I move, as an unopposed motion—

Where are the Polish Ministers?

Order, order! The hon. member’s motion cannot be accepted. It is not in order.

That is a pity.

I move—

At this motion for the third reading I should like once more to say something in connection with this measure in which I participated to combat the principle of it, and also to have a number of amendments inserted in the committee stage. Let me state very clearly that my attitude, and the attitude of those of us who feel like that about the Bill, is not based on any feeling or desire to deprive women of their rights in family life; it is not based on the desire to prevent the wife from taking her justful place in family life, and also not to minimise her position in married life and as against the children; we do not want to deprive her of any authority over the children, but in my opinion this Bill proceeds from an entirely wrong point of view. Our conception has always been the traditional conception in the legal and moral sphere, that the family is one organic entity. Father, mother and children, for as long as they are under parental supervision, are one organic entity in the family, and not a number of individuals who have by chance come together, one of whom plays the role of father, the other the role of mother, and the rest the role of children. That was the old conception and we still have that conception that the family is an organic entity. It has always functioned well and worked well on the basis that the family is an entity, that it must co-operate and decide together on matters affecting the household, and not that they must oppose each other inter se and fight each other and even go to court with their differences. There are of course exceptions where it did not work well and where things went wrong; there are also cases where things perhaps would not have gone so wrong and would have gone better if the wife had the authority. But these are exceptions, and we know the truth of the old saying: “Hard cases make bad law”. It is not right to legislate for exceptional cases. I should like to read what Dr. Pont, Professor in Law at the University of Pretoria, wrote about this matter, and I think we will all agree with it both by reason of our legal training and on moral grounds—

The hon. member who introduced the Bill is acquainted with a few cases where things went wrong, and then she argues that if the wife in those few cases had authority over the children, matters would have gone right. Those are exceptional cases, but why should we now for the sake of such exceptional cases destroy our whole conception of family life? I say that it is not in the interest of the wife, nor in the interests of the child, in this way to destroy this firm tradition and principle on which our whole family life is based. The hon. member who proposed the Bill laid much stress upon the rights of the child and the interests of the child, but that is the most important consideration. The Bill states time and again that the interests of the child is the most important consideration. But my argument is that it is not in the interests of the child to pass a measure which creates the possibility of quarrels between the husband and the wife over the children and which provides the means for the wife to go to court and to summons her husband before the court in regard to the children. Is there anything else which can more easily engender quarrels in a family when there is a clash of opinion about the interests of the children than to create the possibility that parents can fight each other in court about the interests and control of the children? It is definitely not in the interests of the children. I cannot imagine how members of this House can accept this matter so easily by reason of the nice-sounding story that it is in the interests of the children, where the Bill goes directly against the interests of the children, and where the whole underlying principle of the Bill is not in the interests of the children but against their interests. I say again that we regard the family, the father, mother and children as an organic entity which functions to the benefit of all of them, and I will even go so far as to say that it will be better to give the wife the authority over the children, instead of trying to give both, the husband and the wife equal authority as proposed by this Bill, so that they can go to court and fight each other there about the children. In the Committee Stage we had a struggle about Clause 1, to which I proposed amendments. It says here that maintenanie also includes education. According to this measure, if it becomes law, the mother will be able to take the father to court about the education of the children. Supposing that the father says that the child must go to one school, the mother can try to convince the court that it is better for the child to go to another school. If the father considers that the child should be educated in the Protestant religion, the mother can go to court and ask the court to order that the child should be educated in the Roman Catholic religion. If the father considers that the child should be educated in the Jewish religion, the mother can go to court and ask that the child should be educated in the Christian religion. The father perhaps thinks that the child should attend a school where there are parallel classes or dual-medium classes, and the mother can then go to court to ask that the child should go to a single-medium school. It is a shocking state of affairs. But apart from the quarrels which it will engender between the parents, neither the hon. member nor her supporters could tell me on the basis of what legal principle or on the basis of whatever principle at all the court will have to decide such a matter appearing before it. It is stated here that the mother has the same rights over the child as the father. No differentiation is made, and when such a matter comes before the court, what test must the court apply? They speak here about the interests of the child, but how must the court decide as between the father and the mother? How, on earth must the court decide in connection with these matters which are mentioned here? We know that there were such cases and such difficulties in the past. Supposing that the mother wants to send the child to a Roman Catholic Convent and the father does not wish to allow that; how must the judge decide; what principle must he apply; must he decide according to his own feeling or what? If he is a Roman Catholic must he say that the child must go to a Roman Catholic Convent? If it is a question of language medium, and he considers that home-language medium is the correct one, must we then suppose that he will send the child to a single-medium school? If he feels that dual-medium is the right one, he will perhaps decide otherwise. So we can have different decisions between judges on the basis of their feelings. The following day a judge can say that he does not agree with what his Brother said on the Bench the previous day.

How will you decide?

I should like to know what that hon. member says. I have repeatedly pointed out how difficult it is for the judge to decide. If I were to sit as judge in such a case it will be very difficult for me to decide. My sentiment is of course in favour of home-language medium, but dare I apply my personal feelings? Must I say that I would like to see the child educated in the Christian Protestant religion, and must I decide on that basis if a Roman Catholic child or a Jewish child is concerned in the matter? My point is that no legal principle is laid down on which the judge can decide, and he can only decide according to his own feelings. To me the matter appears impossible, and I say again that I put this question very fairly to the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) and the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford). I asked them to help me and to tell me what principle can be applied. They never told me that, and they never will tell me because they cannot. The court should at least be able to apply certain legal principles; it should be able to adopt a standpoint on principle, and how will it do that in this case? That is as regards the difficulties in the court. But there is a still more serious aspect of the matter than that. That brings me back to the difficulties in connection with the family relationship. I have already stated, and wish to repeat it, that if there is one matter which will bring difficulties into the family, and which will thereafter make it impossible for man and wife again to live in peace, it is a court case between the two. In my practice of more than 25 years, in which I had to deal especially with this kind of case, I want to affirm that that golden thread which might still have bound husband and wife in the matrimonial life, is completely severed as soon as they give evidence in court against each other and fight each other in court. As soon as that happens, this golden thread is cut and matters cannot be put right again. If matters affecting a family have to be investigated in open court, it means that the wife must there prove what a bad man, what a drunkard or how immoral her husband is. The man must prove what a nagger the woman is, and how she beats the children. Can we then expect affection in that family? We know that in a court case matters are exaggerated by people in an attempt to win their case, and thereafter husband and wife can never again live together. No, I am afraid that this Bill will promote divorces to a large degree, and it will break up the family in cases where this Bill is made use of. May it happen that this Bill is never made use of by families; may they never seek refuge in it. Because as soon as reason exists in a family for the father and the mother to seek refuge in the court, one can say that family life is at an end, and that it means divorce. This Bill will help to bring about divorces. Where the father and the mother formerly could still after a fashion live together without divorce, it will now end in a divorce. But is it really true that such a great injustice is done to the wife because she has not equal authority as guardian over the children? I allege that that is not true. That is only true in exceptional cases. In most cases the wife exerts her will with regard to the children in the house, for various reasons. In the first place because the man loves and respects the woman and likes to see her wishes fulfilled in connection with the children. He will think not only twice but many times before doing anything against the will of the wife in connection with the children. He consults her. They discuss the matter and in 99 per cent. of cases what the mother wishes is done; so why is it alleged here that the wife has no authority over the children? I say that the wife in most cases does what she wishes, and in those cases where she cannot, she subjects herself. It is a pity but she subjects herself and the family life continues. She is perhaps disappointed but it does not cause difficulty between her and her husband. She goes to a barrister and he tells her: “I am very sorry, but you can do nothing in the matter; unless you settle the matter in a nice way with your husband and the family you cannot take steps”. But under this Bill one perhaps finds a woman who is precipitate and loses her temper and the barrister tells her: “Now we have an Act which gives you equal authority; we will fight your husband and Show him that you are also the master”. There will always be people in my profession who will encourage such a woman to have a case against her husband, and that will be the end of the marriage. Those are my views about the general principles of the Bill. I now wish to say further: This measure has been before the House for a year and was referred to a Select Committee. One does not wish to criticise one’s colleagues in Parliament, but I have never seen a Select Committee which did its work worse than this one. We sent it to the Select Committee with the expectation that they would study the Bill properly and bring a decent measure before the House, and not that the Select Committee would bring forth an ill-considered and dangerous measure in connection with which the consequences were not all considered. They were not laid before the Select Committee. No evidence was taken. We did not have the benefit of the idea of people like the Government Law Advisers and others, and only afterwards did professors from the universities point out the dangers inherent in the measure. It was the duty of the Select Committee to investigate danger points and to rectify deficiencies. The Select Committee, if it adopted the principle, should have investigated all the points in order to see to it that the Bill would be right. But that did not happen. We who did not serve on the Select Committee could point to serious deficiencies and dangerous points in the Bill and a large number of amendments should have been proposed. In my absence certain amendments were proposed on my behalf by the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). Take that one amendment of mine which was accepted. Here the hon. member introduces a Bill which determines that if a man and his wife live apart and the children have been awarded to the man, as regards, for example custody, then by way of testament he can deal with the children as he likes, and after his death, even though his wife is an excellent woman who did not cause the divorce through her bad behaviour, the children can be awarded to any low character. I have already pointed to a case heard before the Free State court last year, where a woman left her young children in her will to the custody of an unmarried farm manager, to the exclusion of her husband. The man applied to court and the judge stated that this could not happen, that it was against public morals to do a thing like that and to leave minor children in this manner to a manger, who was an unmarried man, and the court rectified the matter and ordered that the father should take the children. But the hon. member for Jeppes introduces a Bill and says that the parent to whom the children have been awarded, can leave the children to whomever he or she wishes, to the exclusion of the other parent. I said that it was a cruel and immoral provision, but the Select Committee did not think of it and let it go through. Now the hon. member has accepted my amendment and it is provided that in such a case after the death of the testator the court will on the application of the surviving parent or the Master, or an interested party, amend the will. Where the hon. member previously was impatient at our fighting this matter, I think that she should be thankful to us for moving such an amendment and bringing the matter in order in that respect at least. Another imoprtant amendment by the hon. member for Gordonia was also accepted. But I want to know why a measure can be sent to a Select Committee if they do not take expert advice. We did what we could to put this matter in order, although it goes against the principles we favour. The majority of the House accepted the Bill, but as regards this matter I also want to state that I seriously criticise the Minister of Justice for permitting a Bill like this, and the other one which was discussed, introduced by the hon. member for Pretoria (Central) (Mr. Davis) to go through this House so easily. I consider that it is the duty of the Minister of Justice to see to it that legislation of this nature which falls under him should be efficient and sound, and not wrong in principle and in detail, and if a serious amendment like this becomes necessary, it is for the Minister of Justice in consultation with his expert legal advisers to draw up the Bill. I do not want to deprive any member of the right to bring a private measure before the House, but here we have a very serious amendment of our common law and it is very dangerous to interfere with such a matter, and if such a measure is not correctly drafted, it is very dangerous. If the Minister of Justice considered that the measure was a good one he should have given the hon. member for Jeppes all possible help to introduce a Bill which was scrutinised by the legal advisers and properly drafted. The Minister simply said that he has no objection, that if the House wants to accept it they can do so. He adopted a very weak attitude. The Department of Justice cannot adopt an attitude like that in regard to a change in our common law. The Minister stated that he was busy investigating the marriage laws. In my opinion he should have said that although he has no objection to the amendment, seeing that he is busy considering amendments to the marriage laws, he would prefer that this measure should not pass but that the House should send the matter back so that he and his Department can later amend the law in whichever way required. Then he would have done his duty as Minister of Justice. But he did not do it. He took the attitude that whether it passes or not makes ho difference to him; to him it is half a dozen of the one and six of the other. That is not the correct attitude. I explained my opposition. I know that there are women and women’s associations which did excellent work outside and for whom we have every possible respect, who blame us, in some cases, for having adopted this attitude against the measure, but I wish to state that those women do not grasp the consequences of the Bill. Otherwise they would not adopt that attitude. I just wonder what the same women would have said, for example, if my amendment for which I struggled so long, had not been adopted, and it was later found that by way of testament the father had taken the children from his wife and given them to an undesirable person. Then one would have heard terrible protests from them. We saved them from that difficulty by proposing the amendments. I have every respect for the women’s associations, but in my opinion they do not realise the dangers inherent in this Bill. Let the marriage laws be amended if necessary, but then we must first investigate the position carefully, so that there are not all sorts of deficiencies and dangers in the measure and so that we shall not afterwards be sorry for having such an amendment. I will prophesy in connection with this Bill that it will not be long before the Minister of Justice will have to bring an amending Bill. There will be cases in the courts where the court will make the strongest remarks about the provisions of this Bill, and will say: “We must apply it, but this and that is the position.” The Minister of Justice will have to say: “We found in practice that the measure is wrong here and wrong there and therefore we have to amend it.” Therefore we said that we should wait a year or two until the Minister of Justice brought out a well-considered measure which would not contain such dangers. In conclusion I once again wish to object, in the first place, to the basic principle of this measure, because it aims at, or rather will have the effect that family life in many cases will be made more difficult and broken, and the family is dealt with not as an organic entity but as a group of unconnected people who can haul each other before the Bench about their own interests. In the second place I object because the measure even with the amendments which have’ been accepted, is still ill-considered and still contains dangers. In the third place I object because I consider that this matter should have been dealt with by the Department of Justice in order to have a decent measure before the House. For those reasons I personally have serious objections to this measure.

When we study the historical development of this Bill we find that the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) at the time introduced the Bill which was referred to a Select Committee and which was hopeless in every respect. That was the Bill with which she came to this House after receiving the approval of women’s associations, as I understand. The Select Committee drew up a completely new Bill in which principles were involved against which even that hon. member was opposed. Now we have an improved Bill before us this morning, but I protest very strongly against this method of interfering with our common law, and in this connection I should like to have the attention of the Minister of Justice for a moment. I think he should give this House the assurance—he cannot prevent a private member from introducing a Bill—that he will adopt a definite attitude and that when he sees that the common law is being tampered with in this manner, he will say “I do not agree with that, and these are my reasons”. He did not do that. He must give definite reasons and he must get into touch with his departmental advisers, who can give him the best advice. I have the highest respect for the legal advisers of the department, and if it is necessary, he can bring a measure to amend certain provisions. It is the duty of the Minister of Justice and his department to introduce that kind of legislation, and the common law should not be tampered with unless the legislation has been thoroughly considered and unless it has first been referred to our judges, if possible, to a commission consisting of a judge and a few barristers, and also one or two attorneys who deal with that kind of case all the time. The hon. member for. Jeppes was fairly conciliatory towards me in connection with the amendments she adopted. I am glad of that. I just want to point out to her that her Bill excluded the Master completely, and our section of the population has a high regard for the importance of the Master. It is an institution we derived from Holland, the Master (Weesheer), the Executor of desolate estates. He is now the Master, and when the interests of children or the estates of children are concerned we were always insistent that the Master should give guidance to the Judge, after having investigated the case thoroughly. The hon. member was willing to accept an amendment, and now the powers of the Master have not been decreased, but he practically receives more powers than he had in the past. There is one matter about which I can never agree with the hon. member for Jeppes or even the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford), and that is when they want to tell the House that the rights of children in such cases was not the chief consideration in the past, but that the rights of the father were almost always predominant. In my hands I have the latest issue of “The South African Law Journal,” in which two cases are reported, namely the case of Collier vs. Collier and Wille vs. Wille. They have not yet been published in the law reports, but appear in the law journal, and I have only the headnotes thereof. In both cases the rights of the children were put first, and that is the attitude adopted by our law, and I say that the Bill is the more unnecessary when one takes into consideration the fact that the court considers the interests of the children very carefully. In the case of Collier vs. Collier, for example, heard in the Natal Provincial Division on 14th March, 1944, the following decision was given—

Here we have a case where the parents actually agreed in connection with the child, and the court stated that it does not regard the agreement as being in the interests of the child. The interests of the child came first, and we, the court decided that your agreement is not in the interests of the child. The original order was maintained. Now that is the case of Collier vs. Collier, and I should like the hon. member for Jeppes to tell us, after the decision in this case, what necessity there still is for her to introduce this Bill. It was a case here of the principle to be applied before an action is instituted in regard to the maintenance and custody of children. It was heard in the Transvaal court before Mr. Justice Barry—

“Mainly."

But what has the hon. member against that? That is the main factor, the essential element which is taken into consideration. It is the same as in the case of Ackermann vs. Ackermann which was decided in the Cape Provincial Division in 1940, and which I have already quoted on a previous occasion—

There you have it. It is the general principle of law which was applied up to now, and the Minister of Justice will—I prophesy it now—probably have to amend Clause 2 of the Bill. Where the two parties still live together and even so an action can be instituted in connection with the custody of the children, I want to ask the hon. member for Jeppes to move my amendment appearing one page 434 in the Other Place, when the Bill goes there, namely—

This whole Bill wil bring chaos in the famiy which may still possibly become reconciled, and as I regard the matter now there will be many more divorces and many more domestic quarrels will have to be settled in court than before. The hon. member for Jeppes perhaps knows better than I do that in many cases the man is not the cause of the divorce. As a practising barrister she will know that in many divorces the wife is the cause. Especially during the war we had cases where men are absent and where mothers deserted even children of tender age, and when the husbands return they find the children completely neglected and the wives gone. If the hon. member wishes to do the women of the country a favour she must accept my amendment. As regards many hon. members on her side, they have not studied the consequences of this Bill properly, and we have not been properly directed by the Department of Justice; no evidence was given by various organisations, and by experts, and if she wants to perform a service to the building up and maintenance of family life in South Africa, she will accept my amendment in connection with Clause 2 of the Bill. There is one matter which we discussed with the hon. member, namely the amendment of the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) on page 5 in line 13, the words “after consultation with the Master”. The hon. member says that her information is to the effect that there is always a report by the Master. I accept that that is usually the case. But I later again considered the matter. I have no objection to her, saying that there is usually a report from the Master. The court will usually say that by consultation a report is meant. The court has the right to say so, but it may be that the report is too meagre. There may be circumstances which cannot be covered by the report, and those are circumstances where consultation should take place between various persons, either close relatives or interested persons. It may be that the Judge will hold a conference or tell the Master that a conference of interested parties should be held, and then the Master must inform the Judge. The report may perhaps not always be sufficient, it may be too narrow, and if the court in the circumstances considers that a written report from the Master is sufficient, it will say so. I just want to say now that this Clause 5 of the Bill is an amendment which was made to out law in the year 1832 as a result of an Ordinance in the Cape which was eventually followed by the other Provinces. That shows us what may be the eventual result of tampering with the common law, and now after all these years we must today try to remedy the defect. I again utter the warning that in future we should not follow this example of changing the common law in one respect without considering what the other results thereof may be. Therefore I also want to appeal to the Minister of Justice that where the Estates Act also provides for the estates of children, who find themselves in such circumstances, that in amending it he shall see to it that the changes brought about are kept in view. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Jeppes and others may say, the maintenance of family life in our nation is of paramount importance to me, and secondly the interests of the children. I am convinced that now the Master is recognised the interests of the children Will be considered, but I am not convinced that the Bill will promote a healthy family life in South Africa.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to this last attempt to oppose this Bill. I have been very interested to note the care with which the hon. member for Winburg (Mr. Swart) has protested time and again that he and the Party opposite are not against improving the status of women. I think that the gentleman doth protest too much. They may be protesting in words that they are not against improving the status of women, but as regards their deeds there is no Bill which comes before this House the object of which is to improve in some small measure the lot of women, which does not meet with the most fierce, I might almost say ferocious, opposition from that side of the House.

