When the debate was adjourned on Friday, I was busy speaking about the secret transmitter which existed and which broadcast oyer the radio contemptible things about people of high position There were also other secret transmitters, but I do not want to deal with those. However, in reply to a question of mine, the Minister said that in connection with the secret transmitter mentioned he would institute an investigation. The Minister has not yet reported anything about it, and my question is what investigation he caused to be made, how far it has progressed and what steps have been taken?

Mr. Chairman, I would like to address a few words to the Minister on the subject of the manner in which parcels are treated by some of the under officials in the post offices. This is a matter about which I have already spoken to the Minister and I have no doubt that he has taken steps to find a remedy for what is being done, but I had an occasion not long ago of taking three parcels to the post office, to be forwarded to the front. Those parcels have to go through very severe treatment before they get to the soldiers at the front. I saw these parcels being deliberately thrown into a bag by one of the under officials in the post office and I doubt whether they would reach the ship which takes them to Egypt, or wherever they go, in view of the treatment I have referred to. The idea has occurred to me that perhaps it might be good for the postal department to have a school or training college where their junior employees can have a little instruction. I believe the railway department have a similar institution where their employees are given a certain amount of training. I think it would be a good idea and at the same time postal officials might be taught how to receive the public whom they are supposed to serve. I am not condemning the whole of the postal service at all, but some postal officials think that the public is there for their benefit and not the other way round. I would suggest to the Minister the idea of a training school for junior postal officials, to train them to be worthy public servants. There is one further matter I should like to refer to, and that is the question referred to by an hon. member of the Opposition. He complained that the rubber stamp which is put on returned letters includes a “kaffir” word, “inconnu”. In order to avoid disturbing the susceptibilities of the hon. member, and no doubt of many other members of the Opposition, I would suggest that the Minister should also rectify the blue labels for air letters. There also a foreign word has crept in, “par avion”. I suggest that the Minister might see to it that the susceptibilities of some of our hon. friends are not upset in this way.

I would like to associate myself with the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) in connection with the secret transmitter. I think the matter, has been clearly stated and I hope that the Minister will reply to it. Especially do I wish to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that the personnel in the post office is far from sufficient. Especially in my constituency there is practically no post office where when the post arrives and the board is hung up, “Mail being sorted”, people who want coupons or want to send a telegram do not have to wait until the mail has been sorted. They may perhaps have to wait two or three hours and cannot receive coupons or send telegrams. That happens at Williston and at Calvinia and in almost every place, and I think the time has arrived to increase the personnel of the post office. There are sufficient people available, and it will not only be more convenient to the public but will relieve the personnel a little. Another matter is that of telephones. Due to the war the extension of the telephone services was limited, and especially those parts where distances are great suffered under that, and more especially the north-western areas. If one goes to the Postmaster-General one will find that there are applications for hundreds of telephones, especially in these areas, and one is surprised that the Government has not made a larger amount available for the provision of telephones. The telephone service earns a large profit. I take the Budget Speech of the Minister of Finance, where I see that he states that the income of the past year was exceeded by £275,000, and they had anticipated an income of £4,125,000. A surplus was expected, but even so the telephone service brought in a quarter million pounds more than the Minister had expected. I cannot express myself strongly enough about the neglect on the part of the Government to give the people the most essential services. These people have the right, whethér they live in the north-west/ or in Cape Town, whether they live in a thickly populated area or in a sparsely populated area, to have State assistance. I wish to ask the Minister, with regard to the neglectful treatment meted out to the north-west in the past, to lend an ear to the representations from those areas which are so badly served as regards telephones.

The hon. member cannot discuss that. The hon. member will have an opportunity to discuss that under the Loan Estimates.

I just want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some information in connection with the secret transmitter. I am sure he has investigated the matter and I hope that we will receive the information. But there are a few other matters to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention. One is in connection with the call office in Cape Town. It is unpleasant to raise the matter, but if one books a call for example to Pretoria or Johannesburg, what is the position? The other evening I had to book a call to Pretoria in connection with illness. After I had rung for almost half an hour every time I had not yet received a reply. In other cases it happens that the girls are very unfriendly and even refuse to speak Afrikaans. I am bringing this to the Minister’s notice because I hope that an end will be put to this state of affairs. We expect that when we book a call the official will reply politely and courteously, because courtesy costs nothing and they are paid for their work. Then there is the difficulty at Wolmaransstad in connection with the Co-operative and the switchboard of the Co-operative. As the Minister knows, I have already written to him and received one courteous reply in this connection, and it is only a matter of having a larger switchboard. The Minister said that he would try to obtain a switchboard from another part of the country, and I shall be glad if the Minister would give us the assurance that he has obtained it or expects to obtain it soon.

Mr. Chairman, we were discussing the Minister’s vote on Friday evening, and in reply to allegations which had been made about the Board of Governors of the Broadcasting Corporation the Minister said that the Board was giving their best services. You will see from what I have to say this morning what that best amounts to. He said the Board was giving 100 per cent. support to the war effort. I wish to emphasise that remark, because I have the example before me of last Friday evening’s broadcast, which shows what they care for the war effort. On Friday evening, after the news, there was broadcast over the Cape Town section which serves districts like Paarl—and this broadcast was heard at Paarl—“The Dying Soldier’s Song”. That song contains the words: “Break the news to mother; I am not coming home; I am not coming home again.” Hon. members of this House will realise the effect of this on those who have relatives serving in the 6th Division and relatives amongst the prisoners-of-war who have not yet been returned as having been released; and we have that type of thing at a time when the Chairman of the Board has been listening throughout the afternoon to the criticisms of his Board. I hope he heard the broadcast and I hope he has taken suitable measures to deal with the callous individuals who are responsible for it. I can imagine nothing more brutal, nothing more calculated to destroy morale and to insult, to wound and to hurt people who have suffered most through the war effort of this country. “The Board is giving 100 per cent. towards the war effort” indeed. I want to quote the remarks of a journal, a highly esteemed paper with a very long career, which dealt with the attitude of the Board towards those who had been responsible in South Africa for maintaining morale amongst the public. I refer to the news commentators in Johannesburg, in Durban and in Cape Town. No men have done more than these men have done largely at their own expense to inform their minds with the knowledge necessary to give the lead to South African confidence and morale on this very important matter, the war effort. They have from day to day availed themselves of every means of reliable communication accessible to them, and they have done their best to impart to the public the knowledge thus gained and to put them in the position to anticipate the course of the war. And what has been their treatment? I want to read a cutting from a leading article in the “Natal Daily News” of the 29th March, 1945—

As I have a great deal to say on this subject I should like to ask the indulgence of the House to speak for 30 minutes. I was dealing with the comments made by the “Natal Daily News” and others in reference to the case of Mr. Broughton. I now wish to refer to the case of Mr. Potter. I merely want to say that Mr. Potter had his services discontinued as a news commentator though his value to the morale of the country, his value to the war effort, was incalculable. He was discontinued as a commentator. Why, Sir? Because of a poisonous attack made upon him by one member of the board which was circulated by the author to the other members of the board and others, with the intention of influencing them against Mr. Potter, and influencing them against Mr. Potter simply and solely on account of the views falsely attributed to him upon distorted versions of alleged private conversations and extravagant misrepresentations of views alleged to have been expressed by Mr. Potter in his journal. That was not sufficient. The member of the board concerned, Prof. Haarhoff, who is himself a leader writer in a weekly journal, is not answerable to the Broadcasting Board, nor would he for a moment hold himself responsible to that board for the views expressed in his journal; but he takes upon himself the onus of declaring that Mr. Potter should cease to be news commentator because of views expressed in the “Union Review”.

Of which is he proprietor.

It may be. But in so far as he is concerned, whatever views have been ventilated in the “Union Review” will bear the closest scrutiny. They are no more than any self-respecting English-speaking person would express if he were approached individually. They aim at showing that the British race in this country has been a healthy influence, and that efforts to undermine it on false representations should fail. That journal has devoted all its space to indicating that the position of the English-speaking people in South Africa is entitled to respect, and so far from being influenced by the hostile campaign that has been persistently pursued against them since the outbreak of the war they are entitled to the fullest acknowledgment as citizens of the Union whose views ought to be heard, and whose views are entitled to the greatest possible respect. If Prof. Haarhoff could have a man deprived of his opportunity of speaking to the public because of the case he tried to make out against Mr. Potter, most of us would be condemned to perpetual silence. I am today challenging the right of this board to go on as they are doing. To my mind the most recent incident is sufficient to cause such hostility towards this board as would lead to every one of them resigning if they are not completely dead to the voice of condemnation which issues practically from every home in South Afrcia today.

What nonsense.

The hon. member says “nonsense”.

Of course I do.

Do you not agree in condemning the Broadcasting Corporation for allowing the broadcast of the “Dying Soldier’s Song”—“Break the news to mother, I am not coming home again?” That was put across at a time when thousands of South Africans were on pins and needles to know the fate of dear ones at present overseas.

Potter spent his time insulting one section.

The hon. member will have his opportunity to speak. Hon. members cannot quote a single remark of Mr. Potter’s to that effect. I have heard about many of these remarks. Let the hon. member quote one authenticated remark in that vein that was made by Mr. Barnett Potter. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) holds up his notes. I shall tell him at once that I do not attach any credence to notes of that kind, unless they are from an authetic source. If he can quote a single offensive remark which would have justified the board in dispensing with Mr. Potter’s services I shall be very surprised. I have been a constant reader of the “Union Review” and I have been impressed by the consistently restrained attitude of that paper towards our public questions, and I am not going to rush into a defence of Mr. Potter when it is not necessary. If an attack was made on him such as was made by Prof. Haarhoff the board should have treated it with the contempt it deserves. The only unfortunate part of the attack was it was made in circles in which it was acted upon and a grave injury was done to public morale in regard to the war by destroying a source of inspiration which the people of South Africa had at a very critical time. The same holds good of Mr. Morris Broughton, who could hot be accused of expressing any views under his own name at all, and who had for several years devoted himself to the preparation of his broadcast on the question of the war. He also, had an enormous circle of listeners who looked forward every week to the broadcasts that he gave for the benefit of the public and particularly of those members of the public who were themselves contributing to the war effort. We are told that the chairman administers the affairs of the Broadcasting Corporation and those administrative duties entitled him to the salary of £1,500 a year. If we accept that we are entitled to ask what he was doing on Friday evening after having listened to the not altogether flattering remarks made about the Corporation, to go out and allow a broadcast of such an outrageous character to be put over the air at a time when everybody was passing through an agonising period of suspense, particularly the relatives of men serving at the front? The impression of everybody who may be regarded as a wireless fan, people who listen day after day and almost hour by hour to the wireless, is that this board must be replaced by a board which has not been discredited as this one is. I maintain this board has had its opportunity. It has grievously failed in every department, and the sooner its services are dispensed with— if such a miracle is possible—the better it will be for everybody. I understand that the state of the law is such that they are enshrined in office for the rest of their period. [Interruption.] My hon. friend asks how long is the time. “Oh Lord. How long?”

Not too long, Oh Lord.

I believe there is probably another three years to go. But are we certain we shall then see the last of this choice collection of individuals who mal-administer the affairs of the Broadcasting Corporation? I hope that we shall see the end of their period of office on that board when it is reconstituted. I hope then we shall have people who are as free of political influences as judges are, and who will be prepared to give, as the Minister said of the present board—I do not know whether he meant it ironically—“the best of their services to the country”. At present it is hard to know what interests the present board are serving in their blindness. We are only left to guess that the effort they aim at achieving it to destroy English-speaking influence in South Africa. That is the effort as far as we are able to judge by what has happened to the commentators whose services of outstanding merit have been discontinued. Do we hear of the views expressed by representatives of the Afrikaans Press who are broadcasters with the Corporation? Have we ever heard of any one of these gentlemen having his services discontinued?

Broadcasters or commentators?

I am speaking of people who do broadcast comments, and who from time to time do straight-out broadcasts.

Are they regular commentators?

I do not think they are regular, they get very good pay. [Interruptions.] I do not propose to interrupt my speech for the hon. member’s cross-examination. I have made a clear statement, that the people who have been turned away consistently by the Broadcast Corporation have been outstanding English commentators, whose whole effort has been devoted to improving the morale, maintaining the morale on the war effort, and they have been the target for the attacks of this peculiar board. I say that the sooner we can be relieved of the presence of the guilty members on the board of the Broadcasting Corporation, the sooner will South Africa begin to have some confidence, at any rate, in the affairs of the Corporation. I know of instances in which men on the staff of the board have been known to be completely against the war effort. I know of such an instance in which one of these men received a letter expressing regret that he should have been called upon, to broadcast on matters which he disagreed with entirely. If that was done with the approval of the board—and we are told the present chairman controls all administrative matters—it is a queer business. Here is a man who is flat out against the war effort who is called upon to broadcast several items relating to the progress of the war, and he receives an abject letter expressing regret that he should have been put to this disagreeable task. That indicates the true spirit that is behind this board. This is not the time to indicate what sort of board we should appoint. I shall be glad to do that at the right time, but I am for the moment contesting the Minister’s absurdly eulogistic statement that the board is 100 per cent. for the war effort; it is nothing of the kind.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think a more misplaced defence has ever been put up, as far as I can remember, in this House than the hon. member has gone to very great lengths to unfold in the course of his remarks on the Broadcasting Corporation and its board. We leave it at that. It is his opinion and as usual he is probably wandering in the wilderness by himself. I want however to break a lance with him on the question of this man Potter, this man whom he has eulogised for many minutes. I do not think the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has ever investigated the writings of this man Potter. The hon. member accuses the board of being racialistic. If ever there was a branded racialist in this country it is this man Potter, and on the question of racialism he is the most offensive wretch that ever put pen to paper. I think the board is to be congratulated on taking him off the air, because any man who can write as Potter has written is totally unfitted to be in the employ of any public utility corporation, or to be given charge of any form of publicity. What has Potter written? It is perfectly obvious from the very outset that he detests and abhors anyhing associated with Afrikaans. He made a most scurrilous attack on the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) in his very first issue. The whole foundation of his attack on the hon. member for Parktown—a gentleman with a very much more English than Afrikaans background—is that he goes into Parktown and tries to put the idea of racial co-operation prominently before that constituency. This proves immediately that Potter is a stinking racialist.

Where is the stinking racialism?

Wait a minute. Potter wrote this in his October issue—

That is what he thinks would happen if it were not for British influence in this country. I leave it to the House to decide could any man other than a racialist write anything of that nature? When he wrote that, an Afrikaans journal supporting the ’United Party on the Witwatersrand took him up, and quite rightly too. That Afrikaans journal is read, in the main, by Afrikaans people on the Witwatrsrand. Potter’s answer was to refer to it by saying that he was “rather weary of this little propaganda sheet …. although the intellectual content is probably adequate for those to whom it is addressed”. Criticise the paper if he likes, but could anything be more offensive to the tens of thousands of Afrikaans-speaking people on the Witwatersrand? I should like to go very much further. In an article in his last issue, the March issue, referring to an article entitled “Conflict between the old and new”, he alludes to Afrikaans-speaking people in the army. The hon. member can read it, I do not suppose he has done so. He stated in a footnote that 75 per cent. of the Afrikaans-speaking recruits in the last two years belonged to the classification “E”, “E” standing for economic. Potter stigmatised 75 per cent. of the Afrikaans recruits in the Union Defence Force in the last two years as economic conscripts.

Nothing of the kind.

Read it.

Read it yourself.

That comes from a man supposed to be fostering the war effort. That is a nice comment from an Englishman on those Afrikaans soldiers that fought from Casino to Bologna alongside the Brigade of Guards. The hon. member comes here and talks war effort and holds Potter up as an example of a man supporting our war effort.

You have not read his comment.

I have read his comment.

You dare not read his comment on that subject.

The position is plain. The hon. member tells us no Afrikaans commentator has been discharged. What happened to Pieter Beukes when he was offered the job of organising secretary of the United Party of the Witwatersrand? He was not given three months’ notice, the same as Potter. His contract was cancelled in 24 hours, because he became associated with politics. Take Marais Steyn, who was a broadcaster and eventually became associated with the Party. He was discharged instantly. But the hon. member wanders round wearing a pair of blinkers and only sees what suits him.

And he tells half the truth.

I believe that. This man Potter came to this country 20 years ago looking for work, and if any man has been kindly dealt with by this country it has been Potter, and it little behoves any Englishman to use a pen in the really offensive way he has done. I have never met Potter, but from his writings I can only say his degree of common decency is lower than one would expect to find from the product of the Ghetto, it is low in the extreme, and offensive. Here is a man with little or no experience of the real difficulties of the country, a leader writer, a man who has never moved among 90 per cent. of the people of the country, and it little becomes him to be so offensive as he has been. I would have had a lot to say if the Broadcasting Corporation had kept that man on. The hon. member talks about thousands of homes in this country that were annoyed. Tens of thousands of homes in this country would have raised the greatest protest if this obnoxious wretch had been allowed to broadcast. The hon. member talks about the dissatisfaction in his little Englander circle, but thousands of people who claim to be South Africans not only in birth but in outlook would have been offended had he continued to broadcast. I have heard of men switching off when he came on the air after his first article; I have witnessed it myself. The hon. member has wasted a lot of time in defending this gentleman; and a more misplaced defence never came before this House. I congratulate the board on having got rid of Mr. Potter.

