I move—

During the Report Stage discussion took place on Clause 15 on the question of providing adequate safeguards against any abuse of the compulsory clause. I indicated then I was not averse to providing further safeguards if they could be devised. I should like to say a further amendment has been provided, which I shall introduce in the Other Place.

When the hon. Minister of Economic Development moved the second reading of this Bill, this side of the House fully accepted the principle contained in it. We admitted that standardisation was necessary, especially having regard to the development of our own industries. We fully described the advantages of standardisation, and we left the House and the Government in no doubt as to our attitude in respect of the principles of standardisation. The hon. member for Ceres (Dr. Stals) who opened the discussion on that occasion pointed out the advantages of standardisation and he wholeheartedly approved of the principle embodied in this Bill. He also pointed out certain omissions in this Bill and he specially emphasised the dangers of the composition of the board, as laid down in the Bill. I followed on the hon. member for Ceres as the speaker on this side. I too fully approved of and supported the general principle of standardisation. But I went further and I pointed out certain dangers which exist in the system of compulsory standardisation. I pointed out the great powers which were being placed in the hands of the Minister and his board. I pointed out the possible far-reaching effect which this Bill might have on our import trade in this country. I also pointed out that this Bill, if it becomes law, will be closely connected with another matter in which we on this side of the House also take a great interest, namely the question of Imperial trade relations. On that occasion I also pointed out that far-reaching consequences might flow from Clause 15, consequences which may be dangerous to the interests of our country; and we now learn from the Minister that at that time we were right. In the Comittee Stage we also pointed out the dangers contained in Clause 15; and we now learn from the Minister that in that respect he has now been converted to our point of view and that he proposes to move certain amendments in the Other Place. We can only say “better late than never”. As I have said, that was our attitude during the second reading debate and it is still necessary to emphasise it, having regard to the standpoint which we are going to adopt on the motion for the third reading of the Bill. On that occasion I said— [Re-translation]—

During the second reading debate we did not leave the House in the slightest doubt as to our attitude in respect of this Bill, namely, that we approve of the principles but that we detect certain dangers which must be eliminated. The Minister and the House were therefore aware of our attitude. We accept the principle but we do not accept the Bill. There is a clear distinction. The Press too understood it in that light. One of the local newspapers which supports the Government described my attitude as follows—

An absolutely correct description. For once I too was cerrectly reported by the Government Press! We accepted this Bill in principle, but we viewed its provisions and the possible effect of the Bill with suspicion. At the second reading we voted for the principle of the Bill, but we stated clearly that during the Committee Stage we would move certain important amendments. We then came to the Committee Stage and we carried out our promise. Various important amendments were then moved by this side of the House. The object of the amendments, in the first place, was to improve the Bill and to fill certain important gaps. A further object was to obviate duplication and possible clashes between various bodies. We went further and we tried to give the South African Standards Bureau a pure African character. We also moved amendments to ensure that standardisation would be in the interests of South Africa and South Africa only, in the interests of South African industry and South African agriculture only. Our object was also to prevent this Bill, if it became law, from becoming an instrument in the hands of the Government to be used, not only to promote the interests of South Africa as such, but to try to promote the interests of any other country. I think the Minister will admit that our criticism as well as our amendments were of a constructive nature. It was constructive and not destructive criticism. Our object was to improve the Bill in the interests of South Africa. I think the Minister will admit that, especially in the case of a Bill of this nature it is the duty of the Opposition to keep a watchful eye. That is why the Opposition is here. It is the duty of the Opposition not only to do what members on the Government side ought to do, namely to look at the Bill as we have it before us. It is also the duty of the Opposition to point out the implications embodied in such a Bill, and to indicate how such a Bill might be misused. It is the duty of the Opposition to point out any hidden dangers which may lurk in such a Bill. It must be remembered that this Standards Bill goes further than any similar legislation in any other country. I think the Minister will admit that. I have gone into the legislation of the United States, and there is simply no comparison between this Bill and similar legislation of the United States. The Minister will admit that the United States was the first country to introduce legislation of this nature. This Bill, as now drafted, gives the Government and the Minister concerned a particularly powerful weapon. These powers are not being granted to the Minister only. Those powers are also granted to an independent body, the Standards Institution. It must further be remembered that that independent body has the right to recommend standards which then become standard specifications, and that has far-reaching consequences. Hon. members on the other side must realise and the country must realise that under this Bill we shall have compulsory standards, compulsory not only in relation to the industries of this country, compulsory not only in the case of agriculture in this country, but also compulsory in relation to import trade. And those powers are being given to the Minister, and what is more important they are being given to the institution which is an independent body. The Minister may say that he has the final say, but we have seen in the course of the debate on this Bill what tremendous respect the Minister has for that institution. In my opinion it is very doubtful whether the Minister will dare to oppose the institution and the board. I very strongly doubt that. This Bill can lay down standards which will to a large extent have a restrictive influence on commerce, industry and agriculture, and those powers will be in the hands of an independent organisation. I do not know whether hon. members on the other side who are interested in industrial development realise what dangers are attached to such a provision. Since compulsory standardisation has such far-reaching consequences, it is the duty of the Opposition to point out the possible implications and dangers, or otherwise it will not be doing its duty towards the country. The hon. member for Houghton (Mr. Bell) did point out certain dangers, but nevertheless he is going to approve of the Bill. One of the possible consequences of this Bill is that our import trade may be driven into certain channels. There is not the slightest doubt about that. Clause 15 makes provision for regulations which may be promulgated and which may prohibit the sale of certain commodities. We moved amendments which sought at least to minimise those dangers. We moved that it should be applicable only to imported manufactured goods which are also manufactured in South Africa, but this amendment was not accepted. The entire trade and distribution are restricted by this Bill. The distribution of commodities in South Africa may be tremendously handicapped in South Africa through this Bill, as it reads at the moment. These are the dangers which lurk in Clause 15. The Minister said today that he was going to move certain amendments to Clause 15 in the Other Place, but we do not know what those amendments are going to be. In any event it is a serious admission on the part of the Minister that our criticism was well-founded

Perhaps he is going to make the position even worse.

Yes, it is possible. We do not know where we stand. We may be buying a pig in the poke if we merely accept his assurance. But that is an admission that we were right in saying that there were dangerous implications in Clause 15. Now I want to say a few words in connection with the important question of import trade. We admit that in the future South Africa will still have to import many commodities, and that we will have to import on a large scale. We want to develop our industries on the greatest possible scale, but we are not so foolish as to believe that we shall be able to manufacture in this country everything we need. We are therefore faced with the possibility and also the certainty that it will always be necessary in the future for South Africa to import on a large scale. In this connection I pointed out during the second reading debate that we must take into consideration certain aspects of import trade. I refer to the policy which is now being proposed, namely, to make an economic unit of the British Empire, to build a protective wall around the Empire. It is a very unfortunate state of affairs that we find in South Africa at the present time that we can never discuss this matter without immediately being accused by the other side of the House and by their Press that we are adopting an anti-British attitude. It is an unfortunate state of affairs that on all these occasions the Union Jack is hauled out and waved before us. One despairs of this position in South Africa that we still have a section in this country which is apparently not able to view these matters in the right perspective, which is not able to look at these matters from the point of view of South Africa and South Africa’s interests only. It is an unfortunate state of affairs which exists in this country, and since a slight improvement can be detected, one can only express the hope that there will be such an improvement in the future that one will be able to deal with these questions of Imperial trade on their merits, and that when matters of this kind are raised, the charge will not immediately be made by the other side of the House that one is prompted by racial or other motive. That is not the position in the other Dominions. If members on the other side will take the trouble of reading the speeches which are made in the Canadian Parliament they will find that when such matters are raised in Canada, they are discussed purely from the point of view of what is in the interests of Canada. That is the attitude that is adopted in Canada; and that attitude is being adopted more and more not only in connection with economic matters, but also in connection with political matters. In Canada, since the days of Sir Robert Borden, who was a Conservative, we have found that attitude. During the past three or four years, we have seen the same tendency in Australia namely to study what is in the interests of Australia. It is only in South Africa that we have a section of the population which adopts a different attitude, an attitude which is also adopted in this House, to view matters of this kind not merely from the point of view of the interests of South Africa. South Africa will later find itself occupying a position of isolation in the British Commonwealth. While Canada and Australia look at the matter from the point of view of their own interests, we have a section in South Africa which studies the interests of countries overseas in preference to the interests of their own country. What is even more remarkable is the fact that even some of the industrialists in our country— that section whom one would expect to have a great interest in the development of our own industries—are also inclined to look at these matters not from the South African point of view but much rather from the Imperial point of view. I raise the question of the relationship between this Bill and Imperial relations. It is necessary to mention this matter because it is crystal clear that once again there is an important movement afoot to build a protective economic wall around the British Commonwealth. One can well understand the necessity because it is very clear that England will be compelled to build up her export trade again. The other day we had the statement from Sir Stafford Cripps that England must either export or perish. On the one hand there is the necessity for England to export and on the other hand we know that England expects tremendously keen competition from America in the sphere of trade. Hon. members on the other side know that the Airways Conference in Chicago was a failure and that that failure was due to the clash of interests as far as post-war commercial aviation is concerned. They cannot deny the impending trade competition. England will be faced with serious competition on the part of the United States of America, and, in spite of all the praises one hears today of the United States of America, I visualise the time when we shall again have the position that we had after the last war when there was also keen commercial competition between England and America, when, instead of praises, we shall again hear not of the “glorious armies of the United States”, but of “the damned Yankees”. We are again heading for that position. The British Government realises it and for that reason it is making preparations at this stage to concentrate trade as much as possible within the borders of the British Empire. We also had evidence of that the day before yesterday in connection with the discussion on the Airways Conference. We heard the speech of a frontbencher on the other side, and the whole theme of his speech was “Buy British”. According to him we must not buy in the best market; we must not study what is in the interests of South Africa—no, the whole theme of the speech was “Buy British”. We have had that in the past, and we are getting it again today.

