Post Office. The stamps have been made smaller on account of paper scacity. The forms have been made smaller owing to paper scarcity, but the Post Office walls are plastered with notices. I think the Minister would be rendering a great service, not only to the public generally, but to the workers in Post Offices if he put an end to it. Now, I want to associate myself with something which was said by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander). He spoke about the 1933 recruits in the Post Office service, the sorters and the postmen. I have a memorandum here which was also sent to the Minister in regard to their case. It is a memorandum from the 1933 recruits in the sorting division, and it starts as follows—

These are not my words but the words of the people employed in the Post Office. I asked the Minister a question. I don’t want to repeat everything now, and I don’t want to elaborate the point because I want the Minister to reply before I say any more. We may perhaps have a further opportunity of reverting to this question. I asked my question on the 24th March, 1944, and it reads as follows—

1. (1) Whether he instructed the PostmasterGeneral to draw up a memorandum in connection with the salaries and wages of officials, sorters and the 1933 recruits to the General Division of the Post Office for submission to the Cabinet; if so,
2. (2) whether such memorandum was drawn up; if so (a) when and (b) whether he will lay it upon the Table;
3. (3) whether it was submitted to the Cabinet; and, if so,
4. (4) whether a decision was arrived at by the Cabinet; if so, (a) what was the decision and (b) whether the Postal Association has been informed of such decision; if not, why not?

To this the Minister replied:—

1. (1), (2), (3) and (4):
   The situation is that
   1. (a) the remuneration of inspectors of postmen, postmen and other uniformed and allied grades has been under close consideration during recent months and certain improvements in the salary scales for the grades concerned have been effected from 1.2.44;
   2. (b) the salary progression of the members of the class of postman known as “the 1933 recruits” has been revised from all possible aspects but in view of the general implications if action is taken in the direction desired, the Cabinet has decided that no special treatment can be extended to them beyond that participated in, vide (a); and
   3. (c) the South African Postal Association has been informed in writing of the result under both (a) and (b).

These people are not asking for a special grant. I just want to touch on the memorandum to show what the grievances of these people are and what they ask for. This is the memorandum which was sent to the Minister, and although the Minister did give me a reply to my question, he did not actually answer what I asked. I have the memorandum here—

There is nothing different there. The Minister replied that they wanted to be treated differently from the other people in the Department. That is not so—

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to this—

The one lot was appointed at £96 per year, and the other at £120 per year—

[Time limit.]

Very few individuals would have the hardihood to challenge the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire, but Government insti tutions and departments deny that daily in practice, and in consequence they get comparatively poor service; and one of the outstanding examples of that is the South African Broadcasting Corporation. It is a national body and it has a national duty, and part of that national duty is the encouragement of purely South African drama, music, literature and art in general. We have in our universities competent professors and lecturers who are operating on students of more than usual ability, and we are producing South African artists. I am not looking for overseas people with any longing, but I say that our own potentially great artists have to look largely to the Broadcasting Corporation for an outlet for their talent. And what does the Corporation do? It does not reward these artists commensurately with their abilities or with the profits it makes. Far indeed from it. Last year’s profits were not merely some sixty to seventy thousand pounds, as one gathered from the newspaper report quoted by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander). My information is, and I am satisfied my sources are reliable, that they were no less than £112,000. Now, it is a primary duty of this Corporation to encourage South African literature, drama and music. But it starves art, and offers starvation fees alike to musicians, writers, and all other artists. I am keen on giving the Minister some of the facts because I am sure he is not aware of them.

What facts?

The facts that I am going to give. I should like to tell the Minister that if he, or any other great author, wrote a play which took twenty to twenty-five minutes to present, he would receive the magnificent fee of from 37s. 6d. to £2 11s. 6d. Unless he were as competent and as well known as Mr. Shakespeare, he would receive even less than the chief actors, and they receive little enough. And the Broadcasting Corporation would take his copyright. The same amount of work for a group of American magazines would bring the writer a financial reward of anything from £15 to £200. Last Sunday there was a presentation of “Macbeth,” which took an hour. It was well done. The two chief actors received £2 2s. 0d. each and the remainder £1 11s. 6d. They only had one rehearsal. How much more could you expect for the price? But the performance would have been better still if more time had been devoted to preparation. Take the case of musicians, instrumental or vocal. It requires a good deal of expenditure to become able to give a musical broadcast item. Talent must be developed, and training costs money. It may be news to the Minister that you require more knowledge of music to take part in the chorus of a musical work such as “Hugh the Drover” than is called for even from many soloists. The English opera “Hugh the Drover” was put on several weeks back, and excellently rendered. The artists had to attend seven rehearsals. They came into Cape Town from such places as Pinelands and further still, during seven weekday evenings, to perfect themselves. The leading singers received from £3 3s. 0d. to £5 5s. 0d. and the others received £2 2s. 0d. That is to cover eight evenings of devoted work. And then one must take into account the expenses incidental thereto in travelling and so on. You cannot encourage South African art by displaying such a niggardly spirit. I am credibly informed that the Director of Broadcasting made a comment of this kind, that studio managers were business men and they bought in the cheapest market. They go further; they sell in the dearest market, if we think of the 35s. which we have to pay for our listeners’ licences. And let me tell the Director and everyone concerned that if you buy art in the cheapest market you don’t buy art at all. The public grumbles about the monotony of the programme, of hearing the “same old performers” too often; and what is the reason? Some people require a considerable amount of time to fit into a part, others can perform well with one rehearsal. Well, since the Corporation will not pay for the rehearsals, the tendency is to have as few as possible, and the people best able rapidly to adapt themselves generally get the work. They themselves claim that the presentations would be done better if they had more rehearsals, and are generous in admitting that other most competent artists are being unduly excluded. We don’t need to import musicians or artists from abroad, but we do need to encourage our own young artists, and we are not doing it. We are starving them. There is another reason, and that is the fact that in Cape Town there is only one programme manager. He is a most capable man, and a real artist, but he wants help. He needs help not from an advisory board, which never advises, and is not capable of giving advice, but from local people who really know drama, lierature, music, and the art of entertainment. They would contribute varying points of view and of approach. And, of course, we know that variety in our programmes is lacking at the moment. A selection group to aid the programme manager would have a tremendous effect. I might say before I finish that I personally protest against the American type of concert party. I speak with deference to our Allies, but their concert parties do not appeal to me—even their greatest comedians do not make me laugh. Perhaps it is my own fault, but even Mark Twain fails to convulse me with mirth. About the only American joke I have ever really enjoyed was the remark of the disgusted voyager who was having a very hot and uncomfortable sea-trip across the Atlantic, and said the only thing fit to drink on the ship was the butter! Well, we have our own humorists and our own art, and we do not want importations. Now, here is the last thing. Your Broadcasting Corporation here is infested with rats and dirt, it is totally inadequate as to accommodation; it has too few studios, and those too small. Its lighting is frankly bad; its ventilation and its sanitation are practically non-existent. I say to the Minister: Don’t hold your money for television, spend it now. Spend the £100,000 and more that you have made this year.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1944, and Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

HOUSE RESUMED:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 13th April.