That is not true. Give instances.

I am reminded of the adage in the Old Book: “By their deeds, but not by their words, are they known.”

Give instances. It is untrue.

Great play was made with the name and articles of Professor Pont of Pretoria. With all due respect to Professor Pont, I have also shown this Bill to various practising lawyers who are down in the hurly-burly of the world dealing with these cases which arise. One and all said that this Bill will improve the position of many unfortunate women, and with all due respect for Professor Pont, I would prefer the opinion of a practising lawyer to that of an academic theorist. It would appear as far as the hon. member for Winburg goes, he says that sooner than have my Bill he would be prepared to give the mother the sole right of guardianship. Why does he not move for such a Bill?

I would not be so silly.

What he is not out to amend is the present position of women whereby the father is under certain circumstances able to use his guardianship of the child as a means of blackmailing—I use a strong term—as a means of blackmailing the mother to stay with him. The hon. member for Winburg admits that this Bill will deal with various exceptional cases but only a very small number of them, he says. I know that this Bill will deal largely with exceptional cases, but they are not a small number. There is a very large and increasing number. And I am concerned to see that the tyranny of the father, when he chooses to exercise it, should not be allowed to remain unchallenged. The hon. member knows as well as I do that where the father knows that if driven to desperation the mother has a right of access to the courts, it will have a restraining effect on the father. I now want to deal with the hon. member for Gordonia (Mr. J. H. Conradie). He has, if I may say so, a bee in his bonnet about the sanctity of the common law. The common law has been altered in this House Session after Session, and I have not heard any protest from the Opposition about the sanctity of the common law. But when a small and minor—I admit—piece of legislation is introduced by me to amend the law of persons where it has not changed since the days Van Riebeeck brought it into the country 300 years ago, all at once we hear a great palaver about the sanctity of the common law. To show how fair and reasonable this side of the House have been I should like to remind hon. members opposite that whenever they moved an amendment the purpose of which was to improve and not to destroy the Bill, I have been only too glad to accept it. But when they move fictitious amendments the effect of which, if accepted would be to destroy the Bill, I have refused them and, let me say, I shall continue to refuse them.

What is a fictitious amendment—something that does not exist.

Hon. members opposite are perfectly well aware of what I mean, and they know perfectly well they have introduced amendments which, if accepted, would have destroyed the whole purpose of this Bill.

The amendments are not fictitious.

The Opposition is—that is what the hon. member means.

The hon. member for Gordonia has just quoted two cases to us. If anything further was needed to prove how necessary this Bill was, this Bill which put the consideration of the best interests of the children as the first basic principle to be considered by the court ….

It is our law today.

I deny it s completely our law today. And, Mr. Speaker, the position is in one of those very cases he quoted the court stated that the welfare of the children must “mainly” be looked to. It did not state that the first and guiding principle must be the best interests of the children, but that that should be considered “mainly” i.e. in conjunction with two other principles, and this the hon. member for Gordonia knows as well as I do. The purpose of my Bill is to see to it that in future the courts should consider first and foremost the interests of the children, and if I have succeeded in establishing that in this Bill, I feel as far as the children of this country are concerned, as far as the women of this country are concerned, this Bill will be of great advantage and of great benefit. The hon. member for Winburg in a last desperate effort to wreck this Bill has gone out of his way to attack the Select Committee and to attack the Minister of Justice. I say that is a most unwarranted attack on the Select Committee, which did a difficult job admirably. It worked very hard and considered the case in detail. The whole motive of the attack is simply because the Select Committee produced a Bill which the hon. member for Winburg does not favour. I consider that a most unfair insult on the committee. As regards the Minister of Justice, if the hon. members opposite indulge in prophecy I can too. They have prophesied there will be an amending Bill. I should be very glad if the prophecy proved correct, because if the application of my Bill produces further hard cases I would hope that the Minister of Justice would introduce an amending Bill.

Will you not reply to my question?

I have replied to the question ad nauseam both here and in the Committee Stage, and I do not propose to waste the time of the House by replying to that yet again.

You never replied at the Committee Stage.

As regards the hon. member for Gordonia, he is opposed to this Bill tooth and nail. I feel that he might perhaps have been better qualified to speak on domestic matters if he had personal experience of the subject. Finally I feel that the House, in accepting this Bill, will act wisely, and I am hoping that the Opposition will not put us to the pains of dividing the House on this very necessary and very small amendment of the common law.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

After yesterday’s debate, we feel that it is the duty of this House to insist on one thing and that is to ask the Minister to lay on the Table of the House the full text of the resolutions which were passed at the conference. We heard yesterday that there are confidential clauses in that agreement. At the same time we heard yesterday that Lord Knollys, who is the chairman of the B.O.A.C., said one thing and the Minister another, and moreover, there is this difference on a point of cardinal importance. Who is right? Is it Lord Knollys when he reports to England or is it the Minister when he reports to South Africa? I should like to put this question to the Minister: Is he prepared to lay the full text of those clauses on the Table of the House? I think I am speaking on behalf of the whole country and on behalf of the whole House in saying that we do not want secret diplomacy. If the agreement is a good thing and if it is in the interests of South Africa, he need not be afraid to lay it on the Table of the House, and if it is not a good thing and if the Minister is ashamed to lay it on the Table of the House, it is all the more the duty of the House to insist on its being made public. I want to ask the Minister whether he is prepared to do so. If he is prepared to do it, I am prepared to sit down. If not, we should like to know why the Minister refuses, and in that case I should like to put certain pertinent questions to the Minister, and the first is this: There was a complete absence of well known technical advisers representing the Union at the conference. When I speak of well known technical advisers, I mean people who know all there is to know about aeroplanes and aviation. The Minister tried to tell us yesterday—but it was a very unconvincing excuse—why men well known in aviation circles, did not attend the conference ultimately. During the course of the conference it appeared that the conference lacked certain technical advice, and the Minister did not give us a reply on this point yesterday. The conference was handicapped by the absence of certain technical advice. I want to ask the Minister why, when the conference needed technical advice, our own technical men were not called. Why was it necessary for Lord Swinton to send for British technical advisers from the Middle East? I can only say that that is capable of one explanation only, and that is that the British delegation as a whole to the conference did not have confidence in the technical advice which our people could offer, and if that is so it is a blot on the good name of our air force, and we should like to know why our men were passed over in order to send for British technical advisers outside the Union. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) stated yesterday that at the moment we were operating a service between the Union and Rome, and that we were operating that service with the minimum of accidents. Our air force has made a name for itself by the manner in which it has operated that service. Our men know the route from Johannesburg to Cairo better than any other aviators in the world. They know every inch of that route; it is a difficult route; it is a dangerous route; they know every inch of it. They know the route in all its moods, and they know it in all its idiosyncrasies. The Minister must tell us why he passed over those men who know the route so well, in order to call in foreign advice. We should like to know that. In the third place the Minister must give us a more explicit definiton of the functions of the Southern Africa Air Council. He was, it seems to me, deliberately vague. What exactly are the functions of the Southern Africa Air Council? The Minister told us that there are three types of routes. The first is the main route between Johannesburg and London via Cairo. Then there are the regional services, the services to bordering territories, and in the third place there axe the national services. These are the three types. Is the Air Council being constituted to give advice in connection with all three services? Is the service which we operate on the main route from Johannesburg to London also operated under the guidance and advice of the Air Council? I can understand that the regional services need the’ advice of such an Air Council, but what about our national services? Yesterday the Minister casually made a statement which gives us on this side great cause for concern, namely, that the Air Council has the right to give us advice in connection with our own internal services. I do not think we misunderstood the Minister. If that is the case, it will not only mean that we have handed over our external aviation entirely to a British Company, but that we have handed over our internal freedom to this British Company. If the Minister does not lay the full text on the Table of the House, let him read to us all the clauses which lay down the functions and the duties of this Air Council. We are rather afraid of this Air Council. If the Air Council has the right to give us advice in connection with our internal services, we might as well say that we have sacrificed all our independence in South Africa; in that case everything is lost. I put these questions tentatively, and I should very must like the Minister to give us a clear reply on these points.

The whole country was interested yesterday in the comprehensive statement of the hon. Minister in regard to our air services. There is one aspect of the Minister’s statement which I would like to draw attention to this morning, or rather I should say, it was an omission in his statement. I am referring to the necessity for comprehensive aviation insurance. Our airways will have fairly considerable capital equipment, and we must cover that equipment and cargo, mail, passengers and gold bullion with insurance. The rapid development in civil aviation after the war calls within South Africa for a properly organised Insurance scheme. It is necessary in that regard that the Government should have, not merely what it has today, a short-range policy, but a long range or permanent policy. In England it is well known that certain big shipping associations have, on mutual principles, established their own insurance, covering aviation liabilities. Certain big insurance companies have done the same thing. That is, they have established independent organisations; and made complete provision for aviation risks. What is to be the position of South Africa in this very important matter? As I see it, the Miinster has several alternatives. He might, in the first place, make use of South African insurance agencies to provide all the cover he requires. He might make use of the big British organisations, for example, the British Aviation and General Insurance Company. He might, in the third place, link South African Airways with some of the big shipping organisations and share with them the liability for the protection of our aircraft and services. He might, in the last place, establish under the guidance and control of his own Department, a South African Aviation Insurance Association, to provide all the protection needed. This, however, seems to be an alternative that is not likely to be possible in the immediate future. The risks are very considerable. They are— hon. members will be aware of them—third party risks; risks of damage to aircraft and loss or damage by fire; personal accidents; and the risk to cargo and mail. The risk in regard to the liabilities of passengers is one that is of serious topical interest in South Africa. It is a heavy risk; and many of the carriers tend today to contract out of that risk by putting saving clauses in their carriage conditions, notwithstanding that the Warsaw Convention of 1929 (which convention was ratified in London in 1932) definitely places all liability on the carriers, though it limits the indenmity. I submit to the hon. Minister that it would be in the interests of the country for the public to know his policy in regard to our South African Airways. Expedients, such as contracting out, may be a temporary but are by no means a satisfactory permanent arrangement. In regard to The coverage for cargo, mails, and gold bullion, that does not appear difficult. The hazard is less, mainly due to the fact that there is considerably less handling. These are advantages which would offset disadvantages in other directions. Is it then reasonable to suggest to the Minister that he might be able in South Africa, with his own Department, that is the South African Airways, establish comprehensive insurance covering all the requirements? If not, if he is not prepared to do that, if that cannot be done is it possible to use exclusively South African organisations, allocating the risks to various departments of South African insurance companies; that is to say, accidents departments and fire departments may take over their respective hazards, and the marine market could quite easily meet the risks that are due, shall we say, to the international character of much of the traffic carried by air. It is admitted that this question is difficult, but it must be dealt with without delay. I hope that whatever decision is made will be made by the Minister from a South African angle. I raise this matter now because of the business and economic considerations involved to the South African public and to South African business and trade.

I should like to reply at this stage to the matter raised by the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth); but before doing so I should like to say to the hon. member for Berea (Mr. Sullivan) that all insurances in connection with the Airways are in fact carried by the South African Railways Insurance Fund. The South African Railways themselves have a fund which insures all railway assets.

Passenger risks also?

Yes, it includes everything, and it is the intention that the Airways should continue to use that fund; so that it is purely South African, a purely State fund. First of all in regard to the question of laying the full text of the agreement on the Table, I can assure the hon. member there are no secret clauses in any arrangements we made at the conference. There are three reserved clauses, and they have been reserved for the reason that they refer to memoranda and other things which are not yet available, and the moment they are available the whole of the congress proceedings will be printed and laid on the Table and published. There is no question of keeping anything back. It is only that there are three clauses which should not properly be published—the conference asked they should not be published—until such time as the memoranda which are referred to in them and which must accompany them are available.

Will that happen before the Airways Vote comes before the House?

That is doubtful.

Then we will not get it this Session at all?

There is no vital point in these clauses.

We would like to satisfy ourselves.

The fact remains your Government have undertaken they will not be published until they are ready for publication, and in these circumstances I cannot promise they will be published before the end of the Session. The material necessary for them is not ready, but I should like to assure the hon. member there is nothing deadly in them, they are perfectly harmless. The hon. member referred to Lord Knollys saying one thing and I another. But what Lord Knollys referred to was not a matter of cardinal importance as far as the conference is concerned. He had only expressed his opinion as to what may be done in an itnerim period, and which is purely a matter for negotiation between South African Airways and B.O.A.C., and there is nothing said there that applies to anything discussed at the conference. The hon. member also asked me whether the Air Council was intended to give advice on all services. I explained the functions of the Air Council yesterday. I do not know whether the hon. member would like me to read them again.

Is it for all three services?

In that particular regard the function of the council is this. First of all the Air Council have nothing to do with the through traffic route. That is purely, as I explained yesterday, a matter for the Union Government and the United Kingdom Government. But they have this much to do with internal and regional services. It must be remembered, that they have no authority, they can only give advice. But if they find in any territory traversed by the trunk service the local services are defectively organised, if for instance the machine arrives on the Wednesday and the through machine does not leave there till the Friday, they can make representations; they can suggest that the local plane should arrive on the Thursday or on the Friday to co-ordinate with the through traffic. They can give that advice. But the country does not need to accept their advice. They can suit themselves. But.it is up to the council to keep a continual survey of the whole territory, and if they find that the internal or regional services are not co-ordinated satisfactorily with the trunk service they can make representations to the country concerned and suggest changes that would fit in better with the services. Is that clear? That is the only respect in which they have anything to do with the control of services at all, but their function is purely advisory, they ’have no authority, they cannot say it must be done, they can only make representations to the government concerned.

Why was it necessary to get in technical officers?

There are many other matters they are concerned with. They may find, apart from whether the services axe running well, that it is advisable to establish a new meteorological station somewhere. They can make recommendations in regard to a different type of tele-communcation system; they can do all these things. It was decided that they should do that rather than that each territory, that the Union of South Africa, Southern Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and the others should have to concern themselves with these matters. It was felt it could be left in the hands of this council on which we shall all be represented, and if any country desires to make a change it can be discussed in council whether it is desirable or not. It can be discussed in the air councils as between them all, as to whether it is desirable or not. But again, it is purely an advisory body. They cannot do anything themselves. It is only there to give full opportunity for coming to a decision as to what advice they should give. But it is for the Government concerned to put that advice into practice and to decide whether it is to be followed or not. I cannot put it more clearly to the hon. member than that. Now, while I am on my feet there are just one or two small matters I would like to raise and finish with. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) said that we had sold out South Africa for seven years. Lest there is any misunderstanding about that I would like to make it clear that the agreements come to by the conference can be changed at any time on one year’s notice being given.

I hope it will last for only one year.

And I hope that your hopes will not be justified. Now, a good deal was said about our not taking all the services. It was suggested that we should take on the whole of the service to Britain and employ twice as many pilots as we would be able to employ, and that having agreed to share the route with Britain, we were in fact taking half the employment away from our own pilots and ground staffs. First of all, I must emphasise this, that beyond our northern boundary, the territory is mainly British, and therefore if we operate as far as Nairobi, as we propose to do, we are operating on British territory, and with the consent of the British Government, the very ready consent of the British Government. The route between London and Johannesburg is not within the gift of the Union or of the Union Minister of Transport. I cannot say who is to have the run of it and who not, and I think it is only common sense that we should take the country at the other end of the route, a very large country, which would give us a real good run for our money, and if we pushed them off, they might easily run us off the route also. I think it is right to say that the best thing is the joint working of the route, which is in the interests of both countries on the route.

Why did you say they may be able to run you off the route, when you stand a chance of getting better machines than they have?

Do you suggest that we should push them off the route?

Little Holland ran quite a lot of people off the routes in the East.

I am prepared to leave it to the House to decide the issue whether it is better for the Union or Britain to try to run one another off the route, regardless of cost and expense and of efficiency, or to come to some arrangement like we have come to. I am quite happy to leave it to the decision of the House and of the country. We heard a good deal about certain facts and I was asked whether they were correct or not, and I tried once by way of interruption to ask whether you would tell we where you got the facts. When you quote a fact like this, that at 3d. per passenger a mile you can run a Liberator at a profit, that conveys nothing to anyone who has any knowledge of aeroplanes at all. How can you say whether a Liberator will operate at 3d. per passenger per mile at a profit? In the first place one has to know what is the cost of petrol, of spares, and of wages, paid, and one of the most important items, at what rate are they depreciating the machine? Do they do it over five or seven or 10 years, because that makes a fundamental difference; and therefore, if they had told me that this information came from a responsible source, for example from the American Government itself, I would certainly have it examined, but if it is based on Press propaganda or something like that I would just be wasting my time.

No, the country would rather know whether it is more or less correct or not.

The figure may be correct and it may be entirely wrong. Many people do not understand English. They tell me I do not understand Afrikaans, but English spoken in a clear Scotch accent is not always understood by the other side. These are all tricks of the trade. I deplore this attitude towards the conference. This is a conference which was carried out with dignity and came to almost unanimous—to South Africa very advantageous—conclusions. It set an example as far as these conferences are concerned. It puts South Africa very definitely for all time on the air map of the world.

On the Empire map.

All the other side can do is to try to contest the facts and to make political capital out of it. Instead of coming to this House and saying that they appreciate what was done, they criticise. If you ask me about facts which may not be facts and ask me whether they are correct, I cannot answer. With regard to the York, we heard a great deal about the old Yorks and the new D.C.4’s. I wonder why they did not talk about the old D.C.4’s and the new Yorks, because there are Yorks being made today and none of the machines used on this route will be old. They may be better than any of the Liberators.

What is the maximum horse power that the Avro York can develop?

I think the hon. member is rather challenging my knowledge, but in any case I know that the York engines are capable of a maximum load something like 1,600 horse power, and there are four of them.

Also with a maximum amount of noise, I believe.

The point is that it is not a question of old Yorks any more than it is a question of the difference between an old motor car and a new motor car. New cars are always better than old cars, and to suggest that the York is an old machine is not correct.

Is the Minister aware that our own South African pilots are not keen on the York?

I am afraid I do not know what the pilots are keen on. In regard to the question of technical advice at the conference, the Union Government made up their mind before the conference as to what machines it would consider. We did not go there to consider and to decide what machines to buy any more than we go to a railway conference to decide what kind of locomotive we will buy. We go to a railway conference to decide what services to run and not to ask advice about the type of locomotives to be used. That is purely a matter for the Union to decide.

Who decided that we would buy a York for General Smuts?

Oh, England decides that.

It was purely a question for us to decide. It was rather implied that because we had the Pan-African Conference we were going against the international understanding. There was an international congress in Chicago, but we had put off our congress from October to March to let that take place first. I hope the hon. member does not criticise us for doing that. As a result of that conference it was agreed and understood that all countries could at once come to any agreement, regional or domestic, that they liked to come to. Therefore, far from doing anything against what was decided there, we followed what was laid down and accepted there by all sides. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) rose and questioned the expert advice, but I have already dealt with that. The hon. member also referred to the fact that this was a Pan-British Conference and not a Pan-African one. It is quite true that as all the territories north of us, with the exception of Belgium and Portugal, are British, it was largely a British Conference, but even British territories are African, and Britain is entitled to call these colonies part of her African territories, but they are none the less African, even if controlled by Britain. But we took all the British territories into this conference only after we had explained the proposal to Lisbon and to Belgium, and the Belgian and Portugese Governments approved of the idea of coming to an understanding amongst the territories first before they had to deal with each one separately. So that in every sense of the term we can call this conference Pan-African, because although they did not attend, because they could not very well attend, they are all parties to the conference in as much as they agreed that it should be held and that when it was held and we had put our house in order, they would only have one party to deal with instead of many. Therefore although they did not actually attend I think I can fairly claim that they are parties to the conference and therefore the conference was Pan-African in every sense of the word. I would also correct the hon. member who spoke yesterday, and also before, about this Commonwealth ’ conference being arranged after the Chicago conference. That is correct. The Commonwealth Air Council was formed before the Chicago Conference and was in existence at the lime of the Conference. It had a meeting afterwards but it had already been formed before.