Buy British to buy the best.

Yes, we may possibly have the position in the future in terms of the provisions of this Bill that the Avro York will be declared the standard type of machine to be built. Mr. Chairman, that is a policy which will be promoted by a Bill of this kind if it is carried out by the wrong government. For that reason we on this side are justifiably afraid of this Bill. It is not only a question of British trade competition with the United States of America. There is probably not one member on the other side who is not deeply concerned about the increasing power of Russia on the continent of Europe. They will not admit it, but that is nevertheless the position. And that increasing power of Russia is not confined to the military and political spheres, because Russia, too, will seek markets for herself. Russia already has a large portion of Europe under her control, countries like Rumania, Czechoslovakia, etc., which will become Russian spheres of influence, and it stands to reason that those countries will offer markets to Russia. In these circumstances British export trade to the continent of Europe will be affected to a large extent. If we look at this matter for a moment from the point of view of Great Britain’s interests, I say that if I had been in the position of the British Government, I should have done exactly what they are doing. It is in their interests. I do not blame the British Government because it is doing its utmost to ensure markets for England within the borders of the British Empire. Regarded purely from the British point of view, that is the correct policy for England to adopt. But it is not in South Africa’s interests. We are here as representatives of South Africa. We are here to promote and to protect the interests of South Africa, whatever the interests of England may be. That is our object, and for that reason I say that we ought to be careful with a Bill of this nature, and that we should not allow a Bill to be passed in this House which will help to build a protective wall around the Empire, or which is going to promote that policy. These are the possible consequences of this Bill, irrespective of the other consequences of an internal character. Nor can we afford to lose sight of the other dangers of an internal character and the implications to which I referred in the first part of my speech. The application of British standards only is one of the possible consequences of this Bill. It has already been pointed out in the course of the debate that in the past the institution has only applied British standards in South Africa. Our country is being chained to those standards, and the possible and almost certain effect of that will be, that in the future we shall not be able to buy in other markets, because we are tied to the British standards. That has happened already. On the occasion of the second reading debate, I pointed out what my experience had been in this connection when I conducted negotiations with the French Government. At that time we had a big favourable trade balance with France of 5 to 1. When the French threatened to apply further import quotas to our fruit, crayfish, etc. as a result of the unfavourable trade balances as far as they were concerned they approached me with a view to buying railway material in France for South Africa. We found, however, that it was impossible for France to compete with tenders which were invited for railway material because certain standards and specifications were laid down by the Railway Department in South Africa which made it impossible for the French to get the business. They even went so far, apart from technical specifications—and I am now giving you facts which you ’will find in the files of the Department of External Affairs —as to lay down certain “standards of safety” with regard to certain railway material, such as bolts and screws. The French then lose the business because it is alleged that the French material does not conform to the South African standards of safety. Just imagine; here we have a great country like France with its big, heavy railways, with heavier engines than we have in South Africa. Has it ever been proved that any accidents occurred as a result of the fact that French material was not good enough? No, merely on the opinion of some South African Railway official or other France was prevented from tendering on the ground of so-called standards of safety. I mention that case in order to show how this Bill can be used in order to restrict imports and to keep it within certain countries and within certain limits. The same thing took place in connection with the purchase of locomotives. I could have got a considerable increase in France in the import quota which had been fixed for South African fresh fruit if only we were prepared to give them an order for a number of locomotives. The French tenderers came to see me personally and pointed out that there was one trifling detail in the specification which made it quite impossible for the French firm to tender; with the result that the South African fruit farmers suffered tremendous damage, because the French Government refused to increase the quota. It will be seen therefore that there are serious implications and dangers in this Bill, as it reads at present. Our attitude is that we must buy in the best markets, whether they be British or those of the United States. I adopt exactly the same attitude in respect of British markets that I adopt in respect of United States trade. When I was in the United States I pointed out that the United States could not expect us to buy their goods if they did not buy from us to a greater extent. During my sojourn in the United States, I continually hammered on that point: “Buy from us too; do not only expect us to buy from you.” I say it is the attitude of this side, whether it be British trade or whether it be United States of America trade, that we must buy in the best markets that we must buy from the best clients, that we must buy under the best terms and that we must buy in the interests of South Africa and South Africa only. I say therefore that one of our greatest objections, apart from those I have already mentioned in connection with inland trade, to the Bill as it now reads is the powerful weapon which is being placed in the hands of the Minister to drive import trade into certain channels. We as a Party are not prepared to assume the responsibility for this Bill as it reads at present. We have done our utmost in order to maintain this principle—and it is a good principle —to have certain amendments accepted in the Committee Stage. The Minister refused to accept those important amendments. I say therefore that we are not prepared to accept the responsibility for this Bill as it now reads, and in these circumstances we are going to vote against the third reading.

I regret that once more I have to participate in this discussion, because in the beginning when this Bill came before the House the first time I heartily supported it and still support it. But seeing that we have been informed that the Minister adopted the point of view that he is not prepared to make concessions, for reasons which he knows better than we do, I briefly want to make use of this opportunity to state the point of view that the principle of the Bill, namely standardisation, is necessary, but the Bill as it is now is not acceptable to us. We see a whole series of dangers in the Bill itself, because it is our duty, when we make a new start, to make a Sound start. I consider that we should declare ourselves as a Party in regard to the future, because we expect great developments in South Africa. South Africa has prepared itself for great developments in industry and the Minister, as the mouthpiece of the Government, has encouraged that idea that we are on the eve of great developments in the industrial sphere, and that this Bill is a contribution towards that industrial development and will assist it by means of standardisation so that our manufacture in the future will not only be of use to consumers in South Africa itself, but at the same time enable us to attain a reputation in the markets we will probably obtain on the continent of Europe. Because the industrial development of South Africa will be one of the chief sources of our future wealth, we would like to see the Bill framed so, we would like to have its provisions formulated so that it will be a contribution and not a burden on us. Day after day we are referred to the importance of the gold-mining industry. None of us doubt the value of the gold mining industry in our economic structure. Nor do we underestimate the possibilities of other metals or minerals, but basically the mining industry is a disappearing asset and eventually must be substituted by something more permanent, and there is no more permanent source of income for any nation than its agriculture or industrial development. As against the mines, which are a dwindling asset to us, we have agriculture in South Africa as one of the sources of revenue, but with the multiplicity of difficulties, the cultivation of our arable areas, the uncertain rainfall, the extent of our agricultural industry is more limited than we should like to see it. With a certain amount of pride we stated in the past that agriculture is the backbone of South Africa. Every country which can depend on agriculture as its backbone is fortunate because it always has an advantage over other countries in regard to safety and other things. But as I said, South Africa has these limitations and therefore we have to look to other sources of revenue for our nation over and above agriculture. Our trade which is another source of revenue does not itself produce revenue; trade produces services. But trade can only produce those services in connection with articles which have really been created, i.e. income which really has been produced, and unfortunately in the past trade was not always sympathetic towards industry. Organised trade was always orientated towards importation. Whatever the meaning of trade may be in the economic structure of South Africa, the income derived from it can only consist of the provision of services in connection with profits produced in South Africa. The mining industry in the past was and unfortunately today is still opposed to industrial development. We are faced with this position that there are so many enemies of industrial development and therefore it is the more necessary for us that those enemies at least will not find allies in the possibilities which the weaknesses of the Bill assure them. I do not know whether the industries of other countries overseas have as many enemies as in South Africa. Organised trade, as I have said, was always based on importation. There was a time when trade was inimical, so much so that proper discussions could be held between the representatives of trade and those of industry. Even now trade has not recovered from that constitutional disease. Therefore it is necessary for the representatives of factories and for the Minister to insist on the proper manufacture of South African products. The mining industry even today is still to a certain extent the recognised enemy of industrial development. I have here a circular from one of the most prominent personalities in the mining industry, under the heading “General Picture of South Africa; the Threat of Unconsidered Industrialisation”. The mining industry has always been the enemy of industrial development except in so far as this industrial development can contribute towards mining development. The mining industry has always adopted the view that the other industries contribute to the increased cost of production in the mining industry. There were even spokesmen of the mining industry who stated that it would be better to pension off those who were dependent on industry. Fortunately that point of view is not held today. But the view is still held that industrial development should be subordinate to the mining industry. We feel that the time will pass when people will still speak about the mining industry as being the backbone of the country and the future population of South Africa being mainly dependent on mining development. Agriculture also was often misled to ally itself with the mining industry against industrial development. From this circular it clearly appears that mining and agriculture work together to create an atmosphere of suspicion against industrial development. This view is held not only in South Africa but also overseas —I refer to the mercantile complex—that the Dominions should really in the first instance constitute the market for products of industry or rather for countries which develop in the industrial sphere. My experience has taught me that certain representatives of British trade aim at creating this atmosphere, that an organisation of representatives of British manufacturers are out to foster this idea that South Africa is the market for British products and make propaganda for that. I wish to state immediately and clearly that I have no objection to the representatives of overseas trade trying to do the best they can for themselves to render the services for which they were appointed; but we seriously object to the development of the idea that South Africa in the first instance should be a market for their products. In addition to this there is the unfortunate fact that even the Imperial Conferences in the past were used to limit industrial development in the Dominions. At the present time there are also consultations overseas about the future economic development of the world. My personal experience is this: From the reports of the conferences it was clear that at those conferences attempts were made to limit the industrial development of the Dominions. I say that with reference to what I have seen, especially in regard to other Dominions. There we have the position that the idea is fostered that the development of the Dominions should be limited and kept within bounds to provide a market for certain industries in Britain. I want to associate myself with the remark of the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) that we should try to view this matter objectively. There is no such thing as anti-British sentiment in this discussion. As regards myself I wish to put it very clearly that there is no sentiment in this matter. What I say I regard only as essential for the future industrial development of South Africa. That was a factor at Ottawa. Where I have made statements in order to direct attention both inside this House and outside it to the safeguarding of the interests of our future industrial development, I admit that the Bill which is now before us is an appreciable improvement on the Bill which was laid on the Table of the House last year, but the improvement is not such that we can approach the future with a degree of safety. The weaknesses of the Bill in the first place lie in the composition of the board. At the second reading I said that we should like to have an independent body. I spoke about a State body or a semi-State body. The Minister in his reply to the debate said that this body which he is now constituting approximates very nearly to a State body because he really has the power to make the appointments; he only allowed himself to be bound in so far that he has to give one other body representation on the board. That remark of mine was intended to ensure that we would have an independent body which would not be unreasonably influenced by outside influences. The object was to obtain an independent body for the Union which had a purely Union point of view about matters, which has a pure, broad national outlook over the material matters of South Africa, something which is lacking in this Bill. The division of responsibility between the Standards Institution and the board of the bureau is, as I said before, unsound. During the Committee Stage I tried to stress the fact that here we have really a repetition of a group of evils existing in South Africa —duplication, repetition, expense and inefficiency due to the clash and friction which must exist between trade and industry as a result of this. It is unsound and unscientific. The board visualised by the Minister can be just as efficient if he had full responsibility for appointing that board. The board can be just as capable as that body, by virtue of the Standards Institution. The Committee of Management—I think that is what it is called—consists of persons who exert influence through their position and who can accept or reject the recommendations of the committee. The Minister has full power to appoint this board which will not be less capable or less scientific than the Management Committee of the Standards Institution. The technical work of the board will in no case have to be executed by less capable people because it always has at its disposal those people who do the work of the Management Committee. He could appoint a scientific, efficient body if he had a free choice. He now has a choice in so far that he can select a few men from a panel. In any case the maintenance of that panel is undesirable in our opinion, and we regard it as a danger. During all the stadia of this Bill the Minister said that he wanted to retain the element of spontaneity in this Bill. I can understand that the Minister originally, when the Bill was drafted, had that factor in mind, but if he still today tries to retain that element of spontaneity I think he is obliged to lay down ’ that element in this Bill. In the first instance he has the right to appoint the members, but in Section 15 he imposes a whole series of duties on industry. He can therefore not say that he still wants to provide for the element of spontaneous service in this connection. We must admit that in the past there was such service, but as the Bill stands now there is not a grain of spontaneity left. He assumes the right to proclaim compulsory standards, compulsory specifications, standard specifications and even compulsory methods of production. What remains of the co-operation between industry and the board; that idea of incorporating the element of spontaneity in the Bill has fallen away. The Minister has told us that in the near future there will be a Scientific Research Bureau. We heard that with pleasure but according to the Bill we are dealing with, and also according to the Minister’s statement there will not be an institution which has any element of spontaneity. It will be a State institution through and through. The Minister must now state why he is instituting a Research Institute and why he is not instituting a Bureau of Standards which has the same characteristics. I wish to point out that this influence element, which is really strangley orientated, namely the Standards Institution, that that factor in itself contains a danger for the good work of the Research Bureau. He will appoint the best men to do scientific research and in the first instance to increase the material welfare of South Africa. That is the aim of the Bill. But he leaves an element in the Standard Bureau which with their strange orientation can make the work of the Research Bureau valueless to the industrial development of South Africa. He can obtain the best results and yet in spite of the results it is still possible that influences may operate through which the development of South Africa may be seriously hindered. We regard the Bill as it stands as dangerous to industrial development in the country. The South African Standards Institution is just another name for a branch of the British Standards Institution. It is historically so. It seems as if the Minister has some doubt as to the truth of this. I read from the report of the institution—