It seems to me that we all need to be very careful indeed when we define matters connected with racialism. The speaker who has just sat down has compared, quite astonshingly it seems to me as a neutral, the particular man under discussion with the “average product of the Ghetto”, as though that were a disgraceful thing to be. Now, Sir, I do not think the average product of the Ghetto is worse than I am or other people in this House. But I chiefly rose to endorse the plea made by the hon. member for South Rand (Mr. Christie) on behalf of those members of the service who retire at the age of 55, having, through no fault of their own, but rather through their devoted and conscientious service to their country in a very difficult period, five or six months accumulated leave to their credit. Now, it is the fashion for the Minister to tell us that leave is a privilege. That is hardly a worthy Contention because usage has converted leave into a right, and it has indeed, as my hon. friend reminds me, been legalised. Now, I think I should leave it at that and make the claim that these people have a reasonable claim which should be upheld. They have not had the leave and they are entitled, whatever is said to the contrary, to financial consideration. I read with some interest, if not with what the French call “impressement”, a statement in the evening paper about the Minister’s reply to this debate. It was said that there was a justifiable air of “I have heard this before” about the Minister’s succinct reply. It may have been succinct but it was not very successful or satisfactory. There is a peculiar logic contained here, that if the Minister has heard of an abuse often enough, he is entitled to do nothing whatever about it. I have no need to stress that point. I will put before the Minister a very ancient abuse about which he has done nothing, and as far as I know proposes to do nothing. Perhaps he will give me good news in that respect before the end of this debate. I have on my desk a letter from a correspondent whose caligraphy is most meritorious and whose composition is worthy of the Postmaster-General himself. This man joined the postal service in 1930 as a learner, and was given the not very munificent sum, as he himself describes it, of 2s. a day for his work, which amounted to £2 14s. a month for 27 days work. After five or six months he was promoted 1s. a day, thereby in all receiving £4 1s. a month. Successively he mounted to great heights, relatively; he received £5 8s. and £6 15s. every month. But to compensate for that financial wealth, his social circumstances were interrupted. He was sent away from his home town, where this £6 15s. did not even pay for his board and lodging, and therefore he was again dependent on the old man and the old woman. I beg your pardon; I should have said the parents, referring to his father and mother. Now, during this time he did alternating duty with the most senior assistant in the office, for which he should have received 1s. a day as a responsible duty allowance. The claim was duly made by the local Postmaster and duly turned down on top, and he did not get it. Now, this man, of course, has been an “old contemptible”, as 1933 recruits have proved to be. In that year he was put on the fixed establishment, at £120 per annum, less the usual deductions for pension, etc. The 2½ years that he had served did not count as previous service, for purposes of promotion, or for pension rights. This man and others do not press for restitution of the financial loss for the period of 10 or 12 years. They might easily do so, and justly. The learner today does not get £2 14s. but £10 16s. 8d. when he first starts in the Post Office. But they do ask that their position may be regularised and that an adjustment should be made. And what does that mean? The total number of men concerned is less than 200. I believe the exact number is 187. The average monthly increase they ask for is £1 6s. 8d., so the whole sum involved is the not very stupendous amount of £3,000 per annum. The country is willing to pay that £3,000 per annum. It wishes to pay it. One does want to know from the Minister why he is not prepared to pay it. It may be that he will tell us. I had better not make his speech for him. Perhaps he will bring up once more the excuse of the Public Service Commission, but I hope not.

Anyone in the House who happens to have read Mr. Potter’s “New Union Review” will know that it gives me no satisfaction whatever to intervene in this debate on the question of Mr. Potter’s dismissal from the Broadcasting Corporation, but I feel that if I do not say something about it I shall be failing in my duty. Mr. Potter himself has expended a good deal of his undoubted literary ability in a prodigal fashion in defending himself. I think he has made out a better case than the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick); but Mr. Potter’s dismissal has also given rise to a good deal of criticism of the board, and, in my constituency in particular, a certain amount of public outcry has taken place, and I have received from my constituents a great many letters of protest against the conduct of the board in regard to the matter. Recently, as hon. members may know, I accompanied the hon. member for Pine-town in a deputation to the Minister in which the plea was put forward that a judicial enquiry should be set up to investigate the circumstances in which Mr. Potter and two other gentlemen were dismissed. The attitude which I took up at that deputation was simply this, that if possible the hon. Minister should use his influence to lay down a principle, or to see that the principle was laid down by the board, that the engagement and dismissal of commentators should not in any way be influenced by the political views they might happen to hold or to express. That was the principle which I felt, at the time, should be adopted by the board, and a principle which I hoped the Minister would see his way clear to introduce to the board. It seemed to me moreover that Potter’s dismissal was a violation of that principle. However, after consideration and discussion with the Minister, I am bound to confess that I have been led to some modification-of that view. I would very much like to see the principle established. I would very much like to see that commentators, such as Potter, whose broadcasts concerned foreign affairs, should be able to remain on irrespective of their political views, but after consideration I am bound to confess that, in a country like South Africa such a principle cannot be wholeheartedly maintained. It is therefore with great reluctance that I am forced to abandon the view which I originally held in this matter. I think one must distinguish between the type of political view which commentators may hold or express. I think there are a great many fields of politics where the holding of particular views can be reconciled with broadcasting on non-political subjects. But there is a certain kind of political view, in a country like South Africa, alas, which cannot be so reconciled, and I am obliged to subscribe, although possibly not in the robust language he employed, to the views expressed by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter). The views of Mr. Potter are racial views. The views he expresses in his paper take on a racial colour and they are the sort of views which, one must admit, exasperate and give offence to a large section of people in South Africa. We have to accept that, and the board has had to accept it. I think that they may well lay down as a general rule, that political views should not influence them, i.e. the political views of commentators, but one is bound to admit that certain types of views cannot be reconciled with popularity with the public, and views such as Mr. Potter has expressed in his “New Union Review” have in fact given offence to a great number of people. Mow, Mr. Chairman, beyond that I am not prepared to go in this matter. I am prepared to say that after Mr. Potter’s. “New Union Review” appeared it might well have been undesirable to retain him in his position as commentator on foreign affairs, but further than that I cannot go, and I am bound to add that, in this matter, it seems to me the board acted most unwisely. They acted hastily and tactlessly and exposed themselves to a great deal of criticism, in many respects justifiable criticism. We find that as long ago as April last year the board arrived at a decision that from time to time they would make changes in the personnel changes amongst the commentators. They kept that decision to themselves, but when they finally decided not to renew Potter’s contract in December we heard for the first time that this decision had been taken in April. At the same time we heard that Potter’s political views were such that the board did not feel justified in retaining his services. Not to go into too great detail, it seems to me that the board vacillated between sheltering themselves behind the decision they had taken in April, namely the decision to change the commentators from time to time, and the more definite and bold line that they got rid of Potter because of his political activities. I would have much preferred, and would have found it much easier to defend the board’s conduct, if they had said, immediately Potter’s review appeared: “We are very sorry, but we find that views of this kind give offence to a great number of people in South Africa and therefore we must terminate your services.” Such a line would have been proper and would have shown courage and determination. Furthermore. I would like to suggest to the Minister, in so far as he may exercise influence over the behaviour of the board, that some sort of principle should be laid down for the future in regard to the type of commentator whose services may be engaged. By that I mean, where is the line to be drawn in regard to the political views held by a commentator? It seems to me that some sort of principle in that regard must be established. I would suggest that it is for the Minister to establish such a principle, and I would suggest further that having arrived at and established such a principle, it should be made public and all commentators should be informed in advance exactly where they stand. They should be told in advance that if they give public expression to political views of a certain colour the board may be obliged to relieve them of their duties. But it seems to me that there must be some kind of certainty in this matter. It must not be left to the sort of explosion which has taken place between Potter and the Broadcasting Corporation, an explosion which gave rise to a good deal of misunderstanding, which exposed the board to much criticism, and which put into the hands of Potter a great deal of ammunition which he used very effectively. Finally I would suggest that if any principle can be established, if the Minister’s influence can be exercised in regard to the manner in which appointments are made of commentators to the Broadcasting Corporation, it should be made clear that the test whether a commentator’s political views are or are not of a kind which justify his retention by the Corporation, the test should be whether or not those views are offensive to a large section of the people in South Africa: it should not be allowed to appear that a man loses his position as a commentator because his particular views are offensive to one or two members of the board.

I have listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) and quite frankly I do not know whether he was defending the board or supporting the board in its dismissal of Mr. Potter. Certainly I am with the hon. member for Parktown all the way when he takes exception to the language of our colleague the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter). Never in my life did I hear that abuse can be used for argument. There was not the slightest need for the hon. member for Springs, if he had a shortage of effective arguments to deviate from his notes with no intention of being anything else but definitely and postively and aggressively abusive to this Potter, who is not here to defend himself, although it really does not matter whether he is or not. The hon. member for Springs is a person capable of expressing a point of view, and I find myself in complete accord with the hon. member for Parktown who, whilst to some extent defending the board, disassociated himself from the use of disgustingly offensive language. I am one of those who opposed the dismissal of Mr. Potter.

That is perfectly obvious.

I base it on the principle which I am prepared to define, as the hon. member for Parktown defined his principle. A commentator should express, as Potter did, political views. Those political views were definitely intended for the uplift and implementation of moral standards, the uplift of the war effort. He was a person who was commenting on war news, and if there was anything to be gleaned out of any advance, or something of which was going to enhearten every South African in a determination to support the war effort and to maintain the standard of our enlistment and recruitment, it should have been commented on, and I offer no apology for the fact that a person who was 100 per cent. in favour of the war effort, no matter how political his comments, no’ matter how unpalatable it was for a section of the community, should get the job and retain the job. Now, what has the hon. member for Parktown said? He finds himself expressing the views of hundreds of thousands of people who are both supporters and opposers of Mr. Potter’s particular point of view as expressed in the “New Union Review”. A person should be appointed and maintained in that appointment immaterial as to the period of time he has been there, provided he does his job and does it well. We are told that Potter was put out because his contract had terminated. We were told that in April when the storm of protest against his contract being stopped arose, and then we were told it was because of his political views. Immediately the directorate changed their views and said that they had decided in April not to continue it, and they did so because it was their declared intention to make a change. I have listened for almost five years to Mr. Wickham Steed’s commentary on the war. It became better and better by virtue of the fact that he had behind him the research of five years. We do not want wish-washy commentators. Gordon Bagnall had done it for years before the war. Morris Broughton was a commentator. He was dropped to justify the decision with regard to Potter, and so was Bagnall, If these people were worth their appointment they should have been maintained. I say it is not the Board of Directors who run the policy of the Broadcasting Corporation. It is the Director, and the views I have expressed to the Broadcasting Directors were these: The sooner you get rid of your Director the better it will be for broadcasting generally in this country. Why cannot we get rid of him? The hon. member for Springs said in reference to the two Afrikaans commentators whose services were terminated that they went like this—and he snapped his fingers. I do not know how Hansard is going to interpret that snap of his fingers, but if that was the policy of the board, they should have done it with Bagnall and with Potter and with the Intelligence Officer who was put up by this Government to make reports so that they could be broadcast from the Union. Let us make nA mistake about it. We wanted political opinions expressed, and expressed by people who were 100 per cent in favour of the war, as were Potter, Broughton and Bagnall, and they should not have been dismissed simply because their time had elapsed. I think it is a farce for the directors of the Broadcasting Corporation to come now and say it is their policy to make a change and to continue changing the commentators. If the Minister has any power whatever on this board let him say once and for all that where a man is doing his job he is prepared to keep him in his job, and to say that the board will work according to this principle. Was there anything more disgusting than the dismissal of Cecil Wightman, who was called upon to express an interpretation of the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in a play that had been produced for people in America? Wightman felt that the interpretation was not doing the Prime Minister justice, and said that he refused to interpret it in that way. He was dismissed on the spot.

All your facts about Wightman are wrong.

Oh, are they! They may be wrong but they are due to the excuses made in consequence of it. The Minister may be better informed than I am. He may get his information from the board or the directors.

It happens to come from Cecil Wightman himself.

Ah, that is interesting. I do not know what Cecil Wightman has told the hon. member for Springs.

I have never spoken to him in my life.

Oh, it is the Minister. Then let the Minister make himself better acquainted with what happens. There is no question about it that Wightman’s dismissal was wrong in the first instance. Either it had nothing to do with his duties as a member of the Broadcasting Corporation staff, or everything. He took a particular line of action which the board said had nothing to do with his duties, but because he took that line he was sacked. Wightman’s interpretation of the character that was being portrayed was accepted by a higher authority. The script was altered and he won all along the line, and he was told that it had nothing to do’ with his duties as a member of the Broadcasting staff, but it had sufficient to do with his duties to warrant him getting the sack.

He did not get the sack.

There are 150 criticisms to he directed against the policy of the board. [Time limit.]

Cecil Wightman was got rid of because he was too South African. That is why he was got rid of over that particular play about the Prime Minister. But let us leave that matter alone. I want to deal with Potter and I want to say that I do not know whether the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) is coming or going on this particular question. Now, if a man is a contentious newspaper editor like myself, how can he expect to be commentator? Would the hon. Minister appoint me as a commentator?

Heaven forbid!

No, they are right not to do it. I am a contentious journalist. It is not much good coming along and saying Mr. Potter was looking after the war effort, when he, by writing in his newspaper, hurt thousands of Afrikaans-speaking people whose sons were at the front. So where is the case for him? When he referred to our friends opposite he called them our enemies.

They may be political enemies and we may disagree here, but they are South Africans.

Enemies of the war effort.

No, he said enemies of South Africa. As soon as I read Potter’s article I said: “You cannot do this,” and he took me to lunch and spoke about it and I said he cannot be a commentator because he cannot say that of these men who tomorrow may be members of the Government. I can do it because I am a contentious journalist, but he cannot. Dr. Verwoerd can do it, but would the Government ever appoint’ him as an Afrikaans-speaking commentator?

What would the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) have said if they had done it?

The Sons of England would have gone pale pink, they would have gone blue with anger. If one of the Afrikaans commentators steps just a little over the mark he is out. But why should an Englishman come to South Africa and talk about my accent? He said that South African English-speaking men have a dreadful accent when they speak English. That may be, but it is South African English, and the English South Africans in this country have a culture equal to the culture of any Englishman from overseas, and we are not going to allow English-speaking people to come from overseas and dictate to us. The trouble was that Barnett Potter was driving a wedge between the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking sections, and we were not going to stand for it.

It is only Mossel Bay.

The hon. member always likes to cause trouble between the English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people. I am not standing for it myself. The hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) said that Potter did a lot for the war effort. So he should. He is an English-speaking ex-soldier, and anybody else in his position should have done a lot for the war effort. He has done well for himself. He married a rich woman, a Miss Spicer; he settled down here and everything was all right. Then the first thing he does is to jeer and sneer at the Afrikaans-speaking people right from the establishing of his paper. The Government could not stand for it. Parliament could not stand for it, and let me tell my hon. friends on the other side there are many English-speaking South Africans who will not stand for it. That is the difference between the Dominion Party and the United Party. I have very great respect for my hon. friend Mr. Marwick, I respect him more than any man in this House, but I say his opinion is always that we must have one foot in England and fly the Union Jack, the Union Jack the whole time, and to hit the Afrikaans-speaking people for six whenever we get the chance. We are not going to do it. He is very like the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) on the other side; the one wants to hurt the English whenever possible and the other the Afrikaners. [Interruption.] Barnett Potter is the leader of this particular section, the Dominion Party. The old gentleman on this side is slowly fading away, and Potter is to be their new leader.

What nonsense.

He is the new leader, and they are anxious he should be given the right to talk to 750,000 people every Sunday night and put over his news, and at the same time his “Union Review” will come along. If it had not been for Mr. Potter’s broadcasting people would never have heard of the “Union Review.” Until they knew he was a broadcaster people were not interested in this silly little paper that had no circulation. He used his broadcasting renown to push his newspaper along, and from beginning to end his newspaper was anti-Afrikaans in spirit. We are not going to allow an English-speaking man from overseas to take that line. That is why Potter had to go, and I am not interested in all these quibbles. The fact is that the way he was writing he was a danger to the peace of South Africa. I am not speaking as an Afrikaans-speaking man but as an English-speaking man. I have had plenty of mail to prove this point. We should not have an English-speaking person to divide the people of the country; that is what Potter was doing, he was egging them on. He talked about us having a bad accent, about our friends over there being enemies of the country, sneering at everything they said and saying they were bad South Africans. They are not bad South Africans. They are bad politicians, but they are good South Africans. We are not going to say they are bad South Africans because they take a certain line. They are our blood brothers. We are not going to have a man whether he is from England or Germany or Sweden or anywhere else who is going to cause trouble in that way, and that is the view the Broadcasting Board have taken, and I congratulate them on it.

I think it is about time that some members of the United Party began to use the intelligence that was given them at birth, but which they seem to have lost, judging by some of the remarks that have been made by them time after time. They will continue to accuse the Dominion Party of being a racial party. I should like to ask the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) when and where a responsible member of the Dominion Party ever made a statement calculated to hurt the feelings of the Afrikaans-speaking section. It is the only weapon they can use against us, that we are a racial party. We ask them, in turn, when did this racialism take place? Give us some statement by a responsible member of the Party who has said anything in public or otherwise that the Afrikaans-speaking people can take exception to. I think “Arthur Barlow’s Weekly” might take a lead in this matter if it is a question of the “Union Review” becoming a paper given to racialism. I believe the hon. member for Hospital made a certain accusation against Mr. Potter that was denied, and it was not a very nice accusation that the hon. member for Hospital made. It was contradicted by Mr. Potter, and one would have been pleased to see the hon. member get up in this House and withdraw it.

What is it?

I cannot remember. There is so little to these racial matters that I like to forget them. The following letter has been sent to members with this extract—

Why does he not withdraw?

Why should I withdraw it?

Because he never stated it. That is the sort of thing that members use against the Dominion Party. I ask them, when did our Leader or our Press give expression to views of a racial character to which you can take exception? I hold no brief for Mr. Potter, but I do not think any member should allow a statement to get abroad that a man is a racialist when he is not. Mr. Potter is a man who has studied Afrikaans and he can speak Afrikaans as well as most Afrikaners. The hon. member stated here that he was not going to learn Afrikaans when he had already learned the language. Statements of that sort do no good, and we in the Dominion Party are attempting to see the good in each race, and that is a policy we have always advocated. If Mr. Potter has offended the susceptibilities of the Afrikaans-speaking people, he may have done it unwittingly. He may also be accused of something that never existed. But if it is the opinion of a large section of the Afrikaans-speaking people that he has been offensive to them, I say it may be just as well for him to have been withdrawn from the broadcasting as a commentator. But I agree with the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) that it could have been done in another way. It is strange, too that you have three English-speaking men who have been listened to nightly for several years thrown off the air almost overnight.

Why is it strange?

It is strange that they all happen to be English-speaking.

Who has been put in their place?

When English-speaking people notice that men like Mr. Gordon Bagnall of Cape Town, Mr. Morris Broughton of Durban and Mr. Potter of Johannesburg have their services terminated within practically a few weeks of each other, you cannot blame them for coming to the conclusion that these men have been victimised.

Have they put Afrikaners in their places or English-speaking people?

That is not the point at all. I am not saying of these men that their services ought not to have been dispensed with. It is the method that has been used to get rid of these people. It is totally wrong. I also think that the public ought to be considered in this matter, and no one can say that Mr. Potter, Mr. Gordon Bagnall and Mr. Morris Broughton have not been very successful over the radio. It has been the same right throughout the country. The people have listened in to them. I must say I myself have always been impressed by Mr. Gordon Bagnall’s broadcasting; he follows exactly the same lines as Mr. Wickham Steed overseas.