But the agreement in regard to the conference in Africa was arrived at subsequently.

I am talking about the Commonwealth Air Council. That was formed before the Chicago Conference.

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

At the adjournment I was discussing the question of the technical experts who were supporting the Government at the conference and I should like to call the attention of the House to who these gentlemen were. The charge has been made that we had no technical experts at the conference, and I would like just to tell the House who they were. First there is Col. J. T. Louw, who is Superintendent of Flying, I think almost the highest technical officer of the South African Airways. He is an old pilot, a man with an extensive knowledge of flying and of aircraft. We had Col. Otley, who is Chief Aeronautical Engineer and if anyone knows anything about aeronautical engineering he should, and he is Aeronautical Engineer of the South African Airways. We had Lt.-Col. Lindup, who at that time was Acting Director of Civil Aviation. Then we had another gentleman whose name I would suggest complies with my declaration, and that was Col. F. C. Elliott-Wilson, who is Inspector of Flying in the Department of Civil Aviation. We have heard a great deal in this House of the effectiveness and efficiency of the shuttle service. We have heard how this shuttle service has been running from Rome to Germiston with a very fine accident record, and with every word of that I entirely agree. But who has been in charge of these operations at headquarters? Col. F. C. Elliott-Wilson, whom we have just taken out of the army in order to give him the position of Inspector of Flying in the Aeronautical Department of the Civil Airboard. So I think Col. Elliott-Wilson at any rate will comply with the highest requirements. Then we have Maj. K. B. Chater, who is technical assistant to the Department of Civil Aviation. He has been specially hand-picked from the Defence Department because of his great technical knowledge in matters of civil air work. Then, of course, we had Col. Collins, who is Officer Commanding the South African Corps of Signals, and he was there to advise the conference on any matters pertaining to radio equipment, tele-communications and so forth. We had Col. N. B. Sellick, who has been in charge and is still in charge of the Defence Force Meteorological Services. So that we had the highest officers we could obtain to give us advice. Then last, but by no means least—I think even the Opposition will agree there—was Brig. E. T. Schonland. In him we had as high a technical expert in his particular line as it is possible to have. I think in the light of that it will be agreed by this House as far as this Government was concerned at the conference it did not lack the assistance of technical experts.

After we had submitted certain data to the House yesterday, the Minister had an opportunity of going into it. I expected him to get up today and to comment on these figures if they were wrong. In his speech he only commented on one of these figures, namely the profit of 3d. per mile. I just want to say that in spite of all the officials he has had at his disposal since yesterday, he made no comment on the other figures. I assume therefore that the House will be inclined to accept the word of this side of the House when we maintain that our figures are more or less correct. As far as the 3d. per mile is concerned, too, the Minister made no attempt to refute it. He merely asked on what basis it had been calculated. The reply is that it was calculated on the basis of the ruling prices. When the price of petrol goes down it will probably be even more favourable. I am pleased that we on this side have the satisfaction, at any rate, of having submitted figures which the Minister cannot refute and which we must therefore regard as more or less correct. These are sensational data and sensational figures; these are damning figures. These are figures which knock the bottom out of this contract. The Minister commented yesterday on two statements which I made. He said that the offer of the British Government was extraordinarily generous.

Do you not agree?

Before one can call an offer generous, one must first see what price one has to pay for it. The first price we have to pay is that we have to get all our aeroplanes for these routes from England. The price we have to pay is that as far as we are concerned, we automatically have to use British aeroplanes on all our routes, and when I say all our routes, I mean the routes which are laid down in the contract, the route to England and back and the routes to our neighbouring states, and, worst of all, on our interial routes as well. That was stated by Lord Swinton, and the Minister confirmed it by saying that it stood to reason that the same machines would be used by both parties, and as Lord Swinton said, these machines are going to be British aeroplanes. The price which South Africa has to pay in the first place, therefore is that our hands are bound as far as machines are concerned, including those to be used in the Union.

I did not say that.

Which machines do you want?

I have here the words which, according to the Cape Times, were used by the Minister. Perhaps the Minister was not accurately reported, but according to this statement he said that it was essential that the same machines be used by both parties.

On the trunk route.

I take it that is the route from Pretoria to London. In that case he should remove the impression which was created by his words, namely, that it will be applicable to all routes. Apparently his own Press was also under the impression that he agreed with Lord Swinton that both parties should use the same type of machine on all routes, that is to say, to London, to the other states Of Southern Africa and also within the Union. The Minister says it is essential and desirable because it is more effective particularly having regard to spare parts, and that Britain will subsequently take back the remaining parts. The Minister can tell us whether that is wrong. A further price which we have to pay for this “extremely generous offer”, is that we have to buy the spare parts from Britain. Aeroplane spare parts are going to play a great rôle in the future in world trade and in the economic position of the world. Any country which can supply spare parts on a large scale will make a great deal of money and develop a tremendously strong position. In this contract we are being bound to use British aeroplanes and to buy British spare parts for our machines. That is the “extremely generous offer”. Another price we have to pay is that we have to pay 3 per cent. interest on the money, and furthermore we have to pay depreciation on these aeroplanes, depreciation on the basis of seven years.

You said that the life of an aeroplane was two years.

I asked the Minister for how many years this contract was valid, and he stated that it could be cancelled upon giving a year’s notice. I then told him that I hoped he would cancel it in a year’s time, and his reply was that my hope would not be realised. In other words, he will probably endeavour to let this contract run the full period, i.e. seven years. What is the alternative of this “extremely generous offer”? The alternative is that we can buy our own aeroplanes on the open market. If Britain’s aeroplanes are the best and the cheapest, we can buy in Britain; if the machines of other countries are better, we can buy in those countries. The Minister does not want to do that. His further reply was that the depreciation would be calculated on the basis of five years. That is a long period, but it does not differ much from the period of seven years which is laid down in the contract with Britain. In any case this “extremely generous offer” does not seem to be so generous. After having paid the depreciation, either the British Government or the company concerned takes back the aeroplanes for the value they put on it. I should like to put this question to the Minister: Who is going to determine the depreciation; is that laid down in the contract? We want to know what the basis of the depreciation is; is it to be laid down by the British Government or has South Africa some say in determining the depreciation? It would be very interesting to hear that from the Minister. What is the second generous offer, the “extremely generous offer”, that we got from Britain; what is the price we have to pay for it? We are called upon to give up one half of our own route to Britain, I want to ask what quid pro quo we are getting. What does South Africa get out of this contract which has been entered into? It is not clear to me yet what we are getting. Apart from the £98,000 which we shall be paying by way of a subsidy, and although aviation develops and although we can expect great developments in the rest of the world in the near future, what are we getting under this contract? We find that we are giving Britain one-half of our routes and the only quid pro quo we get in return is that in this connection we have to buy everything from Britain and that we bind ourselves to that country. We find, while the aviation services of the world are rapidly developing, that we are tied down hand and foot to certain aeroplanes and that we are saddled with machines which cannot compete on the open market with other machines as far as the conveyance of passengers and freight is concerned. We are bound hand and foot to accept inferior aeroplanes. The Minister gave me a very peculiar reply yesterday. He told us that he paid no attention to the statements on this side that these aeroplanes are inferior. He simply ignored that. He behaves like the proverbial ostrich and hides his head in the sand.

Have you ever heard of an ostrich hiding its head in the sand?

The ostrich is just as imaginary as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). I say that we shall find after a few years that the result of this “extremely generous offer” is that we are bound to buy a certain type of aeroplane which cannot compete with the machines which are used by the rest of the world. I have before me the February, 1945, edition of the Economist, and there I find the following—

Who said that?

This is from the English “Economist”. It appears in the ordinary “Business Notes”.

But who wrote it?

If the hon. member is acquainted with the “Economist” he will know that the very fact that it appears under the ordinary “Business Notes of the Week”, means that it emanates from the editorial ’staff of the journal. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister has no doubt sufficiently disposed of the ill-founded case put up by the Opposition, ill-founded because it has no substance whatever. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) has tried to suggest that the Minister did not reply to h’s argument because yesterday it seemed that all of his case was built up on information given him by some person—it seems to me as if it was someone in the air force who knew nothing about business—and all I cansay that if he is the same person on whomthe hon. member for George (Mr. Werth)relied yesterday when he told the House inall seriousness that you can take fresh fruitfrom South Africa and carry it overseas bymeans of this American aeroplane in twodays cheaper than the Union Castle Linecan do it, that authority is the biggest foolin South Africa. He is the type of personwhom hon. members opposite hold out tothe country, as an authority. They say that is the price we have to pay for our associa-tion with Britain. That is the type of tripe iused in argument by the hon. member forGeorge yesterday. He is supposed to be thefinancial critic of the Opposition, but didhe believe that argument himself? He can-not possibly tell me that he believes it orthat anyone believes it. I think any mem-ber who uses any argument like that, whichhe cannot prove to the House, should beashamed of himself. And what does thehon. member for Moorreesburg tell us? He says he has some information but he willnot disclose it, but the Minister must provethat it is not so. Why should the Ministerwaste his time in dealing with a case of thatdescription? Can the hon. member tell me that whoever gave him that informationtook into account all the economic factorswhich will flow from a joint agreement suchas the Minister has entered into withBritain? Was that taken into account?No. The whole background of this argument is prejudice against anything British.The interests of South Africa are sacrificed.

Let your officialswork it out and you will find that it iscorrect.

You do not sit down andargue the thing reasonably. All you think is that if it is British it is bad. If thisagreement were made with any othercountry it would have gone through theHouse without a word, but because Britainis concerned the arguments are raised, arguments which are not substantiated inany way, arguments like that used by thehon. member for George. They are falla-cious arguments. If those members tell usthat they are concerned with the employment of returned soldiers, they ought to beashamed. Their past makes them standashamed. It is nonsense to say they areconcerned with the employment of returnedsoldiers. I think I and this side of theHouse wholeheartedly congratulate theMinister on the agreement. It is an out-standing agreement, and we need only referto this Year Book to see what benefit it isto South Africa to be a member of theCommonwealth of Nations and what littlereal benefit we derive from America, whosetrade with us is mostly imports rather thanexports.

What sort of car doyou drive?

I say that if all thesethings are taken into consideration asagainst your 3d. a mile, it disappears. Thehon. member for Moorreesburg also askedthe Minister about the safety of the popula-tion. Does he realise that our population is2,000,000 while that of Britain is 45,000,000and that their airways will carry many more people than ours? Why should we worryin South Africa if they feél safe?

People will travelon the cheapest lines.

The British Governmentis not likely to use machines which thewhole world declares to be unsafe. Theyare not such fools and therefore we neednot worry that our lives will be in danger.He asked about depreciation. If the hon. member would only think he would knowthat depreciation is fixed automatically. Ifit is taken over seven years it means one-seventh each year and the value is auto-matically fixed when you hand it back.Suspicion is thrown in the air that Britainwill fix the final value of the machine theytake back but it is automatically fixed andvery liberally because the hon. member saysthat machines have to be changed every twoyears; by that time it has become a danger.

No, not because itis a danger, but because better machinescome on the market.

If that is so, the allowanceis very generous because it is taken overseven years. The hon. member said ourhands are tied. The Minister made it perfectly clear that our hands are tied foronly one year, so that at any time when wediscover that the contract is not advan-tageous we can change it.

You are soprejudiced that you will never even do so.

There is one thing inSouth Africa that I cannot understand. Wetalk about wars. What right have we gotto talk about the route to England fromhere? We want to establish our ownservices. By what authority can we fix aroute through another country without theirpermission? Just as our boundary was theLimpopo during the war, we cannot, gofurther now.

Do you not knowthat there is international agreement inthe offing?

No, it must be done byconsent. So that is the complete answer.

We cannot fly to England without the consent of the others.

Unless there is international agreement.

There again we realise our insignificance in the international world. If we go to the international conferences in company with Britain, we can talk; otherwise not.

Listen to the old Nationalist.

That may be but I look upon it from the business point of view. Here, by arrangement, we can fly to Britain and back. I think it is the finest thing that can happen. What other country would do it? Any service to London can only be entered into by agreement with the British Government, unless we go a long way round. Furthermore if we have this agreement with Britain, what is open to us? Every day we talk about agricultural markets and industrial development and of markets in Africa. Here we have an opportunity. The markets in Africa are principally British territory and Britain has far more influence with the Congo powers than we have, and through this route the whole field of markets in North Africa is opened to us by Britain, because we are associated with a powerful country, and the very commodities we want to sell in that area are the commodities Britain does not produce. From every point of view it is to our interest to enter into that agreement, so as to remain in close contact with the African states. About these air fields, it is agreed that Britain will look after all the air fields north of Nairobi. We only have two. That is where the expenses come in. Take the passenger traffic to London. Ninety per cent. of the traffic will go through to London, so there will be very few passengers in our portion. If we do not like this agreement what is to stop England from having a route to Rhodesia? We cannot fly over the Limpopo. If we fly over the Portuguese border they will chase us back faster than we came. These are things which are lightly passed over, but they are there. It is all due to the prejudice against Britain. The hon. members ‘for Moorreesburg and George cannot dispute the facts. If they leave out their prejudice and deal with the thing on its merits they will find that it is in the best interests of the country that we should do it. There is also the question of our services. The hon. member for Moorreesburg says that now we are tied and can only use the same machines as the British Government, also on our own routes. Even if that was done. I would immediately say it is in our best interests to standardise the machines so that parts will be interchangeable.

And that is the whole object of the agreement.

It is in our interest to do it. Even if that condition was not there I would say that we must standardise our machines.

However bad the machines are?

No, not that. I am perfectly satisfied in my own mind that the Minister will not commit South Africa to the use of machines that are so inferior as the hon. member has described. [Time limit.]

I just want to say to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) that if ever there has been a man in politics who suffers from an inferiortiy complex, it is he or anyone who speaks like the hon. member for Vereeniging. He is tied down hand and foot to Britain. What is good enough for Britain is good enough for South Africa, and that is all he cares about. He is the man who, as a Nationalist, joined me in the old days in proclaiming from platform to platform: “South Africa first”.

I Still do so.

But now he has developed an inferiority complex and he displays an attitude of subordination towards Britain. I do not think it is necessary to say much in regard to his attitude. He simply adopts the attitude that what is good enough for Britain is good enough for South Africa. He does not ask what type of machine Britain is going to use; he does not ask what type of machine the Minister is going to buy; but if Britain is going to use those aeroplanes and if the Minister buys them for South Africa, the hon. member for Vereeniging is quite satisfied. He has implicit confidence in them. It is a case of faith and faith only. Fortunately we on this side have not got that faith, nor have we the slightest objection to aviation agreements being entered into between countries in regard to routes. Those countries which have good machines will be able to establish better routes than other countries with inferior machines. If Britain has good machines and it establishes a route between London and South Africa, let her do so and stand on her own legs. She must hot beg us for a subsidy in order to establish such a route. In the second place the hon. member tried to make the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) appear ridiculous because he spoke of the conveyance of deciduous fruit by aeroplane to markets in other parts of the world. The hon. member for Vereeniging pretends to be a businessman. Have we ever heard such a speech from a business man? Does the hon. member not read the information which is available to us? He wants to know from us where we get our information. If he goes with me to the library, I shall show him where he can get a host of books dealing with the development of aviation.

Never mind, I know where you got that information.

If the hon. member will only study the future of aviation, he will learn what remarkable development there has been and what role aviation is going to play in bringing products to the markets of the world in a short space of time. Let him examine what development has taken place in aviation in America, and then he will see what possibilities of development there are. Does he not know of the American Clipper with which the late Pres. Roosevelt flew to Casablanca? That aeroplane has a crew of 15; it carries a load of 38,000 lbs. It carries 74 passengers; it can make a non-stop flight from New York to Ireland. Apparently the hon. member does not know that. Does he know that at the moment the Americans are building an aeroplane which is the biggest the world has ever known, namely, the Kaizer Hayes. The gross weight of that aeroplane will be 400,000 lbs. It will be able to convey 120.000 lbs. and its cruising speed will be 174 miles per hour. It will be able to fly from New York to Cape Town in 26 hours. And then the hon. member for Vereeniging fries to suggest that it is nonsensical to speak of the conveyance of deciduous fruit and other products which can be brought to the markets in a short space of time.

On a point of personal explanation; I did not say that. The hon. member for George stated that fruit could be conveyed to England more cheaply by aeroplane than in the ships of the Union Castle Company. I said that that was nonsense.

Even if it costs a little more, if it can be brought to the market in 26 hours, instead of being on the ship for 14 days or three weeks, it will still be worth While to convey these perishable products to the market by aeroplane in such a short space of time. But apparently the hon. member does not want to know of the development which is taking place in aviation in other countries. He blindly looks to Britain. I want to ask the hon. member whether we are to wait until Britain is able at some future date to build a Clipper or an aeroplane like the Kaizer Saves. I can only tell him that that will take a very long time. I am not the only one who holds that view. It is also stated in the “Economist”.

There it is stated clearly that the British aeroplane factories have to make up a great leeway. Let us face the facts. Since the outbreak of the war, practically from 1939, when Britain was compelled to build tanks, she has not been able to devote her attention to the building of freight aeroplanes. From 1939 to 1942 America was able to concentrate on the development of freight aeroplanes, and today the American machines are regarded as the best in the world. We are reminded of the joke which was made by one of the British members of Parliament who said in regard to the Avro York that one has to sit in the nose of the plane when it lands, so that its tail will not hit the ground first. That may have been said in a joke, but nevertheless it shows that the people in the British House of Commons admit that in this connection Britain has a great leeway to make up. But in South Africa people like the hon. member for Vereeniging blindly look to Britain, and according to them we are expected to believe that Britain’s aeroplanes will be the best for our purposes.

We have been accused on this side of the House of making political capital out of this issue. I want to ask my hon. friends opposite: For many years now they have been accusing this side of the House of being capitalistic, being business men, fighting to protect vested interests, and having no interest in the country as a whole. I want to ask my hon. friends why it is, if we represent business interests, we have been kept out of the political arena and why an American salesman comes to the Organising Secretary and gives him information.

You are quite wrong there.

If it was a business proposition, why was it not put before the businessmen of this House so that they can set up how far these matters they put across are correct. The hon. member has referred to the question of 3d. profit. I could not help thinking about the remarks made at Kalk Bay, when in the afternoon they give trips on boats to passengers. It has come to be known throughout the Peninsula as “Tickey sicks”.

Do you mean you can get sick for a tickey?

Yes. I am surprised my hon. friend saw the point so quickly. That is just about the kind of remarks made here.

Why pay a tickey? You make me sick for nothing.

The hon. member is in a better position than I am. He does not have to sit opposite himself the whole day. Dealing with the question of the value of aeroplanes, does the hon. member forget that for the last five years Britain has been leading in certain sections of aircraft production? Admittedly in respect of certain of the larger planes America has gone ahead because they have developed that particular type of plane suitable for their country. Is the hon. member aware that in the development now taking place, with blueprints prepared, even the Americans have admitted that Britain is in the lead?

Blueprints? Blueprints do not fly.