In other words, the South African Standards Institution is really just another name for a branch of the British Standards Institution. I have no objection to the British Standards Institution. It performed valuable services to England in its industrial development. For South Africa we want an Afrikaans orientated Afrikaans directed bureau, not a branch of an overseas bureau. That is historically so; it had its origin during the visit of the Secretary of the British Standards Institution to South Africa, and it is really a result of the Ottawa Conference of 1932 which is generally recognised today to have aimed at drawing a fence round the British Empire, and which consequently put serious difficulties in the way of free industrial development. That is recognised, and I wish to refer the Minister to a publication which I am sure he knows, the P.E.P. P.E.P., No. 229 will give him a little information in connection with the views of British businessmen about the meaning and the aim of the Ottawa Conference. I read here—

The Minister has these pamphlets at his disposal. I quoted from No. 229. Through that development the South African Standards Institution did not only become a strange element to us, a foreign body in South Africa, but it had its origin in the anti-free development of the Dominions, which aimed at ensuring a market for the British Empire. On a former occasion I said that apart from the fact that they are strangely orientated as far as South Africa is concerned, in all the years of their existence they contributed very little to the standardisation of South African products. Their main work was to declare British standards as South African standards, and here I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Beaufort West that the acceptance of British standards definitely put South Africa in the position where our tenders became a farce. I had the opportunity to witness this for a number of years. There was a whole series of tenders formulated in such a way that there was no chance for any country in the world to tender, except one country, and that was its aim. It is fact which cannot be gainsaid. To state in one voice that one wants to promote world trade and to join a movement to remove stumbling blocks from the road of trade and to contribute to permanent peace, and on the other hand to adopt a standpoint that one must form a small narrow entity, is not only inconsistent but immoral.

Are you now referring to tenders for railway material?

I also know of other tenders in regard to which the railway engineers were not concerned. It was not only that case. For the future of South Africa industrial development is so important that we want the fullest freedom to develop within the limits of our community. Therefore the Minister correctly introduced legislation to promote industrial production, but by including the provisions against which we object, he not only placed stumbling blocks in the way of free exchange of products between the countries of the world, but he is practically busy creating new stumbling blocks for the future. It is rather strange that South African industry itself does not realise how they are binding themselves for the future by means of these provisions in the Bill, how they can be forced and pinched and limited by a measure which they probably today accept for sentimental reasons. We want independent development and for that reason we want free, unbounded development of our industries. The Minister of Economic Development remains responsible, but he is not an expert in all spheres. He cannot be that. Therefore the Minister must allow himself to be led by his board and by his experts. In this case he has bound a log to his own feet through a body he himself calls into existence, probably because of his respect for them, and which is giving great influence, influence which can be exerted in the direction of the development of our industry. Because we feel that we want free development in the interests of South Africa solely, we feel that although in principle we are in favour of the Bill, we cannot support the particulars of the Bill.

There seems to be an impression if this Bill goes through Britain and the Empire and South Africa in general, will benefit to the exclusion of others. If that is the case, so much the better. The principles of my party are so well known in the House, and so well known in the country, that it is quite unnecessary to mention that aspect of the Bill. May I say there is an impression abroad that the passage of the Bill will assist countries other than the Empire. Be that as it may. That is not my purpose in getting up today. What I want to draw the Minister’s, attention to— and incidentally I apologise for not having noticed it before—is what I consider an omission in Clause 19—powers of inspectors. I think it is generally known in this House that I consider a private dwelling inviolate, a man’s castle, and it should not be invaded promiscuously by any inspectors or officers appointed under any Act, except under a warrant from a justice of the peace; and I ask the Minister to consider an amendment or rather a proviso to this Clause 19, similar to that in Act No. 44 of 1944, that is to say—

It may be pointed out to me that this clause as it stands in the Bill, refers particularly to industrial premises, but the words used are “any premises”, and that includes a private dwelling house. I hope that the Minister will consider this matter and that he will move, in Another Place, for the insertion of the proviso.

I should be glad to have an assurance or otherwise from the Minister. It is useless members getting up ….

I was just about to reply.

We do appreciate the Minister being prepared to answer a humble back-bencher.

Without any wish to delay the passage of this Bill, may I say we should appreciate any information the Minister can give us as to the extent or the scope of the amendment which he proposes to move in Another Place. I think we are rather in the dark as to his intentions in that respect, and perhaps he would let us know what he proposes to do.

The scope of the amendment I propose to move is to provide that where a person objects to compulsory standardisation being declared, in addition to the provisions already there he will have the right to appear in person before the Minister with his legal advisers and experts. If his objection is not upheld he will have the right to be served with reasons, in writing, for the objection not being upheld, and he’ will also have the right to take the Minister to court on any Question of fact or of law based on those reasons. In regard to the point raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Neate), if he will read the clause a little closer he will see it is confined to business premises. It provides that—

I think it makes it abundantly clear it does not refer to dwelling houses.

Motion put and the House divided:

Ayes—61:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden W.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Friedman, B.

Gluckman. H.

Gray, T. P.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

McLean, J.

Miles-Cadman C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Raubenheimer, L. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Ueckermann K.

Van der Byl, P.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Wanless, A. T.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B. Humphreys.

Noes—19:

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Mentz F. E.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Potgieter, J. E.

Stals, A. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Werth, A. J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and G. P. Steyn.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

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

Afternoon Sitting.

Bill read a third time.