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

When I was interrupted by the lunch interval I was endeavouring to say to the House that the representations and accusations against the Dominion Party were grossly unfounded and I have yet to hear of any member who is able to prove to us that my Party, or responsible members of it, either by word or act, did anything to which the Afrikaans-speaking community can take exception. I would also like to remind hon. members, English-speaking members of the House who sit here day after day listening to insults levelled at the English-speaking section, that the insults do not come from one side only. I hope the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) and other hon. members will jump up to defend the English-speaking community against insults also. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) stated this morning that this gentleman, Mr. Potter, was the coming leader of the Dominion Party. It is rather strange that most of the Parliamentary members of the Dominion Party have never met Mr. Potter, and it is just as wild and as extravagant as the usual utterances of the hon. member for Hospital, of whose extravagances the House is becoming tired and disgusted. Let me say that the controlled Press will be delighted to tell the public that this gentleman who is alleged to be such a racialist will become the leader of the Dominion Party, and that is probably why the hon. member said it, just another dig at the Dominion Party. Let me tell the House that this Mr. Potter in 1933 accused me, as chairman of the Devolutionist Party in Natal, of being one of the greatest racialists in South Africa. He was then the defender of the Afrikaans-speaking people, and we were the racialists. It is rather strange that today the very same gentleman is being accused by my English-speaking colleagues of being a racialist. Perhaps it will do Mr. Potter some good to realise that instead of us being racialists, he is being rightly or wrongly accused of being the arch-racialist of South Africa. [Time limit.]

As an English-speaking South African I would like to pass a few remarks in connection with the cancellation of the contracts of the news commentators which has been discussed here today. It would appear from what was said by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) that he is of the opinion that once the South African Broadcasting Corporation enters into a contract with a news commentator that commentator should carry on, without any interference whatsoever, until he himself decides to terminate the contract. Such a position naturally would be absurd, but there are people in the Union who have similar views. The Broadcasting Corporation has often been criticised regarding the poor nature of the programmes put on the air, and it must be very refreshing to the board to hear that, for once, they have satisfied the public in the selection of news commentators, in view of the fact that there is this disturbance when anyone has his contract terminated. The B.B.C. found it desirable, from time to time, to terminate contracts they had with their news commentators.

What about Wickham Steed?

I agree that Wickham Steed still goes on well, but listeners generally, get tired of one voice and want a change. There is no reason why we in this country cannot have a change and have someone equally as good as the commentators we had before. I would like to congratulate the Corporation on their selection and I think we will still be able to congratulate them when we have heard the new commentators. The South African Broadcasting Corporation decided as long ago as April last to make a change in the news commentators who were broadcasting. Like the B.B.C., they felt that it was desirable that new views should be expressed, and, as a result the first change was made in July last year when the contract for the Cape Town commentator terminated. The same applied to Johannesburg, there the contract expired on 31st December and it was decided that it would not be renewed. Later, in March of this year, the contract in respect of the Durban commentator was likewise terminated. The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) has said that the Durban and Cape Town commentators had their contracts terminated to cover the dismissal, as it has been called in this House, of Mr. Potter in Johannesburg, but that is not the case. When the decision was arrived at in April last year, 12 months ago, and also, when the first change was made in Cape Town in July last year, Mr. Potter was not then editor of the “Union Review” and, therefore, it cannot be said that these two changes were made to cover up the termination of Mr. Potter’s contract. The news commentators have very Wide publicity, and they eventually come on the air as if they were personal friends of ours and naturally the listener objects to shutting the door on a friend. Some news commentators, and even some wireless artists, get swollen heads, and personally, I feel it is desirable to give them a rest and to make a change. I find no fault whatsoever with the action of the board, and I am sure that when we hear these new commentators we shall say: “Well, they are as good as, or better than the others”. It is a great pity that all this fuss has been made over the termination of one individual contract. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the statements made by Mr. Potter in his paper the “Union Review” and as I have said before, his dismissal was dealt with prior to the existence of the “Union Review”. I do say, however, that the board should not appoint as news commentators anybody who is prominently associated with a newspaper, or some public organisation, holding views that might offend a certain section of listeners. I heartily endorse the action taken by the board of the S.A.B.C.

I think the hon. member who has just spoken has entirely missed the point with regard to commentators. I did not hear anybody suggest that a commentator should be allowed to remain as long as he liked and never be dismissed. When the hon. member quoted the B.B.C. he was entirely wrong, because there is no broadcasting corporation that employs commentators over such a long period of years as the B.B.C. The difference between them and our corporation is that the B.B.C. have scouts going round all the time, and they find out whether a man is satisfying the public, and quite rightly. If they find a man no longer pleases the public they give him notice. But here they give him notice, but there is no means of finding out whether he is satisfying the public. The policy seems to be that when a man has been broadcasting for a few years he ought to be got rid of, no matter what his qualifications. No one would object to a man being given notice when he is no longer satisfying the public, who are the reason for his employment. The point is that the board does not take the slightest trouble to get into touch with the public and ascertain their view. I know in Mr. Bagnall’s case he satisfied the public to an enormous extent; they were very satisfied. And the only reason why he was taken off was that he had been acting as commentator for a number of years. That is nothing to guide one. The Prime Minister spent all his years in public life; the length of time has nothing to do with it. If he is efficient, if he is satisfying the public, if he is doing his job well, it is not a question of length of service that should decide whether a commentator’s services should be retained. Instead of blackguarding him for his length of service we should appreciate it. When Mr. Bagnall was taken off there was certainly a very general feeling of disappointment. The reason I rose was not to take part in this debate. It was only because of the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) that I made these remarks. My purpose in rising is to support the plea put forward by the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) in regard to the 1933 recruits. It is a fight that has been going on for twelve years and they represent a class of men who have been the victims of a grievious injustice. By a short head they were recruited before the new and better conditions came into existence. It was when we were still under the depression cuts and men were being penalised, while those who joined later had very much better pay and terms of conditions and scales than these men. The number of men involved is not large, and it is a crying injustice their case has not been remedied. The Minister is sympathetic; he always has been. He admits the justice of their claim. But he said he could not get past the Public Service Commission. They object each time he brings forward a case for their position being remedied. The Minister seemed to agree that the men have a very good case. It was brought forward again, and again spoilt by the Public Service Commission. Then the Minister said he would put it before the Cabinet, and the last thing we heard was that the Cabinet had turned it down. If ever there was a class who needed fair play it is these 1933 recruits. As the hon. member has pointed out, the amount involved is not very large, and there seems no reason why this festering sore should not be cured. They are suffering because a cut was made during the depression and they were recruited just before the cut was restored. Unfortunately they have been labouring under this cruel injustice for twelve years. I believe they represent the only body who suffered under the depression conditions who have not had their case remedied. They feel their position very keenly, and their brethern in the service have tried hard to see the grievances of these men remedied.

The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) and the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) have raised the question of the 1933 recruits. All I can say is that they know my sympathies, and that the matter is being specially represented to the Public Service Enquiry Commission presided over by Mr. Justice Centlivres. The hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) and the hon. member for Calvinia (Mr. Luttig) as well as the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) raised the quëstion of the secret radio station. Over three years ago when this matter was raised, I spoke very strongly against this station and said it would have to close down; I gave instructions in connection with closing it down.

But you did not know where it was.

I did not know where it was. They had to check up on it, and they could not locate it, but it had evidently closed down on account of the remarks I made here. The real point is that the hon. member for Mossel Bay referred to the radio transmitter at Pretoria. Some expert said that the fault on this radio was also present in the Pretoria radio.

The one taken off the air.

That the fault was the same as in the case of the one at Pretoria.

There was an Afrikaans radio machine taken off the air and handed over to the military. That radio outfit had the same mistake as was present on the secret one.

I am unable to reply on that. I thought the hon. member referred to the radio in Pretoria, because the Pretoria station has been under guard ever since the outbreak of war.

Not that station.

But your own people were using the radio.

Of course they were.

Of course they were.

We will agree to differ on that.

Your Department or your Party’s people.

The hon. member for Calvinia referred to the question of telephone lines. I am going to deal with that in connection with capital expenditure. He also dealt with the delay on connections. We all realise that these delays take place, but it is due to the amount of telephoning and the lack of facilities, which, I hope, we shall be able to improve when the capital expenditure is approved of and that some relief will be given. The hon. member for Wolmaransstad referred to the night service between Pretoria and Cape Town. There again the difficulty is the heavy load that is being carried, and the other question he raised about dialling “91” is also being investigated. I have had the same experience.

It is an absolute disgrace.

That matter is being investigated. Now I come to a matter raised by various members first by the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) in connection with the news commentators at Cape Town, Johannesburg and Durban. After listening to the debate that has taken place here, I do not see that the board could have done anything other than they have done in connection with the matter. The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) has explained the position. I do not know where he got his information, but it happens to be correct. As long ago as April last year this very difficult position was discussed with me and the board in regard to these commentators. In regard to Mr. Bagnall there were people who complained he had been on the air long enough. As far as Mr. Potter is concerned, people complained bitterly not of his matter but of the way in which he delivered it. I was one of them. The same in respect of Mr. Broughton. The board realised and recognised these people had done very useful work. Mr. Bagnall’s services were dispensed with in July, but he is still being employed in another capacity, and he is doing good work. We appreciate the fact, and some day he will probably come back. As far as Mr. Potter is concerned, I am not going to continue the subject any further. Mr. Broughton resigned.

It was made too hot for him.

All I can say is the cancellations of these appointments were for none of the reasons advanced here. The cancellations were decided long before Mr. Potter thought of starting his magazine.

The first excuse was his political views.

I am not going into the details. What I am prepared to admit, quite frankly and unreservedly, is that I agree with the hon. member for Durban (Central) (Mr. Derbyshire) that the matter might have been dealt with differently as far as Mr. Barnett Potter is concerned. That is the position in regard to these commentators. Let me add this; without wishing to detract from the broadcasts for which they were responsible and I frankly admit that many listeners have protested against doing away with their services, the people who have succeeded them are fulfilling the functions they have been called upon to fulfil, and I do not think anyone who has listened to Mr. Kidd in Cape Town can say he is not an acquisition and the same remark applies to Mr. Buchanan in Johannesburg. I say again it would be a mistake for the board to keep these people too long. I believe the public get tired of hearing the same voices. The other point made by the hon. member for Pinetown was that the Afrikaans people were not being dealt with in the same manner. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) has told him that as soon as one of them took a political appointment his services were immediately dispensed with. People who are engaged on the Afrikaans Press take part in plays and things of that description; they are not commentators, and nobody can take the slightest exception to them being employed in that way, especially as the corporation is looking for talent.

There is just a small matter to which I want to direct the Minister’s attention. One now sees that in many platteland towns post boys and telegraph boys are being superseded by coloureds. I wish to be very careful in discussing this matter, but I would like to bring to the Minister’s attention that I received various complaints about it from towns in my constituency. One realises that coloureds must also find work somewhere, but I should like to know from the Minister what his policy is in this connection. The matter may be much clearer if one knows what the policy of the Department is. One finds now that boys who are perhaps mentally not too highly developed, when they leave school, are placed in jobs like that, but today coloureds take their place, and the people are dissatisfied and they arouse dissatisfaction amongst other sections of the public. Representations were made to me by quite a number of towns in my constituency, but I think the greatest complaint and dissatisfaction is at Burghersdorp.

Are there at present European boys who want the work?

I do not want to enter upon that, nor do I want to expand upon the subject, but I received complaints that coloureds are taking the places of Europeans who were there as post boys. I did not investigate details, but it was brought to my notice in this way, that coloureds are superseding European boys. I should however like to know what the policy of the Minister is in connection therewith. On the railways, for example, the bed boys are mostly coloureds. Let’ the Minister tell us what the position in his Department is in this regard.

It is not the policy of the Department to substitute coloured men for white men, but today there is an enormous shortage of messenger boys at Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg. Requests have been made for the employment of coloured people, but it has not been done. At Burghersdorp and other places they are being employed, because I believe it was done before.

What is your policy?

Our policy is to play the game to the coloureds as well as the whites, but no coloured man is going to oust a white man from his position. We are very short of postmen and messengers.

Will you employ a white postman in Burghersdorp if you can get one?

Not to the detriment of a coloured man who may have been doing the work satisfactorily for years past, but if there is a vacancy he will get the job.

With all due respect to the estimable gentlemen who constitute the board and who appear to have acted with the approval of the Minister, they remind me of the old magistrate whose judgment is usually right but whose reasons are usually wrong. I used to listen with great pleasure to Mr. Potter’s broadcasts and I saw no politics in them. He was ostensibly dismissed on account of his lengthy period of service. The Minister said that in April that was being discussed. Length of service, I think, is a very bad reason. I think a very much stronger reason for the Minister and the board to advance is that Mr. Potter was dismissed because of the very vigorous political attitude he took up in the magazine, an attitude with which I disagree, but which I must admit is very refreshing after the appeasement we are accustomed to. But we are not told about that. The real reason that should have been given is not given. We are told it is on account of length of service. I am informed—I hope the Minister will correct me—in the case of Mr. Potter there was no such thing as an agreement for any fixed period. They could have put him off at any time, and I say they should have put him off, having regard to the political views he was advocating, after the first issue of the “Union Review”, and not waited a long time and given the public then a specious explanation about him having been too long there. I feel that less than justice has been done to the board. My friend the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) in a very heated speech, compared Mr. Potter to a product of the Ghetto. That is no reflection on Mr. Potter. I am a product of the Ghetto, and throughout the world some of the best citizens have been products of the Ghetto. So for us that appears only another method of appeasing our friends. It has been rather surprising to hear the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) on this subject in view of the vicious attacks he has been making during recent months. I want to come to another issue altogether, and that is this: The Government has been paying to S.A.P.A.-Reuter £100 a month for the useless bits of news we get every day on the broadcast. It is useless and it is not official, and what is more it is invariably stale because the board can only get that news after it has appeared in the daily Press. I read the news in the daily Press, and then I have to listen to the same news being broadcasted. It is an absolute waste of money to pay that £100 every month to that monopolistic concern. What is more, I believe the board could easily and at much less expense if they listened in to the B.B.C. and to other stations, get a better news service. All that is required is to employ an intelligent clerk and summarise the news. In that way we would have a much more up to date service than the present S.A.P.A.-Reuter reports.

One word, in reply to the hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge), before I go on. The hon. member says the news supplied by S.A.P.A. —I am not making a case for S.A.P.A.—is only what he reads in the morning paper. He may be one of the fortunate individuals who lives in the city, in Durban and Johannesburg and Cape Town, but surely he recognises that South Africa is not Cape Town. Many people living in the country districts can only get the daily newspaper two or three days after publication, and they are entitled to have this S.A.P.A service broadcasted. During the last five years almost all the news has been concerned with the war, but thank goodness we will not have the war all our lives and we shall have South African news. We cannot do it from London or Zeesen or America, and therefore we will have to depend on our South Afrcian news agencies. Some hon. members have made the point I have always made, that the most un-South African thing in the Union of South Africa is the broadcasting, and the most un-South African broadcaster we have had, incidentally, was Mr. Barnett Potter. I believe that is why he got fired. I think the hon. Minister would probably have interpreted the feeling of this House a little better if he had given the additional reasons why Potter was fired. I hope the Minister is not going to insist that he was not fired, because if he does that I feel he will be offending public opinion a great deal. Potter asked to be fired, he deserved to be fired, and he should have been fired, and this is the only occasion I found myself able to congratulate the Broacasting Board on their decision, on their having the pluck to fire him. I have listened to Potter for many months giving his commentary on world affairs. I hate superciliousness in any case but I am quite satisfied—if I may coin a word—that the greatest heights of supercilisity I have ever heard has been Mr. Barnett Potter over the wireless.

It sounds like a disease.

To listen five minutes to Mr. Potter was enough to make me crawl into a corner, a poor ignorant boob, until I started examining his commentary, and then I found from a point of view of intelligence, from a point of view of being well-informed, it was nothing to write home about. Potter is not a heaven-sent genius. He has certainly a clever way of writing. But he writes in a supercilious vein. Broadcasting in this or any other country is not a vehicle or medium merely to enable an individual to show he has a supreme contempt for the intelligence of the rest of South Africa. Running all through his commentary was that supreme contempt for the intelligence of the rest of South Africa. Surely we must not allow broadcasting to be used as a medium of that kind. In any case, I object to his accent; I do not like it. On more than one occasion he has made it clear to me he does not think much of my views or intelligence, although at one time he was a Labour Party candidate overseas, and at another time he edited the “Mineworkers’ Journal”, the official organ of the Mineworkers’ Union in Great Britain. South Africa, I think, has been very kind to him. South Africa has elevated him to a position which neither his intelligence, and certainly not his voice warranted, and now we find that the mere suggestion that Mr. Potter should relinquish his duties as a commentator has been made a first-class issue in the Union. I can remember that in Johannesburg the war stood still for four days while the “Rand Daily Mail” discussed the pros and cons as to whether we should be bored to tears by Mr. Potter or not. Incidentally, if the member for Troyeville’s (Mr. Kentridge) story is correct and if the news given by S.A.P.A. is correct, what was Mr. Potter’s commentary on Sunday nights except what everyone could have read in the newspapers during the week plus a few comments? But in the meantime he developed into an expert on military strategy. What does he know about strategy?

He was in the last war.

He may have been in the last war, but that does not make him an expert on strategy. The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) was in the last war but that does not mean that the Prime Minister would entrust him with the safety of the 6th Division. But we used to have this sort of thing even before the war. Before the war news commentators used to say that a bearded man was seen to drop his spectacles in Bucharest; what does it mean? We had too much of that in South Africa. The hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) on Friday suggested that we must follow the overseas example and that once a man has been broadcasting for 15 years it is a sure sign that people like him.

No, I did not say that.

I know you did not. I know you would not make a brutal remark of that description, but that is how I interpreted it. Having broadcast for 15 years it is a sign that people like him. Rather, I should say, after broadcasting for 15 years it is a sign that people are mentally transfixed and do not care whether he broadcasts or not. I figure it out that the idea of broadcasting is to give us variety and no matter how clever or experienced a commentator is—and I do not think anyone would ever give Mr. Potter the palm for being an experienced commentator; no-one who is supercilious can possibly be such a thing—even the best commentators after a while become tiresome if one hears them too often. Their voices begin to annoy one, and surely we cannot say that because one man is making comments on international affairs for a certain time there is no-one in South Africa who could not do it better. There is the case of Mr. Broughton, who happens to be a personal friend of mine. For may years I enjoyed his commentating on international affairs, but even a personal friend of my own can begin to be tiresome when heard every week, and one wants a new voice, a new point of view, some new intelligence brought to bear on the soulstirring events taking place. Inevitably it is just the same as members of Parliament getting into a way of speaking on certain lines. So do radio commentators get into a certain line of thought, and to hear them week after week bringing the same kind of intelligence to bear on a subject, with their own preconceived thoughts and ideas, is tiresome. To hear these people week after week becomes boring. I used to tune in to Potter myself, and having heard the first two minutes I turned off because I was always hoping that one night he would be sick and I would hear a new voice. I read an article once written by a prominent journalist which started with the words “We hasten to praise the Lord for Mr. Potter”. He said that not because Potter was something about which he could argue, but Potter had the audacity to write in his “Review” a very scathing criticism of broadcasts made by the Army Information Service, and he went to great lengths to criticise an institution about which he knew nothing. I again use the word “superciliosity” in that connection. But what we want is variety. I have pleaded for that year after year in this House, that we want a South African atmosphere—not an Afrikaans-speaking or an English-speaking atmosphere, but a purely South African atmosphere, and we cannot get it by having commentators speaking pseudo-Oxford English …. [Time limit.]