They are leading the way. The hon. Minister has taken care, in the plans he put before the House, not to tie the country down for an extensive period, but to limit it to two years. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) yesterday mentioned that we should definitely consider the value of British planes. I want to suggest to the Minister today that he might go a little further. I would like to see him arrange something to prove still further the value of British planes. I would like to see him arrange that one of these British planes which were criticised here should be chartered to convey the hon. member for Moorreesburg and some of his colleagues and friends and to send them over to Europe to see for themselves the damage that British bombs have caused in the camps in Germany and to see for themselves the cruelty and barbarities existing in Germany, which their papers dare not print.

Let them get into uniform.

I suggest I shall have an opportunity later to go further into this matter, and I want to ask the Minister to take the first opportunity to give hon. members the chance of inspecting these planes. If I have one criticism to offer against the Minister it is this: When aeroplanes come to Cape Town whether they are American or British a full opportunity should be given to members of this House to inspect them and to see for themselves the value of these planes.

Do you agree we should have a chance to compare the two?

Precisely so. Any of these planes ….

Will you let two of them come out and be put to the test out here?

They have been out.

Will you ask Great Britain to send one and America to send one, and then test them out here? I am perfectly willing to abide by the result.

Who is to make the conditions of such a test?

We will arrange for some fair people to test them. Will you be prepared to abide by the result of such a test? I am.

I am willing to abide by the result of any test between British aircraft and American aircraft.

Are you willing? I am quite willing.

I am willing to accept the result of any test the Minister may like to apply in regard to aircraft. I am not competent to judge between aircraft. But I say this, that I am not going to accept in this House the advocacy of hon. members opposite who have got the whole of their information from. American sources. But it is not likely that the hon. Minister and the British Government are going to agree to send out American aircraft to usurp their own place in the market. I say this, that hon. members have been misled by the propaganda that is being put across by certain people in regard to this type of aircraft.

They have been willing to be misled.

I do not say willingly, but they have been misled.

Let us test them.

I prefer to believe the Minister with the experts he had behind him and to have faith in the steps he has taken to protect our interests. I must point out again that this plan which is proposed is only binding for the first year and, as the Minister stated, will probably not last two years, when we shall have entirely new machines out. It is merely an intermediate machine, and yet the hon. member opposite wants the whole of that agreement scrapped to introduce an American machine on to what is practically an all-British route. I do not think that is a fair proposition to put up.

We should have the best.

We should have the best. We shall have the best. When the South African air service is properly established we shall have the best machines, and they will be British.

I do not want to intervene in this debate particularly, except to comment to what was stated by the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. Pocock). I think he has given us what has been quite the fairest proposition we have had from that side of the House. He has made a very fair speech. In the first place, however, I want to disagree with him on one point. He suggested that these aeroplanes we want to use should be made available for the convenience of members, that members should be able to use them, and that members will be able to decide on their merits.

I said we should see the machines that come out.

We are in almost perfect agreement with the hon. member for Sunnyside except on this particular one point. I myself, I admit, am not competent to judge whether an aeroplane is a good aeroplane or not. When I step into an aeroplane I seldom know who manufactures it, where it was made or anything about it, and as long as I come down safely I am thankful. I do not think the hon. member for Sunnyside has any particular knowledge of aeroplanes either. So why ask us; what is the use of putting it up to us to say which is the best? What is the good of sending us out on these aeroplanes. If we could drop a couple of members from the other side we might have some use for them. The suggestion of a test was made, and I think the hon. member for Sunnyisde agreed that that was reasonable. He said in answer to an interjection I made, “We want the best aeroplanes”. I am in perfect agreement. He said he was perfectly willing to ask the British aeroplane people to send one of then people out and that the American Government should be asked to send one of their best aeroplanes, and that they should be tested out. I am perfectly willing to abide by the result. Is he willing to abide by the result? I am only asking him to nod or to wag his head.

Of course I am willing.

The hon. member says yes. I want the same thing. We want the best aeroplanes. He said it, he said it twice. It does not matter where they come from. We in South Africa want the best aeroplanes. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) wags his head very much, he wags it very vehemently? What does he want. Is he wagging it this way or is he wagging it that way? Does he want the best aeroplanes or not?

I am asking whether Great Britain would be sensible or whether it would be practicable to use American planes on a British route.

If British aeroplanes are the best he should have no fear whatsoever in letting the point be decided in a test against an American aeroplane. If the hon. member says Britain would not be sensible in allowing a test like that he knows more about aeroplanes than I do. He takes it for granted apparently that British aeroplanes would not stand up to such a test. Is not that so? He is now wagging his head horizontally and not vertically. The hon. member for Sunnyside and I are in agreement. We want the best aeroplanes in South Africa. I know nothing about them and he knows nothing about them. He is arguing on certain facts which have been given to him by the Minister or by someone else, or which he has invented, and other hon. members are arguing on facts given to them by experts on aeronautical matters. But they do not know and I do not know. We can only decide by having two aeroplanes brought out here and having a test made with regard to durability, petrol and oil consumption and with regard to pay-load, and all those other factors which determine the usefulness and the economy and practicability of aeroplanes to suit South African conditions.

Which will you fly in the test?

I will let the experts fly them. The hon. member and I will agree to certain experts in South Africa who can make the test. The Minister can appoint them.

This is not a circus.

Let these aeroplanes be tested against each other, and let South Africa adopt the aeroplane which is the best. The hon. member for Sunnyside agrees that is fair. Let us do it then. Will the hon. member use his influence with the Minister to see that Britain sends her best aeroplane out here and that America sends her best, and let us test them out in the interests of South Africa, and let South Africa take the aeroplane that is most suitable to our requirements. Let the South African experts test the aeroplanes to see which is most suitable. We shall withdraw our opposition if the Minister is willing to agree to that suggestion. If he is willing to have this test we are agreeable to abiding by the result of that test. Let the people who want to compete for the selling of their aeroplanes send their aeroplanes out here, and we will take the one that is most suitable for South Africa. Is the Minister willing to accept that? Is the hon. member willing to ask the Minister to accept that? If the Minister does not want to accept that test, if the hon. member for Sunnyside refuses to accept it, he is prejudiced; then he wants us to use an aeroplane that is not the best for South Africa. If he knows it is the best why does he not have the test; it will decide, the test will show which is the best. If the hon. member opposite refuses to allow us to have the test then he is not certain whether that aeroplane is the best, and ’ he is trying to force an aeroplane on South Africa which he is not satisfied is the best. I see he is nodding his head. Does he agree to a test? He says this aeroplane is the best “but I am damned if I am going to allow it to be tested against any other plane”. The hon. member for Troyeville who shook his head in various ways a few minutes ago said himself it would be stupid of England to allow such a test.

I did not suggest that. I said it would be stupid of England to use a plane manufactured in another country on this all-British route.

But South Africa has got to use an aeroplane manufactured in anothér country, in any case. Is it not to our advantage then to use the most suitable plane?

Up to the Limpopo?

Why should we not use American planes? American planes are winning the war for Britain today.

Do not talk nonsense.

The hon. member would, I suppose, like America to withdraw from the war.

You would like nothing better.

The hon. member for Troyeville puts it this way, that Great Britain is so thankful to America for the help she has given Great Britain in the war that she will not allow an American aeroplane to go over the Limpopo River. He said if we use American planes we could only use them as far as the Limpopo.

Why do you not drown yourself in the Limpopo?

He said we could only use the planes as far as the Limpopo. That is what he said. Why should we not use them further than the Limpopo River? We have to buy aeroplanes in a country outside South Africa because we do not manufacture them. Is the hon. member for Troyeville against South Africa buying the best aeroplanes for this country? [Interruption.] That is a reasonable question. Right, he is in favour of South Africa buying the best plane for use in South Africa. Is he willing that the different countries should be asked to agree to a test so that we can come to a decision on a practical test? That is a fair question. Is he willing that the different countries should give us samples of their aeroplanes so that we could test them and find out which is the most suitable?

[Inaudible.]

These members say this is the best aeroplane, but when we come with a perfectly reasonable request that different makes of aeroplanes should be tested out practically to ascertain which is the most suitable for South African purposes, they will not agree. The best aeroplanes always win even if the best horse does not always win. Those aeroplanes can be tested out, I almost said with our own jockeys, they can be tested with our own aeronauts our own experts. They can find out which is the best and we will be willing to abide by the result of the test, because in that case we would know we were getting an aeroplane that is best suited to South Africa.

Amongst other things the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) has now displayed his ability as a distorter of what has been said by hon. members on the other side. I do not know whether the present debate has been initiated in one more effort to idicate a change of heart by the Nationalists. I cannot seem to remember that the Nationalists demanded a test for the Junkers planes before the war. I cannot remember the Nationalists ever objecting under the German Trade Agreement entered into by a government they supported, to our being forced to use locomotives on our railways that proved useless; and it seems now they may want us to defer this agreement so that we shall have to buy Heinkels in a couple of years’ time. Possibly that is the idea behind all this. Why this sudden love for America? Only some days ago the Nationalist Party gave us one of the most shocking displays of ill-manners and lack of chivalry that has ever occurred in a democratic Parliament. They went out of their way to insult the American people. Now the hon. member for Humansdorp tries to tell us that America is winning the war. I hope that the Government supporters are not going to get heated over this, because if is obviously a very childlike and naïve attempt to drag hon. members on this side of the House into a discussion on the comparative merits of the military achievements of America and Great Britain, and we are not prepared to enter into such a discussion. The fact of the matter is that the Spitfires were good enough to save the whole world in the days when Great Britain alone stood up for the freedom of the world.

That is what is worrying them.

. We know it and we have seen it day after day in the newspapers, that it was the Spitfire that saved civilisation, and incidentally the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer), because we must not run away with the idea that because of the views he has expressed his fate would have been the less terrible than that of hundreds of people who have died in German concentration camps. The hon. member for Humansdorp and his colleagues would have been treated just the same as the rest of the world. The comparative merits of planes in so far as our air service is concerned, is not the sole thing that should be considered, and in so far as South Africa is concerned, that is not even the chief consideration. South Africa subsidised, some of the front benchers were actually members of the Government which subsidised the Italian shipping line to the extent of £150,000 per annum, and there cannot be the slightest doubt as to the comparative merits of the Italian ships and the ships of Great Britain.

Then there was the Japanese trade agreement.

Japan was one of your allies.

No ….

Yes, go into the gardens. You have a monument there for them, a sort of Japanese god. You should go and pray there some times; it will do you good.

If the hon. member prayed a bit it might do him a lot of good, but I cannot imagine any god that would listen to him. At the time of the Italian shipping subsidy there never was any demand by these hon. members that we should make a test between the ships of the Union Castle Line and the ships of the Italian Line. It was admitted that the British ships were superior. And that has been proved in the Mediterranean where our people found the Italian ships were almost completely worthless. So poor were they that when we captured them we could not use them. There was a point made about the Limpopo, and I can remember the Nationalist Party moving an amendment in this House to the effect that the Union should be considered anything below the Limpopo River. They have always wanted to be friendly with Terra del Fuega and various other South American republics, but they have always insisted that the northern border of South Africa is the Limpopo River. Therefore they can only demand the freedom of the air over our own territories; anything beyond that can only be by agreement with other nations. As it so happens the chief air traffic likely to be done as far as the Union is concerned, is the traffic between the Union and the United Kingdom. America at no time has ever attempted to run an air line from the United Kingdom to South Africa, and there is no likelihood that America will at any time desire to do so. They showed quite clearly at the Chicago Conference that they were not prepared to enter into an international agreement; they were prepared to have spheres of influence of their own. If America desires to have a Monroe Doctrine so far as the air is concerned on the American Continent, and it is obvious they so desire, I agree they are entitled to it if they wish it. They can have their Monroe Doctrine as far as their own Continent of America is concerned. But I am satisfied they would never at any time make any attempt to claim a right to fly, to have an air service from the United Kingdom to the Union of South Africa. There are only two countries which can be served with a flying service from the United Kingdom to South Africa, and those are the United Kingdom on the one hand and the Union of South Africa on the other. Therefore, if the two countries have a businesslike policy, a sensible policy, a policy which is devoid of all racialism, and in no way directed at America at all; if they evolve a policy of that description and enter into a common agreement whereby the two countries should run these air services jointly, it is only common sense that the planes to be used are planes built in one or other of the two countries. Possibly the Skymaster may show some slight superiority over the Avro York; I do not know. I am satisfied the hon. member for Moorreesburg _(Mr. F. C. Erasmus) does not know either. I am doubtful these days over aeronautical authorities, because even in the air port you will find flying officers who have flown one kind of aeroplane naturally conclude that is the best kind of plane the world has produced, while other flying officers will contend that the type they have been using is the best. I take it that the Minister and the Railway Department are not so stupid as to enter into any kind of bargain in the nature of buying a pig in a poke. I take it the authorities, or the experts, are satisfied, and I know some of the experts were actually sent to America where, I presume, they did go into the merits of the American plane, and the American plane was probably ousted so far as South Africa is concerned because of the attitude the United States took up at the Chicago Conference. I do not think the United States are likely to grumble. One can understand the aircraft people in the United States of America are anxious to sell their aeroplanes wherever they can be sold to any important concern like an air service. But it is not purely the finest machine that is the determining factor. It has been shown by various people and on the testimony of our technical advisers, that the planes which the hon. Minister has chartered—not bought—are suitable, that they are suitable in every way to provide us with a high-class service between London and Cape Town and between Cape Town and London, but with a first-class service in which South Africa will participate on a fifty-fifty basis. If we had bought American aeroplanes, as the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has pointed out, and I understand the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), if we had decided to buy American planes could we possibly have entered into this agreement? Not at all, because the scheme would not work. We would be having the Union authorities running their air service from Cape Town to London with American-built planes and the United Kingdom running their part of the service from London to Cape Town with British-built planes, and there could be no inter-change of mechanics, and there would be the difficulty about spare parts. In other words, in totality— if I can use the word—the scheme despite the fact that we might admit we have the best of planes, despite the fact, when you look at it generally the whole service must be seriously affected, if it could be worked at all. I am satisfied the Nationalists are not really so interested in the air service. They do not attach such a tremendous amount of importance to an air service as the emotion, almost the hysterics of the hon. member for Moorreesburg might imply, but what they are attempting is to stir up trouble in this House. They have been stirring up trouble for all the years during the war, and they now find they have backed the wrong horse. They are now endeavouring to run away from the attitude they held, and they are trying to supplant that by raising a suspicion in this country as between the Union of South Africa, as a member of the United Nations, and an ally whom we refuse to fall out with whose point of view we are always prepared to see, and whose contribution to the war we realise and appreciate to a every real extent. So I hope that hon. members on the Government benches will not fall victim to this idea of entering into a Britain-versus-America argument…. [Time limit.]

I think I can profitably intervene at this stage in this debate. There is one point which may interest this House specially and which has not been noted before, and that is: What is the alternative to the Air Conference Agreement which this Government has entered into? They talk about our allowing Great Britain to fly to South Africa and about our planes flying only half the services to Great Britain, but it may surprise the House to know that Mr. Pirow entered into an agreement for 15 years with the British Overseas Airways Corporation to supply the whole of the overseas Britain-Union service, the whole of that, all the way to Durban, and that that agreement does not expire until 1952.

When was that agreement made; was it 1937?

The agreement was made in 1937 or 1938.

That was the United Party Government.

It was Mr. Pirow.

He could not have made it without the Government.

It was a United Party not a Nationalist Government.

I have tried sincerely to keep this debate on a non-political level. The moment I tell them that the agreement was entered into by the then Minister of Railways with the United Kingdom for 15 years ….

I always thought there was something wrong with Pirow.

The moment I tell them that, they immediately drag in the political aspect. I do not know what Mr. Pirow’s real political convictions were. The political point is not important. The important point is that if we had not made this new agreement with the consent of the United Kingdom Government, we would have been compelled to keep their services till 1952—and where would our pilots have been then? I want to impress that upon the House because I am persuaded that we have not made such a bad agreement at all. I do not think the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) was quite fair to me in some of the remarks he made. First of all he misled the House in stating that all the machines used in our domestic as well as our overseas service, had to be York machines. I never said so. I have never said so in this debate. If I used language which could possibly be interpreted as meaning that, then I am very sorry and I apologise to the House, but I do not think I did because I only referred very briefly in my remarks to the domestic service. The York machine is confined meantime to the overseas trunk route. Normally it will not even go to Cape Town, although I do not want to say that on occasions it will not fly to Cape Town but it is essentially a trunk route machine and as a trunk route machine it is one of the best we can find, and I want to assure the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) that we decided on that machine on the advice of our best aeronautical experts, the best officers we have, not only in the Airways but in Defence. They were agreed about the wisdom of that particular step. I hope it will now be quite clear to the House that in so far as aeroplanes are concerned, the York is confined to the trunk routes as far as we have gone. I am today flying American planes. The South African Airways have never had British planes. They started with German planes, and then they took American planes, and today they are flying with American planes, and I want to say that the American plane is everything that one can desire. Our American planes have given us the greatest satisfaction, but it does not necessarily mean that we are still compelled to use American planes. I am quite prepared to consider the question of buying American planes for our services, but the American Government cannot deliver. We heard a great deal about bringing planes out and having a test, and apparently the hon. member for Humansdorp and the hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) were going to settle the fate of our airway services for us. But I think sometimes hon. members in this House forget that there is still a war on, that these planes are not available. I told the American agent who came to see me only the other day, that when he was able to promise deliveries, I would be prepared to talk to him about any business that I might possibly have with him. That is the position. I as a wise business man am not tying myself down to any particular aeroplane until such time as I know I am going to get delivery, because when I can get delivery, then I will buy the best, and when I say I will buy the best, I will buy the best according to the advice of the most expert aeronautical advisers I can get in this country.

Have you made any attempt to find out whether you can get delivery from America?

Yes, I know exactly what I can get from America. The American Government cannot supply me with American planes of the best type. Does the hon. member accept that?

Yes.

The hon. member for Moorreesburg also misquoted me in referring to my remarks about the agreement being of twelve months’ duration only. He said he hoped it would be for a year only and I said I hoped it would be for a much longer period than a year. That is what happened, but what he said was that I said this in relation to the time we would be using York machines, which is quite another matter, and I never expressed any opinon as to whether we would be using York machines for any period at all. The hon. member also went hopelessly wrong in his idea about depreciation. I do not think he understands the financial aspect of this question, because as I explained to the House we were taking over on charter the York machines on the basis of depreciating them over a period of seven years, i.e. every year we hold the machines we write off one-seventh of its costs, and if at the end of two years we hand it back, obviously, of course, we hand it back less two-sevenths of its cost, i.e. we pay two-sevenths of its cost, and the British Government accept liability for the remaining five-sevenths. That is quite clear, but what issue does the hon. member raise? He asks “Who is going to decide the value at which we return those machines”, clearly showing that he does not understand the basic financial principles of which we have been talking. I want to make it quite clear to hon. members that there is no question of any debate as to what the machines will cost when we hand them back. They will be handed back without commitments at the time we hand them back; we will then have paid the British Government one-seventh of the cost per annum in respect of the period we used the machines. Then there is another misconception I want to remove. We hear frequent references in this House to subsidy payments as if a subsidy payment was a payment just to help a service to run. But these payments are not really subsidies. They have been called subsidies, but I do think that is a misnomer. These payments are made to cover the cost of the conveyance of mail to and from the United Kingdom, and they are not ex gratia payments merely to cover some losses; they are definite payments against services rendered like any other payments, and it would be very much better to calf them mail contract payments than to imply that they are subsidies. I know, of course, that we always talk about mail subsidies, but it is a misnomer and it is apt to mislead people who do not know very much about the facts as to the reality of these particular payments. I do not think that I need deal at any length with the points raised between the hon. member for Humansdorp and the hon. member for Sunnyside, except to say that if any opportunity does offer—but I do not think it will offer until we are much further through the war than we are—to get suitable machines out here. I shall be very pleased to give members of Parliament an opportunity to have an inspection. The machines we have had out here are mostly of a highly technical character, which would convey very little to the layman. But if machines become available and they come out here, if they are suitable for passenger traffic so that any passenger can appreciate what they are like, then I should be only too happy to provide hon. members with an opportunity to test them.