Yesterday I brought to the notice of the Minister the position of the telegraph and postboys, and I pointed out that it is remarkable that European postboys in certain places are being superseded by coloureds. I wanted to know what the policy of the Minister was. But just listen to the Minister’s reply. He says that his policy is as follows: Where there are European postboys he does not allow them to be superseded by coloureds. Take a place like Burghersdorp, which I brought to his attention. I asked him whether he will allow the coloureds there to be superseded by European postboys. He said no, because the coloureds have worked there for years and he cannot now supersede them. Is that a policy? Ministers opposite have the habit to submit a memorandum to us when they wish to explain a Bill. That is very welcome. But it seems as if we must now go a step further, and if the Minister makes a statement as to his policy he should rather put it in a memorandum so that we can understand it. Where there are Europeans they are not superseded by coloureds, and where there are coloureds they are not superseded by Europeans. The Minister has no definite policy. The Minister has a habit or replying here of which we are now becoming tired. When he rises to reply he becomes nervous and simply agrees with everything we tell him, but we do not get an inch further with this Minister. This sort of thing cannot continue. Let the Minister tell us what his policy is and let us again have Europeans there. It arouses great dissatisfaction. I want to deal with something else which also affects my constituency, namely the telephone call offices. In some offices there are separate places for Europeans and non-Europeans, for example at De Aar. But unfortunately the call office for non-Europeans is open only from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and after that time they have no place to go. Then they must use the European call office. A little while ago a prominent lady wished to book a call. A native stood inside, and he simply invited the lady to enter the box and to look up the number while he was busy there. Can the Minister not understand that that type of thing cannot be endured in South Africa? I do not even want to speak about standing together with a native in a call office. It is bad enough that a lady should go into the same call office after a native has been there. Even a man does not like the smell, so what about a lady? It is the Minister’s duty to draw a dividing line between European and non-European by making available call offices for both sections even after 5 p.m. I hope the Minister will not again say: ‘T agree with the hon. member.” We are tired of that. Let him state his policy and then have the courage to put that policy into operation.

Mr. Chairman, before this vote is passed I should like the Minister to give us some indication if he can, about the plans of the Broadcasting Corporation for developing the use of broadcasting particularly as a means of education for the large mass of our population which is otherwise seriously handicapped in this regard. I have in mind specially the native population. It is admitted on all sides that the radio is one of the greatest aids to mass education; and it will be generally admitted, I think, that here in South Africa we have probably as serious a problem of mass education as any country of our type in the world. Broadcasting can be used to help to solve the problem, as we must solve it if we are going to develop the efficiency of our native population, upon which a rising standard of living depends. I know that an attempt has been made to use the ‘radio as a means of entertainment for the native population, and to some limited extent as a means of enlightenment, but these efforts have been restricted in a number of directions which undermine any great value they could have. For one thing the time at which such broadcasts are put over for the native population seems to be just about the most unreasonable time possible for a working population. The time chosen is between 9 and 10 a.m. when the mass of the native population is at work and when it is extremely difficult for it to have access to the radio. Various people, I know, do encourage their native servants to listen to the broadcast at that time, but they are relatively few. The bulk of the population for whom this service is provided is incapable for using it. Secondly, the geographical range of the service is equally limited. It applies really only to a certain small number of urban areas where some effort has been made to reach the workers congregated in compounds and an attempt has been made to broadcast to native locations, with the same limitation, that many people are not there when the broadcast is put over. The great mass of the African people are not within range of these broadcasts at all. They do not reach the rural areas. When I first made enquiries about those broadcasts, I was told that the justification for using the 9 to 10 o’clock period was that that was the time when the rural natives go to the village store and that they would be able to gather there to listen to the broadcast. Just after I was told this, I had occasion to go through the whole of the Transkei and I found that no-one there had heard About these broadcasts, and there certainly were no centres where the people could gather to listen to them. In any case, I am inclined to think that the type of broadcast put over would leave the native population cold and would not be much encouragement to them to use the radio as a means of education. The entertainment, I believe, is very limited in scope, except in the area of Durban where the programmes, I understand, show a good deal of variety in their range of character. But on the information side, there is positive criticism by the Africans. It is that the type of information provided and which is supposed to have a news value is stale—much staler even, I gather, than the news European listeners complain of getting through the Sapa-Reuter service. This news service comes over to people who have the ordinary channels of information. They read the newspapers, and they have a considerable contempt for the news that is put over to them, not only as being hopelessly out of date but as having no relation, in its method of presentation, to the attitude of the people to public affair’s.

That sounds like Sapa.

No, I don’t think Sapa provides this service.

It sounds very much like it.

I think it is provided by officials of the Native Affairs Department. I do not know who they are, but the news they put over is old and it is put over in the fancy style of people who claim to “know” the native and who appear to know a native of fifty years ago who even then was largely a type of their own imagining.

That sounds as if the Bureau of Information had something to do with it.

I don’t care how widely the blame is spread so long as we get rid of this type of service. In the circumstances of my work, I happen to know the attitude of mind of the native population in public matters fairly intimately. I saw a new facet of that attitude in my constituency in the first year of the war and even I was amazed at the change in the outlook of men, even old men in the back-blocks of our rural areas, who would smile in derision at the artificial stuff that is put over as news of this service. I know there are great difficulties in regard to the whole of this service. But I suggest two things to the hon. Minister. One is that the news service ought to be widened a bit, made more up to date and more realistic, that it ought to be planned together with the rest of the wireless service for natives in conjunction with the native population itself. We have too many services for the native population in the terms of European experience in isolation from the native population. So I urge upon the hon. Minister to urge the corporation to take a firmer control of this service and to widen its scope with the advice of representatives of the African population themselves. By those means they are likely to get something more suitable to the minds of the people they plan to serve. But also I feel it is most important that there should be a wide programme on the educational side to be developed as soon as technical facilities make it possible. I know the Minister will say the technical resources of the corporation are too limited to enable them to extend their services very widely, but I feel there should be a definite attempt to procure technical equipment to enable them to develop an education service right throughout our native rural areas. Those areas are going to present a vast problem in reconstruction after the war. One of the greatest obstacles to that reconstruction will be the ignorance of the people whom we shall be trying to rehabilitate. There can be no better vehicle than the radio for putting over mass education of the type that is absolutely essential if the rehabilitation programme is to be carried out in a reasonable time. I would like to be sure all these aspects of the problem are under consideration, and that the corporation has got a programme likely to implement such a plan, as one of the first demands that it will meet as soon as circumstances allow.

I should like to support what has been said by the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) in regard to the urgent necessity for the extension of the existing arrangements for the broadcasting of news and useful information to the native population of the country. There is no doubt that native talent is available for use by whatever department is responsible for producing the broadcasting material. Personally I should like to see the Native Affairs Department a little more active in regard to the work the hon. member has spoken of. In our own province we have little to complain of because the broadcasting there has been entrusted to a talented man, Mpanza, who is singularly qualified for his work, a man who for 25 years was a teacher, a very progressive and well-informed man who yet retains a very wide and diversified knowledge of native life in its natural environment and who is able to vary his broadcasts in a manner which grips the interest of his listeners right to the last moment of the broadcast. I hope we shall have a new policy introduced as a result of the appointment of the new Secretary for Native Affairs. I believe he is a man who is much more alive to the interests of the native in his own home than his predecessor and one who will work wholeheartedly and devotedly in the way of enlightening the native and making his life a little more pleasant and endurable to him. I hope the Minister of Native Affairs will awaken to the fact that a very great deal can be done to alleviate the lot of the native, if only the right technique and due energy are engaged in this aim. I hope that a more progressive and extensive policy in regard to broadcasting will be framed. There is no reason in the world why wireless installations should not be provided throughout the native territories, say at the chief’s headquarters, to begin with. I do not say I am in favour of a great deal of propaganda on entirely fresh and novel lines being spread throughout these areas. I think the kind of propaganda —I am speaking now for my own province which I know better than any other—which is available to the natives or which is broadcast in Natal, will suit admirably the needs of the native people generally and serve not only to entertain but to enlighten them in matters affecting their well-being in every possible way. I have heard the broadcast on one morning alone deal with such questions as dangers connected with travelling, dangers involved in the distribution of food, and a warning against profiteers—which is very necessary in the case of natives—and other simple items of that nature which are invaluable to the native, such as food distribution plans and the question of accidents in street traffic. All these things are most helpful to the natives, and they are eagerly consumed by those who are listening. You have in addition such announcements as the outbreak of any particular disease— things unfortunately common among the natives—and you have warnings given of the possible extension of infection to native areas. That sort of thing makes an appeal to them at once. For instance, if they are advised that a disease is coming in their direction the broadcaster follows up by saying: “You have heard the warning and you have to do everything you can to avoid the spread of this disease!” So one is tremendously gratified with the present form of broadcasting among the natives. I think, too, they are most appreciative of it as they are of other forms of education and entertainment. I can remember a European lad of 16 years of age who was so impressed with the desire of the natives to learn that he made it his business, whilst earning his living, to run a night school for natives, and he was remembered to the day of his death by the natives whom he benefited and whom he gave their first start in acquiring knowledge and improving their conditions. That is a sort of pointer and an earnest of what can be done amongst the natives by a properly regulated and directed system of broadcasting. I entirely support what was said by the hon. member for Cape Eastern on this question.

Mr. Chairman, I am continuing a discussion which was opened yesterday by the hon. member for Mossel Bay (Dr. van Nierop). This is a matter which is of greatest importance not only to certain members on this side of the House who are particularly concerned, but it is also a matter which affects the prestige of this House. I am speaking in English because I am not so sure of the competence of the Minister’s interpreter. I want to be sure that he will understand what I am saying. Yesterday the hon. member for Mossel Bay again raised the question of a certain secret radio transmitter which operated during the earlier year of the war. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) raised the question of yet another secret transmitter. The hon. Minister was asked, as he has been asked on previous occasions, what he had done to put a stop to these transmissions. The Minister’s attitude was that he had given instructions. Mr. Chairman, I am quite prepared knowing the Minister as I do, to accept his assurance that instructions were actually given to his Department. The question is not whether the Minister gave instructions or not. The question we are concerned with on this side of the House is whether the Minister saw to it that his instructions were carried out. We want to know whether the Minister followed up those instructions. Particularly do we want to know what steps were actually taken by his Department to try to locate the two secret transmitters. The Minister’s assurances are not of much value in this case, nor are we greatly impressed by his expressions of regret. What we want to know, and we require a reply from the Minister today, is what steps actually were taken by his Department to try to locate these two secret transmitters. Mr. Chairman, what particularly struck me yesterday was the attitude taken up by members on the other side of the House; they apparently do not appreciate the seriousness of this matter. They regard it purely and simply as political attacks made on certain members on this side of the House. They do not appreciate that those filthy attacks affected the prestige of this House, inasmuch as they were made on members who had been elected as representatives of the people. They appear to treat this as a laughing matter. There is for instance the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). Perhaps one should not take too much notice of what he says. He was merely running true to form. He appears to revel in this sort of thing. As we have seen in the past, the hon. member is not over-scrupulous about the political tactics which he adopts. Yesterday he was challenged, and as usual he ran away. He very distinctly said yesterday—I and others on this side of the House heard him—that the hon. member for Mossel Bay and myself had been attacked by this secret radio, and when he was asked to tell us what was said, he tried to get out of it by saying he was merely referring to certain leg-pulling of the hon. member for Mossel Bay who is a dentist. He tried to run away. It was however very clear from the way he spoke that he was referring to something entirely different. However we should not pay too much attention to the hon. member. But I was surprised at the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) (Mr. Hayward), who has the reputation in this House of being quite a decent fellow ….