The last speaker said that people get tired of hearing these commentators month after month and Sunday after Sunday. I think this House is getting just as tired of hearing all these post-mortems about the individuals who were dismissed. We had the bull-dozer attack from the hon. member for Springs and various other types of attack, but I do not know that it brings us any further, because it does not satisfy the public as to what exactly is the policy of the directors. We heard very much in the House today, but the public really do not know the actual reasons for dismissing English-speaking commentators and as the hon. member for Cape Town (Castle) (Mr. Alexander) rightly referred to what the B.B.C. do that is send scouts out to’ get the real feeling of the public and find talent. What have the directors done to please the people who pay for this so-called broadcasting entertainment? There is a feeling that the directors are not 100 per cent. behind the war effort. Whether the feeling is right or wrong, I cannot say, but I will say this, to put it to the acid test and satisfy the average listener, I would like to ask the Minister to use his influence with the directors in order to prove their real loyalty in this war effort by letting every individual in the country know and particularly the platteland what terrible atrocities are being committed by Germany, since I understand that certain Nationalist papers will not publish such information.

I do not wish to discuss the dismissal of people from the radio service, but something else which is relevant to the post office itself. Other members have spoken about the scandals in progress in other countries. I should like to discuss something which is in progress in our own country. I should like to know from the Minister why a service like the postal service, which was one of the best in the country, has become worse since he became the Minister, so that it has now become a scandal? There is no excuse for the miserable telephonic service we have today. If one wants to ring somebody from Cape Town, it takes one hours to get into touch with the exchange, and then takes a day or more to be connected with a place 100 or 150 miles distant. One can take one’s motor car and drive there and back before the call comes through. I hope that now that we have received a new Postmaster-General the Minister will insist on efficiency and that an attempt will be made to get the service back to where it was before the present Minister took over this service. It is a scandal that we should have to waste so much time in waiting for telephone connections. Even when one makes appointments it takes hours to get a connection. The excuse was made that they cannot find the staff. I say that they can well find the personnel if they pay properly. He pays the people so badly that he cannot obtain the right type of person for the service. In the past I have often protested against this course of action, and I feel that I have to do it again this year. If someone phones from the platteland to Cape Town the call is put through in a few minutes. But telephoning from Cape Town one has to wait for hours and days. It almost seems as if members of Parliament must give preference to the rest of the country before they can get through. We must have a proper service, or else we will have to take our motor cars to do the errand. I further wish to say a few words about the promotion of officials in the postal services. I am tired already of all the letters I receive from the whole of the Cape Province from people who think that they are being overlooked. I have a whole number of letters here in which proof is given of how wrongly the system works. The system of promotion in the post office leads to favouritism and envy. The postmaster in the district may be a drunkard, but he is still the man who must report on the clerks under him, and if he has something against the clerk he puts something in that secret report, with the result that that clerk suffers year after year and never knows what has been brought in against him. I know of one case of a postmaster in my constituency. Fortunately he is no longer there. He treated his clerks as if they were dogs, until one of the clerks afterwards felt obliged to stand up for all the clerks. He told the postmaster that he could not continue like that, but because he did that and because he would not curry favour with that postmaster, he sent one of these secret reports to Head Office, with the result that this clerk is not promoted. I have often said that we cannot allow anything like that in the service. The so-called promotion on merit has turned out to be nothing else but promotion through favouritism. Why cannot these people receive promotion in the same way as the rest of the Civil Service? Why must they be dependent on their immediate superiors who can submit secret reports about them? This man wrote a letter to me and said that I could mention his name. He no longer cares whether he is victimised or what happens to him, but for his own sake and for that of hundreds of other clerks who are in the same position he says that an end must be made to that sort of thing. I ask that there should be another system of promotion for these people. He sent me extracts from newspapers from every place where he had been stationed, in which it is stated that he is one of the best officials who has ever served the public there. But this man can get no promotion. They do not want to show him his personal file; they do not want to tell him for what reason he cannot get promotion. If he asks why he is not promoted he just gets the usual reply from which he can learn nothing. If this sort of thing continues we cannot expect to have satisfaction in the post office. Nor is the Minister prepared to pay these people properly, and if all these factors are taken into consideration, it is self-evident that he cannot get the right class of person to join the post office. I was told here in Cape town that the Minister takes telephonists into his service in the post office, but just as soon as they have learnt a little they can go to private firms because they receive better salaries there. The post office makes millions of pounds of profit every year, and I think the Minister should pay these people better and promote them properly, so that they may feel satisfied, because I know what dissatisfaction there is at the moment amongst them. A few people who have been favoured are satisfied, but the others are dissatisfied. See what effect it has on the service. It is nothing for a telegram from Cape Town or Robertson to lie there for two or three days before it is delivered. I mention Robertson as an example but there are other places also. For that reason I say that the service is deteriorating. I suppose the war will again be used as an excuse. The Minister will be able to obtain the necessary personnel if he is prepared to pay them properly and if he provides for decent promotion. I really think it is now time for the post office to pull up its socks. The Minister and the Postmaster-General should investigate the position and if they are not prepared to change the present position we will not have the service to which the public is entitled and for which the public is prepared to pay. Therefore I today wish to appeal to the Minister again to investigate the system of promotion carefully. I wish to mention one other point in connection with that. If a man is not promoted, tell him why he is not promted. Why are they afraid to tell him why he is not promoted? If they think other people are more capable, that is a different matter, but tell this man so. Now the people feel that something is being hidden. Everybody has not the same education, everybody has not the same capabilities to do their work, and some must remain behind, but tell these people clearly what the position is and do not make a kind of secret of it. Now a person is simply told that the matter has been investigated and that it was found that he is not entitled to promotion; but no reason is given. Year after year I have complained in the House about the way in which people are promoted, and I feel that I must do so again this year, because I wish to give the Minister the assurance that whether there is a war or not, if he does not satisfy those people he cannot expect loyalty from them. It is a great and important work which they perform; it is responsible work. We expect good work from those people and we expect that the man who does good work will receive the promotion due to him apart from gifts and favours, so that it will not be necessary for him to have complaints. These people are afraid; they are afraid that it will become known that they are dissatisfied about these matters and that they will then be victimised. I do not wish to say that the Minister and the Postmaster-General should enquire into every case of promotion. They have their Departments. But I wish the Minister to investigate the whole system of promotion, to see whether a different and better method cannot be evolved. Australia has its own system. Every country has its own method, and let us now select the best method so that we can satisfy these people and eliminate as far as possible the existing dissatisfaction. I should very much like to put this question to the Minister. I have listened here to the quarrel which was in progress about those people who were dismissed from the employ of the Broadcasting Corporation. I want to know from him whether any attempt was made to discover who the people were who used the secret transmitter in South Africa, because we know that many scandalous things were broadcast by those people against public figures in South Africa. [Time limit.]

I should like to refer to the speech the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) made last Friday in connection with the secret transmitter. This morning he emphasised he referred only to the transmitter to which the hon. member alluded last Friday. It appears to me while the hon. member was concerned over that secret transmitter he is quite oomplacent about the mischief that was wrought in South Africa by other transmitting stations during the five years of war. From the interjections made here by him, when the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) spoke I believe he is bent on embittering political feelings and in bringing about dissension in the country. I want to come back to the question of this station in South Africa. The hon. member alleged it has caused unpleasantness on that side of the House, and that it brought up their personal affairs.

And shameless lies as well.

Yes, and the hon. member alleges some things were not true. But in any event it was not solely people on that side who were attacked. We listened to all the transmissions and we disapproved of them. But I have also in mind the secret stations that transmitted for five years from Germany, and incited so many Afrikaners to sabotage and occasioned so much dissension. We recall how that station slandered the Prime Minister and the Government of the country day after day, and tried to discredit them entirely. That false propaganda broadcast from Zeesen afforded the greatest pleasure to members on the other side. I want to go further and point out that the closest secrets of our country that were discussed in the morning or done in the morning were broadcast back from Zeesen in the evening. They were made known by that secret sender to Zeesen and sent back to us in this country. Who sends these secrets from South Africa to Germany? Who? Pro-German people, and who in this country is pro-German? But the hon. member for Mossel Bay does not refer to those secret stations; he only speaks about the one that assailed him.

Be rational.

The hon. member can make his speeches as he wants to and I shall give mine as I like. I wish to repeat that that secret station connected with Zeesen and which broadcast with the approval of members on the other side, occasioned more grief and harm than the other station regarding which the hon. member is so concerned. It was a deliberate attempt to damage our war effort and to split the people. I do not think it was necessary for the hon. member for Mossel Bay to dig into the past and to open up old sores. It is very unpleasant, and I do not want to go further into the matter, because it hurts me. It reminds me of the question that he hon. member put about who it was that assaulted the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz) and what became of those people. Are there not also people on this side of the House who were assaulted?

The hon. member may not go into that matter now.

I want to return now to my own constituency. T am glad I can thank the Minister that as a result of the efforts I have made in the past we have now got a promise from him that shortly a new Post Office will be erected in the main town of my constituency, Witbank, as well as at Kendal. In connection with telephones I should like to say this—that could also be said by other members about their constituencies—that my district is to me the most important in the country, and therefore I should like to ask the Minister to devote attention to the telephone extensions in those parts that are urgently needed.

The hon. member should discuss that matter under the Loan Estimates.

I am sorry Mr. Chairman.

Now that we have, I hope, finished the discussion of the dismissal or otherwise of Mr. Potter, I hope we can come back to the vote again. I am not expressing any opinion about his dismissal or otherwise, but there are a few matters which I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister, matters of general interest, and not only of ’ local interest to my constituency. The first is the matter which I believe I may have raised before, the addressing of telegrams. When one addresses a telegram and gives the name of the addressee, one has to give a long number of words for the address. I had a case in point yesterday, where a telegram had to be sent to a man called Venter, Blouhoek, Private Bag Somewhere-or-other, Ventersdorp. One wastes eight words just to give information to the Post Office. In other countries I know that the address is counted as one single word. Why should it not be done here? One should give the name of the individual, but the address is just directions to the Post Office as to where to deliver. There seems to be no reason why that should not be counted as one word. I think that is done, and quite rightly, in the case of soldiers. If a man is in a certain unit, they send the telegram to him, and the whole of the address counts for one word. The same should be done for inland telegrams. There is another matter which has always struck me as funny why no provision has been made for it. When one travels by train and wants to send a telegram, there is no provision for that at all. As soon as the train stops at some wayside station one has to rush out to send off the telegram. Why cannot some provision be made for the railway officials to accept that telegram and send it? They must alight in any case. I think there is some £20,000 provided for postal services performed by the railways. Rather pay them more, if necessary, and get them to accept telegrams at the different stations. Then there is a matter which I think has much greater significance, and that is the position of those unfortunate young men and boys who serve as postmen or telegraph messengers. Some provision should be made to give them an opportunity of acquiring some sort of education. I know that is done in the bigger cities, but in the platteland there is no provision for it. Why cannot some postal course be instituted so as to make it possible for them to get some information. There are thousands of them, something between four and five thousand, postmen and telegraph messengers in the postal service. Surely some provision can be made to give these young boys some sort of education. At present they have no hope of progressing at all. This is a dead alley; it leads nowhere. If some provision can be made, I submit that it will not only be in the interest of the boys themselves but it will be in the interest of the administration. We have heard a great deal recently about the radio. May I appeal to the Minister as far as the rural areas are concerned to introduce some sort of special service. Now that the war is drawing to a close, it may be possible to introduce a sort of special service for farmers on farming matters. In the first place there is the vital question of soil erosion. One talk will not be sufficient, of course. Why cannot we utilise the radio to broadcast a regular weekly talk on the question of soil erosion? I do not know whether it is possible, but it will be of great benefit to the farmers. Then there is another question I want to raise. Is it not possible for the Broadcast Corporation to provide radio sets for the farmers more cheaply. After all, today the Postal Department provides telephones to the farmers. If say, 100,000 farmers were supplied with radio sets, it would not be such a very expensive business. If it is possible for the Postal Administration to provide telephones on the platteland, why cannot the Postal Administration or the Broadcasting Corporation supply receiving sets to the farmers at a greatly reduced price? Today the unfortunate farmer on the platteland cannot possibly afford £40 or £50 for a radio set, because in addition to that price he has to keep a battery going. Unlike the people in the towns, he has not got electric current on the farm, so he has to use a battery.

They ought to be able to give a good minimum set.

I submit that there should be no difficulty in doing it, and then they will undoubtedly render a great service to the country. I am convinced that if that were done it would double the number of receiving sets we have today. It will be a great service to the country as a whole.

What sort of farming talks do you suggest?

Soil erosion is one subject on which regular talks could be given.

Do you think they ought to say something about Dongola?

Well, I think a talk by Mr. Van Rensburg, the soil erosion expert on Dongola would be most interesting. I submit that talks of this nature will be welcome to most people. Then there is another point which I think also comes under the Minister. I refer to long-distance trains. I should like to know why we cannot have a radio service on these trains? Here again it is done in other countries. It is something which should be done, and it will considerably lessen the monotony of the journey. I submit that this is again a matter that could be considered either by the radio board or by the Minister. While I am talking about broadcasting, may I just pay this compliment to whoever was responsible for the rugby broadcast last Saturday. One really appreciated it. I am referring to the description of the match that was given in Afrikaans. Unfortunately I did not listen in to the English. It is a wonder how the commentator managed to tell the various players on the field, and he was able to describe every movement as the game proceeded. I do not know how the English description was, but I am informed that it was equally good. Then I want to say a word or two in regard to the pay of postal agents. Why these people are called postal agents I do not know. Here we have people who are actually doing the work of a postal servant. You find a young girl in the country being obliged to sit in an office for eight hours per day. I do not know whether it is eight hours, but I presume the hours are approximately eight hours per day, and she is paid at the rate of not more than £5 per month. Apparently she is called a postal agent because the Department is afraid to call her a postal servant for fear that the Department will be accused of underpaying its officials. But I submit that the salary of the postal agent should not be based on the income which is derived from the post office concerned. After all, when you appoint a policeman in the platteland you do not base his pay on the number of cases he brings before the court. If these people are called upon to work for eight hours per day they should be paid accordingly. I am hot referring at the moment to postal agents who are the owners of shops. I am referring to these individuals who are compelled to undertake this work without having anything else to do. They are undoubtedly underpaid. I hope the Minister will go into this matter and see that the pay of these, postal agents is improved. Then I want to say a few words in regard to the time that is taken for the delivery of telegrams. I do not know whether it is correct, but I believe it is becoming the custom now for anyone who wants to send a telegram to be delivered within a reasonable time, to send it at double rates. Most people in the platteland do not know about the double rate. One finds that it takes hours and sometimes days for a telegram to be delivered. I do believe that that is due to the fact that the postal admisitration is short-staffed, but I submit that it is not fair towards the other people to allow those who can afford it to send telegrams at double rates. With these few words, may I just make this one suggestion before I sit down? It is a matter which I raised once before, and I hope that in this matter the Minister will follow the example of the Minister of Transport and that is to pay us the courtesy of sending us a written reply when we raise matters in the House. After all, we do not raise these matters for our pleasure. We shall be very happy if the Minister will just take the trouble of sending us a reply in letter form when we raise questions in the House.

The hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) was complaining about the promotion, particularly of people in the country, and the reports that they get from the postmasters. He referred to a particular case and stated that this man was prepared to supply the necessary information. I would be grateful if the hon. member would supply me with that information because I am always anxious to see whether the system we have in the post office is working as satisfactory as I want it to be. I can tell the hon. member that this system was examined by the present Secretary for Transport four or five years ago on complaints that were made by hon. members opposite.

I have 30 names here.

If the hon. member would let me have them, I can give him an explanation in connection with the matter. These people are reported on by the postmaster, but that is not all. Our postal inspectors visit the various offices from time to time and ascertain the position, and in addition to that the Divisional Controller for the area makes periodic tours and he finds out what is happening. We have gone to all the trouble that we can in order to ensure that fair play is given to these people, so that they may be marked up according to their ability. I do believe that there are certain hard cases, but I can assure the hon. member that the board in Pretoria which is responsible for promotion, is a board which deals with every case on its merits and on the reports submitted to it. The hon. member just casually referred to the secret broadcasting station. I can add nothing to what I have said in connection with this matter. I can only say that it is no good pressing the matter any further. When this matter was raised in the House I took up a very strong stand as hon. members will remember. Thereafter the secret radio station disappeared.

Have you not got the necessary instruments to locate it?

If it had continued it would have been located.

It continued a long time.

This order that you referred to just now, was that a mistake you made?

I do not follow what the hon. member is referring to. In this House the matter was raised three years ago. I cannot understand why the hon. member is raising the question of this secret radio after three years. Three years ago this matter was debated in the House and I said then that I had given instructions for the radio to be traced.

Were your instructions carried out?

Apparently they were carried out because we heard no more about it. When I enquired of the former Postmaster General, he said that they were unable to locate it.

But we suggested how you could get in touch with them—through your Party secretary, he knew all about it.

That is absolutely wrong.

He got his instructions from the Minister of Lands.

The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé)—may I just say that I appreciate the fact that he spoke to me in English—raised the question of the cost of telegrams. He asks that the address should be counted as one word. Our telegram service is being run at a loss, but I do think that there is something in the point the hon. member made. Perhaps we might charge a minimum instead of charging 8d. or 9d. for the address. I will look into that particular matter. In regard to the question of sending telegrams on the train, the stewards and the conductor have instructions to take telegrams. If you have a telegram to send the guard will take it and see that it is sent. Then the hon. member raised the question of the training of younger boys in ’the country. No one is keener than I am to see that these young boys who come to us at the age of 16 after having passed Std. VI, are given every opportunity to continue their education, and I understand in the country towns they continue with their education up to Std. VIII, i.e. the Junior Certificate, and in the bigger centres up to Matriculation, and some of these boys who have attended extra mural classes havé taken degrees at the University of Natal, in the Cape and Johannesburg. We give them every possible encouragement, but if the hon. member feels that it is not being carried out properly in his area, we will see what can be done to carry out what he requires, if he will make representations, because it is the policy of the post office to give these people an opportunity of continuing their education. The hon. member raised another important question, and that is in connection with radio. I hope that when the war is over it will be possible to give effect to what the hon. member requires. When the new apparatus becomes available, there is no earthly reason why the whole of South Africa should not be properly covered both in English and Afrikaans and there is no reason why a special subject should not be dealt with in an attempt to make the radio more popular than it apparently is today. But I would point out, in regard to the other question he raised, about selling radio sets to farmers at a cheap rate, that when the radio corporation was originally established Mr. Schlesinger was trying to get a monopoly for selling radio sets to the public and he lost thousands and thousands of pounds and I do not think it is the function of the broadcasting board to go in for that particular class of business. But I am satisfied and I know for a fact that the cost of radios will be very materially reduced when the war is over.