I do not want to be used as live bait. I would like experts to test them.

The hon. member does not want to test them himself; he wants experts to test them. On that issue the hon. member and I are in entire agreement.

Yes, I do not know what is best.

I would also like to point out that when you talk about an aeroplane for a particular service, you cannot talk about the best aeroplane. The best aeroplane which has to take hops like the Main Trunk Route hops of anything up to 2,000 miles, will obviously not be the best aeroplane to take a hop of 1,000 miles. The best aeroplane is not the make of aeroplane, the best aeroplane is the one with the right specifications suitable for the particular work that that aeroplane has to do; and therefore when you talk about the best aeroplane, I think you ought to qualify that by saying the best aeroplane for any particular job. But as I have explained to the House we are not committed to any particular aeroplane as far as the domestic services of this country are concerned, and whether it is British or American, does not concern us particularly. I hold the American plane in very high respect. I am only sorry that they are using members of the Opposition as their sales agents because I do not think that is the best way they will succeed in selling then planes. But in spite of that fact, I do not want to depry the American planes. It is a first rate job. I agree that America, as far as transport planes are concerned, not fighting planes, has scored an enormous advantage over Great Britain. But as we owe so much to Great Britain I am not prepared to allow that fact to influence me too far in neglecting Great Britain at this stage.

I rise to try and correct a misinterpretation, to put it mildly, of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer) in connection with the interjection I made. But before doing so I would like to refer to what the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) said. He referred to the difference between the discussion today and the discussion in this House last Friday. Well, I think the difference is due probably to the fact that “Die Burger” which largely dominates our friends opposite, found it inconvenient to have the discussion last Friday, in view of the fact that their representative in America is, I understand, trying to get business for “Die Burger”. So we have a sudden change of front and we have had that change repeatedly. A couple of weeks ago the hon. member for George (Mr. Werth) raised the question of Bretton Wood. They do not know where they stand except from the point of view that on every occasion they think they can have a dig at Great Britain, they are prepared to do so regardless of logic and regardless of the attitude they have taken up from time to time. That is the actual position. They attacked the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister about handing South Africa over to the United States of America, and then latterly we were told that because’ the United States of America is a republic—and the Nationalist Party wants a republic—and that they are competing for trade with Great Britain, that therefore it may be worth while to support the United States. But the whole of the discussion today has one object, and that is to create friction between the three great Powers. They try to do it between us and the Soviet, and they try to do it between us and the United States, and I venture to say that they will not succeed. Those three great Powers will continually work in harmony for the peace and welfare of the world as they have done in the war, and they will know that they can trust the people who fought with them rather than those who were against them. But the practical issue of the point that the hon. member for Humansdorp was trying to get at by a process of cross-examination across the floor of the House is a very simple one. I said by way of an interjection, and I say now, that it would be foolish on the part of Great Britain, and it would be more foolish of us to expect it, to use American planes when they are themselves manufacturing planes, on a route which is virtually an all-British route. If we want to use a different plane on that route, then obviously all we could do would be to use our planes up to the Limpopo and then to have our passengers transferred into British planes and travelling on to London. But that you cannot possibly have, and to work it on a different basis would be the most unbusinesslike method imaginable. I think the hon. Minister is perfectly right, quite apart from any sentimental issue, but from a practical point of view he is perfectly right in entering into this agreement with Great Britain, and I have no doubt that when the time comes to have an air service between South Africa and the American continent, that arrangement will be made not with Great Britain but with the United States, because from a practical point of view it would be more feasible and practical to work with the United States in order to have that air route to the American continent. And so far as South Africa is concerned, in South Africa we will be using other kinds of planes. In the past we have been buying German eingines which had to be hung up because they were of no value whatever. We have in the past entered into unreasonable and unfair arrangements with Italy to the prejudice of Great Britain, but from a practical point of view our business is to try and build up trade for South Africa with Great Britain. When we come to build up trade with America we will be able to negotiate with the American Government and I am sure that when that takes place the American Government will probably say— and we will have to accept that—that on that route we are going to use American planes and not British planes. Until such time as we can control the whole of the African British route and manufacture planes which may be better than that of Great Britain or of any other country, until that time our arrangements have to be made on an ordinary business basis with the people who can give us the best service. Under those circumstances I can only come to one conclusion and that is that our friends’ whole attitude is not that they are concerned about the well-being and interests of the United States, but their whole attitude is to throw a spanner in the works, to create friction between us and the Commonwealth and the United States, and I am confident that they will not succéed.

I am pleased that the hon. Minister made a statement this afternoon to which one can pay a little more attention than the statement he made yesterday afternoon. The Minister’s reply yesterday to the arguments of the hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. F. C. Erasmus) was simply this: “You have fallen for American propaganda.”

And you have fallen for German propaganda.

Since that hon. member has interjected it is interesting to see what arguments have been advanced by hon. members on the other side. The hon. member for Pretoria (Sunnyside) (Mr. Pocock) stated that the Avro York could not be bad and in order to prove that, he told us how’ the British bombers and fighters had swept the seas clear of submarines. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) even went so far this afternoon as to drag the soldiers into this debate. He stated that we on this side had insulted the soldiers. I then asked him on what date that had happened. His reply was: “On the 12th February, 1940.” But I have a little experience of that hon. member, and I then decided to look up the debate. Do you know what I found?. The 12th February was a Sunday and Parliament did not sit at all.

I said the 12th, May.

Yes, I am sorry, it was the 12th May.

I will show it to you; it is there.

It is not there either.

That is cheap.

Cannot one accept that hon. member’s word? He stated here: “It is a fact; you can look it up in Hansard.” I looked at Hansard and I found that the 12th May,1940, was a Sunday and that Parliament did not sit at all.

That is cheap.

One cannot take any notice of that hon. member; but I want to address a few words to the Minister of Transport in connection with the reply which he gave to the hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) this morning. The argument of the hon. member for Ceres was that as far as Britain was concerned, the Chicago Conference had been a failure. Thereafter the National Air Transport Council was formed. The hon. Minister stated in his reply: “No, you were wrong; the National Air Transport Council was first formed and thereafter we went to Chicago.” I want to tell hon. members what Lord Swinton said when he reported in the House of Lords. Inter alia, he used the following words—

He went on to say—

If the Minister of Transport still has any doubt, he should look at the leading article which appeared in the “London Times”, and there he will see very clearly what happened. It is stated in this leading article—

Can the Minister of Transport still have any doubt? It seems to me that Lord Swinton did not inform him at all. [Quorum.] This whole question which has developed here is a preconceived plan to which the Minister of Transport simply had to agree. I say that in the first place because he stated yesterday afternoon that the Avro York was not decided upon at this international conference in Cape Town; he stated that he had not come to any agreement about it previously. But I want to ask the Minister on what date it was agreed upon that the Avro York would be the aeroplane which would be used by us between this country and London. Let me put it this way. When this Government bought an Avro York for £53,000, the Minister was faced with an accomplished fact. We did not even know whether we were buying the machine or whether it was a gift. The fact is that the Chicago Conference was a failure as far as the British Government was concerned. The Commonwealth Air Transport Council was then established to look after the interests of the Empire. If the Minister has any doubt I would ask him to read what is stated in the “London Times” of the 2nd February, 1945. This was written by the correspondent of the “Times”— “Future of Air Transport; The Development of Commercial Enterprise; British American Contrasts”. From that article it appears clearly that there is a clash of interests between America and England in regard to post-war aviation. It is stated that America was so far ahead of England in this war that they had many aeroplanes and that they were making use of those aeroplanes during the war to send heavy loads to all parts of the world, and that they had a tremendous advantage over England. It was even stated in the House of Lords that England had to go hat in hand to America. May I just quote what is, stated in this article by the correspondent—

It is stated that America has made more progress in the field of aviation during this war than she would have been able to make in twenty-five years of peace. The article goes on to describe how America flies eight aeroplanes per day from America to Australia. It goes on to say how the air route from the east coast of America to China has been stabilised. The writer then goes on to speak of the excellent aeroplanes which the Americans have today. The same correspondent writes the following—

That is what causes concern in England. There is a clash of interests between England and America. The correspondent concludes with this sentence—

You’re telling me.

That is typical of the mentality of the hon. member who is so interested when we talk about coloured persons and who dances with coloureds.

On a point of order, is the hon. member entitled to use language of that description?

What is the point of order?

I understood the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) to accuse the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) of dancing with coloureds.

I did not say that.

You did say it.

Surely you said it.

Did the hon. member say it?

No, I did not say it. [Time limit.]

When the House adjourned last night I was appealing to the hon. Minister to investigate the conditions prevailing in the various government garages. I do not wish to keep the Committee long, except to draw the attention of the Minister to some of the points which could be covered by such an investigation.

There is an enquiry now.

I am very pleased: indeed to hear that. I hope that that enquiry will cover the following points particularly: Firstly, that today those men have no security of tenure as far as employment is concerned. Secondly there is a very great percentage of temporary men as against permanent men. I think the hon. Minister will agree that it is not desirable for temporary employees to do responsible work such as driving. The other point which I would like to be covered is Sunday time and overtime. Although the hours of duty are fixed from, say, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. the driver very often has to take a government official or even a Cabinet Minister to some destination or other at 7 o’clock in the morning. He has to leave his house very early in order to be on time for the appointment. In the evening he might have to drop his passenger miles away from where he stays or from his headquarters, and that time is not covered by overtime. As a matter of fact there is no overtime paid, and the little overtime, 9d. is so ridiculous, that it is not worth while mentioning. I may point out to the Minister that we have a wage determination with regard to transport drivers on the Rand. There are various determinations, and they vary. You have, for example, with regard to the tram and bus drivers in Johannesburg an actual industrial agreement which was laid down by the Conciliation Board. In industry outside the municipality, the baking industry and the coal distribution industry, and in ordinary contract work you again have agreements, wage determinations, and it does appear odd that you have men doing the same type of work for the same rates, and yet conditions prevailing are different. I submit that when private enterprise can pay decent wages in keeping with a decent standard of living, the Government should be the last to pay wages which are open to criticism. Moreover the Minister will agree that there are fairly many jobs going outside the Government service, and that if he does not pay attractive wages to these men he cannot blame them if they leave the service, except for this, that they suffer by doing that, inasmuch as they have wasted years of their lives in the Government service. I am glad to hear from the Minister that there is a commission investigating the matter at present. I do not know whether he refers to the Public Service Commission of Enquiry.

No, it is a special enquiry.

I am glad, and will not detain the Committee but will hand over a memorandum to the Minister later on in the week.

I was busy indicating how there was an agreement by the British Empire after it could not get its own way at Chicago, and how it then tried to utilise the British Commonwealth and to get it to co-operate in order to place British aviation on a sound footing after the war. I further want to quote from a leading article of the London Times. There had been a suggestion in England itself that aviation should be left to private enterprise so that it could compete with American aviation. Now we find the following in the London Times—

That subsidy is not the same thing as our provisions.

I will read further, and then the Minister can see what it means—

That is precisely how the Commonwealth Air Transport Board was formed by the British Government in co-operation with the Governments of the Colonies. In England we find that they said that it was better to leave it to private enterprise, because private enterprise cannot negotiate with the British Colonies. That was done by the British Government, so that it could discuss subsidies and arrange for such subsidies. That is what has now happened in this House. I say that the Minister came here and had no choice. The plan was arranged beforehand. That is why the Minister did not even argue as to whether the Avro York is a suitable aircraft or not. He says that it was pre-arranged. He only had to say yes to it. I now want to leave this point and confine myself for a moment to the personnel of the air services. I have already spoken to the Minister about it on several occasions. I pointed out that it was an unsound position that the Chief Director of Aviation should receive a salary of £1,400 per annum and that he is employed overseas. Then we have the Acting Director who receives a salary of £1,800. I now want to ask the Minister this. What special qualifications has that Acting Director?

That payment falls under the Railway Estimates, and the hon. member cannot deal with it here.

Good. Then I will do so later.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 21.—“Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones”, £5,850,000.

May I avail myself of the half-hour privilege?

Why do you require half-an-hour?

I hope the hon. member will remain quiet and not cause any further disturbance so that we can continue with the debate. I should like, in the first place, in connection with the vote “Posts and Telegraphs”, to direct attention to the surplus that has been made by the post office. I think that we in this House and the general public should bear in mind the reduction of postal staff that was made and that we should not lose sight of the fact this depleted staff succeeded in the circumstances in building up a surplus. I do not think that the Minister can take much credit to himself for this surplus. When the Minister refers to the post office surplus he throws out his chest, but that surplus exists despite the fact that the people in the post office are working on meagre remuneration that there is a shortage of staff, and an enormous increase in the amount of work. As the Minister is allowing this, and as there is such a surplus I think the Minister might well focus his attention on an increase of salaries in the post office. Despite the conditions under which these people are working the clerical and other staff in the post office have done their best to give these results.

I agree with you.

When we talk of the salaries of these people I want to make an appeal to the Minister. We know a commission was appointed and that the salaries were increased, but I do not think it was taken far enough. A male person on entering the service of the post office is given a salary of £140 a year, and a female £132 10s. If the person is married he receives an allowance of £56, and if single an allowance of £28. I do not think this is an encouragement for the right type of person to enter the postal service. It will not encourage young people to choose the post office as their career; but I do not want to dwell on that at present. Seeing that there is a big surplus the Minister ought not to use the post office as a taxing machine. In the present circumstances he ought to revert immediately to the penny post on letters, as it was before the war. Then there is another thing which occasions great inconvenience to the public, and that is that the telephone charges have been increased by 10 per cent. The Minister knows that it is very difficult to get a through call today. I am not casting any reflection on the staff, nor at the moment on the Minister. I am speaking on rhe merits of the case. When we want to ring up someone in Cape Town it takes a long time before we can get into touch with the staff in the post office, and then the Minister increases the charge by 10 per cent.

It is 12½ per cent.

Then it is 2½ per cent. worse than I thought. Then there is something else that is very annoying. Post office accounts have to be paid before a certain day in the month. A person may be away. Members of Parliament are away from home and they cannot pay the accuont on due date, with the result that their line is cut off. When people ring up that number they are told that it has been cut off. When the person returns he has to pay 5s. to have the connection restored. I think the Minister will admit that this sort of thing is unnecessary, and I want to make an appeal to him to have the practice discontinued. I should now like to talk about the post office in general. The present Minister is of course not an exception in relation to the Ministers who have preceded him. So I am not criticising him only, but all the Ministers right through until now. They have never taken up a sympathetic attitude towards the Afrikaans-speaking section of the people. [Interruptions.] I hope my friends on the other side will not become obsteperous too quickly, but that they will listen to what I have to say: Under previous governments we have always had an English-speaking Minister of Posts, and on many occasions a unilingual English-speaking Minister. When I write to the post office they usually reply in the language in which my letter was addressed to them. But because the Minister is unilingual and because most of the heads of the post office are English-speaking, all the work in the post office itself is done in English. I have no objection to English being used together with Afrikaans.

We thank you very much for that concession.

I hope that hon. members will not be frivolous and indulge in such interjections. He knows that we have no objection to English being used in the post office, but he will no doubt also agree that it is not right that all the internal correspondence in the post office should be conducted in English. Not only are the notices usually drawn up in English and then translated into Afrikaans, but in many instances they are only in English, especially when a stamp is placed on anything. I want to give an example of this. I have a petrol coupon here and the name on it is only in English.

You should not blame the post office for that.

I am not dealing now with the petrol coupon itself, but with the way it is stamped by the post office. The name of the place is only in English. Then I have before me a post card, namely a notification that the telephone account must be paid. That also has been stamped and if the Minister can distinguish anything else but English in the mark of that stamp I should be glad if he would show it to me. Then I have something else here, and I think I as an Afrikaans-speaking person am fully entitled to take exception to it. It is a notification of a letter that has been redirected. Not only is English first used on the envelope but the native language is used in front of the Afrikaans. I have it here, and the Minister can see for himself. It was addressed from Cape Town to George. Not only is the Afrikaans used after English, but it even comes after the native language. Now I want to go a little further. I put a question to the Minister on a previous occasion whether it is not possible for Europeans and non-Europeans to be attended to in separate places in the post office. I will say in the Minister’s favour, that at some places he has made an effort to let the Europeans and non-Europeans enter by separate doors, but I want to tell him that this is not being carried out. I would like to ask him to have definite separate places where Europeans and non-Europeans can be attended to. He may have separate entrances, but when we are in the post office especially on those days when pensions are paid out, it is absolutely impossible for any respectable European to endure the conditions that exist. The people in the post office are standing in a queue, and European men and women have to stand behind nonEuropean men and women in that queue. This is not only undesirable but it is unpleasant and the principle is wrong, as hon. members will readily realise. The Minister will admit that this is a condition of affairs he ought to alter. I admit that the Minister is not the first scapegoat in this connection. But he is now responsible, and the position is a hundred times worse under the control of the present Minister, not because he is Minister, but because the circumstances of the work have become such that it has greatly increased compared to what it was under previous Ministers. I recently put a question to the Minister in connection with the clerical staff of the post office. But I should like first to say something further about telephonists. The Minister gave me the hours the telephonists have to work. I admit that the Minister added that in certain circumstances individuals had to work longer hours. Now I want to give the Minister an assurance that the hours he mentioned to me may be entirely correct under the prescribed work schedule, but in practice it seldom happens that those telephonists work the hours mentioned by him in the post office. Here in the Cape Peninsula there are young women who work from 9 o’clock in the morning to 9 o’clock in the evening. They work 12 hours a day. When we look in there and see what work they are doing, how they have incessantly to be moving their arms to put through the calls we can realise immediately that a person cannot remain healthy, that she must get into a nervous condition when she has to work 12 hours, 11 hours, or even 10 hours running on that sort of work. The Minister should make another arrangement in regard to these women. He could arrange matters preferably so that such persons should have more frequent shifts and’ so that they would not need to work for such long periods continuously. I hope the Minister will take this into consideration. The next point on which I should like to speak refers to the clerical staff. There is a shortage of clerical staff. The Minister is aware there is more work to be done in the Post Office today than was previously performed by a larger staff. In this connection, to revert for a moment to the telephonists, I put a question to the Minister. The question was, in the first place, how many of them left the service in 1944 and what reasons they gave for resigning from the service. The Minister’s reply was that 442 had resigned. He said 120 of them had resigned to get married. The others resigned to take up other employment. I am not referring now to those who left in order to get married, but in respect of the remainder if is a fact that a large number of telephonists left the service to seek other employment. It is a proof that the work is unattractive and unbearable to these people, and consequently I urge on the Minister that the working hours of these women should be reduced. I also put a question to the Minister in regard to the use of certain telephone lines by the military authorities. The Minister replied that at present seven lines were being used by the military. We know that the telephone connections often become defective. One day I picked up a telephone while here in the Cape, and unfortunately I was connected with one of the military lines. Two officers were engaged in conversation on this line that is reserved for the military, so that the public have to endure the inconvenience of not being able to utilise that line. These were two officers at different places. The one told the other that the previous evening he had been with a convivial party and that he had a bad hangover. They both laughed at that and they chatted for quite 15 minutes. At the end of the conversation it struck one of the officers what he wanted to talk to the other one about, and he then asked him to send some fish to a certain camp.