Which is more than you have.

… the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) approved of what was said by the hon. member for Hospital. In fact, he went even further, and quoted what had been said by the secret transmitter. He said the hon. member for Hospital appeared to be getting under the skin of members of this House. Was he comparing the hon. member for Hospital to a sand louse? What was this type of broadcasting that was put over by this transmitter? It was bad enough that an illegal transmitter was allowed to operate. The hon. Minister knows that radio transmissions cannot be made except with the permission of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I say it was bad enough that during those years there were two illegal transmitters. Both were allowed to operate and I submit both were allowed to continue because they concentrated on attacks on members on this side of the House. But the one transmitter, and I refer particularly to the one operated by the Truth Legion—the Minister will not deny it was run by the Truth Legion—did not confine itself to political attacks on this side of the House. That would have been bad enough but that transmitter specialised in false accusations of a highly personal character.

What did they say?

They went even further. This transmitter went so far as to make accusations of immoral conduct against members on this side of the House.

Do not talk nonsense.

I listened personally to that transmitter. That was the sort of thing that was put over. Members were being accused of immoral conduct, and the hon. member for Hospital, by way of interjection yesterday, said: “Much of what was said I approve of.” The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (District) also approved of it, and other members on that side of the House approved of it. I submit that this is a serious matter. Apparently members on the other side do not appear to realise how serious it is. May I point out what the judge said when passing sentence in the case of assault which was committed on the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz)? The judge particularly referred to the fact that this assault was so much more grave because it had been committed upon a man who had been elected by the people as their representative in Parliament; and he said on that account he was imposing a heavier sentence than he would have done in the ordinary course. In the case of the secret transmitter we are not concerned with a physical assault on a member of the House, but with something much more serious, viz., an assualt on the good name of members on this side of the House.

What about the assaults by Zeesen?

It is no good trying to draw a red herring across the trail by referring to Zeesen. Members on the other side of the House by these interjections are now showing that they approve of attacks of that kind upon the moral character and the good name of members on this side of the House. I say that as members of this House they should be as much concerned as we are because it affects the whole question of the prestige of Parliament.

You are forgetting Zeesen.

It is no good telling me about Zeesen. Those attacks on Nationalist members were sent from South Africa by another secret radio transmitter which was allowed to operate here. This is a most important matter. The matter was raised previously. [Time limit.]

I do not believe a word you have said.

The doubtful and equivocal reply which the Minister gave yesterday gave rise to expressions which we cannot do otherwise but condemn in the strongest language. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) expressed the view that we on this side are traitors. I want to ask him to tell me outside that I am a traitor. I challenge him to do it. And I want to ask him whether it is just as against we old Republicans who gave an English-speaking person like the hon. member for Hospital permission to live in the Free State and civil rights, now to act like that. When the war broke out he did not take up weapons to help us to fight, but here he now comes and stigmatises us as traitors—he bites the hand that fed him.

I do not think that the hon. member should expand on that matter.

I just wanted to reply to it. I wish to go further and say: The Minister of Posts and Telegraphs uses our postage stamps to make war propaganda and Party propaganda. This morning I inspected all the postage stamps to see what was depicted on each. What did I find? On the halfpenny stamp I found a soldier on the 1d. a nurse, on the 2d. a sailor, on the 3d. a member of the S.A.W.A.S.

What is wrong with that?

I will tell you just now. On the 4d. stamp one finds a gun, on the 6d. a shell factory, on the 1s. a tank, and on the 1s. 3d. a radio. Before the war our stamps had other emblems. On the 10s. there was Groote Schuur, and on the 5s. an ox-wagon, on the 2d. the Union Buildings, on the 1d. a sailing ship, and on the ½d. the head of a Springbok. Things were depicted which belong to South Africa and which are our own. I would not have had any objection even if the head of the Governor-General had been depicted on one of those stamps. It belongs to South Africa and we should all be proud of it, but this number of things one finds now is nothing else but war propaganda and even Party propaganda.

Why not?

Because we want our own.

We are in the majority.

We definitely refuse to approve of it. We are against the war. The whole day we hear talk here about a better relationship between the races. Why does the hon. member opposite not live according to that principle? Why does the Minister not live according to it? Why must it be pressed down our throats? We are against the war. Give us what is our own. If the Minister wants to give medals to the gallant heroes who sit on the opposite side and who did not go to the front, good and well. He can give each of those gallant heroes seven medals. But do not use the public service the post office, to force it on to us. We protest against that.

I have intervened in this debate in view of the remarks made by the last speaker. I make no apology for having put on our stamps a soldier, a sailor, an airman, a member of the S.A.W.A.S and factories. This country is in the war and the bulk of the people of South Africa are behind the Government in their war effort and I am not going to apologise for the action that has been taken., You may pass any criticism you like in connection with the matter. When we come back to peace there will be plenty of opportunity for continuing the things that took place prior to the war. I have told the post office, and the post office is doing everything it can to assist in the prosecution of the war.

At the time your excuse was it was to save paper.

No, the saving of the paper was in connection with the size of the stamp, not what is on the stamp. I appreciate that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) spoke in English. The hon. members for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) and for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick) dealt with a very important question, the matter of broadcasting to our native population throughout South Africa. I can assure hon. members that both the Broadcasting Board and myself are fully alive to the importance of developing this service. As was stated by both speakers, certain broadcasts are put out, and I am very grateful to the hon. member for Pinetown for referring to what was done in Natal. The difficulty in covering the country is due to the lack of stations, but that is a matter which must be tackled, and I propose—I am very glad that my colleague the Minister of Native Affairs is present—that a committee of the Broadcasting Board and of the Native Affairs Department should go into this question to see whether it is not possible, as soon as equipment is available, that broadcasting may be made accessible not only to the native population but to many of the people who today cannot afford to pay large sums for wireless sets. I cannot say anything more in connection with the matter except to assure hon. members that it is already being investigated and is a matter which should be accomplished as soon as possible.

If it were not so exasperating the speech of the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) would be very amusing. At this late stage of the war the Nationalist Party is actually accusing the Government of indulging in war propaganda. That is very funny. In the early stages of this Session we found the Nationalists apologising for their war attitude.

That is utter nonsense.

One or two members interjected: “Why cannot you forget that?” In that way they apologised. The hon. member for Frankfort seems to accuse the Government of having made propaganda. Of course we made war propaganda ever since the war started.

And that is all you did.

And why did we do it?

Because of the double salaries involved.

I must not use the word traitorous but we had to do it because of the unpatriotic attitude of the Nationalist Party who would not defend their own country. The mere fact that the hon. member can rise in the Legislative Assembly and talk the talk he uses is entirely due to the fact that after five years of struggle the United Nations pushed the Nazis into the dust. Actually the hon. member for Frankfort and his colleagues are only here on sufference, and there are times when I believe that Hitler had something in his ideas. He believed that if a man is not prepared to defend his own country he is a scoundrel. I am beginning to believe it myself. Perhaps a small spot of the concentration camps in this country would not be bad.

Will you send those of your Party who did not fight but drew double salaries there too?

You were quite prepared to take the big profits though. I am not a wine farmer ….

But you like wine.

We have had your concentration camps here before now.

The hon. member himself would not be averse from taking the double income. He has not the figure for a uniform in any case, and it is quite obvious that he has not got the guts. I am prepared to think now that it was not so much the principle which they adopted in the early days of the war as a complete and obvious lack of guts.

You want to look at your side of the House for that.

The war is won and we can afford to treat speeches like that of the hon. member for Frankfort with the contempt they deserve. I want to talk for a moment about broadcasting. When my time expired the other day I was describing the programmes of broadcasting in South Africa as being the most un-South African thing in the country, and I again want to impress upon the Minister that we get programmes which are largely composed of gramophone records. There seems to me to be as far as the broadcasting authorities are concerned, a very great dearth of local South African talent. I do not believe that. I am satisfied that South Africa has talent and that it will be used by the authorities if they were interested in finding the talent, and particularly if they were prepared to pay for it. Now, we have had a large number of speeches drawing the Minister’s attention to the potentialities of broadcasting in regard to education, and culture and uplift, but speaking for myself as the representative of the lowbrows in this House, it still seems to me that the chief purpose of the radio is entertainment, and I want to venture a word or two on behalf of the people who pay their licence fees and expect to get entertainment. We do not all want to be highbrows and listen to symphony music and to be educated further. The ordinary man in the street, when he has done nine hours work, does not want to come back in the evening to be educated; he wants to be entertained. Neither do we all want to be cultured. We have seen some of the culture as evidenced by the Broadcasting Corporation. We have had Mr. Potter who considers himself as one of the most cultured people in the country. We have had quite enough of that kind of thing. The average man wants to be entertained, and quite frankly we are not being entertained. The programmes which are issued from the various broadcasting stations are, if I may use the word, rotten. In many instances they are not worth listening to. One gets the same radio voice, when we do get the voices of South Africans, either singing a song or giving a commentary, and for the rest we have to depend on gramophone records, where the main theme is American, in probabaly 75 per cent. of the cases. In all the years we have had a radio in this country there has been no effort at all to build up a South African atmosphere on the radio. If one listens into any other country one will find that the programmes there are always given a distinct home flavour, the flavour of the country which produces them.