And they will be very much better.

And the receivers will be infinitely better than they are at present, and they will have a range which will enable one to get in touch with any part of the world. I am at one with the hon. member with regard to the pay of the postal agents. Unfortunately they are necessary in some of these places. Their position has been very much improved since I have taken an interest in the matter, but there are many of them who are in the position to which the hon. member referred. If we attempt to close down a postal agency because the person in charge of it resigns, we immediately have a clamour from the whole district for the agency to continue. These agencies were originally established by people who offered to start them without remuneration, and in some cases even the accommodation was offered free, and it then develops until the people come along and ask for pay. Whenever we can we increase the remuneration that these people are entitled to get. Many of them are not getting what they ought to get, but unfortunately the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has not got control over the finances. All he can do is to press for improvement, but he has to receive the approval of another authority. We have not got a Post Office Public Utility Organisation where the money of the Post Office can be utilised for the benefit of the Post Office. Today, as I explained on Friday, we are a revenue producing institution which is helping to pay for the war. In regard to the question of double rate telegrams, that was brought into existence as certain commercial firms wanted a more speedy service than we have at the present moment, and that was the penalty that was imposed on them. The real difficulty and the real delay in connection with the delivery of telegrams is the fact that we have not got boys to deliver them as speedily as we would like. In places like Johannesburg we have actually had to use military lorries to send out and deliver telegrams. The staff position is acute. Other hon. members have said that these boys are not being paid enough. That is a matter which the Public Service Commission of Enquiry is also looking into at the moment and I hope that as a result of their deliberations the position as far as the Post Office is concerned, will be much easier because we are losing people from the Post Office on account of low salaries.

But you are making huge profits.

Unfortunately I do not control the profits.

What is done with the profits?

It probably saves an extra shilling in the £ on the income tax.

May I reply at this stage to the criticisms that have been made in connection with the termination of the services of the news commentators by the Broadcasting Board. I very much regret to have heard the remarks that fell from the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter). I have always looked upon the hon. member as one holding broad views and who, though also capable of vigorous criticism, would not descend to coarse abuse. I am sorry to observe that he referred to Mr. Barnett Potter as one who was on a par with the worst types of the Ghetto. The whole of the hon. member’s criticism was couched in abusing terms and I am going to show the House how valueless and hollow that criticism really is. The hon. member, upon being asked by me to quote examples in which Mr. Barnett Potter had made a remark hurtful to Afrikaans-speaking people, read a passage which appears in the issue of the “Union Review” for October, 1944—

The attributes of three different types and three different languages were to be submerged, let us remember!—

We were asked to believe that that was an attack upon the Afrikaans language. If the hon. member had read aloud the succeeding paragraph he would himself have exploded the statement he was making; but he was careful not to read that. The second paragraph says—

Potter is running away as usual.

Let the hon. member be silent. I am about to expose him in his nakedness.

Order, order.

You leave that to. Potter; he knows more about it.

This is not a nudist party.

I go on to quote—

He then went on to give two examples of the kind of language we can expect in the future.

If what happens?

If this state of affairs happens.

What state of affairs?

The state of affairs Mr. Potter describes; “If Afrikaner Nationalist Republicanism has its way”.

If the Afrikaners were left to themselves?

The hon. member purposely withheld the passages I have read. He must not complain if I reveal what he held back. Mr. Potter gave two examples—

I have no doubt that if the hon. member were a little less retiring, he would say “there is racialism for you”, but these two examples happen to come from the “Sunday Times”. They do not come from “The Union Review” at all.

The “Sunday Times” is also a stupid paper.

It may suit the hon. member to say so. Mr. Barnett Potter is indicted on the score of racialism, and I am going to prove that his detractors in this House ought to be ashamed of themselves. The hon. member went on in very abusive terms to give his opinion of Mr. Barnett Potter. That I take it, was the real ground upon which he wanted Mr. Barnett Potter discharged. He summed up his reason that he wanted them discharged because he was equal to a product of the worst elements of the Ghetto. That was his final finding which at the topmost pitch of his voice he declared, just as the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) declared as his reasons for the dismissal: “I do not like his voice or his accent or his superciliousness.” Those are the grounds then upon which Mr. Barnett Potter according to hon. members of this House deserved dismissal. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) failed to quote in the same article from which he read in this House the following tribute which Mr. Barnett Potter paid to the Afrikaner—

All Afrikaners are cultivated.

…. the cultivated Afrikaner is a member of all the best clubs, he occupies the highest offices in the Government, the judiciary, the public service, he is prominent (deservedly prominent) at all the major social functions, and Afrikaners are at the head of all the great new State industrial undertakings. Where on earth is the justification for the complaint made by one of “Forum’s” correspondents (a gentleman whose notion of equality and respect for his English-speaking fellows is illustrated by the joyful words: “The sun is setting on your side. Perhaps you have not noticed it?” That we have a “superior air”? I can hardly imagine myself daring to affect a superior air in the presence of the distinguished and gracious Afrikaner who is at present the Officer Administering the Government or when talking to Gen. Smuts, or with the grave and learned Afrikaners who impart lustre to the Bench of judges.

That is an old journalistic trick when you want to give someone a kick.

I am merely quoting what Mr. Barnett Potter published in the same article from which is extracted a single sentence to prove that he is racialistic. In that article he quoted a letter which Gen. Smuts had written to him. It will be said that we defend Mr. Barnett Potter against coarse and untruthful attacks because of some strange affinity between himself and the Dominion Party. That is completely disproved by a letter from Gen. Smuts—quoted in the same issue—

He was a controlled journalist employed then.

…. and the powerful lead you have given to public opinion. You have done a fine piece of work for the country and for good racial relations.… I am sure what has taken place will make for loyalty and not for recession in the future.

Those are tributes that were paid to Mr. Barnett Potter from a very influential source. [Time limit.]

Quite a number of requests have been made to the hon. Minister on this debate. The request I am going to put to him is a very important one. I am going to be very brief too. I want to ask him to consider the question of the restoration of the afternoon postal delivery services in the suburbs of Johannesburg. When one realises the large amount of mail that may arrive in Johannesburg just too late to catch the morning delivery service, mail which is then held over until the next day, it is a very important matter indeed. I know that whenever I post a letter in this House on Monday afternoon, on many occasions that mail is not delivered in Johannesburg until Thursday and sometimes not before the following Friday. I want to remind the hon. Minister that that is too long a period for mail to take from here to Johannesburg. What applies to me applies to 150,000 people residing in the suburbs of Johannesburg, and it is really an important matter having regard to the large amount of mail which is held over. I hope the Minister will give this his serious consideration. The people have been very patient about this matter and on account of war conditions they have tolerated it for a long time, but as the situation is improving I hope the Minister will give his serious attention to this matter so that afternoon services can be restored as early as possible. While I am on my feet, may I make this suggestion to the Minister that he will see that the wages of the postal delivery men are increased in order to make that situation more attractive, and I want to point out to the Minister that if he does that it will be a means of creating a large amount of employment which we shall most likely need in the future. I know that the Minister has been almost worried to death with the request for telephones, and I would ask him whether he would consider the manufacture of telephones in our country. The reason I am suggesting this is that other countries will also probably be making great demands for telephone equipment in the immediate future, as in the past, and I think the best way to remedy our shortage will be to establish a factory for the manufacture of telephones in the Union. If the Minister will succeed in bringing that about he will, when he retires, have earned not too bad a reputation.

I should be very sorry to have you think, for a moment, that I should presume to endeavour to unloose the shoe laces of Mr. Barnett Potter. I rise for another purpose altogether. I am interested in the artistic talent of the rising generation, and perhaps of the risen generation. I should like to know what the Minister’s five-year plan is in regard to encouraging local talent. There are many artists in our country, and I want to suggest to the Minister that he uses his influence directly, and in fact that he insists, that the board pays very much more than the small fees they are now paying for the artistic work that is placed before them. We have said here year after year that the writing of a very good quality play may bring the author from our Broadcasting Corporation the sum of £2 or £2 2s. and the board retain the copyright in the work. The same work if sent to America and published through a group of magazines would bring in anything from £16 to £60. How can we be encouraging South African art if the practice is to starve the artists. It is necessary that we should bring the presentation of our programmes to a decent level of efficiency. The fee that the ordinary actor will receive may amount to 30S., but that covers the five or six rehearsals that are necessary before the play can be produced, so that the artist is really getting 5s. for each time he is present. That is an insult to the young people of South Africa who are doing extraordinarily good work in that respect. We should have better music and better art of every kind if reasonable encouragement is given to the artist. We have the opportunity of doing this through this Corporation, but we are not taking advantage of the opportunity. Paying out money goes very much against the grain with the South African Corporation. Getting it in is of course a very different story. If you ever possessed a 7s. 6d. or a £7 10s. receiving set you had better hold your peace, or “watch your eye”, because if you take down that wireless set and do not use it any more, whether because the programmes are not up to standard or otherwise, you cannot get away from the ubiquitous collector of the 35s. fee. If you go to town he is there, if you retire to the country he is there also; and they have collected 35s. from something like 350,000 people and a great sum of money has been accumulated. We are not interested in being told that money is being saved for a television system at some future date. We want it to be spent as we go. We do not want to hear about £100,000 being made in profit by the institution, but we should be very thankful to hear that the fees paid to artists, actors, musicians and others who contribute to the programmes in any way will be on a very much higher scale in the future than in the past; we would welcome a statement from the Minister in that regard. I say the payment in those respects has been scandalously low. If you want any job done well you have to pay well for the work, and that applies to the Broadcasting Corporation. If the board will do that there will be far fewer complaints as to the quality of the programmes.

Once again I make no apology for reverting to the criticism that I have directed against the Board of Governors of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, whether the fault lies with the Board of Governors or with the director himself. I feel that the choice of those members in this House to champion their ability and to proffer explanations of these dismissals, particularly that of Mr. Barnett Potter, and to justify the action of the board, has been singuarly unfortunate. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) was, of course, perfectly satisfied with abuse rather than argument. But it was marvellous to see three hon. members who are editors of weekly magazines expressing their concern in the way they did for a colleague who was interested in supplying the public of South Africa with news; they thought the best way was to attack that supercilious fellow over the air. It is marvellous how they combine to kick off the air one of their colleagues. It certainly surprised me. Once again I wish to criticise the quality of the work of the Broadcasting Board. This was another instance of their ineptitude. For years probably one of the best speeches prepared for South African broadcasting by the B.B.C. was the radio newsreel South African programme, a programme that was designed for South African listeners. The whole intention was to give us real up-to-date news which could not be disseminated in any other way than the imaginative way it was being done by the B.B.C. In South Africa we were entitled to listen to it one night a week, to that South African programme that cost thousands of pounds and was the most intelligent and the best feature put over the air. It was only after June, after D. Day and the landings in France when such a big outcry arose amongst listeners that even the broadcasting management felt impelled to do something about that feature. We should never have been denied that feature. Everyone clamoured for that feature, and every day it was listened to. There are many people in South Africa who find it difficult to get the South African broadcast from London. It is so much easier to get it from the South African station. My set is always tuned in to the South African station. One of the grossest pieces of ineptitude on the part of the board was when the South African listeners were denied the opportunity of listening to that programme. Another piece of ineptitude on the part of the management—I cannot think the board is responsible—was that last year the first thing that came over in the New Year at four or five minutes to 12 was that Gen. Smuts was going to speak to the people of South Africa. South Africa stood by to listen to what the Prime Minister had to say as the year opened. It was not this year but last year, the year when we wanted all the encouragement we could get, and when we listened in we were told that we were going to listen to a broadcast by the Prime Minister which had been prepared three days before and of which a gramaphone record had been taken. The majority of listeners immediately switched off. We might just as well have had the message without the preliminary announcement, which completely destroyed its efficacy. We have exactly the same thing these days. Some of us listen every Friday night, missing what takes place in Parliament—if we can escape the Whips’ eye—to get down to listen to Wickham Steed. But there is not the slightest need for the preliminary announcement that is always given that “You will now listen to a gramaphone record of a commentary that was made by Mr. Wickham Steed and taken down a couple of days ago in our studio.” That sort of thing lacks imagination. It completely destroys the personal touch which thousands of listeners, no hundreds of thousands of listeners, wish to have. We wish to get into the confidence of the man who is telling the story, and the whole of the effectiveness of the broadcast is completely destroyed by this preliminary S announcement. I have written suggesting they should drop that. When one listens to somebody crooning they do not tell you it is a gramaphone record, but we know it; however they have dropped it, and I am very pleased. I do wish they would drop altogether these preliminary announcements which tell us that we are listening to a record and not to a human voice. There is little or no difference in the quality of the transmission. The records made by our broadcasting studio are very good records, and one could very easily dispense with the announcements, which kill the effect of the broadcasts. Another thing I should like to bring to the attention of the House is that the policy of the board has been not to promote what they call an advertising policy. The other evening I heard with approval of the announcement that St. Dunstans (South Africa) wants a capital sum of £50,000 in order to ensure that the blinded South Africans in this war shall have for the rest of their lives the facilities that St. Dunstans extends to them, and which was extended to the St. Dunstaners of the previous war. When Mr. Schlesinger had the South African Broadcasting Company it was his policy and his privilege to assist those who were in this plight. Some 30,000 or more blinded civilians in South Africa were brought to the notice of the subscribing public on the eve of one of the only two national collections in South Africa. The South African National Council for the Blind makes a collection once a year, and during the regime of Mr. Schlesinger it was possible to inform the public of the reasons and the needs and the necessity for that appeal being made to the South African people. The policy of the present Broadcasting Corporation is to refuse every request that is made to bring home to the public the need that is felt by these 30,000 blinded people in this country. Something ought to be done; the Government ought to step in. It is not using in the most effective and the best way the efficient means that one has at one’s disposal. I want to revert now to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The hon. member for Messel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) made a great to-do here the other afternoon about coloured persons being at the counter in the post office to draw their old age pension when Europeans were there for the same purpose. He thought the coloured man should be left in the street and not be permitted to stand in the queue, and that the hon. Minister should devise means of separating them. There would be an easy way to do it; the Minister could, for instance, decide that the coloured recipient would receive his pension two or three days prior to the date which is usually fixed, that he could receive his pension not on the 25th or 26th but instead of say the 22nd or 23rd. In that way he would get over this absurd suggestion that the coloured man who receives a pension from the state has no right to come to the counter if there is a European waiting theré. [Time limit.]

Today the hon. Minister has to listen to a tremendous number of complaints from all sections of the House. Complaints have been lodged against the broadcasting service, there have been complaints about the services we get in Cape Town in connection with trunk calls, and complaints over the general services provided by the post office. It is very regrettable we have to hear so many complaints in connection with the service that means so much to the people, a service that as someone said in the past, is one of the show services in the country. If I should have to put the question what is wrong, why there are so many faults being found, I cannot do otherwise than point my finger at one person, and that is the Minister concerned. If the Minister concerned thinks just as much about the Department of which he is head today, as the general public, he ought to pay more attention to his Department. We have heard a hint in connection with the provision of cheaper wireless sets to the people. The Minister pushed this to one side and said that when Schlesinger attempted to do it he sustained a loss over it. We know that Mr. Schlesinger wanted to secure a monopoly of the business in his own hands, and everything that he abandoned went to the Minister who ate it up like cake. The Minister should not come here and tell us that a tremendous loss would be sustained by the provision of wireless sets. The ordinary dealer and shopkeeper who is only a sub-agent makes more than 50 per cent. profit when he sells a radio set. I myself had the experience where I wanted to buy a set for £30 and later the same set was being sold for £15 10s. This shows what a tremendous profit is being made, and I think it would really be advisable’ for the Minister to go into this with some thoroughness in order to ascertain whether it is practicable for the Broadcasting Corporation to provide wireless sets to the people at a proper and reasonable price. He ought not to come along and refer to what Mr. Schlesinger told him. In regard to the calls, the Minister simply said that it also happened in his case that he had to wait to get into touch with Central. It is much worse when at times one has to wait half an hour or more at a public telephone. My personal experience has been that I have even had to wait for three-quarters of an hour. The Minister explains that this is the result of war conditions, the post office not having adequate staff. With respect, I want to differ from him. It has nothing to do with the war at all, but the reason is that the Minister does not see to it that adequate facilities are provided for his officials within the post office. We know how the thing is done. It is true we have not all the information, but there is a large board on which is recorded the number of calls, and if you are unfortunate and telephone when the board is full you cannot have a turn and you must keep on ringing for I do not know how long. Seeing that the post office is doing such a fine business, why cannot the Minister ensure that another board is provided in the exchange. It is not a matter of staff, but of equipment that must be provided. When we listen to all these complaints regarding the post office I recall a passage in the report of the Auditor-General giving a reason for this, why there is such discontent simmering in the country. I read in the report that in the financial year 1933-’34 no less than £314,237 14s. 11d. was paid out to postal officials in overtime. That was paid in the one year for overtime worked by post office staff. Is that not an eternal disgrace?

I agree.

These people are worked to death and the Minister says “I agree”, but why does he not do his duty to protect his officials? Why has this large sum been paid out? Because the poor post office officials have to stand there and do the work of the Department of Finance and the work of the Minister of Commerce and Industries.

For a starvation wage.

Yes, for the miserable wage that they are paid. I am 100 per cent. with the officials in the post office that they cannot do the work for the salary that they are today being paid. The time has long since arrived when the Minister concerned should exert his influence with the Public Service Commission to ensure that the salaries of the officials under his supervision are increased. But where I have a bone to pick with the Minister is that I have never yet heard him utter a word of protest in connection with the work that is imposed on the postal officials. It is really one of the results of the war. You get a terrific increase in the number of pensions that have to be paid out, and they are paid out over the counter of the post office, pensions that are now being paid to hundreds and thousands of additional persons. This is not the work of the postal officials but of the Department of Finance. If they want to use the post office building let there be a separate section where the official of the Minister of Finance can stand to do this work. Then they have to do the work in connection with the issue of petrol coupons and of the petrol pass that we must carry with the other things. The petrol coupons must be obtained at the post office. The poor official is involved in work up to his ears and until he is at the end of his tether, until he is weary and tired out and impatient. Many people are offended with the officials because they are not as friendly as they were in the past. It is not the fault of the officials, but the fault of the Minister for allowing his officials to be so overworked. I think the time has really arrived when the Minister should take up the cudgels for his officials. We cannot expect good work from these people when we see that no less than £314,000 is paid out to them in one year in overtime. There is nothing just or reasonable about it; every man has to do more work than can be reasonably expected of him. Any man can only do a certain quantity of work within a given time, and if you place more on his shoulders he simply will not be able to do it. The efficiency of the post office must suffer under existing conditions. [Time limit.]