And you listened all the time.

The general public who want to use the telephone and who wish to put through much more important calls than these cannot use the telephone because it is set aside for the military. I am not going to say that all military conversations are of this character, but many of them certainly are, and I think the Minister should give his attention to the matter. I think seeing the war had advanced to the stage it has now reached ….

To the stage that the Russians are in Berlin.

Yes, and you have a bee in your bonnet. Seeing the war has reached its present stage, the Minister should ascertain whether he cannot get some of these lines back. Take the line between Stellenbosch and Somerset West. It is 13 miles and it takes about quarter of an hour by car, but it is nothing unusual to wait for an hour and an hour-and-a-half to get through a telephone call. I think the Minister should therefore try to improve that telephone line. Then I come to the telephone call boxes outside the Post Office that are used by the public. We have asked the Minister of Transport to make provision for separate coaches for the use of Europeans and non-Europeans, and he has already made provision for separate benches for Europeans and non-Europeans. I want to ask the Minister of Posts to put up separate call boxes for Europeans and non-Europeans. If it is necessary to have separate benches for Europeans and non-Europeans on the railways hon. members will agree with me it is a hundred times more necessary to have separate telephone call boxes for Europeans and non-Europeans. I hope it will not be necessary for me to go into particulars as to why I am asking this. A nod is as good as a wink and I doubt whether anyone will question the desirability of this. The Minister replied that he is already doing this at certain centres. I should like to know where it is being done. I want to ask the Minister whether in the Cape Peninsula there is one telephone office that may not be used by Europeans or one that may not be used by non-Europeans. I want to ask him to provide telephones that can be used only by non-Europeans, and others that can be used solely by Europeans. Now I turn to something in connection with which I think the Minister will agree there is not a healthy condition of affairs. We have spoken about unilingualism in the Post Office. I shall endeavour to avoid employing the same arguments in connection with unilingualism as have been used in the past. I have even endeavoured to avoid mentioning instances where on putting through a call to a department in the post office you are requested to wait while the person answering calls someone who can understand Afrikaans. Why is that? The hon. Minister says that a test is given for bilingualism in connection with promotions. There are people who have to undergo the bilingual test before they can fill a higher post. I should like to read the question I put to the Minister—

1. (a) By what official or officials in his Department are language tests conducted, and
2. (b) by whom are they appointed.

Unfortunately the Minister did not answer that. He took all my questions together and then gave some sort of reply. Furthermore. I asked—

The Minister in his reply stated that juniors in the post office had given tests in bilingualism to their seniors. Now I want to put to the House, in all reasonableness: A junior in the department is dependent for his promotion on the recommendation of his chiefs. I think if the Minister gets a recommendation in connection with who should be promoted in a department it goes through the head of a department and reaches him in that way. Supposing the departmental head is unilingual, and I am one of his juniors and I have to give a language test to the chief in connection with his biligualism, and I come to the conclusion that he is not bilingual and fail him, what hope have I of promotion when it lies more or less in his hands? And here you have the position that junior clerks have to give senior officials tests. What is the result? The junior official is afraid of failing his senior;. The hon. member laughs. I want to ask hon. members who are capable of judging the question impartially whether they think the system that seniors have to be examined by juniors in regard to bilingualism is a good system. I ask the Minister how many failed and he said that he did not know the number. I asked what tests he gave for instance to senior officials. He replied that he could not cite an example, and that it was read out of a book. I think that is a position that must be altered, and if there are people in the post office who cannot speak English, the same thing applies to them. I think we should have a system under which an impartial person puts the test in English and Afrikaans in order to determine whether a person is bilingual. I am certain, for instance, that if the Minister’s Secretary tested him to ascertain whether he was bilingual, the Secretary would give a better report on the Minister’s ability than I would, who stand outside. It is just the same in the post office; if you are a junior in the post office and you have to test a senior, we can imagine what sort of report it will be. Now I want to turn to something else, and mention the matter of the Broadcasting Corporation. Until just before the war the Broadcasting Corporation was not one of the places where politics played a big rôle. I think all sides of the House and the Ministers who were then responsible took up the attitude that politics as such had to be eliminated in the Broadcasting Corporation. Now I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) that I do not want to speak on the pronunciation of English over the wireless. English-speaking members can express their opinion on that better than I. But I have noticed when it comes to French names, the pronunciation of French names, they are at great pains to try to pronounce the name as it is in that language. Over a period of six months I have listened specially to names coming over the Afrikaans radio, or over the English radio. You get, for example, a place such as “Wine Berg”. I think English-speaking members will agree with me there is no such a place. There is Wynberg, but not “Wine Berg”.

Has it always been Wynberg?

Yes.

In the time of the Dutch as well?

Yes, of course.

Then you get a place like “Fish Hoek”. There is no such place, because there is no “oek” in English. Then you come to a place like “Cork Bay” instead of “Kalkbaai” and “Ronde Bush” instead of Rondebosch, and a place like “Piquetberg”.

“Steen Berg.”

And you get a place like “Bloemfonteen”. Where is such a place? Then there is “Krugersdorp” and “Randfonteen”. I want to ask the Minister why they are so concerned about the French name and whether it is not time that they took a little trouble about pronouncing Afrikaans names over the radio. While I am talking about names I want to express my disappointment on behalf of a great number of Afrikaans-speaking people about the manner in which Afrikaans is spoken over the wireless. This has nothing to do with English, and I am not speaking about the English accent, but when plays are produced over the wireless in Afrikaans one does not hear Afrikaans spoken as it is in ordinary usage but you hear an unnatural dialect that you never hear in the ordinary course, only over the wireless. We want to make an appeal to people who give us Afrikaans over the wireless to speak like ordinary people. Now I come to the management of the Broadcasting Corporation. As I have said, until the war the wireless was kept out of politics, but from the commencement of the war the management unfotunately adopted a definite political attitude. [Time limit.]

I regret that the time at my disposal is so short as I have a great deal of matter to bring up on the question of broadcasting. I should like to tell the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) that at any rate the Minister will deal with the points he raised, but there is one curious faux pas he made, perhaps unconsciously. He said amongst the things he noticed stamped on the envelopes were “Unknown”, “Inconnu” and “Onbekend” and he said “Inconnu” was a kaffir word.

That shows his ignorance.

He spoke a great deal about French. I should have thought he would have known, as the whole world knows, that “Inconnu” is the French word for unknown.

On a point of explanation, I merely want to say that I went to members of the Senate who are conversant with native languages, representatives of the Party on the opposite benches, and they told me it was the native language.

My hon. friend is entirely wrong. The kaffir word is “Ikona”. That is what I said to my hon. friend, “Ikona”. The word on the envelope is “Inconnu”, the French word for unknown, and it is known all over the world. My hon. friend found an insult their for Afrikaans. I think he will have to cry “peccavi” on that point. [Interruption.] The Minister will no doubt deal with that, but some people will never recognise their mistakes. I thought the hon. member was big enough to recognise he had made a faux pas, but apparently he wants to go on. But to deal with the question of broadcasting; I have raised this question more than once. I have tried to get my point of view taken up by the Minister since 1936, I regret to say with no success. I think the time has come when the Minister should appoint a commission of enquiry into the working of the Broadcasting Corporation, and he suggested last Session there should be a Select Committee. The only one who can move for such a Select Committee is the Minister himself. Anyone else will have very little opportunity of bringing it before the House an account of the limited time for private members, and it will only pass this House with the authority of the Government. If the Minister does accept the idea, it is hopeless to ask a private member to move for such a committee. One of the first points a commission should deal with after going into the working of the Corporation is the provision of “B” stations in addition to the main “A” stations. One of the big difficulties is that we are confined to one set of stations, and there is an absolute monopoly in programmes. There is no competition and you cannot have any criticism or comparison. One of the first things that should be done and can be done under the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act is that the Government should take it over. Provision is made in the Broadcasting Act for the Government taking it over. The Government should take it over and there should be “B” stations, as in Australia. The hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the question of politics. It never has been the custom to allow politics on “A” stations, except possibly the leaders of Parties on the policy of the day, but not any other form of political talk or political addresses, but when you get “B” stations you would have no difficulty, because on all “B” stations in Australia it is perfectly open, anybody can buy the air. It would be especially useful in these wide spaces where persons on the farms are so far away from large cities that they cannot go to public meetings. There they use the “B” stations for all political meetings. Anybody can buy the air.

Is it hot air?

The hon. member might perhaps have a little hot air if he pays for it, and he can listen to it without paying for it. The “B” stations are a recognised thing, and it is a very powerful force because you reach people you would not be able to reach otherwise. You cannot have these talks very well on “A” stations, but if you have “B” stations that is one of the improvements that can be effected, I would first like to correct some information that was given to me and that I passed on in the House in good faith. I said that there had been no report since 1942. I have written to the Minister on this. I must have misunderstood the Clerk of the Papers. I found the report for 1941 was prepared and tabled in 1943. That was the last printed report, but the reports for 1942 and 1943 were tabled in 1944, one in January and the other in April. I am glad to make this correction. Even so the position is very unsatisfactory, that the reports for 1942 and 1943 should be tabled only in 1944. The Broadcasting Act makes specific provision when these reports should be in the hands of the Minister and then placed before Parliament, and that has not been compiled with. I should like to know from the Minister whether the other provisions of the Act have been carried out. Whether the insurance scheme for the workers in the Broadcasting Act has been brought into effect, and generally speaking, is there anybody who supervises the activities of the Corporation with the idea of seeing that the various protective provisions of Act 1922 of 1936, the Broadcasting Act, are carried out. I should like very much to know that. In looking through the report for 1943 I notice that the Reserve and Development Funds are getting bigger and bigger, and I also notice there has been a very considerable decrease in the number of new listeners’ licences as compared with the previous year. The reasons are given there, but they do not include one reason which I am sure has operated in many cases, that is the dissatisfaction that prevails regarding the programmes that are presented, and the way in which the business generally of the corporation is being carried on. The position is very very serious, but there is no means of gauging it by public tests. They have not a scout system as in England, and other places, where they go amongst the public and find out what the people want, whether they are satisfied or dissatisfied. Apparently as far as the programmes are concerned, the director is the dictator, and the governors are not interested in the details of the programmes. That is how it appears to me. The advisory councils are not properly used by the corporation; many of them never meet. They are not asked to criticise or advise on the programmes, and even if they are asked they are not in the position to gauge public tastes. On these boards as well as on the corporation, you have estimable gentlemen, but not the kind of people who know how to run the Broadcasting Corporation. They are out of touch with the people. They are men of a high intellectual type, most of them professors, very good men, but quite unsuitable when they are in a body like that. There are too many of one particular class of person and too few of those who know how to run a broadcasting programme. One would like to know from the Minister who is the arbiter of the programme. Am I right in saying it is the director and he alone, and the governors have nothing to do with it? You want a competitive system, not only “A” but also “B” listeners, who will be in competition with the “A” station, under proper control of course. Under that system they do not charge; they make their money out of advertisements, and it has become a very popular thing in America and an undoubted success in Australia. The result of putting all this money into the reserve fund for television and other things in the future is that our artists are starved and our programmes are most inadequate. A huge profit is being made by the corporation out of listeners’ fees; we pay the highest listeners’ licence in the world. The B.B.C. only charge 10s., Australia £1 1s. and here we charge £1 15s. It is practically a taxing machine, because they get this money out of the pockets of the public and tuck it away, and in the course of time everything is starved. The programmes are starved, the artists are starved, and well known artists and writers who might be made use of are not called upon. Popular people are being got rid of. That has happened to the commentators. Apparently the rule has been laid down by the corporation that if you have been a commentator on any subject for a few years you must be got rid of. [Time limit.]

I agree with much of the criticism that has been offered by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander), but I wish to go very much further. In so far as the Board is concerned, I think that the long-suffering public have suffered too long already at their hands; you have on that Board too large a proportion of professors of an almost hysterical type, people who see “visions” and whose competence for the ordinary sane business of running a broadcast concern is completely conspicuous by its absence. The other day I asked the Minister Whether he could give us the names the ages and the salaries of these various people, and he was kind enough to do so, but in that connection I asked also to be informed of the various other posts held by the members of the Board of Governors. I was surprised to hear from the Minister this was a private matter that could not be imparted to the House. I regard that as a very unsatisfactory answer. There is no such thing as it being a private matter not to be disclosed where a person elects to serve on a board like the Broadcasting Board, which is supposed to be controlled by Parliament, and then having taken all manner of other posts, to say this is a private matter which he is not prepared to disclose. I believe one of these gentlemen belongs to the fisheries industry. He has one foot on the Broadcasting Board and another foot in the fisheries at £1,000 per annum.

He is the best man on the Board.

He may be, but I strongly object to anybody who is identified at all closely with business at the same time maintaining that he can give the time required for the broadcasting business affairs which are very serious. Let me indicate to the Minister the state of affairs which exists in regard to the chairman of the Board, that fatted favourite of the Government who gets £1,500 a year for being thoroughly incompetent and useless for the position to which he has been elevated. I understand last year they held twelve meetings, most of which lasted for two hours. At the rate of £1,500 a year this man is being remunerated at the rate of £62 10s. per hour.

He serves the whole year round and is chairman of the Board.

It is hard to see how as chairman of the Board he can be serving the whole year round when the members of the Board have had only twelve meetings lasting on an average two hours.

He is a full-time official.

He may be a full-time official but as chairman of the Board it is quite well known his administrative duties are nil. He never administers anything, even if he were competent to do so. He is confined to his duties in presiding over meetings as chairman of the Board, and I say again there have been twelve meetings of the Board of about two hours each, over which he has presided, and at that rate of salary he is getting more than a mining magnate.

What about the Senate, they get paid at a much higher rate.

I am not allowed to offer criticisms upon the Senate, not criticisms of that kind, because they are in no way subordinate to this House. There is no doubt that the mass of information which is accumulating in regard to the dissatisfaction of the public with this Board should have reached and influenced the Minister by this time. He should be more alive to the almost unanimous opinion in this country that these people are not worth the money they are receiving, and the time is far overdue when they should vacate their offices and make room for better men. There is also another matter mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle), that the director is administering the broadcasting and not the Board at all. The Board, for all the good they are doing, and for all the directive and administrative control they may exercise over the affairs of broadcasting, need not exist. They are cyphers in regard to the administrative control or directive control over the organisation. The director, on the other hand, is particularly active; I will not say his activities are appreciated by the public or that they are valued by the public; in fact, I think the reverse is the case. The incapacity of the director is another very serious cause of complaint throughout the Union. You must have somebody who has had the necessary experience and who has the personality to be effective in administering what is a very difficult concern at the best of times. The present director has had a series of disciplinary actions against members of his staff. A condition almost amounting to guerilla warfare exists between the director and some of the members of his staff who were discharged. [Interjection.] The hon. member misunderstands my reference to guerilla warfare. I am referring to the nature of the warfare, the somewhat irregular warfare going on between the parties. There is undoubtedly the grossest favouritism in regard to appointments. We have here, on the strength of the organisation of this body, a lady who is a LieutenantColonel. No, I see I am doing the lady an injustice. She is the wife of a retired railway official who is in receipt of the pay of a Lieutenant-Colonel, and she, on her side, receives quite a fair amount of pay also. I will not give any names, but this will be sufficient to identify her. She has received favoured nation treatment, certainly in regard to her appointment, and she is not the only one. That is one of the gravest complaints against the director, his bias towards favouritism in the selection of his staff which immediately provokes ill-feeling amongst those who have not been treated in a fair and reasonable manner. [Time limit.]

I am very grateful to you for seeing me, Mr. Chairman, because I particularly want to reply to the hon. member for Mossel May (Dr. Van Nierop) who is often missing from this House. He gets up and makes some deplorable statements and then runs out.

It will be much better if you are in your seat as often as I am.

It has got beyond a joke. Whenever the member for Mossel Bay and one or two other satellites on that side of the House have one particular theme in their minds, it is that whenever they are on their feet they attack the English-speaking section on this side, and the English in general, and any product that comes from the British Commonwealth of Nations. Things like that only emanate from very narrow-minded people, and to show you how broad-minded the English-speaking section have been in this House, it is very seldom that an English-speaking member gets up in the House to defend ourselves against it. It shows we are taking it in the right spirit. But I will say this, that these statements come only from a few members on that side. I would like to remind the hon. member of a joke which was told in Cape Town against his hon. Leader. There is no-one in this House who can say that anyone in this House has a better command of Afrikaans than the Leader of the Opposition. The story is that he went into a shop and said: “Ek wil ’n tuin-hose’ koop.” The English-speaking attendant turned round and said: “Meneer, wil jy ’n tuinslang hê?” That is the spirit which is going round the whole of the country. It is the natural courtesy which exists between English and Afrikaans-speaking people right throughout the country. Go to any farm where there is an Afrikaner, and if you speak English and he can ’ speak English he will immediately reply or attempt to in English, and then the English-speaking person usually goes over into his language. That is the courtesy existing outside. There is practically no racialism in this country at all, but racialism is being engendered here in this House by just a few of those members opposite. There are members opposite who think that one day they are going to rule this country.

The hon. member must come back to the vote.

I am speaking on the vote purely and simply because the hon. member for Mossel Bay was ridiculing the English of some of the words given over the broadcast, and therefore I am allowed to refer to that.

Order; order!

The hon. member when he spoke mentioned Bloemfontein. He said that the English called it “Bloomfonteen”. Unfortunately the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) was out of his seat, but he called the hon. member for Green Point “Groen Punt”. I have never heard of that before. We have the hon. member for Swartruggens in this House. We English-speaking can insist on referring to him as the hon. member for Black Ridge? It is so unnecessary; and the hon. member for Roodepoort are we going to call him the member for Red Pass? I can go on like that, but when we have to put up with nonsense like that where will it end? Or Mossel Bay?

What is Mossel Bay? It is Mosselbaai.

It is a thing they do not seem to be able to unders and, those narrow-minded gentlemen opposite. South Africa is a small country with a small population. What about England? If they look up a directory in England and want to know where Bloemfontein is, do they have to look up Flower Garden?

Who said they must?

That is what you are asking for. Surely let us take a sane view of it and let the hon. member remember that there are two sides. The English-speaking people are here to stay and they are as much entitled to stay here as the purely Afrikaans bom. Some of us fortunately have as much English blood as Afrikaans blood, and when this country has a predominance of that particular kind of person we will have the ball at our feet and racialism will disappear.

I do not want to reply to what was said hy the hon. member on the other side because there are a few points which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. I do not propose to take part in this quarrel in regard to the language question, because I want to raise other serious matters. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) spoke of people who have to stand in queues in the post office, where Europeans and non-Europeans are served at the same counter. In Lichtenburg the post office is very small and the public cannot be served properly. As the Minister knows Lichtenburg has expanded considerably and the post office which was probably good enough for the town years ago, is altogether too small now having regard to the expansion of the town and the neighbourhood. I want to ask the Minister to build a bigger post office for us and to give us better facilities. We experience the same difficulty that Europeans and nonEuropeans are served at the same counter. I do not want to quarrel about this, but I want to tell the Minister that there is one door in the post office with a notice bearing the words “Europeans only”. But no steps are taken to see that Europeans only enter that door. Europeans are not the only people who are served at that counter. If the Minister wants to draw a dividing line between Europeans and non-Europeans in the post office he should apply it instead of allowing both races to be served at the same counter. Another point I should like to bring to the notice of the Minister is this. There is a great need for telephone lines in my constitutency, and various attempts have been made by the farmers to get telephone lines. They have inducceeded. It is stated that there is no matter. If the farmer has not got a telephone, he has to travel great distances when he wants a doctor or when he wants to report anything to the police. He has to ride to the police station in order to notify them. If he had a telephone, he could simply telephone them and get assistance. I want to make a plea to the Minister to make available more telephones for the farmers on their farms. The Minister should give preference to the farmers when they apply for telephone lines. As I have already said, applications have often been made in my constituency but these people cannot get assistance.