But if one listens to South African stations one would almost believe at times that one were in the U.S.A. and for the rest of the time in the United Kingdom. I am talking now about the English programmes. I cannot follow Afrikaans sufficiently to listen to them, but even on the Afrikaans programme one finds an announcement in Afrikaans followed by a long recital of records played by American jazz bands. It seems to me that the whole trouble lies in the fact that first of all we have a broadcasting board which simply knows nothing about entertainment. Is there a member of that board who in any respect whatever can consider himself not even an expert on entertainment but to know anything about it at all? We have professors on the board—I do not wish to cast a reflection on the individual members of the board; they are a very fine collection of gentlemen, and if I may say so, more than elderly gentlemen—and that being so, I am satisfied that they have not the slightest knowledge of what for example the youth or the middle-aged people of the country like in the way of entertainment. I know the Minister’s reply. He has given it so often. He will tell me that the board has nothing to do with the programmes. If the board has nothing to do with the programmes, I am anxious to know what they have something to do with, because when all is said and done, the success or failure of the broadcasting institution depends entirely on the programmes, on the type of entertainment they put over; and if the board has nothing to do with programmes, the sooner we abolish the board the better. Let us say that the board has nothing to do with programmes. Then who has? Presumably the various managers. I do not know whether the various managers were appointed for their knowledge of entertainment, but in many instances that knowledge must be very little indeed. Let me take a case in point, and this is very typical of the attitude adopted by the Broadcasting Corporation. Last year, on St. Andrew’s Night, there was a relay from London of a Scotch play produced by the B.B.C. in London, and it was the most terrible tripe I have ever heard in my life, one of the most shocking exhibitions. It had nothing to do with St. Andrew. It had little to do with Scotland. It was the life story of a sheep which had got losts on the mountain in a snowstorm. The point is that we have a large number of Scotsmen in South Africa, some quite prominent, like myself. [Time limit.]

The hon. the Minister in reply to the hon. member for Frankfort (Col. Döhne) made the statement that he had given instructions to his Department that everything possible should be done to help in the prosecution of the war effort. Now, it would appear that the members of his Department took that instruction very literally and definitely conceived the idea that they would be carrying out the instructions of the Minister in prosecuting the war effort if they allowed these two secret radio transmitters to continue. When my time expired previously I was pointing out that this was not merely a matter of attacks of a political nature having been made on members on this side of the House or on the Party. I pointed out, as one who had previously listened to some of them, that these attacks were of an entirely different nature. It was filthy stuff that was being put over, and put over by an organisation sponsored by members opposite. It was put over by the Truth Legion. I pointed out that these attacks were of a highly personal nature, attacks even reflecting upon, and even suggesting, immoral actions on the part of members on this side of the House. I do not know what the attitude of the Minister of Finance is, but this is a matter which affects the prestige of this House. If a similar radio had been operated by persons representing this side of the House and similar attacks had been made on persons, and prominent members on that side of the House, I wager that that radio transmitter would have been stopped within a week. I accept the Minister’s assurance that he gave instructions, but I am not prepared, and this side of the House is not prepared, to accept that his Department did everything in its power to carry out these instructions. I would like to know whether in fact he followed up these instructions, and whether from time to time he enquired whether action was taken to locate this particular transmitter. We have raised this matter in previous Sessions. We are now raising it again because we feel that the war fever which raged at that time has abated, and that it may now be possible to discuss the matter in a calmer atmosphere. We hoped that it will be possible for the Minister and members on that side to realise that we have to do here not with mere political attacks but with a matter affecting the prestige of this House. I once more refer the Minister to the remarks made by the judge when sentencing the persons who assaulted the member for Westdene (Mr. Mentz), where he particularly emphasised that he was imposing a heavy sentence because the assault was made on a member of Parliament who had been elected by the people. I want to ask the Minister—I am glad he gave me the opportunity of talking before he replied—what he is going to do. It is not too late. It may be rather late at this stage to find out who operated the transmitter, although we have a pretty good idea who it was, but we want to know what the Minister is prepared to do in the matter of finding out whether or not his Department took the necessary and decisive action in this matter; and I am asking the Minister whether he is prepared—unfortunately according to the rules of the House I cannot move it—that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate.

Ah.

There you have it again; first they run away, and now they show contempt for the rights and prestige of the House. Contempt. And they are the persons who are supposed to be fighting for the maintenance of Parliamentary institutions. I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to appoint a Select Committee with power to call for documents and to take evidence with the object of finding out who was responsible for the two secret transmitters, and secondly to enquire into the question of what action was taken by his own Department. If the Minister wants to assure this House that his instructions were in fact carried out, I do not see how he can refuse to have a Select Committee appointed. If such committee is appointed, I suggest that the member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow) be called as one of the witnesses because yesterday by way of an interjection in this debate he made this remark: “You would be surprised if you knew who was running that transmitter.” The hon. member for Hospital definitely knows something about it. I suggest further that Mr. T. C. Robertson, the Pressman who was intimately connected with the Truth Legion also be subpoenaed in connection with such enquiry. Perhaps it may be advisable also to subpoena the Minister of Lands.

No, he will run away. He will not appear before a commission.

Whether members opposite jeer or not, the fact remains the prestige of this House is affected.

You have no prestige.

[Time limit.]

I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw). I think I was the first member who raised this matter about three years ago, saying that this station was broadcasting, and I was then quite willing, and still am quite willing, to accept the assurance which was given to me at the time by the Minister that he knew nothing whatever about the station; he did not even know that it existed. Perhaps he was being rather kept in the dark by his own Party but I am perfectly willing to accept the assurance he gave at the time. He also stated at the time that he would give instructions for his Department to stop that radio. Peculiarly enough, the radio 1 stopped almost immediately after that debate. We all know that the Minister is a very honourable and fair-minded man, and I might say, a decent-minded man. I am perfectly certain that when he realised what was being broadcast, the filth and the odium which was being put out by that station, he was horrified. In fact, I think that any recent minded person would have been horrified.

Including the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow)?

We cannot have such things in our political life in South Africa. If you want to have decent politics and a decent public life in any country, differences should be fought out on principle. I do not mind now and then someone’s leg being pulled. I believe I have done it myself on occasions. But no decent person has yet tried to make political capital out of false insinuations, especially false insinuations of a personal and immoral character. That has never been used as a political weapon in South Africa. If it was occasionally used by some irresponsible person it was invariably frowned upon by decent people.

Except Barlow.

There are still people in this House who wish to hold Parliament and to reinstate democracy in the high esteem in which it was held previously in South Africa and in the democratic countries. The only way in which we can bring democracy back into the esteem in which it was held before is that we must keep a standard of public life which is high. [Interruption.] I do not know who made that interjection but I want to say this, that a man who defends the stuff poured out by that wireless station is a person with a filthy mind.

Hear, hear.

No one with a decent and clean mind could for a single moment have have anything else but the most utter condemnation of the stuff which was being poured out, and the remarks I am making now are not made to anyone, if there is anyone in this House with a filthy mind. I hope that anyone who is making interruptions here is only making them to support what I am saying, and not giving us an inside glance into his character. I wish to say this, I think the Minister agreed with us then. He went to his Department and asked them to put a stop to it. It stopped almost immediately. He tells us now that his Department could not discover where the station was. I do not wish to reflect upon the competence of his engineers, but I think he knows as well as I do that it is very simple to find out where a transmitting station is. In fact it is perfectly easy to find out where a receiving station is. In England before the war that device was used continually to discover people who did not pay licences, that certain apparatus that interlocks the waves if they find reflecting waves from a receiving station. These are so mild in comparison with the direct waves from a transmitting station that any engineer finds it child’s play to discover exactly where the station is, within a few feet of its location.

Not if it is a mobile station.

Yes, because if they found out where it is now it could be moved to another place. That place can be fixed if it broadcasts. They broadcast for a considerable time every night. It was perfectly easy to locate that station within 20 minutes after they started broadcasting. The vehicle could have been rounded up within 20 minutes. They would know exactly where it is on the map of South Africa within a few feet, and if the police worked in conjunction with the Department it should have been rounded up in 20 minutes. A big motor vehicle located in some district cannot just disappear into thin air. It could be rounded up in no time whatever. One has the Police Department finding criminals when there are practically no clues and you cannot tell me that it is difficult to know where this station is every night at a fixed time. No one will believe that. That is a story which should be told to the Marines. There is no doubt about it that the Minister did his best, but the question is whether his Department did its best. We have slowly come to the conclusion that the Minister’s intentions are very good but in so many of the things which the Minister wants to do his intentions are controverted or sabotaged by his own Department, which does not carry out his instructions. ’ They try to sabotage his own instructions. I think that we will probably in subsequent votes of the Minister have more examples of instances where his Department has sabotaged his good intentions. Now the only thing I want to do today is to help the Minister in regard to this matter. If he is satisfied that his Department carried out his instructions to the best of its ability, he need have no fear of an investigation. If on the other hand his Department sabotaged the orders he gave to them, it is in his interest also that the commission should sit to find out who the people were who sabotaged his Department. What is the position at present? The Minister has to carry the blame for what was not done by his Department. I think he is being unjustly blamed. That is my personal opinion. But if the commission sits we will find out who were the culprits in this case who did not carry out the Minister’s order, and at least the Minister’s name will be cleared as regards this matter.

I have dealt with this matter three or four time during the course of this debate, and I have told hon. members that the instructions I gave were carried out and that the station had ceased to operate.

So they found out who it was?