I want to deal with one or two points raised by hon. members. The hon. member for Langlaagte (Mr. Bawden) spoke about restoring the afternoon delivery service and increasing the wages of postmen. Nothing will give us greater pleasure than to restore these services when we have the staff available. I must point out to hon. members—and I agree with the hon. member for Kuruman (Mr. Olivier)—that we do not want to employ these men on overtime.

But you agree with everything.

It is impossible at the moment to get staff. Do not forget that you are dealing with the report of 1943-’44.

No, 1944-’45.

There is much overtime being paid today because we cannot get the staff. When the war is over 1,600 men will come back and we expect to get 2,000 people, so that overtime will disappear.

My point was that it is not the work of your officials.

The post office, owing to the war, has had many duties imposed on it connected with the war, like the payments of dependants’ allowances. Until the post office took it over things were in a hopeless mess, but as soon as we took it over, it went well. We deal with petrol coupons. No other organisation could have done that.

And yet your officials did not get more pay.

Therefore I agree with your criticism. I put my foot down 12 months ago and said that it is impossible for the post office to take on any further work. It is the only organisation which could deal with the whole country but the limit was reached 12 months ago, and I said that the Post Office could not take on any more work, and we are doing what we can to relieve the postion. Therefore I cannot find fault with the hon. member’s criticism. It is sound and correct. The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) made certain criticisms to which I should like to reply. He says that “Radio Newsreel” has only come on recently. I am informed that it has been given right from the first, six nights a week and sometimes even on Sundays. His other complaint was that when General Smuts gave his broadcast it was announced that it was a record, and when Wickham Steed spoke it was also announced in the studios. Let me say this, that if they did not do that, we would get any amount of complaints that the Radio Board was trying to put one across the people of South Africa by giving them a broadcast which was a record and not a direct speech. It is unfortunate that General Smuts could not deliver the speech, and that is the next best thing that could be done. They should be complimented on their honesty. The member for Durban (North) (The Rev. Miles-Cadman)—I do not know where he gets his information, but the fees are considerably in excess of the amount he refers to, and I am informed that they are equal to the best paid elsewhere, not to special artists but to ordinary ones, and that the reply from the public is not satisfactory. They have offered prizes and there is a competition going on now to get talent. The hon. member for Troyeville (Mr. Kentridge) referred to the news service and the amount that was paid. The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) answered that query. This news service is not for the benefit of the people in Cape Town and Durban and the cities, who can get a newspaper at 4 p.m. every day, but for the people in Kuruman and Calvinia and in North Zululand, who cannot get a newspaper sometimes for 72 hours, and that news service is very valuable to them. I agree that the local news service may be better and hope that in future it will be better.

You need not take any notice of that complaint.

I think that is all I wish to say.

In reply to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) I would just like to say that if he spoke Afrikaans he would not have adopted the attitude he did today. I do not wish to cast any reflections, but I do feel that we, who speak Afrikaans, feel sore at anything said against Afrikaans, and those who were prepared to give their all for the safety of this country will take exception to his remarks. I also wish to tell the hon. member for Durban this: He said this afternoon that Afrikaans-speaking members should be prepared to defend the English-speaking section. I think the hon. member for Pinetown will bear me out that in every instance we on this side of the House have given a square deal all the way to the English-speaking section.

Too square.

I think the hon. member must be attributing to me a remark made by someone else

No. But to come back to the debate, I would like to point out to the Minister that we people on the platteland are not getting a square deal with regard to broadcasting, because out in the wilds we cannot hear what the man on the radio says, and I do feel that I should appeal to the hon. the Minister to do everything he can to get a station established in the Northern Transvaal. It is immaterial to me where the station is built, but I think that the people in that area are not getting a square deal because they cannot hear what is broadcast from Johannesburg. I would also appeal to the Minister that we people on the platteland, especially the pioneers in the wilds ….

In Dongola.

…. are not getting telephones.

That country is rapidly being developed and this is a communication I received today—

I do appeal to the Minister to do his best to give us telephones and that people out in the wilds should get preference. I know of people in that area, in Letaba, who can only get their telegrams after five or six days. They have no post office facilities and they are people who produce perishables on a big scale, and it is important that they should have daily telephonic communication. They suffer very badly because they have not. [Interjection.] My hon. friend says the farmers get everything. I think he would not get food if he did not have the farmers. The point was made by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. Abbott) with regard to the native people receiving a pension. I appeal to the Minister that in Cape Town we should have something similar to what we have in the Transvaal, not to cast a reflection on the native or coloured people in this area but to have separate places where these people can speak on the telephones and get their letters. I say that a man in his working clothes does not feel inclined to pass through the same door as the well-dressed man or woman, and I appeal to the Minister to grant certain facilities in this direction at the local Cape Town post office. It was said this afternoon when an appeal was made by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) that postal agents should be paid a better salary. I made the same appeal last year, and I do think that a start should be made now. When these people apply for an agency it should be done on a £ for £ basis, which will prove that we are prepared to pay for the facilities we are to get. But certain areas do not get a square deal with regard to these postal agencies, and they serve us under very difficult circumstances. Girls sent out by the Postal Department to outlying areas are not getting boarding facilities, and I hope the Minister will see to it that when these girls are sent out provision will be made for boarding facilities. I think it is preferable to send out young men instead of girls to these places where there are no boarding facilities. The last appeal I wish to make is this. With regard to the lorries used in the Postal Department, I say that the drivers do not give a square deal to the controller of petrol and tyres. I say that they are a danger to the community in the way they drive these lorries, and I wish the Minister would at least make an appeal to these people to be reasonable and careful when they drive lorries, and to give more consideration to the public either on the road or in the street.

I would rather not take part in the debate that was started this morning, because from what I have heard about Mr. Potter and what I have heard against him I think it is dangerous to touch on that matter and still more dangerous to defend him. We are doing no credit to ourselves by dragging in the Afrikaans language, and consequently I will not lower myself to take part in such a debate. I notice on these estimates an amount of £5,850,000. If I went and told my voters about this there would no doubt be a considerable discussion, because I think that to a certain extent we on the platteland are given shabby treatment under this vote. We have our little post offices—for example in the Pretoria district and in the neighbourhood of the administrative capital —in old shops or in outbuildings where they are stuck away, and the public who want to use those post offices drive past them without noticing them and you are 20 miles past them before you realise that you have passed a post office. We are treated very inconsiderately on the platteland. I know the Minister says it is the result of the war. That may be, but let us be reasonable enough nevertheless to allow the public to manage and gain some benefit from this money. I know the Minister will say that these are postal agents and that they only get a couple of pounds a month; but they are intended to be there for the convenience of the public. At the moment it is all very inefficient. As far as telephcone lines are concerned we are fortunate enough with the extensions that exist, but these are improvements that have been brought about by the exertions of the Defence Department. I hope that the Minister has had something to do with that. But on the other hand, when we want to use these lines we have to wait for hours before we can get through. Then in this connection I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the exchange that exists at another place in the Pretoria district. There is a tarred road, and the Minister can go there and drink a cup of tea. He will then find out that at this exchange the staff are working under conditions that are very unpleasant. Six or seven girls are working there; the room is 17 ft. by 12 ft.; there is no ventilation or window in it, and it is treating these people badly to allow them to work there. I notice now that the Minister is nodding his head in disagreement. I shall tell him where the place is. It is Cullinan on the Premier Mine. It serves not only as a telephone exchange but also as a post office. Some hundreds and thousands of soldiers have to be attended to there. The coloured soldier has to be attended to at a window. They have no place on which to write. After we brought this matter to the attention of the postmaster he put a bench there, but over the course of five years so long as the training was taking place there those coloured soldiers had to write standing up against the wall, or otherwise on the floor. Those are the conditions that existed there. It is a big exchange, and those are the conditions under which the officials have to work at Cullinan. I hope and trust the Minister will go into that position and also into the position at Bronkhorstspruit. One drives past and you almost reach Witbank before you realise you passed a post office. It is a ramshackle old building, and despite the large numbers of the public who go there and the great extent of the business done, this little post office continues in that manner. I am sorry that the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) has put his foot into it again by making a reflection on the Afrikaner or by stigmatising him. I say again in the utmost friendliness to him, that he should not do this sort of thing. If he goes on like this I shall later on be afraid to use a single word, because he will stand up here and say that I do not know my language and that I am talking incorrectly. What difference does it make if an English-speaking person talks of “Stellenbush” or “Rondebush”? The hon. member is always putting his foot into it and giving a bad impression of the Afrikaner section of the community. The Englishman would never take up a point like that when an Afrikaner talks his language somewhat incorrectly, and why should we Afrikaners do it? The hon. member for Mossel Bay professes here to have high qualifications and that he enjoys high standing in the country and in the world, and that he can lay down the law as to what is correct in our language. I want to make an appeal to the hon. member not to give a bad impression of the Afrikaner people in that way.

I would like to make a friendly request to the Minister. We have suggested to the Minister of Finance that he should pay out old age pensions and war veterans pensions by cheque, but he has declined to do that. Now I want to tell the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that right throughout the country there are virtually no facilities in the post office to enable these old people to sit down. They have to stand for hours at the post office. We want to ask the Minister to place a couple of benches in every post office so that these old people will have a place to sit when they have to wait there. The Minister was good enough to give Frankfort a service till midnight. It is required that there should be a male operator in attendance. I want to ask him to allow the postmaster there to train a local young man to look after that midnight service. If the Minister can comply with these two requests I would be very glad. I do not want to go further into these matters. I want to thank him for the telephone that he gave to the church office, and I want to ask him to take into favourable consideration the request made by the nursing institute for a telephone.

There are one on two matters I would like to raise under this vote. One of them is this question of radio development. During the last five years there have been enormous developments overseas. We have had hints of it in the newspapers, of all kinds of things like radio frequency and television developments, but in reply to a question of mine the Minister merely said that these things are being investigated by the Radio Board. But I would like to remind the Minister that developments in this country have been static for five years. Radio listeners here pay probably the highest licence fees in the world, and for that we get indifferent programmes and no developments at all in the way of improving radio communications in this country, while on the other hand we are building up enormous reserves out of these high licence fees. I understand that the purpose of this reserve was to give listeners in this country the benefit of the newest advances in radio communications.

And so it is.

But the fact remains that we have advanced very little if at all, during the war and have not yet had any benefit of the latest developments in radio. I would like to ask the Minister to enlighten the House and the country a little more about these developments that he suggests are pending in radio communications. I would like to remind him that we are a country of large spaces and probably radio communications are more important in South Africa than in almost any other country. There is, too, this question: It has been suggested by the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) that it would be a good idea to develop for the use of farmers small radio sets which the Department might install. I would like to amplify that suggestion and suggest to the Minister that the Broadcasting Corporation might very well consider installing standard small range sets in sub-economic houses. I want to point out that today a wireless set is as much a necessity, and to many people more important than a telephone, and if he is going to consider installing such standard sets as I suggest I should like him to consider installing them, just as he does with telephones into sub-economic houses at a special fee. He might charge a nominal rental of 5s. per annum and these sets would continue to be the property of the Broadcasting Corporation. They would get the fees and the owners of the houses would not be put to the enormous expense of buying sets at extravagant prices which they cannot afford. There is also this in connection with the Broadcasting Corporation. Some time ago there was a very interesting play about the life of General Smuts based on Mrs. Millin’s book prepared for broadcasting in America. I understand that a series of plays were arranged here by the corporation, 12 or 13, and it was shown to privileged listeners by invitation. It was then sent to America where I understand it had the greatest success. I should like to know why people in America can hear these things whereas people here, who would be very interested, cannot. Finally, may I put to the Minister my almost annual plea on the point of delays in the telephone service. If you dial 95 or 90 or 0 you get delays of anything from 3 to 20 minutes, in my experience. I do contend that even in wartime it is neither fair nor reasonable that if one dials 95, which is trunk enquiries, or 90, phonograms, or 0 records, that one should wait so long. I do contend that 10 minutes waiting at the telephone is enough to exasperate anyone. I have myself experienced delays of 20 minutes. On one occasion I had to dial ten minutes on 90 and 10 minutes on 0 and then I tried to dial 95 and waited a further 15 minutes. I say it is time that the Minister did something about these intolerable delays, and I should like to find out from him what he proposes to do about it.

To deal with the remarks of the hon. member for Jeppes (Mrs. Bertha Solomon) with regard to the delays on telephones, I may say that I have dealt with that three times already during this debate, and I am sorry she was not present when I did. The other point she raised was the question of the Broadcasting Corporation being responsible for the plays on the life of General Smuts. They had nothing to do with it except putting over the recording.

And certain people got the sack.

It was not really the function of the Broadcasting Corporation. In connection with that we had the trouble with Wightman. Another important point raised by the hon. member for Jeppes is in connection with radio improvements. I do not know whether the corporation can do more than they did. At present they have two engineers in England and America to study improvements. We have Captain Street watching developments in Washington, and in South Africa we have the greatest radio expert in the world. Any possible improvements will be incorporated. The whole trouble is in getting equipment. Lord Reith was here the other day and according to him we will have to wait for equipment until 12 months after the war. But the corporation are alive to the improvements and it will not be their fault if there is any delay. The hon. member for Zoutpansberg (Mr. S. A. Cilliers) dealt with the question of reception in the north. That is one of the questions we will deal with as soon as we can. There is no doubt that there are some areas which do not get the reception they should get. Every person is entitled to decent service. The further away one is the more atmospheric interference, and it can only be overcome by having relaying stations. Under these difficult circumstances where equipment cannot be got, the Broadcasting Corporation are doing the best they can. Instructions will be given with regard to the lorry drivers acting as they do. I have had similar experiences.

I have understood that for a number of years the Minister has been admitting the principle, that in a multi-racial public such as we have in this country, natives and other non-European races should be given the opportunity of serving their own people in the postal service. That is a principle I have advocated and I have understood for a considerable time that the Minister has accepted, and what I want to ask him this afternoon is whether he is satisfied with the progress made in the practical application of this principle. Its practical application involves the acceptance of two propositions, that in any non-European areas whether urban or rural, where post offices are situated, the postmen, postmasters and clerks shall be native or other non-Europeans and that, where post offices are divided—as is almost universally the case except here in the Cape Peninsula into a European and non-European section—the non-European public should be served by people of their own race as assistants. One would expect that any kind of application of that principle would involve a very considerable non-European graded staff in the postal service, and that is as I shall show from the information given in these estimates, very far from being the case. I notice in these estimates wherever an official is non-European—whether native, coloured or Indian—a note is made as to what his race is. I assume therefore where no special note is made against a certain grade in these estimates that is intended to convey that the official concerned is European. According to these estimates there are 696 postmasters; by postmasters I include full postmasters, sub-postmasters and subpostmistresses — 696, presumably all Europeans. In regard to clerical assistants there are nearly 4,000 3,912 and 1,361 postmen. I mention those figures in order to compare the figures for the non-European side as given in these estimates. So far as the postmasters are concerned, it would appear from these estimates as though there was not a single native postmaster. He may be hidden in some block of figures, but it is not obvious to anybody reading it. There are 15 non-European sub-postmasters, but the estimates do not disclose their race, whether they are Indian, coloured or native. In regard to clerical assistants, there do not seem to be any natives at all or coloured; there are 12 Indians. In regard to postmen, there are 193 coloured postmen with a salary scale of £109—£120— £240, and not a single native postman. What there are, however are 1,022 native post boys with the princely salaries of £2 to £7 a month. Taking this number and the expenditure, it would appear their average salary is about £1 a week, which is far below what an unskilled labourer can live on.

Mail carriers.

My hon. friend from the South Coast (Mr. Neate) who has been in the post office service, tells me by way of interjection that these people are mail carriers. I was going to ask the Minister what was the difference between “postmen” and “post boys”. I would assume that a good number of post boys are postmen, and the difference between a postman and post boy is mainly it seems a question of pay. The coloured postmen get £9 to £20 a month. The native post boy gets from £2 to £7 a month; and it must be a difference of wage scale rather than a difference of age, as between man and boy, in this connection. I have taken it that postwomen are paid the same as postmen. I want to ask the Minister why there are no natives graded as postmen. The coloured people are graded, but there do not seem to be any natives graded. On the native side there may be native postmasters; there are 15 non-Europeans and we do not know what race they are. There are, however, no native assistants or clerks and there are no postmen; there are only a certain number of “post boys”. In these estimates that appears to be the total graded staff of the non-Europeans. I am not talking now about unskilled labourers. Actually the so-called graded staff seems to be paid as badly or worse than the manual labourers. So far as the 15 postmasters are concerned, we are not told their pay. It says “local rates”, and I should like to ask the Minister what these rates are. Having regard to the total expenditure on the item the rates do not appear to be very high. I know the difficulty will probably be raised with regard to recruiting personnel for these posts. The Minister will probably tell me that there is a comparatively small number of the non-European and native people who are sufficiently educated to fill clerical positions. That may be the case, but certainly that shortage will continue so long as the rates of pay I have referred to continue to be paid—£2 to £7 a month. From my own experience I know if the Minister would lay down an adequate scale of pay for native postmen or native postmasters, he would get them. There are natives going about here in Cape Town who have passed the matriculation examination, and who are doing unskilled work simply because unskilled work pays them better than any other work they can get. Figures such as I am quoting indicate what the practical application of the so-called segregation policy means. The just implications of it would be that each race should have an opportunity to serve its own people, but subject to that principle there should be no bar on promotion, and equal pay should be given for equal work. In the public service every one of these principles is violated. There are not nearly enough non-Europeans to serve their own people. Promotion is not open to them; even those who do not reach the rank of postmaster are simply sub-postmasters, and it is very far indeed from being a case of equal pay for equal work. I know there has been an increase in the number of non-European “post boys” and postmasters in recent years. I am not saying no progress has been made in the direction I am referring to. To do so would be an exaggeration. But I do say this; having regard to the fact that the postal facilities of the non-European and the European are separate in this country, and having regard to the number of Europeans with sufficient education …. [Time limit.]