The hon. member is now advocating the erection of new telephone lines, and that must be done under the Loan Estimates and not under this vote.

I wanted to bring this to the notice of the Minister. There are other needs in connection with the post office as well, but I shall deal with them when we come to the Loan Estimates.

I would just like to continue my remarks. I was referring to the way in which there is a rule that if a man has been there for a certain time he is allowed to go; without finding out whether he is a success; they have adopted the rule that if a man has been a commentator for some time he has to go and a new voice must come on the scene. That is completely contrary to the practice in other countries. In England and Australia we have the position that they find out whether the public likes the man. They send out scouts amongst the public to enquire, and the longer the man is there, with popular approval of course, the better they are pleased. One man had been giving the foreign commentary for 14 years and everyone was delighted with it. As far as I know the only reason for his going out was because they thought his time had expired. I think it is a rotten policy and it is all because the Corporation is not in touch with the public. They do not know what the listeners want. They do not know whether the listeners are satisfied or not. Having no intelligence system of scouts going out to find out, they do not know. The same with talent. There is talent all over the country but they do not know about it. They do not scout for talent. They ought to have scouts looking for talent. Then, the Broadcasting Corporation lives in a state of isolation. In other countries the Broadcasting Corporation does a great service to public causes. Take Australia, which is much more up to date than we are. There they have community singing run by the Corporation in a hall. They do not charge anything, but make a collection. Large sums of money are collected with which they purchased receiving sets and installed them in every hospital in the Commonwealth. Then there is no proper women’s section. They are not in contact with women’s organisations. Are they in contact with S.A.W.A.S., with their members? No. Are they in contact with the Afrikaans women’s associations? No. They are not in contact with anyone but themselves. The whole thing is an antediluvian business and should be got rid of at once. What is the public getting out of it? For all the public gets out of it it might not exist at all. There is no imagination or originality. They have no proper advisers. If they had a proper Advisory Board, with people who know something about broadcasting, there would be something in it. They have a shadow council which hardly ever meets and have no opportunity of criticising programmes. They are a dead or dying body. I suppose they really have nothing to do. They have no responsibilities. The Local Advisory Boards are dead or dying. If any member makes enquiries he will find that, and they are a hopeless failure.

Did you mean the individual members of the Board were dead and dying?

No, the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) will express himself vigorously on that. I did not say they were dead. On the contrary they are very well paid and I have no doubt that they are happy in their jobs. The children’s section has been practically abandoned. Art, music, science, literature and history have been abandoned, all things of value which the educational authorities can use. Broadcasting to schools, as it was undertaken at one time, was quite good, but it is not done sufficiently or sufficiently well now. What about the talent in the country? Have you ever heard of the Board using any nonEuropean talent?

Where do you get your information?

The Minister may take it from me that I will not bring information to this House unless I got it from a good source, but I certainly will not disclose it because it will cause trouble. But the House can take it from me that I have my information from the very best source. I know what happens to people who give information and. I will not disclose it, but the Minister may take it from me that I have long experience in this House and will not give my sources of information; and I am a very good scout for information because I have had much experience. I once more say that the lowest intellectual level in the whole Commonwealth, as regards broadcasting, belongs to South Africa; there is no other place that we have such a state of affairs, and it is about time that it was improved. Do they encourage special features and give people an opportunity to bring forward the best radio plays? We have had some good plays, but as a rule they are very poor. In other parts of the world they are one of the chief features. Do they look for talent amongst children? No. There is no initiative. There are just records, and if local artists are heard at all, they are heard by way of London, on records, but as for engaging these people, the miserable fee of one guinea does not attract them. If they paid five guineas they would get more of them. And the staff have no access to the Governors. They only have access to the director. He is the liaison officer and their complaints are brought to him There should be direct access. In fact, the whole of this antediluvian Corporation should be swept away and under the powers given to the Government by the Act they should take it over and make a decent thing of it.

I want ‘to bring to the notice of the Minister the position of certain employees of the postal service who joined the service prior to Union. That particularly applies to the Transvaal and to Natal. There are cases where these men joined the service under the old regulations of the Transvaal and Natal, under which they retire at the age of 55. During the past few years these men have been denied the right to take their full leave, with the result that the leave has accumulated. I have one particular case here, where the man is now due to go on retirement during this year, and through no fault of his own he has accumulated leave to the extent of 236 days. Now, if this man were classed in the same category as those who retire at 60, he would be given full credit for all the leave due, but the regulation, as issued, dealing with the Transvaal and Natal pre-Union men, is put in this way—

The interpretation of this rule is therefore that these officials due to retire at 55, if they leave the service, will be given, instead of the 236 days which have accumulated in the case of this particular man, payment for only 180 days. I do not know whether this man could have avoided accruing leave, but my information is that officials during the war years have been compelled to let leave accrue because they were not allowed to take leave. Now, some of them are in this category. As the Minister knows, these employees of the postal department, when they reach the age of 55, i.e. the retiring age under that old regulation, can be invited by the Department if it wishes, to carry on until 60, and I believe almost without exception that invitation is extended. Now, they have the feeling that in order to save the leave that is due, and for other considerations, this is a sort of weapon to compel them to carry on for another five years, and they also feel that they are undoubtedly penalised. They have not the right to claim the option to carry on for another five years but the Department can offer it to them. I want the Minister to go into this question, particularly in view of what has happened during the war years, when leave accumulated because of staff difficulties. Staff difficulties compelled men not only to accrue leave but to work overtime. I think this is a matter to which the Minister should give full consideration and see that these men when they arrive at the retiring age will not be penalised to this extent. After all it is a very substantial sum of money which is involved. I have another case here also. This man retires next year at the age of 55 and the balance due to him is 115 days, which is practically six months wages, and to a man retiring at 55 that is a very serious thing indeed. I think one could make out a good case. The Minister should extend to these people the same rights they would have had if they had carried on. I leave it to the Minister. I know he will give them fair and just consideration. He has always been a man who was fair in his treatment of his staff, and I hope he will see that no injustice is done.

I should like to bring to the Minister’s notice the position on the platteland in connection with telephone lines. As the Minister knows, my constituency is probably the highest on the list in the Union. We have a developed agricultural area. Some of the farmers are far removed from the railway line, and those people have to carry on with their farming operations in very difficult circumstances today. I have always pleaded that the Minister should give his personal attention to the needs of the farmers as far as telephone lines are concerned, and especially in the remote parts of the country.

The hon. member should raise this matter under the Loan Estimates.

I can do it there, but I should like to bring it to the personal notice of the Minister. I do not want to ask for an increase in the Vote.

The hon. member will have an opportunity of doing so.

I am wondering what has happened to our once proud telegraph service. There was a time when if one tendered a telegram at any post office it was delivered in as short as possible a time. Today there is nothing strange in a telegram being delayed a whole day. When I speak of telegrams being delayed, I speak of a telegram from the time it is handed in at the counter until it is delivered to the addressee. There was a time in our service when, if there was a delay of six or seven minutes from the counter to the distributing table, an enquiry took place, and any person delaying a telegram was suitably reprimanded or punished. If there was a delay on the circuit between Johannesburg and Durban, or Cape Town and Johannesburg exceeding an hour, the traffic superintendent in Pretoria wants to know all about it and the reason for it. If there were a delay in the service of an hour, then the traffic superintendent wanted to know all about it. Even when a telegram was received at its destination, if there was a delay between the receiving station and the delivery room, it was also enquired into; and if there was any delay between the delivery room and the addressee, that was also investigated. It seems to me that there is no such enquiry into these today, and the people go on dealing with these telegrams as though they Were of no account. I have in my hand a telegram received within the last three days, and as far as I can ascertain, it was handed in in the West End of Durban at 11.5 a.m. on the 17th, and it was received in Cape Town at 1.44 p.m. But it was not in my box at 6.30 p.m. I got it the next morning. I am hoping that there will be an enquiry into the delays in the sending and receiving of telegrams at every stage, from the time it is handed in until it is delivered, and that we shall have a bit of gingering up in the telegraph service. I may be told that the delays are due to war circumstances. But all the wars in the world do not excuse delays of this sort. I may be told that we have changed over from morse telegraphy to machine telegraphy. It is true that a girl may type out a telegram in a little quicker time possibly than one could send it by morse, but it must not be forgotten that while that telegram is being typed, in the old days it was going on the line itself; now it still has to go on the line. Then in the cape of repetitions, the time now taken for an enquiry, or an R.Q. as we called it, is out of all proportion to the time that used to be taken. In those days you could ask for a reptition by simply saying R.Q. and you got it through there and then. Now you have to type it and in the meantime the message is delayed. That sort of thing is happening all the time. Apparently that delay happens between the counter, the transmitting circuit and the addressee, and I think these people in the post office should be gingered up. It may be said that there is a dearth of telegraph messengers. Well, there has always been a dearth of telegraph messengers, and for a very good reason. We have never paid them enough, nor have we given them the opportunity they should have had to progress other than in the ranks of postmen. There is another thing I want to touch upon, and that is the question of double rates after 5 p.m. To my mind there is no necessity for that arrangement at all. One does not send a telegram simply as entertainment. One sends a telegram in order to get news or to make an enquiry quickly. Why we should pay double rates after 5 p.m. passes my comprehension. Is it just parsimony on the part of the department? Then I come to the greeting telegrams after 1 p.m. on Fridays. The Minister must realise that a tremendous number of weddings take place on Saturdays and if one hands in a congratulatory telegram after 1 o’clock or Friday, it is not delivered except by post on Monday. Well, as a matter of fact, we can send a letter from Durban to Cape Town on Friday evening and get it delivered in Cape Town on Monday morning, so why on earth should the telegram be delivered on Monday morning only? I had an experience last Dingaans Day that exemplifies this. Dingaans Day was on a Saturday, and I wrote a telegram on Friday afternoon congratulating a couple in Cape Town. I was told that a greeting telegram would not be delivered until Monday, so I cut out all greetings and simply mentioned that I was better—I had been ill —and that I would see this couple in Cape Town. I was told that it would be delivered that evening, and it was delivered on the Monday morning. There were no greetings in it and the people for whom it was intended did not get it until they returned from their honeymoon.

Did it make any difference?

Yes, it did make a difference, because they ’expected me in Cape Town to give the bride away. I could not go because I was ill. I do think that the Minister and the Department should consider this matter of the greeting telegrams and extend it to after 1 o’clock on Saturdays, not all offices close at 1 o’clock on Saturdays, and I think the public is entitled to this service, because they do not use telegrams if a letter will suit, and it is due to the public that their urgent business should be transacted by the proper office, namely the post office.

I know that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate), when he was a member of the post office, was a very good man, and naturally in those days the post office was run better than it was before and better than it has been since. That is the story of all retired civil servants. It is like the old army officer. The army is not what it used to be. But let me say this. I deal with the telegraph office more than any man in South Africa. I send more words over telegraph lines than anyone else in this country, and I am told in the journalistic profession that I have the worst handwriting in the country.

Shame.

Yes, it is shame, but it is good stuff. Those people in the telegraph office are the most efficient people you can get in the British Empire and I speak with experience of nearly 50 years, because wherever I go I telegraph thousands of words, and it does not seem to matter where it is from, the telegraph officials seem to pick it up and send it off correctly. They are remarkable people, and I think that the telegraph office in South Africa can hold its own against any telegraph office in the world, and instead of running the telegraph officials down in time of war, when they are short-staffed, we should be grateful for the excellent work they are doing. Look how they keep this House going. Look how they keep the Press gallery up there going. They send away news of all the nonsense we talk here.

What about the mistakes they make?

Your speeches are all mistakes. No, Sir, this House should pay a tribute to the telegraph office in South Africa. My friend talks about telegrams not being delivered, but he should be grateful that these telegrams are delivered at all. When you go to the big shops nowadays they ask you to carry your own stuff home. I think my hon. friend has today even to carry a Saturday night’s bottle home.

I am sorry that the hon. member who has accused me of never being in the House and of always running away when I have concluded my speech, is not present, and that he himself has now run off. But there are other matters of more importance that I want to touch on. I do not know whether I expressed myself badly and whether other members understood me in that way, but I do not believe you understood me to argue that Bloemfontein should be altered to “Flower Fountain”. I do not think the hon. member for Rosettenville (Mr. Howarth) could have understood anything of the sort. What I did urge was that when one is talking about Kalkbaai on the radio that it should be referred to as Cork Bay. I even made a point of spelling the word, and I said it was not “cork”. Now the hon. member says that I am making an attack on the English language. I will not take that up because it does not deserve an answer. That hon. member and I have been an equally long time in this House, and I challenge him to say which of the two of us have had the better atendance in Parliament, he or I. I think that in the course of one’ year I have been present longer than he in seven years. Now I want to turn to the Broadcasting Corporation. The policy in the past has always been that the corporation should always be impartial and non-political in its character. If there are political differences in South Africa the corporation must not take sides. What are we finding now. May I be permitted to give a few instances. In the past few years we have unfortunately had dissension in the football world. Fortunately the difference has now been settled and that is why I am taking the liberty of mentioning the matter in the House. But what was the course followed by the directors of the Broadcasting Corporation? I put certain questions to the Minister in regard to the broadcasting of football matches over the wireless and the Minister then said for the first time that this would happen. Then the one side wrote a letter to the Minister. First they said the Minister should absolutely not broadcast football matches.

Why mention a matter now that has been definitely settled?

I am not speaking about football now, but I want to show how the Minister allowed the Broadcasting Corporation to take sides. I am not one of those who say that the English radio is there for the English people and the Afrikaans radio for the Afrikaners. The radio in this country is for the people as a whole. But what happened? First the Minister said that no competitions should be broadcast. Later he said that competitions would really be broadcast, and then he got a letter from the one side, the side that resolved that there should be no broadcasting, and notwithstanding the fact that the other side was willing to have their competitions broadcasted, the Minister suddenly decided that he could not intervene in the trouble. But by his action he did become involved in the trouble. He allowed the corporation to do exactly what the one side asked him to do; but let us look at who the persons were who had been broadcasting recently on the radio. I asked the Minister how many times a week or how many times in the course of the year has there been broadcasting from overseas over the radio. His reply was that he could not mention the number of times. Of course he cannot, because there is eternally broadcasting from oversea countries. Now hon. members on the other side will say again that I am anti-Brititsh because I maintain that the larger proportion of our retransmissions are from Britain. That is not the point. But in South Africa there are political differences between this side of the House and that side. That side applauds the opinions of Great Britain, and when there are retransmissions from Great Britain they are always connected with the war.

Do you like listening to the news?

Let us look at who the persons are who are talking over the radio. I asked the Minister who approaches the individuals who have to broadcast. He stated they were approached by those people on the management who were responsible for them. With all respect, I want to ask the Minister who approached the Acting Prime Minister on the occasion of President Roosevelt’s death. I mention this to show that the staff on the Broadcasting Corporation do not approach these various people, but that the Minister asks them to let this or that person broadcast. Who are the people who have been broadcasting, people who have come from overseas? I again want to ask hon. members to remember that there are political differences between us on this side and members on the other side on a great number of questions including the war. Here we find the names of people who have been broadcasting from overseas. I shall omit the names of the people and just mention the items on which they broadcast—

I could continue reading them out. These are things on which there is a big difference of opinion in South Africa but the items have all one tendency, and what is more, should I speak over the radio on the Prime Minister and laud him to the skies I have to remember he is not only the Prime Minister of South Africa but he is the leader of a political party, and anything of the sort should not occur. Just as the other side may believe their leader is a great man, in the same way a large number of us believe that our leader is a great man.

You say that a great many of you think that your leader is a great man?

No, I am saying that just as a large number of people believe that the Prime Minister is a great man so a great number think that the Leader of the Opposition is a great man; and why do you never hear over the wirless that the Leader of the Opposition has been lauded to the skies but only the Prime Minister? I mention this here to show the partisanship of the people behind the Broadcasting Corporation. Consequently we have the right to urge that our wireless should, as in the past, be free of politics. You get talks on the wireless on all sorts of subjects, but in one way or another the Prime Minister’s name is dragged in and his praises are sung. I think hon. members opposite will agree with me that is not right. But let us see what persons in this country are broadcasting over the wirless. I do not want to detain the House, but there is hardly a Minister in the Cabinet who has not broadcasted. I think some of them have broadcasted ten times over the wireless. There is only one member on this side who has broadcasted, and that was on the Estimates. He had to talk about the Budget speech to be delivered the following day. I think the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in that capacity should put his foot down—and not act as a member of a political party—to ensure that our wireless is not used for political purposes. Now I want to turn to something else. [Time limit.]

I would like to enlarge on what has been said by the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) on the question of the salaries and wages of postal officials. I must confess that it is practically impossible to deal with this question in Committee. I have closely typed notes here dealing with the fares of the postal department running into a hundred pages, and it is obvious that one cannot deal with more than the broad aspect of salaries and wages of postal officials. Last year we made an appeal to the hon. Minister to appoint a commission to go into the salaries and wages of civil servants, including the officials in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. That commission has been sitting for nearly a year. It has furnished us with a preliminary report. We do not know when the commission will complete its investigations, or when the final report will be published. I do not think anyone in this House would want the commission unduly to expedite its work, and in that way fail to do justice to the work they are doing. If a commission is to do good work, then it must be allowed to take its time. I want to ask the hon. Minister to consider the question of introducing any recommendations which the commission may make in regard to salary increases, with retrospective effect. We know that the public servants have been clamouring for an increase in their salaries for a considerable period. We know that they have played a strenuous part in keeping the civil service and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs going during the war, and I think they deserve everything we can give them. I hope the Minister will be able to prevail on the Cabinet to introduce whatever recommendations are made in the report of that commission and which are accepted by the Government with retrospective effect. One does not want to anticipate the recommendations of the commission—personally I am a little optimistic—but I believe that in order to play the game by those people, it is necessary to increase their salaries by a minimum of 25 per cent. The same thing applies in regard to the labourers. I do not want to say much in that regard, except to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that in the past the labourers have been rather neglected. They have been the Cinderellas of the service. These men are sometimes treated in a way in which no European should be treated. I have a letter here from a man who complains that Europeans have to work in the same gangs as natives. I hope we will not allow this sort of thing. When I was a city councillor in Johannesburg, I immediately intervened when anything of that nature came to my notice. This man goes on to say that they have to use the same lavatories as the non-Europeans. I am sure the Minister will put a stop to this at once, as soon as he finds out where it is taking place. Then there is a third point which this man mentions, and that is the question of examinations. We know that these men have little prospect of promotion. They can on passing certain examinations be promoted to the engineering staff. But before they are finally absorbed, they have to pass a second examination with the result that many of these people in spite of the fact that they have written examinations, are never absorbed in higher grades. Finally, I want to say a word or two in regard to the various associations. I am very pleased to have an opportunity of raising this matter for the consideration of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He is also Minister of the interior. We cannot, of course, discuss Interior, but the question I want to raise affects this vote. We know that there are various associations in the Minister’s Department. There is the South African Postal Association. Then there is an association which caters for the engineers, another one catering for the telegraphists and one has recently been formed to cater for the labouring classes. I think the closed shop principle has been accepted right throughout the world, and I am rather disappointed that the Minister has been slow in giving effect to that principle in so far as the associations in his Department are concerned. If the Minister is convinced that the association represents a certain percentage of the people concerned, then the Minister should recognise it. There is no doubt that friction does arise between members and non-members in an association. The members are inclined to say: “After all, I have to pay my subscription every month. I expose myself to victimisation in fighting for my own righs and the rights of fellow-members. I am prepared to leave my home in the evening to attend a general meeting, while the non-member sits at home. But if any benefit accrues as a result of my intervention, the non-member also gets it.’’ You cannot get away from it that there are people in every department who are commonly described as squealers. They run along to the head of the department and complain that so and so is a leader in the movemént; whether it is done deliberately or not, I do not know, but in a short space of time you find that that man is victimised in some way or other. The Government should accept the principle that if any association caters for a particular class of employees and a certain percentage of those employees are members of the association, the closed shop principle should be applied, and it should be made applicable to everyone. Last year the hon. Minister thanked the public, in this House, for their patience with the telephone service. The Minister referred particularly to the service between Johannesburg and Pretoria. We accepted that, and we realised the difficulties the Minister experienced. Tonight I would like to ask the Minister whether in view of the changed war conditions and the greater availability of shipping space there is a possibility now or in the near future of the telephone service being improved by way of extra cables or by other provisions. [Time limit.]