Whether it was the result of remarks I made here or prior to this I do not know, but I told hon. members three years ago, when this matter was raised, what the position was, and I thought I had definitely and finally finished it then, because I agreed that some of the things which were broadcast were scurrilous, and I said so. I only heard it once myself, but I was informed that I also was violently attacked when they knew that I was on the track of this station.

What did they say about you?

They said that I lived under Chamberlain’s umbrella, that I was out for appeasement at any price.

Are you suggesting that the station went out of action because of action taken by your Department?

I say that I instructed the Postmaster-General to see that this station was trapped and the report I got from the Postmaster-General was that the station was not functioning.

Not as a result of your action.

Was it as a result of your action?

Hon. members can draw their own conclusions in connection with that. The position is as I explained three years ago. I hought the matter was buried and now, three years later, it is being revived.

But surely you owe it to Parliament to say whether it was as a result of your Department’s action that it went off the air.

And to tell the House what you found out.

I told hon. members at that time that when the post office made investigations this station had ceased to operate and they could not find it.

That was long after we raised it in this House for the first time.

No, no useful purpose can be served by the appointment of the Select Committee for which the hon. member is asking. I do not know about the statements that were made and I am not even going to refute them. It is alleged that Mr. T. C. Robertson and the Unity Truth Legion are concerned. I do not know anything about it.

Why did you not find out.

The hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) had returned to the question of the Broadcasting Corporation and its failure to use local talent and things of that description. All I can say to the hon. member is that I will see that his remarks and the remarks of every other hon. member who dealt with this matter and criticised the Broadcasting Board will be submitted to them by supplying them with copies of Hansard, and I hope they will take cognisance of the criticism which has been made.

We have heard quite a lot from the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) about the prestige of members in this House. I am pleased to say that I was not a member of the House at the time the secret transmitter was operating, and unfortunately I was not able to get the wave-length to listen in, but many of my friends, both English- and Afrikaans-speaking told me at that time that this secret radio station was merely stating the truth, and if there was anything scurrilous, it was no more scurrilous than the statements to which our hon. friends opposite listen in to every night from Zeesen. Fortunately I have not listened in to Zeesen, because I do not want to listen to tripe. I listen to the people who gave this side of the House the verdict in 1943, knowing only too well that at the time when the secret transmitter was operating, our friends were celebrating such unfortunate affairs as the fall of Tobruk and hailing Hitler and his people as the herrenvolk of the world. I accept the word of the Minister that some of the statements broadcast over the secret transmitter were hitting below the belt and that they were of a scurrilous nature. But why if these hon. members are good South Africans did they not help the Government in their hour of need to trace the many secret transmitters which were used by people who supported their Party? We know only too well that members of the Ossewabrandwag were using these private transmitters, and I am certain the Government knew about these transmitters only too well.

Hear, hear.

So at last it is admitted.

I say no doubt the Government knew all about it.

Hear, hear.

They confiscated some of them because Zeesen had all information from your side every morning.

Did the Government confiscate them?

I say now that their friend, Hitler, is beaten to a frazzle, they want to hold this post-mortem. Well, the country does not want to hold a post-mortem, and if I were the Minister I would simply ask that the question be now put, because hon. members opposite are trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. I say again that the country did not approve of these private transmitters which were not helping to win the war.

It is quite obvious that the hon. member who has just spoken falls within that category referred to by the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). As usual we have had a red herring drawn across the trail, and a very bad smelling one at that. That is all he has been able to contribute to this debate. He says that he agrees with everything that was transmitted by the secret radio. Well, if the hon. member likes to wallow in filth we leave him to it; we hope he enjoys it. That is all he was doing—wallowing in filth. Now I come to the hon. Minister. The hon. Minister has given what I think, even some members on his own side must agree, is a most unsatisfactory reply. The most the hon. Minister can say is that some time after he gave instructions for the secret radio to be stopped it ceased to operate. The Minister was not able, and he is not able to state to this House definitely that that radio ceased to operate as the result of any action taken by his department. As a matter of fact, it did not. No steps were taken by his department and what is more that radio ceased to operate a considerable time after the matter was raised in this House for the first time. It was a most unsatisfactory reply, and one with which we are not satisfied. It is a matter for regret, having regard to the effect which this must have on the high prestige and the tradition of Parliament we are trying to maintain, that the Minister and members on his side of the House …. [Interruptions.] It is clear from those interruptions by the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) and others on that side, that they approve of that sort of filth being sent out over the air about members of Parliament.

What did I say?

You approve of it.

What did members of your Party say about the W.A.A.F.s and other serving women?

Who—our Party?

Yes.

Name them.

We come here with a definite accusation, not vague accusations such as those made by the Minister of Welfare and Demobilisation. In refusing to appoint a Select Committee the Minister is not doing himself justice; he is doing his department a disservice by refusing to agree to the appointment of a Select Committee, and in these circumstances I move—

We have heard a lot from the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) about the prestige of the House. I would like to know whether he thinks it is not hitting below the belt to mention the name of a man who is not in the House to defend himself. I refer to the name of Mr. T. C. Robertson which was thrown across the floor of the House.

What was said about him?

The hon. member was not listening. Nasty insinuations were thrown across the floor of the House, and I think the hon. member for Beaufort West should be ashamed of himself. I would remind him that Mr. T. C. Robertson was a reporter in this House and that Freedom station was apparently operating in his absence, because he was down here reporting Parlilamentary procedure. Unfortunately reporting the speeches of hon. members opposite too at times, and he was accused of running this Freedom station. So much for the hon. member for Beaufort West. I found it very interesting to listen to the speech of the hon. member for Humansdorp (Mr. Sauer). He gave us some very interesting data indeed. We could not help noticing a very big change-over. I was surprised to hear the hon. member talking about a demo cracy and telling us how a democratic country should be run and what democracy should be in this country. I have been a member in this House since 1938. I was one of those who pushed my way in 1939 to help South Africa.

In the scrum?

In the scrum also. At any rate we were too heavy for hon. members opposite. We pushed them out.

Pushed your way in the scrum for pips.

I do not know what pips the hon. member is talking about. But I think the one he is suffering from is the one he has underneath his tongue. Actually it was very interesting to hear the hon. member for Humansdorp talking about democracy because previously all we heard from hon. members on that side has been Nazism. Democracy was completely dead, and it is nice to think that they now wish to co-operate with us in what we have tried to defend for them for the last few years. The other point made by the hon. member for Humansdorp was this. He said that the police could have rounded up this secret radio station in a matter of 20 minutes, if they wished to do so; it was quite an easy job. Well, I am very surprised to hear the hon. member say that because I think he knows how impossible it actually was. What was happening at the time? Speeches were made in this House by the Leader of the Opposition and by front benchers on the other side, and they were relayed by Zeesen that very night. How did they get there?

Ask your Government.

Is the hon. member sincere when he says that the Government did not like to run these stations down?

Of course not.

Of course not.

Even the words of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) were relayed back to the innocent public of South Africa who were misled, the people who listened in to Zeesen.

Now you are telling an untruth.

It only needs a little bit of investigation and one sees how shallow the arguments of hon. members on that side are. The hon. member for Beaufort West and the hon. member for Humansdorp have strongly condemned the statements which were broadcast by the secret radio station. They said that it was nothing but filth. I do not think it was always filth.

Perhaps it was not to you but it was to a decent person.

The hon. member is again interrupting and he is in the habit of putting his foot into it, because I was going to refer to him. This secret radio broadcast a speech that was made by the hon. member for Humansdorp against the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp) in this House. Who is dealing in filth now?

That was a bull.

That speech was broadcast over the radio. Where is the filth? Did the filth emanate from this House or from that radio? Oh, no, they must examine themselves and see where the mote is largest and in whose eye it really is.

Generally one takes very little notice of the last speaker, but it is funny to me that he should have been such an ardent listener to Zeesen that he knows everything they said. I can assure him that I did not hear everything they said.

But he is a captain.

A captain on the home front.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to something which happened shortly after the war began. The Minister will remember that the hon. member who sits at the back there signed a letter which was sent to foreign companies to collect money in order to erect a broadcasting station in Lourenco Marques to make propaganda for his Party.

I know nothing about that.

The Minister now shakes his head. The Party appointed people to collect money. This letter was referred to in the House. It was recorded in Hansard and that hon. member never denied it. He said it was true.

He does not deny it even now.

That shot has found the target.

The Minister must not tell me that he does not know about it. It was discussed here. It is recorded in Hansard. The money which was collected was not used to erect a broadcasting station in Lourenco Marques but it was generally known that that Party collected money for this broadcasting station in order to make propaganda. It was spread about the streets of Johannesburg. I give the hon. member an opportunity now to say whether it is true or not.

I know nothing.

I am mentioning no names. I just say that is the position. The people in Johannesburg knew who he was. After they started with their mess somebody rapped them over the head. I found the wavelength and when I listened in the first time I heard somebody say: “Hit the bugger over his head”, and then everything was quiet.

It was not the police.