Anyone who listened to the debate today could not fail to notice that when an English-speaking person is dismissed from the Broadcasting Corporation, whether rightly or wrongly—I do not want to take part in that discussion—hon. members on the other side are very concerned about his dismissal, but when we on this side speak of Afrikaans-speaking persons who, in our opinion, suffered an injustice, members on the other side are as silent as the grave. But I rise in order to try to explain to the Minister what the difficulty really was in connection with the secret transmitter. The Minister was under the impression that I was referring to the Afrikaans transmitter at Pretoria. That is not the case. What I said was that my information is that when the war started, an Afrikaans transmitter was taken away at Pretoria and handed over to the military authorities. Unfortunately I was not able to enlarge upon this matter when I spoke, but that is my information. I asked the Minister when this transmitter came into South Africa and who had used it, and the Minister replied that they had no information in regard to the matter. I then said that it was a disgrace. There was something wrong with the transmitter when it was used as an Afrikaans transmitter and subsequently a transmitter with the same defect was used over the same wavelength and scandalous statements were broadcast in regard to the Leader of the Opposition, and other members on this side of this House were besmirched. Three years ago we asked the Minister to make investigations and at that time the Minister said that he knew nothing about it but that he would endeavour to find out. For two years we did not raise the matter again because we wanted to give the Minister and the police every opportunity to make investigations to ascertain who was responsible for these disgraceful statements over the radio.

Why disgraceful?

Does the hon. member know what was said over the radio?

I remember what was said of you. Let us hear that.

If the hon. member heard what was broadcast he ought to agree that it was scandalous. After a period of two years, we reopened the subject and asked the Minister what efforts he had made to discover who was responsible for these broadcasts, and I feel that if the Minister and the police had really tried to discover who the responsible parties were, they would have been able to do so. As far as I am aware and as far as my information goes, it is not possible to locate a secret transmitter. I think the Minister owes it to this House not to say that he knows nothing about it and that he cannot trace the responsible party, but to tell us what efforts he made. I am convinced that there are many members on the other side of the House who do not approve of the fact that the hon. member for Witbank (Mr. H. J. Bekker) dragged in the argument that Zeesen used insulting language towards members on the other side. That is no concern of ours. Surely there is a great difference. This secret transmitter was in the Union whereas Zeesen is in a foreign country, and we have no control over statements broadcast from Zeesen. We could not prohibit them, just as little as hon. members on the other side could prohibit them, but here again we find that an attempt has been made to get away from the merits of the case and to drag in the war in order to confuse the issue.

Do you object to what was broadcast or to the fact that there was such a station?

I naturally object to the fact that any member of this House should be besmirched over the radio in such a filthy way.

Tell us what they said about you.

It was so filthy that only the hon. member for Hospital would dare to repeat it.

I do not know what is wrong with the hon. member that he adopts such an attitude. Does the Minister approve of it? Does the hon. member approve of what was said over the radio?

I approve of a great deal of what was said.

I am convinced that other hon. members do not agree with the hon. member who says he approves of this. But I want to ask the Minister as the resonsible person whether he does not think it is his duty, when the Leader of the Opposition and other members are besmirched over the radio in this way, to go out of his way to trace the responsible people? The Minister cannot expect us to believe that he was unable to discover who it was. If that is so, our service is very defective. If the Minister adopts the attitude which he now adopts, he cannot hold it against us if we believe that our information that it is the same transmitter as the one which was removed from Pretoria, is correct. Unless the Minister gives us information to the contrary and tells us what efforts he made to find out who it was, he cannot hold it against us if we believe that information. But I want to put another question to the Minister. The Broadcasting Board meets twelve times a year and, as we have heard, there is dissatisfaction in regard to the broadcasting service both on this side of the House and on the other side of the House. A great deal of criticism has been levelled against the Broadcasting Board, quite apart from the question as to whether or not we agree with that criticism. I asked the Minister whether the board kept minutes and the Ministr replied in the affirmative. I think if members of Parliament and of the public were given the right to inspect the minutes, these things would not take place in the road-casting Board on the same scale there would be fewer incidents giving rise to criticism. If the Minister does not want to give members of the public the right of inspection. I want to ask him why it is not possible to lay the minutes c the Broad casting Board on the Table of this House for inspection by members of Parliament? I do not think that is an unreasonable request. Why should members of Parliament not see what is going on on the Broadcasting Board? I make an appeal to the Minister for the sake of his own post and for the sake of the board itself and for the sake of these questions which are discussed here, to remove all semblance of politics in broadcasting and to make available the minutes for our inspection. Then I want to ask the Minister not to say in his reply that the policy of the Broadcasting Board is right because the Dominion Party on the one hand is criticising the board and the Nationalist Party is criticising the board on the other hand and that it is clear therefore that he is steering a middle course. The Minister can no longer adopt that attitude because members of his own Party are today strongly criticising the Broadcasting Board. What we definitely advocate is that propaganda should not be made over the radio for any political purpose in any capacity whatsoever, and the Minister will agree that in that respect the Broadcasting Board leaves a great deal to be desired. I stated in this House on Friday that on every conceivable occasion, whether it be in the course of comical sketches, or in music, or whatever the subject, the Prime Minister’s name is dragged in and he is praised; and no matter how bad or how good he may be, he is the leader of a political party and no propaganda should be made for a political party. The broadcasting service belongs to the nation.

How much does the Party pay for this propaganda?

I think an hon. member advocated a moment ago that a biography of Field-Marshal Smuts should be broadcast, and I want to ask the hon. Minister not to allow that. The Prime Minister is a political figure in South Africa with whose views we on this side do not agree and the corporation should not be allowed to broadcast his biography during his lifetime. If it is done, there can only be one motive and that is to make propaganda for a political party. [Time limit.]

I can quite understand why the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. Van Nierop) is so annoyed about the secret radio, because I remember listening one night, and it certainly did not say anything complimentary to my friend. I wish he would repeat it in this House.

Why do you not repeat what you heard said about him?

Why should I?

You have not got the guts to do so.

It was the same type of stuff as you are saying, the same type of dirt.

I listened to what they said about him

You have the opportunity now to repeat it.

The secret radio was a war weapon, and it was very effectively and efficiently used by the Government.

By the Government?

When the hon. members on the other side got in touch with Zeesen, this little radio station started getting into touch with them. The Leader of the Opposition talked to Germany through Zeesen.

That is false.

I had nothing to do with this radio special station, the Freedom Station. [Interruption.] The only talk I heard was when they pulled the hon. member’s leg for being a dentist

They said much more than that, and you know it.

Now you are saying what is false.

It was a case of a leg-puller. But there was something better said.

That was what you insinuated at the beginning.

What?

That something better was said.

Are you going to tell the House what it was?

No, you can tell them.

I challenge you to tell the House what it was. I challenge those hon. members to tell the House what this station said about the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). They cannot do it; they are afraid to.

[Inaudible.]

I am not interested in the hon. member. [Interruption.] “Ikona” has gone off the rails. I am not interested in the Freedom Station. What I am interested in is this, and I bring it up every year and get no further. May I ask the Minister, how does this House reach the Broadcasting Board? When we talk to the Minister he says: “I cannot do anything with the Broadcasting Board.” When we talk to the board they say: “We cannot do anything with the Minister.” When we talk to the manager of the Broadcasting Corporation he says: “I cannot do anything with my board.” Here we are, suspended, between heaven and earth and then the Minister tells us when he gets up …. [Interruption.] I do not listen to what the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) says; he leaves me cold. Will the Minister tell us how to reach the board, because I want to know why the board spends £100 a month and pays the South African Press Association this amount to put over stale news. Every day we get “S.A.P.A. Copyright Reserved”. What has the Minister to do with it? Has he anything to do with it? Because if he has not, what is the good of talking to him?

I have nothing to do with it.

Here we members representing the country try to deal with this and the Minister tells us he knows nothing about it.

I did not say that; there is a [ difference.

Who am I to talk to, the gentleman in the box? When we have studied this matter as representatives of the public we cannot offer any criticisms, because there is nobody here who can talk; it is useless. What are we to do? I want to talk about this £100 a month that is being paid to “S.A.P.A. Copyright Reserved”. What do they give us? They tell a story about a football match that has taken place between the University and Stellenbosch, at Cape Town. After it has been witnessed by 15,000 people it is put on the wireless and called “S.A.P.A. Copyright Reserved”. Who has reserved it and who has copyrighted it? Why should we be paying this money to these great newspaper people? My friend the hon. member for Waterberg is one of them. He is sitting there like a Jack-in-the-Box. He is one of the Transvaal directors, in fact he is the chairman of “Die Transvaler”, and they are the gentlemen mulcting the people to the tune of £100 a month. He is “S.A.P.A. Copyright Reserved.” He gets a bit of the dough; the Argus Company gets a bit; the “Cape Times” gets a bit.

What about Mr. Barlow?

No, I am out of it; I am not allowed to get inside at all. Here you have the Nasionale Pers putting their arms around the “Cape Times” to do the public a shot in the eye. “Die Transvaler”, “Die Burger” and the little paper the “New Era” have joined hands with the big papers; it is the old story when you come to capitalists behind the scenes they join hands, and they have joined hands to form S.A.P.A. and bilk this country out of £100 a month by putting up stale news. I want to ask the hon. member for Waterberg to justify this attitude in the eyes of the world, and I promise if he does so we will not put it over the Freedom Station.

I do not think the House will expect me to reply to the nonsensical statements made by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) in connection with Sapa, nor is this the proper place for it. But I want to deal with something else which the hon. member said by way of interjection and also at the beginning of his speech in connection with the secret transmitter. Let me say to hon. members who may not have listened in to the secret transmitter at the time it broadcast, that if ever filthy and dirty statements were made in Souh Africa at any time—and the Minister knows about it and the hon. member for Hospital knows about it—it was the statements broadcast by that secret transmitter.

Did I say that two years ago?

How I come to the Minister: If ever a dirty and filthy thing was done in South Africa it was those broadcasts of the secret transmitter. I do not want to deal with the distasteful statement of the hon. member for Hospital, but when the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) spoke, the hon. member for Hospital verly clearly indicated by means of his interjections that he list ned in to the repulsive defamatory, filthy things which were said about the hon. member for Mossel Bay and other members.

That is untrue.

Let th hon. member rather be quiet. He wants to talk continuously. He must now take his medicine. I say it was very clear from his violent interjections when the hon. member for Mossel Bay spoke, that the hon. member for Hospital took a keen interest in those dirty, filthy, defamatory statements.

That is untrue.

It is not untrue.

On a point of order, if I deny an accusation, is the hon. member not bound to accept my denial?

Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?

Yes, I am saying that I deny it, and the hon. member refuses to accept my denial. The hon. member keeps on saying that I know of certain low, rotten statements that were made and I say it is untrue. I cannot say more.

I just want you Mr. Chairman, and the House to pay attention to this matter. I immediately challenged the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), when he made these distasteful interjections while the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop) was speaking, to tell this House what the secret radio station had broadcast about the hon. member for Mossel Bay. He could not accept that challenge because if he said what he had in mind, you would have called him to order immediately. What is more, I asked him to say outside the House what the secret transmitter had said of the hon. member for Mossel Bay and others, and he could not accept that challenge either, because if he makes that statement outside the House he will immediately become involved in an action for defamation. I say that just in passing. This only goes to show with what type of people we are dealing in this House, when we get members in the House who speak with approval of the broadcasts of that secret radio station. I must say in all honesty that when one listens to the statements made in Parliament, one feels that one would prefer not to be in this House, that one does not want to be in a place where that hon. member is. Then I just want to deal with one other statement which has been made time and again. I would not have taken any notice of it but for the fact that it has been said in this House repeatedly. The hon. member for Hospital again said this afternoon that this secret radio station started to make adverse comments on this side after the Leader of the Opposition had got into touch with Zeesen over the air. Let me just say—and the Minister knows it—that if he wants to do his duty as an honourable Minister he will get up and refute what has just been said by the hon. member for Hospital, namely, that this side of the House or anyone’ on this side of the House, directly or indirectly by means of radio or any other means, communicated with Zeesen. If there is anyone who ought to know that it is the Minister. I say it is a disgraceful lie.

What about Leibbrandt?

Is Leibbrandt a member of this side of the House?

Yes, he was a member.

The hon. member for Hospital must not try to get out of it.

He mentioned the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

And I mention it again.

I say it is a lie and I challenge the hon. member to say it outside the House.

Or to prove that statement.

Very well, in that case we shall have a nice court case. I want to put you in the witness box.

Then I just want to say this. The Minister knows that it is not true, but I am now going to accuse the Minister of allowing other people to use Zeesen in order to divide Afrikanerdom. There are other people in this country who used radio with no other object than to divide Afrikanerdom. He knows who was responsible for those broadcasts, and he took no steps to prevent it.

Who is it?

The Prime Minister.

They are his friends. Not only did the Government allow this filthy radio transmitter to besmirch and to defame people from day to day, but it deliberately allowed Afrikanerdom to be divided by means of the radio. It suited their book to allow it. Now the Minister says that he too disapproves of these defamatory statements over this secret radio station. I am very pleased to hear that, but up to the present he has never given this side of the House an explanation as to why he did not put a stop to the broadcasts of that secret transmitter; because everyone who has any technical knowledge of broadcasting tells one that it was the easiest thing in the world for the Government to locate the station and to discover the identity of these people. But it is clear that that secret transmitter was in the service of the Government’s Knights of Truth. It was no secret; that secret radio station which broadcast all these defamatory statements concerning members on this side, formed part of the Government’s propaganda machine.

What proof have you?

The proof is that if that had not been so, the Minister would have stopped them straightaway. They very soon caught Robey Leibbrandt. Why could they not trace the other secret radio station? It was just as easy to locate the secret radio station as it was to catch Robey Leibbrandt with his transmitter. But it was part of the propaganda campaign of the Knights of Truth, and I say the Minister owes an explanation to the House, and what is more, after the attack of the hon. member for Hospital, he should tell the House whether the Government is aware of the alleged fact that the Leader of the Opposition or anyone else on this side communicated with Zeesen by means of the radio.

I accept the challenge of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) to deal with this particular matter. I have told the House as clearly as I possibly could that I can give no more information than I have already given in connection with this private transmitter.

Ask Conroy, your fellow-minister; he will tell you all about it.

Then the hon. member asked whether I would accuse any member of the Opposition or any member of the Nationalist Party of supplying Zeesen with information; is that the question?

The accusation is that we communicated with Zeesen over the radio.

Yes you did.

Zeesen answered you anyway.

I do not agree with the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). I am totally opposed to the political views of the Opposition in connection with the war, but I cannot conceive of any respectable member of the Nationalist Party communicating any information to Zeesen. [Laughter.] The hon. member for Hospital laughs. We will have come to a very sorry pass if there is anyone in South Africa who is prepared to sell South Africa to the enemy.

Oh, my God.

The hon. member for Hospital referred to Sapa. I dealt with that matter; he must have been out of the House at the time. The real object in getting that information is not to supply Cape Town, Durban or Johannesburg, but it is to supply Carnarvon, Upington, Oudtshoorn and other places which are miles away, and which do not get the newspaper for two or three days, and the only way which the Broadcasting Corporation can get the news is through Sapa. They could not possibly use the news which is available to Sapa if they tried to collect it at their own expense. The hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) dealt with the question of the employment of coloureds and natives in the Post Office. He did not refer to Indians, but they are also included in the remarks he made. Every effort is being made to enable this type of person to supply their own people. We have made advances but not as much as we would like. The difficulty is to get fully qualified natives. That matter is being investigated at the present time. I am all in favour of it because it will enormously relieve the congestion that takes place in many of our Post Offices. The other point that the hon. member raised of coloureds and natives behind the counter to serve their own people is not a practicable proposition because in that case they would be working together with Europeans and I for one could not support that.

At a separate counter.

It is a difficult proposition to give effecct to. It can probably be done in the Transkei in one or two places, but it is a difficult matter and I am not one to throw a spanner in the works in connection with this matter.

It seems necessary for me to complete what I was about to say a moment ago when I was interrupted by the time limit. The case that has been sought to be made out against Mr. Barnett Potter of being guilty of racialism has utterly failed, and if there are any more members who would like to support this flimsy accusation after the manner of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter), I invite them to come forward now or forever hold their peace. My view is that in the very article which was quoted in this House by the hon. member for Springs, there was abundant proof that there was no racialism whatsoever in the matter, and the hon. member having failed to produce a shred of proof has only rendered himself ridiculous in this House by having recourse to abusive charges against a man who is absent and not in a position to defend himself. He stated that Mr. Barnett Potter was similar to the worst products of the Ghetto. That seems to be a most disgraceful thing to say about any man. It was certainly intended in no complimentary sense when it was uttered in a frenzy of hate by the hon. member for Springs, but there are others who have leaned towards the suggestion of racialism, and I only want to show that in every possible respect the publications by Mr. Potter have recognised the outstanding character of the Afrikaans-speaking people. There is a reference of his to that question in “The Union Review.” He says—

In October he said—

There appears in the September issue a picture of the presentation that took place of the decoration. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) sees fit to stand up in this House and accuse Mr. Potter of being a racialist, but his slender evidence is of the Haarhoff-Fouché order. I want to deal very briefly with the circumstances in which Mr. Potter’s services were terminated. It has been suggested as an afterthought that this matter had been decided in April. There is no proof whatsoever of anything of the kind except the bare unsupported statement of the Broadcasting Board, and that statement is contradicted by their own actions. They took no action to dispense with Mr. Potter’s services until September although they claimed to have decided the matter in April. September is significant because it was the month following the first publication of his journal. It was not until his journal was published that they took action to discontinue Mr. Potter’s services as a commentator, and I defy them to point to a single paragraph in that paper which justifies that drastic action. I want to read to the House the official statement issued by the Broadcasting Board. This was issued in December—

That policy was not decided upon in the case of Mr. Barnett Potter until his paper had been published, and the letter that instigated that change was written by Prof. Haarhoff and 500 copies were circulated to a large number of people, and I only want to read two paragraphs to show the nature of the assertions this gentleman made against Mr. Barnett Potter. It was headed “University of the Witwatersrand”. Here we have a gentleman who, I suppose, is still a professor at the university, using this heading for an attack made in his private capacity. This is dated September, 1944—

He goes on to make use of private conversations he is alleged to have had with Mr. Barnett Potter, and I venture to say that those accusations are as untruthful as the rest of the letter. He concludes by saying—

Can you imagine anything more unfair— upon a series of wild statements Professor Haarhoff tells his choice friends that he regards this paper as a dangerous and subversive factor. Mr. Potter’s dismissal followed upon that, and let those who assert that he is a racialist stand up and give us any proof whatsoever. The only so-called proof adduced in this House recoils upon the person who used it. It shows how utterly unjustified the use of that passage was in this House, and it only held up the user to ridicule and concealed the real meaning of the statements. In addition to that it must be stated that no Afrikaans-speaking person has any time for the views of Mr. Barnett Potter. I want to read you a letter from a distinguished educationalist addressed to Mr. Potter in connection with some of his broadcasts. This is a letter which comes from the Grey College School at Bloemfontein, and the writer says—

Whom are we to believe? The hon. member for Springs, or the writer. [Time limit.]