What I should like to know from the Minister is this. Can the two stations, the “A” and “B” transmitters, provide the same service and have they equal strength and, if not, which one is weaker? and is the Minister satisfied that there should be a continuance of this state of affairs of the one being better than the other? Then I should like to associate myself with the representations that have been made to him in connection with better telephone services. It is remarkable that today when you try to get Central you often have to wait a very long time before you can get a reply from Central. That can only be caused by shortage of personnel. I cannot for a moment believe that there is neglect on the part of the staff to carry out their duties and consequently I must assume that there is not adequate staff. I want to ask the Minister to take steps to get the staff, because it is often very inconvenient to have to wait so long. I can speak from personal experience that I waited and struggled for more than an hour to get Central to put through a call. Then I want to ask the Minister to what extent he has given consideration to reducing the telephone charges. The Minister is today deriving a good revenue which is shown by the fact that large profits are being made on the telephone service, and the question is whether he will not reduce the charges, especially on the platteland. He has increased the charges on the platteland, and I think, bearing in mind the fact the platteland lacks many of the ordinary facilities, a strong case may be made out for meeting the platteland in this connection. I should further like to ask whether he has in mind extending the platteland services. For years now we have beseeched in vain for an expansion. The Minister knows that I and other members have made representations to the Department for the expansion of the services on the platteland, and we always get the same reply: “It cannot be considered at present.” We are now coming to the end of the war, and we hope that the Minister can give us the assurance that the platteland especially can expect this extension. Then I hope I can ast the Minister under this vote whether he intends to make provision where there is a need for an enlargement of the Department’s buildings in the towns. It is necessary to provide better facilities, and Oudtshoorn particularly has a very small and defective building where it is impossible to give the public the necessary facilities. I should like to ask the Minister whether steps will be taken to increase those facilities.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) in a very moderate speech, three parts of which I entirely agree with, started off in his criticisms of the post office by talking about small salaries and the overwork of one section. That matter is being investigated fully by the Public Service Commission presided over by Judge Centlivres. The hon. member refers to the big surplus and the money we are making. Well, every hon. member knows the post office is being used through these war years for the purpose of providing the Minister of Finance with additional revenue, and until things improve that will continue; that accounts for the 12½ per cent. on the telephone accounts, and the other matters the hon. member raised. The point the hon. member raised in connection with cutting off of the telephone, I have already taken up with the Department, because I think when people are well known and the Department knows the account will be paid, if they are properly communicated with, such action is unnecessary. I do not know what success has attended the matter, but we have a large number of people carrying out instructions, and they have been notified to be careful. In the case of some people we have to cut them off, because we know they will not pay. The hon. member has come along with his hardy annual about my lack of sympathy for Afrikaans. Mr. Chairman, in 1933 when I first became Minister of Posts and Telegraphs of the first 32 people in the post office, heads of the post office from the Postmaster-General downwards, there were three bilingual members; the other 29 were English-speaking members. Today the position is this, there is one who is unilingual and he has some knowledge of Afrikaans, though nobody can say he is bilingual; all the others are fully bilingual. That is the reply in connection with it. He has raised the question of attendance in country post offices to coloured people and Europeans. The policy of the post office in connection with this matter is to provide separate accommodation for Europeans and for nonEuropeans wherever possible. The nonEuropean section of the population is ’however so varied in character, as well as the general standard of life in different parts of the country, that unswerving adherence to one and the same treatment at all points is not advisable. It is clearly our duty to apply ourselves to the pursuit of the particular policy which will be accompanied by the avoidance of friction between the various sections of the community. This policy has been followed, and we shall continue to follow it in the future. I look to our postmasters throughout the country to help in this matter, because I am just as keen as the hon. gentleman opposite to see there is not that mixing and intermingling that the hon. member complains about. Another point the hon. member made was in connection with the examination of an official by people who were junior to him. This examination is carried out by our senior postal inspectors, nobody below that grade. All these people are fully bilingual, and they are themselves fully qualified in English and Afrikaans, and the written test, which is the crux is also moderated by an official of the Translation Bureau, and the marking of the bureau is finally recorded for official purposes. This system has been in force for the past 13 years and they are complaining about it now for the first time.

But you admit some of the officials were juniors.

Yes, I say that now; the senior inspector may have to examine a post master senior to him in the post office. I go further and say if that senior official objected to the inspector examining him arrangements would have been made for him to be examined, probably by the UnderSecretary. I want to make it quite clear that for years past our object has been to enable these people to be tested so they can be treated as fully efficient. The hon. member has also dealt with complaints about broadcasting and the type of person that is being asked to broadcast. I told him in reply to questions, and I repeat here, that every request for the Prime Minister or for any Minister to broadcast, or for anybody else to do an official broadcast, was either at the invitation of the Broadcasting Corporation or the Bureau of Information, including one the other day when the Acting Prime Minister broadcast about the death of President Roosevelt.

Do they get a hint?

You have asked a plain question and I have given you a plain and proper answer. The Leader of the Opposition has been asked to broadcast and he has declined to do so.

Under the Bureau of Information, yes.

It is quite true that many of these people working in the telegraph offices and telephone offices are working long hours, and the policy of the Department is to reduce them as much as possible. But we are short of telephonists in the principal towns, Durban, Johannesburg, Pretoria and Cape Town, and actually in Johannesburg as a matter of national importance we had to ask the military authorities to loan us some of their girls to help us over the stile, and we have about 50 of them there. It is not a question of cheap labour; they are paid the same rates as civilian operators. Nobody is kept on the work unwillingly, and anyone who does not like it may return to their military duty. But we have to keep our communications going. We are still in the war and as long as we are in the war arrangements such as that may be necessary. Some hon. members have referred to country telephones. I shall deal fully with that matter when I come to the capital expenditure. In the meantime I may say I am hoping I will have a better statement to make in regard to telephone development in the country than I made last year. Now I come to the hardy annual. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) seems to think if he keeps on saying the same thing year after year he will make some impression and succeed where he has not succeeded up to the present. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that I appreciate his point of view. He is entitled to give expression to his views but I have heard diametrically opposite views expressed in connection with the Broadcasting Corporation, and different views have been expressed in the newspapers. They were also given expression to the other day in the Senate. They thought the Broadcasting Corporation’s programmes were excellent. I shall mention the difficulty we are confronted with, and that these people have to wrestle with. I have said before, and I repeat, in your own home you have differences of opinion with regard to the programmes, and when you multiply that by 400,000 listeners there are bound to be a lot of complaints. But I do not think the complaints are worse that they have always been. I certainly do not agree with the remarks the hon. member made in regard to the Board of Governors. These people are carrying out a very difficult task. I told them when they were appointed that in carrying out the job they would be most unpopular, but they were prepared to take the responsibility. I changed the chairman because I wanted a full-time chairman and Prof. Fouché was appointed and has been devoting his time to this work. The director merely gives views; the responsibility is the board’s, but the board do not and cannot, in view of the responsibility of their positions, deal with the programmes. The programmes are prepared by people who ought to know what is required. I have no hesitation in saying when you listen to the B.B.C. and some of the American broadcasts. South Africa has nothing to complain about. I cannot say anything about Australia because in Australia, it is true, the commercial stations, or “B” stations as they call them there, are in a class by themselves. It may be necessary to review the position; it may be desirable; it is a thing one certainly has to think about. I do not want to give the impression I am advocating or rejecting the proposition. It is a matter we shall have to consider seriously, because what is the position in South Africa? If we let the thing go by default we have to remember Lourenco Marques is very close, Southern Rhodesia is very close, and so is the Belgian Congo, and in view of the improvements continuously being effected in broadcasting it would be quite easy for such stations to be established in some of the territories I have referred to. I need not go into the matter further; I have not even consulted my colleagues on it, and all I wish to convey at present is that the matter will be thoroughly investigated. I know the Press are very nervous, and the theatre people too; but the radio dealers would welcome it, because they feel it would give them a bigger field of disposing of their wares. The decrease in the number of listeners’ licences is due to the fact we have not the radios in the country to sell. The position in regard to radios has been much the same as in regard to motor cars, and it is remarkable that we have been able to keep the radios at their present level.

Why do you not make them in South Africa as they do in Australia?

We are doing that; many of these big radio people are doing that. But you still have the difficulty in regard to specialised implements required in their manufacture. I agree with the hon. member in some of his remarks regarding these advisory councils. I have always regarded the advisory council as a buffer between the board and the public. They have not functioned adequately in the past, but I am informed in the reconstitution that has taken place and the different atmosphere now prevailing they will function usefully in the future. These councils should be able to keep the Board of Governors informed on public opinion. I want to say this; there were one or two things I complained bitterly about in conversation with Prof. Fouché and Maj. Caprara in regard to programme items, but I have given up lodging complaints. The hon. member complained that the Corporation keeps no record, but they receive and they can produce hundreds and thousands of letters in connection with many of these programmes, and in particular instances such as I mentioned they will produce 20 or 30 letters recording approval of the particular programme in question. Their task is particularly difficult, and they are doing the best they possibly can under the circumstances. The hon. member for Oudtshoorn (Mr. S. P. le Roux) raised the point in the difference of efficiency between the “A” transmitter and the “B” transmitter. In reply to his question I may say that in some parts of the country the “B” transmission is weak; they have been trying to rectify it by having a sub-station at Bloemfontein and another one at Kimberley, and all I can say is I must ask for a little more patience. We have not been able to utilise broadcasting equipment to the extent we would like to, owing to the war. But the Department has already been at work and has placed orders in order to cover the whole of South Africa with either an “A” transmitter or a “B” transmitter as soon as it is able to. I apprêciate the point that the hon. member for Mossel Bay made in connection with the pronunciation of these place names that he complained about. But hon. members will appreciate the difficulty. I can quite understand that he wants Kalk Bay to be called Kalkbaai and that Muizenberg should be pronounced Muizenberg. I admit that these are the correct pronunciations, but it is an Afrikaans-speaking announcer who speaks over the Afrikaans station, and I understand that the hon. member’s complaint is in connection with the Afrikaans broadcast.

No, it is the pronunciation of the names over the English station.

There may be some carelessness in connection with, the point, and that is a matter that can be looked into. The hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) raised the question of these people retiring at the age of 55; I am not in a position to say anything on that at present but I shall look into it and give the information. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) referred to the children’s section; that is being considered and will be reintroduced shortly. But they are now broadcasting to the schools.

[Inaudible].

That is the case with the educational authorities in three of the four provinces. Natal is not included in it, but the other three provinces are accepting the broadcasts. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate) referred to his experiences in the telegraph department, and he mentions how wonderful the telegraph organisation was in those days. Since he spoke I received this note—

But the hon. member’s complaint, as I understand it, is really not so much the transmission as the delivery, and that is due as another hon. member has rightly pointed out, to the difficulty in getting messengers. ’ The hon. member may not know that in Johannesburg we are actually using military motor transport to deliver telegrams owing to the staff difficulties there, and we are considering other means of relieving the position, but that is the reason. An hon. member raised the question of greeting telegrams. In order to give our people a reasonable opportunity on Saturday, we had to stop greeting telegrams by 12 o’clock on Friday, so that they would have Friday afternoon to deliver them. If they were sent later it would not be possible to deliver them on the Saturday morning on account of the number they would have to deal with. It is a very popular form of telegram, and the curtailment of its use has merely been due to the cause I have mentioned and to meet the difficulty of staff. I appreciate the remarks some hon. members have made in regard to the staff. No praise is too great for the work these people have done. Many of them are working hours and hours of overtime, and I think we have every reason, taking it on the whole, to be very satisfied with the service the post office is giving.

A great many of them do not work at all; they are loafing.

I do not think there is much loafing in the Post Office, because the other members of the staff are not going to work themselves to death and see any people loafing. I have frequently been in the Post Office, and I have never seen anybody idle, let alone loafing. The hon. member for Pinetown dealt with the South African Broadcasting Corporation on the lines of the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle), but in language very much stronger, and he complained that these members of the board are antiquated and no longer enjoy the confidence of the public. All I can say with regard to that is that all of them are still energetic men although the ages are as given by me, and they are giving of the best of their services. But one thing I should like to assure the hon. member is that the seven members of the board are backing the war effort 100 per cent.

I should not like the few observations that I made this afternoon to be taken as a reflection on the staff of the Post Office. On the contrary, when you take into consideration the circumstances of the staff at present working in the Post Office everyone of us feels that we appreciate the services that are being rendered. It remains a fact, however, that the public are not satisfied with the services in general that are provided by the Telephone Department. All of us who are aware of the circumstances, especially on the Witwatersrand, and specifically in the General Post Office, will confirm that sometimes you have to wait half an hour to get. Central. Sometimes you give it up in despair and try again later. I am not talking about trunk lines, because they are often engaged. Another grievance is that the interruptions of the service during the day are becoming worse and more frequent. You get an account at the end of the month that is sometimes 50 per cent. more than it should be, and the reason is that your telephone is out of order and you are incessantly getting the wrong numbers when you ring up, and these are recorded against you. The service is of such a description that the public are very dissatisfied. As far as the Telephone Exchange is concerned, the Minister has spoken about shortage of staff. We know there is a shortage, but the Minister has stated that he has engaged 50 new assistants and he says that they do not work for nothing but they are paid. He made the remark “No cheap labour”. The staff work under very difficult conditions, and we are grateful to them for what they do, but on the other hand there are many complaints and we have to ascertain the cause. I differ from the Minister when he states that it all must be attributed to war conditions. When we take into consideration that the Minister is employing 1,842 telephonists and we find that of the 1,842 telephonists no fewer than 1,024 receive a salary of £108, increasing by £12 to a maximum of £180, it is understandable that one cannot really expect to get good service. How can it be expected that in such circumstances the ladies will be an example to the community? Take a woman who receives a commencing salary of £108. Out of that she has to pay board because she usually comes from another part, and the lowest amount is £7 10s. a month, which is a very low figure on the Rand. Then there is left over £1 10s. She has to pay 15s. or £1 on bus fares, and this leaves her 10s. a month. How does the Minister expect in these circumstances to attract a good type of woman to the public service? It is impossible. I mention this in order to point out to the Minister that the war conditions are not the big thing. The women who enter the service realise that it does not really provide them with a living. Then I want to urge on the Minister, because it is heavy and difficult work, that he should try to meet these women and to give them a salary on which they can not only exist but that will attract the type of woman into the service who will be worth having. Then I pass hurriedly to another matter, namely the postmen. I am very grateful that the Minister stated that he will do everything in his power to institute separation in his department. He has 1,554 postmen in his department, including 193 coloured. They all get the same pay. I pressed the Minister last year to take into consideration that the standard of civilisation of the European was higher than that of the coloured man, and that the coloured man’s standard of civilisation was higher than that of the native. He cannot expect the coloured man and the European to be on the same salary level, and I want to ask him to meet the postmen. I do not want him to alter the wages of the coloured men, but he ought to increase those of the Europeans. They now get the limited salary of £108 a year that can rise to £120. That is a scandalous salary for a European. Then I come to the typistes. There are 145. Their salary runs from £120 to £170, and the highest is £200. There is a great shortage of typistes in the country, and a senior typiste easily gets £25 or £30 a month in the big centres. The result is that the best women leave the service of the post office. On the other hand, the Minister cannot expect to get good typistes when outside they can earn £25. The result is that the public are not getting the service that they are entitled to, because the Minister cannot obtain staff. I am not making any reflection on the staff. We are grateful for what they are doing, but I say that the great majority of the people have to work for bad wages. I call them bad wages. The Minister can be assured that if he pays better wages he will get better workers. If he increases the salaries he will get a service of which we can be proud.

I have been asked by One of my constituents to bring to the notice of the Minister something which happened recently, and to see whether it is an unusual happening, what is the usual custom of dealing with such incidents and whether it is correct. My constituent was in the habit of sending parcels overseas, a habit she had for some months. Recently she sent a parcel in the usual way and packed by the same firm which packs thousands of parcels for overseas. She then received a note from the Post Office authorities saying that the parcel, or rather part of it had arrived in Cape Town, just the paper and the string and that the Post Office was not responsible for its delivery in good order. She wants to know whether they did not contract to deliver the parcel in good order, and seeing that it was not delivered according to that contract, she thought that they should refund the value or at least the postage, but that they did not do. I was also asked to raise the question of the very great difficulty existing in getting through on the telephones, to enquiries, trunks or faults after 7 p.m., but the Minister has now explained that that is due to the shortage of staff and war conditions, and I will accept that.

It is late, but I want to avail myself of this opportunity to raise a matter which has not been raised in the past, although we should have liked to raise it. We did not raise it because we wanted to give the Minister an opportunity to carry out a promise, namely, to try and find out who the persons are who were responsible. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that at the beginning of the war there was a secret radio transmitter which broadcast filthy things about persons in South Africa, especially persons belonging to this side of the House. We asked the Minister whether any effort had been made to find out who those people were and where the transmitter was. The Minister stated that he had not yet discovered who it was but that he would do his best to find out. In the meantime I put certain questions to the Minister. I asked whether the Afrikaans radio transmitter which was previously used in Pretoria had been taken over by the military authorities and whether it was always used by the military authorities. I also asked whether military persons were responsible for that radio. I want to convey the information which I have to the House and I want to ask the Minister to tell me whether my information is correct or in what respect it is not correct. The Afrikaans radio transmitter of Pretoria which was subsequently taken over by the military authorities has a wave length which is exactly the same as the wave length of the transmitter which used such filthy language and broadcast those offensive and ugly statements. The radio transmitter which was removed from Pretoria had the same peculiarities which were detected in its wave length by certain persons who have a knowledge of this matter, as the peculiarities of the transmitter which broadcast this filthy language, and which we shall call the secret transmitter. I should like to know from the Minister whether he made further investigations and whether he can tell us who the responsible persons were; which radio was used and whether he has any information on this point at all. I should like him or the Minister of Justice to explain to us what efforts were made to ascertain who used this secret transmitter. I personally did not raise this matter because I wanted to give the Minister of Justice and the Government an opportunity of ascertaining who it was and how it happened, and I think the time has now arrived for the Minister to give us a full explanation as to what efforts were made to discover who was responsible for these disgraceful transmissions.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on the 25th January, 1945, 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 23rd April.