This House has heard a lot this afternoon about Mr. Potter. Perhaps the House has heard enough about him, but I would just like to say that I think no member of the Broadcasting Corporation nor any member of the public service should be allowed to say anything that is offensive or that will give offence to any section of the community. A very virulent attack has been made upon the hon. member for Hospital (MV. Barlow), and I rise not to defend him; the hon. member can do that a thousand times better than I can, but I do feel that I personally owe a debt of gratitude to the hon. member for Hospital because he has brought to my notice many facts of which I was not aware previously, and the hon. member also has the knack of getting under the skin of the Opposition. I would commend hon. members opposite to read the article which appeared in “Barlow’s Weekly” on the 21st April, “Open letter to Dr. Malan on his action on Pres. Roosevelt’s death”.

Where he says Strauss must go?

Where he says Strauss and other Ministers must go?

As far as the secret radio station is concerned, I must say I did not listen in on more than two or three occasions. On one occasion there was a lot of noise and it was announced that the broadcasting instrument had been knocked to smithereens possibly by someone supporting the Opposition. I remember one matter they dealt with, and that was that a leading member of the Nationalist Party, not one of the Opposition, but a man who supports the Opposition Party, advertised for a European girl for domestic service at a figure that did not reflect credit on a Party that always had so much to say about matters incidental to questions of that nature.

Do you believe that such private family matters should be broadcast over the radio, even though they be true?

I would like to express my appreciation to the Postmaster General and to the other members of the staff right down to the humblest person in the service of the Postal Administration. I have had nothing but courtesy and assistance from them, especially in these difficult times. The matter to which the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) referred, has already been given effect to. In my area where a post office is being built in Schauder Township it is being staffed by members of the coloured community. They are also very helpful in sending out an official to Bethelsdorp every month in my constituency where large numbers of very poor coloured people live to pay their old age pensions. Coming to the question of broadcasting, there is naturally a lot of divergence of opinion, but I would like to bring to the notice of the Corporation a suggestion that may result in an improvement. One often reads that if one does not like one particular programme, one can tune in to something else, but unfortunately the “A” programme and the “B” programme in this area are very often identical. If one switches from the “A” programme to the “B” programme, one gets the very same sort of thing, and I hope consideration will be given to this matter so that one will be able to switch over to something else.

I think the House will agree that we have pottered enough this afternoon. I would, however, like to say one more word in reply to this third or fourth oration we have had from the hon. member for Parktown—I mean the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick). I hope I shall not be confused with the hon. member for Pinetown. In his last speech the hon. member for Pinetown attacked the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter), and quoted for a third or fourth time lengthy passages from that now famous paper, the “New Union Review”.

Marwick, the Publicity Agent.

He was endeavouring to show that Mr. Potter is not a racialist, and that his views could not possibly be offensive to any section of the community. I have not employed any expressions such as racialist in dealing with Mr. Potter, but I repeat that his views, as expressed in his paper, are, in fact, offensive to a large section of the community; and let me make myself quite clear that when I say “a large section of the community” I do not only mean hon. members opposite. I should have no quarrel with Mr. Potter if he refrained from saying pleasant things about hon. members opposite, but what he has done is to express views which are also offensive to large numbers both of the English- and Afrikaans-speaking members of the United Party. His views are offensive, in my opinion, to every English-speaking member on this side of this House, and his views are certainly offensive to every Afrikaans-speaking member on this side and on the other side. It may be with difficulty that one will find in Mr. Potter’s “Review” any passages which are peculiarly offensive in the sense that I have mentioned. There are passages here and there—I am not concerned to quote them—but what will be found in Mr. Potter’s paper is an exclusive and narrow-minded point of view similar to the point of view put forward by certain members opposite, a narrow view of South Africanism. Mr. Potter purports to represent what he describes as the British South African point of view, but one finds in his British South African point of view nothing that is peculiarly South African; one finds in his paper nothing which leads one to hope that he is in the slightest degree concerned with the future of South Africa.

Do you jeer at the British point of view?

Certainly not, but I find nothing in his paper which shows that he has any particular affection for South Africa. He is anxious to preserve the British language and British culture, but he says nothing in praise of the Afrikaans language or Afrikaans culture. He speaks eloquently about the beauties of the English countryside but shows no appreciation of South African scenery, or any interest in the future of a united South Africa.

I had no intention of rising again but the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) is so persistent that he eventually forces one up. I have here a little extract from one of Mr. Potter’s articles, which I regard as an insult and a scathing insult to the honesty and integrity of the officials of the Land Bank, of the Agricultural Department and of the South African Railways. The hon. member has persuaded me to quote them by his persistence. I did not want to use all I had this morning. I will now proceed to quote this. On page 6 of the September issue my hon. friend will find this, inter alia—

Now there is racialism if ever there was. His name would not commend him, because it is Potter. Am I to gather from these remarks that the officials in these departments are of such mental calibre and so dishonest as to be prejudiced against a man’s name in granting him a loan on his farm? That is the kind of thing one expects from these narrow-minded little Islanders like the member for Pinetown. He continues—

That is a scathing insult to the Civil Service Commission. He goes further—

If the hon. member for Pinetown can stand up in this House and tell the country that those words are not tainted with rotten racialism, I do not think anyone in this House will credit him with any degree of judgment or common-sense. He asked for it and there it is.

He has got his share.

Now we have a little confession from Potter here. He refers to the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford). Inter alia he says—

If it was Andries van Staden, and if he had been educated at a South African university it would not command his respect.

What attributes? Oxford and his name.

What is wrong with that.

Nothing. You would never see it. It would take your grandchildren to appreciate it—

Colleagues in this House I presume. So according to the friend of the hon. member for Pinetown, Mr. Potter, one has to be an Oxford man and have an impeccably English a name to be qualified to sit in this House.

How characteristic of your attitude.

Those are the facts. Do not tell me I have not read enough. An Oxford training and an English name are attributes, refreshing attributes, superior to the background of his colleagues; and the hon. member for Pinetown stands up here and defends that man as not being a racialist. I sincerely trust that the House is satisfied that Potter is a racialist in the extreme, and as the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) said this morning, the type of Englishman who comes out here and creates more difficulty than my hon. friends sitting over there.

Which is saying a lot.

Potter is a public menace in this country, a capable man with a fluent pen and with a mind as narrow as the edge of a razor. He has very little appreciation of the real difficulties of this country. I am an English-speaking South African of the third generation and there are many of us here. We were born in this political struggle and I can assure you that the like of Potter will make it much more difficult for us, our children and our grandchildren. I would like to see the likes of Potter deported to where he came from, and anyone else who publishes the same type of narrow jargon. There is a future for this country but it lies in racial harmony, and that future is very black and dark if we are going to get many of the type of man which the hon. member for Pinetown is championing in this House. I can tell him that he has done little else than be a first-class publicity agent for the “New Union Review.”

If anyone has been a racialist, the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) is posing in that rôle. I am sure that not one-thousandth of the population would ever have heard the utterances alleged by the hon. member if he had not mentioned it here.

But Potter still wrote it.

We have had letters sent by the late Prime Minister to Potter thanking him for his services in the past. What the hon. member for Springs should have done was to quote these passages from the “New Union Review” that my hon. friend the member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) has done. At least he should not have told the country that there is good in this man, who is a racialist and should be deported. If he knew Potter’s history, as we know him in Natal…

When he was an employee, and his policy was dictated to him.

That is not the point at all. He had a free hand, as editor of the paper, and he was looked upon in Natal by a large section of the English-speaking people as one of the greatest racialists. He was a supporter of Gen. Hertzog.

Then call him a racial grasshopper jumping about.

It was largely through his paper in Maritzburg that the Hertzog Government won two seats there at a time when feeling in the country about the gold standard was very much against the Government. It was largely due to Mr. Potter that two seats were held by the then Leader of the Government at the time of fushion, and he is recognised by a large section of the Engish-speaking people as a racialist on the Afrikaner side. But now because this man has made a few remarks against a section of the community we have the member for Springs not allowing it to pass away, to dry up, but blazoning it all over the country. The least he could have done is to say that there are thousands of pages which Potter has written which praise the Afrikaans-speaking people. It is regrettable that the hon. member for Springs has seen fit to drag this over the floor of the House as he did when the hon. member for Pinetown tried to show the House that Potter had not been treated correctly by the corporation. And the people of South Africa today agree that he was not treated properly. The Minister mentioned this afternoon that the matter should have been handled differenly. But now it has been made a racial question. He is the great racialist of the country and should be deported, because probably one-millionth of his writing was derogatory to a section of Afrikaans-speaking people; and he did not criticise all the Afrikaans people but the Nationalist Party. For five years this man followed the policy of the Government to keep up the morale of the people in an endeavour to show the people that our course of action in 1939 was correct. He gave a war review weekly which was looked forward to by thousands of people, but because he happened to start a paper and wrote something in it to which a few of the racialists on the Afrikaner side took exception, his services were disposed of. We are told that decision had already been made in April, to dispense with his services. It is strange that the services of three or four other English-speaking people were dispensed with at the same time. If it had been made public that that was the policy of the board to be followed nothing would have been said about it. I say that the Broadcasting Board has to go a long way to make up its defects. The country is seething with discontent about the Corporation. A commission has already enquired into the workings of the Broadcasting Corporation and it has been suggested that another commission be appointed, and until full enquiry is made into the activities of the board there will not be satisfactory broadcasting in South Africa. One can go into any home in Cape Town and they will tell you that if they want to do anything about broadcasting there is a little clique here and unless you are the blue-eyed boy you have not got a hope of being allowed over the air. It is the same all over the country. Some members are so stupid as to think everything is well with broadcasting in this country, but 99 per cent. of members in this House agree that it is time that something was done about it, the whole thing should be revised by the Government or revert to private enterprise. As a utility company it is useless and will be until it is reorganised. There are a lot of old men running the show who have no experience of broadcasting or of business and until the board is got rid of, things will go on as they are; and because an hon. member gets up and attempts to defend someone who should have redress and wants to know why three members of the staff were dispensed with, the racial aspect is brought up.

The member for Pinetown said it was a case of politics.

In retaliation the member for Pinetown is called a racialist. But we have to put up with all that sort of thing almost daily and if the Dominion Party attempts to defend the rights of the English-speaking people, what are we called?

A lot of racialists.

We challenge them to prove that we have said anything to which the Afrikaans-speaking people can take exception and they cannot tell us. Having said that, and having made Mr. Potter the greatest racialist in the country, a man who has never done or said anything against all the Afrikaans-speaking people at all, I think we may pass on to something else, and the hon. Minister said this afternoon that he had staff problems. Here again, may I say that he would easily get over his staff problems if he did not insist on people having to be bilingual, but he insists on people in the post office being bilingual. [Time limit.]

Hon. members opposite have made great play tonight about challenging me to say that their Leader had not made what we called the high treason speech and they challenged me to say it outside.

That is stupid. You said he was in communication with Zeesen over the radio.

Do not run away. I said he was in touch with Zeesen.

That is not so. You said he had a radio with which he communicated with Zeesen.

What I said was this …

You do not know what you said. You never know what you say.

You are running away as usual.

Hon. members opposite took exception to the Freedom station in this country, and I told them it was not like themselves, getting into touch with Zeesen, and they have been in touch with Zeesen right throughout this war.

That is a lie and you know it.

For a Minister to say here that the members sitting opposite will not do such a thing as to get into touch with the enemy because they are such good men —what is the Minister thinking about? That Party from beginning to end has been proGerman and they would be pro-German today if Hitler were still winning. And the Cape Times which has got a lot of money and which is a paper which started 67 years ago said on July 19th, 1941, that a certain speech came through Zeesen and the hon. member for Piquetberg (Dr. Malan) spoke about a republic and said: “The question is being asked whether we should obtain a republic …. the Germans desire an agreement through our efforts”. That came through Zeesen at the time. [Laughter.] “In the second place we can take it that Germany will wish to negotiate in South Africa with the Government which is friendly disposed to it”. That is exactly what Goebbels said to you.

You know more about Goebbels than we do.

Dr. Malan said there was only one such Government which could negotiate with the Germans and that was the Nationalist Party, and the Cape Times said it was treason and challenged hon. members to take them to court and they were afraid.

You say outside the House what you say here and we will take you to court quickly enough.

What has all this got to do with the Radio Corporation?

You thought that through the radio you would get a republic on a tin dish. The Cape Times accused Dr. Malan publicly of high treason and he funked it. I know why they funked it, because they were in communication with Germany, and if the Minister is so weak-kneed he must take the consequences. He said they were such nice people that they would not do it.

I never said that either. [Laughter.]

Believe me the Minister will not laugh long. The country will not stand for that. These men did their best to see that our sons would die in the war.

Have you got a son in the war?

The Minister is afraid of them.

Nonsense.

We will not let the Nationalists get away with it. The Nationalist Party has been a traitor to this country.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, however distasteful the speech of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) may be, and notwithstanding who and what he is. I want to ask you whether he is entitled to say in this House that the members of the Nationalist Party are traitors to this country?

I understand from the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) that the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) accuses members on my left of being traitors. The hon. member is not entitled to say it and he must withdraw it.

Am I not entitled to say it? I bow to your ruling but I will not withdraw it because it is true. I will not withdraw it and nothing will make me.

The hon. member cannot refer to the Nationalist Party as traitors because the Nationalist Party comprises of hon. members in this House and I ask him to withdraw.

What may I refer to them as? I will withdraw the words “that the Nationalist Party in this House are traitors”, and I will use the words which the “Cape Times” used, and say that we in this country accuse the Leader of the Nationalist Party of being guilty of high treason.

Order, order. I must point out that it makes no difference whether the “Cape Times” said it or the hon. member. The hon. member is repeating what the “Cape Times” said and must withdraw.

How can I withdraw the statement of the “Cape Times”?

Order. The hon. member has identified himself with the statement of the “Cape Times” to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition is guilty of high treason and the hon. member is not entitled to say that.

Nothing on earth will make me say the opposite because it is true. I will leave the Chamber.

Order, order.

The hon. member cannot leave. He must withdraw the statement. I will have to order the hon. member to withdraw from the House for the remainder of the day’s Sitting if he does not withdraw what he said.

I do so with great pleasure and with all apologies to you, but I cannot withdraw the truth. They are traitors to the country.

Whereupon Mr. Barlow withdrew.

Is the hon. member entitled, after you have asked him to leave the House, to repeat what he said about members on this side, a statement which you asked him to withdraw?

The hon. member refused to withdraw those words.

And after you had ordered him to leave the House, he repeated it. I want to ask you whether in these circumstances other steps should not be taken against him?

I took steps by asking the hon. member to leave the House.

And after you had asked him to leave the House he repeated that statement.

The hon. member refuses to withdraw and that is why I ordered him to leave the House.

But thereafter he did the very same thing, and I say that you are entitled to take further steps.

I did not hear it and I did not understand it in that sense.

That is the position.

I think the fact that I ordered the hon. member to leave the House is sufficient punishment.

I can only say I am astonished at the attitude of some hon. members of this House. We had the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) asserting that Mr. Potter is unacceptable as a news commentator because through the “Union Review” he has hurt the feelings of a large number of people and he mentioned in that connection members of the United Party. He omitted to acknowledge that the two attacks against M.P.’s were made on himself. He was the subject of Mr. Potter’s criticism, and the main ground was that in one of his speeches he had suggested that the British connection should disappear as far as this country is concerned. Mr. Potter referred to a statement made by the hon. member—

In other words, the British connection had proved so disastrous to the country for the last 40 years that it should now disappear. The hon. member was criticised for that statement. An open letter was written to him in which he was taken to task. We have that hon. member now indicting a newspaper very vaguely in this House for the character of its criticisms against hon. members of the United Party. Can we recall anything so infantile as for an hon. member to come almost whimpering to Parliament to say that Mr. Potter has “criticised us and caused us very great pain”. The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) is in a different category. He comes here and says that people like myself must be deported.

I never said that.

Did I misunderstand the hon. member?

If I may assist the hon. member I may say that I stated that if a man could write like Potter he ought to be deported. I never referred to the hon. member for Pinetown.

I understood him to refer to me as “the” racialist.

“A” racialist—you are.

It is not correct.

You are so narrow you do not appreciate you are.

I am prepared to listen to these swear words, they are familiar to me, but they do not carry the slightest bit of weight with the public. I am also a member of the third generation in South Africa.

One would not think so.

My people have been through hardships and adversities to quite the same degree as the progenitors of the hon. member, but they were people of a hardy stock. I hold a different view from that of the hon. member who sees racialism in every person who is in sturdy disagreement with his singular ideas. The hon. member for Parktown seemed to object to my making it clear to the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) what portion of his remarks I took exception to. When I replied on the first occasion—I may be shortsighted—I did not see the hon. member in the House, and I thought it was only right I should repeat my comment for his benefit when he was here. So far from having made a misuse of the procedure in this House I was only acting out of courtesy to the hon. member for Springs, whom I have always endeavoured to treat with the greatest possible respect whilst differing from his views. But, Sir I am entitled to say something in referenée to the extreme attitude he has shown this afternoon. He describes Mr. Potter as emanating from a most despicable quarter—he intended to intimate that he came from a most despicable quarter. Is that the sort of language that hon. members of this House ought to employ towards men who, while differing from them in their views, have shown by their own sacrifices that they are equally entitled to the respect of the people as the hon. member for Springs? Barnett Potter served as an airman in the Great War. Throughout this war I do not think his war record has been any less creditable than that of the hon. member for Springs; so he is not entitled to speak disrespectfully of him. His abuse has shown him unworthy to unloose the shoe’s latchet of Mr. Potter. His views on what racialism amount to are the most extraordinary I have ever heard. I do not like applying the word to a member of this House, but he suffers from astigmatism. That is the explanation, when we find him repeating the remarks he recently quoted from bits of paper coming possibly from the Broadcasting Board.

From “Potter’s Review”—I gave you the pages.

The quotations do not convey racialism to me or to any other impartial person. My own view is that the Minister ought to realise that this question calls for something more than he has indicated himself willing to carry out. He ought to recognise that broadcasting affairs in this country cannot go on in their present sorry state with a reaction against the people who indicted the subversive element in the Broadcasting Corporation. But for them we might easily have found broadcasting passing into the hands of the subversive people in this country during the early part of the war. The people who took that action were rewarded by being turned out and deprived of their appointments. There was an enquiry, and as I said at the time, it was almost farcical, merely a whitewashing of the undesirable elements and a finding in favour of the board. My own view is very largely covered by those who have made a closer study of the subject than I have, that there should be a new board appointed and an entire overhaul of the broadcasting organisation, that the listeners should be allowed to elect at least two members to a new Broadcasting Board; that there should be a national listeners’ association recognised by the Government, and if necessary to be put on a similar footing in every province, so as to avoid irregularities and to avoid bogus associations being formed.

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 24th April.