It was the Minister’s duty to investigate these matters. The Minister has been told three times that the Government knows about this; they know that the man who broadcast is a refugee from one of the camps; they know who he is, but the Minister has not yet replied whether that is so or not. I am sorry that I cannot now revert to English, but it seems to me the interpreter to the Minister is looking the other way. It was openly stated in this House, but there has not yet been a single reply to it. It was stated that there was such a station, that the Government knows about it, that they know who broadcasts, and that they have the wavelength, and the Government was also accused of broadcasting news to Zeesen in order to try to divide the Afrikaner nation. That is the accusation and the Minister has never replied to it. Let him tell us what the position is. He can now understand why we are dissatisfied. We have reason to think what we think, on the facts at our disposal. If everybody in the streets of Johannesburg knew it, the Minister must also have known it, or else he did not wish to take steps and other people took it upon themselves to destroy the broadcast station. I think I have said just enough about that. Yesterday I discussed with the Minister the promotion in the postal service. I told him that the system of promotion in the post office was antiquated and bad and that it gave rise to difficulties. I do not accuse him; I just bring it to his attention so that he can investigate the matter in order to inaugurate another method of promotion. In the final issue the promotion of a clerk depends upon the report he gets from his immediate chief. That report goes to the Head Office. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to change the system of promotion, whether he is prepared to have an investigation to discover whether another system cannot be evolved, but I want to tell him that there is general dissatisfaction in the postal service. I know about a case where a man sent a petition to Parliament; of course he cannot submit it, and the Minister said that if I draw his attention to the facts he will investigate the matter. Before I mention the details I first want to know from him whether there will not be victimisation in the case of this man, whether he will not suffer by reason of it. If I have the word of the Minister that that will not happen and that they will investigate the matter thoroughly, I can give him the details. I personally investigated the matter and I am convinced that the man has a good case. I should like to have the assurance from the Minister that there will be no victimisation; then I will give him the facts and I am sure that he will agree with me that in this case there was something wrong. The only data before the committee which has to decide about promotion is the names of people who apply and the various files containing the history of those people. This system gives rise to these difficulties that the chiefs make reports and when the inspector arrives he also investigates and hurts the clerk. In this case the man does not even drink. But what happened? The inspector came to the town; he is told that the man drinks, and then walks round to the hotels to discover how much money the man spent on liquor. You can imagine that that man felt hurt. It is not just. It causes suspicion and trouble arises. I should like the Minister to have the matter investigated by his Department to find out if a better method of promotion cannot be instituted under which a man’s promotion will not depend upon the report of his immediate chief who is perhaps unfit to make such a report. When I have the Minister’s assurance that there will be no victimisation I will give him the papers.

I have no hesitation in giving the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) the assurance for which he has asked. No man who makes representations has been victimised, and I suggest to the hon. member that he should bring those papers along and the Postmaster-General and he and I will then go into this question and see if we can improve the system of promotion. I am anxious to devise the best method of promotion that will ensure fair play to every member of the staff, and perhaps the hon. member can help us to improve the system. Bring this case to us and let us go into it together. Then the hon. member put a question to me about sending news to Zeesen so that it could be relayed to this country. I must confess that it is news to me that this Government or the United Party was responsible for anything of this description.

In that case they kept you in ignorance.

As a matter of fact I did not treat that remark seriously. In regard to the other point the hon. member made about collecting money to establish a radio station in Lourenco Marques I can only say that I know nothing about it.

Ask the member for Springs (Mr. Sutter).

I know no more about it than what I heard.

You were not interested whether they establish a broadcasting station or not?

They did not establish a broadcasting station.

How do you know?

I must frankly admit that I cannot tell the hon. member because I did not make enquiries. If the hon. member for Swellendam will accept the offer I have just made, we will go into the question and see what exactly is happening and we can also go into the particular case he mentioned and I assure the hon. member that he need have no fears that there will be victimisation.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) has remained behind. He apparently intended to clear off, because he is the man who is responsible for the secret transmissions and all the members on the other side contributed, and the Minister himself assisted. It was revealed in this House in the year 1942 that a little paper called “Vryheid” was being circulated. A certain Mr. Hoof went round with it and he invited subscriptions. The Minister of Lands was a director of that paper, and certain members on the opposite benches had an interest in it. The hon. member for Springs was the man who met various insurance companies in Cape Town on the 20th December, 1939.

Yes, it appears in Hansard.

Yes, it appears in Hansard, and he is a man who had an interview with them, and those people then issued a memorandum in the name of the Union Unity Fund of which the Prime Minister was the head. He is the head of the Truth Legion and it is stated in that document that they had sent an order overseas. Listen to this—

These are the people who stand here today and say that what is happening in the Houses of Parliament today is being transmitted to Zeesen, and they are the people that have given money to establish a secret transmitting station.

To contradict Zeesen.

Just listen to how mysterious this thing is and how craftily they worked it. They were afraid to ask money for it in this House. Listen to what they wrote in this memorandum they sent overseas to Liverpool. I do not wish to mention the name of a foreign ambassador who has died, but I will read further what is stated in the memorandum—

Are you not ashamed to read that out?

I read on—

Just as the Minister of the Interior is afraid today to pilot his vote through so they had not the courage to ask in this House for such an amount in order to obtain a secret transmitter to broadcast all the mean things for which that side of the House is responsible. [Laughter.] They are laughing about that. What will hon. members on the other side say when we on this side of the House come into power, if we follow a similar course in respect of those who are sitting on the opposite side, if when we come into office we should use the wireless service in the interests of this Party as they used it in their interests? Have these people temporarily abandoned their commonsense?

Temporarily?

I want to give them the benefit of the doubt and say “temporarily”. What would they say if we did these things when we come into office?

Shame.

The hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) is the last man who should talk about these things. He should rather tell us how one can smuggle a leg of mutton. If the Minister wants to know where the secret transmitter is he should ask the Prime Minister, who stands at the head of the Union Unity Fund, and the Minister of Lands, who is a director of the magazine “Vryheid”, the person who sits there with the sinister hand and meets people. Let me tell those hon. members who do not know of it that they made an appeal for £500,000 from overseas to commence a service here to kill republicanism in South Africa. Now they come along so innocently, and the Minister states that he issued instructions, but he does not know what his people did. Of course not. The Minister does not want to catch his own people. As the Minister himself gave money to the Union Unity Fund, he goes not want to catch either himself or the members of his Party. The Minister would have to put himself in gaol if he did what the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) proposes.

We have spent a very considerable time on this vote, and we have made no appreciable progress. It is my conviction that the debate has now reached that stage and that level when it is inimical to the best interests of the country. I want to appeal to hon. members to let the vote go through. I do so for two reasons. In the first place, we are passing through critical times. At any time we may have semi-peace conditions to meet. Demobilised men will be on our hands. The country is being faced today with dangerous economic possibilities. We should now be preparing legislation to meet the demands of the peace. On our Order Paper we have very important Bills. There are pending important measures dealing with unemployment, with economic and social issues, and with housing; I want to appeal to hon. members to co-operate with the Government in the work of framing peace conditions in the country The second reason I make this ‘appeal is that when Gen. Smuts left to go overseas he asked, both explicitly and implicitly, for the co-operation of all the Parties composing the Government. He is engaged in international reconstruction; and he has charged us in this House, particularly the Parties comprising his Government, with the important work of establishing internal social reconstruction in this country. I want tö appeal to the Rt. Hon. Acting Prime Minister to use the Government’s majority in getting our peace legislation well under way.

Is it, foreign affairs you are speaking about?

The greatest danger to the peace is to be unfitted and unprepared for the possibilities of peace. Once again, I appeal to hon. members of all Parties to put their shoulders to the wheel, unitedly, and get on with the big job that awaits South Africa during the next few months and the coming year.

I think that speech has as much to do with what is before the House as the “Flowers that bloom in the spring tra-la”. I would not have intervened in this debate had it not been that the hon. member for Beaufort West (Mr. Louw) said he wanted to have a Select Committee on the question of the alleged radio broadcast and before which I would have to appear to give evidence. I have never heard so much bunkum in my life. Hon. members talk about the loss of prestige. They lost all their prestige on Friday last, when they refused to pass a vote of condolence on the occasion of the death of the President of the United States. Their prestige went then and it will take them many years to recover it.

What vote are you talking on?

Their loss of prestige was broadcast all over America and all over the world. So great was it that they sent the hon. member for Beaufort West the next morning running round to the American Ambassador to tell them how sorry they were. They had to send him to the American Ambassador to try and close up the gap.

That is not so.

The hon. member for Beaufort West was at the American Ambassador’s house the next morning.

Why?

To try and restore this lost prestige.

I think he apologised for your misbehaviour.

I am not interested in what the hon. member for Albert-Colesberg (Mr. Boltman) says. He is not a bad fellow really ….

If you think that, there must be something wrong with me.

Only that you are the missing link. I believe there will be one day a Select Committee to go into these questions that happened during the war. I am absolutely certain of that, and hon. members opposite will be rather sorry when this Select Committee meets, because I think it will be a judicial commission, and it may even mean that some of them will appear at the Bar of this House. South Africa is also going to try its war criminals. The hon. members there are laughing.

Order, order. The hon. member must come back to the vote now.

Has he ever been on it?

I am talking about the radio. They have accused me of running a secret radio and they want me to appear before a Select Committee. I say that others will appear before a Select Committee. Let me say this, that the opinion of the country about hon. members was given in 1943, and, it was a very definite and distinct opinion, and it left them right in the mud, where they will always be. [Interruption.] I am not a member of the Union Unity Truth Fund. I am not a member of the other fund my friend was speaking about. I know nothing about a radio station; I am not connected with a radio station. I am not interested in a radio station, and where I differ from the hon. member is this, that I have never listened in to that radio station and for the first time we on this side of the House hear all these tales. The radio is a wonderful thing; if you do not like it you turn it off. It appears to me my friend kept it on all the time. The reason for that I think is this. We have heard what they said about immoral tales coming over. Probably some of them went to the radio station and told these tales about people that came true. In this House it has been stated the only time a member heard anything over that station was when the hon. member for Humansdrop (Mr. Sauer) sent over an attack on the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Gen. Kemp). I am going to allow my hon. friends to lie in the filth they have been talking about. I say in all sincerity and I think any man can say it, this is a most trumped up story ever put before any Parliament. Newspaper men who are pretty hard boiled and are rather cynical, never heard about all these stories. How is it the public never heard of these stories? Suddenly just out of the blue so as to get the limelight, these gentlemen come and say that during the war a lot of stories were told about their immorality. The hon. member for Beaufort West had a lot to say about this, and I do not believe a single word of what he said. It was all trumped up Grimms’ Fairy Tales. They are squealing so that they can get a little sympathy and to attempt to recover their lost prestige. If they want to know how high their prestige stands they should read a paper which is issued every week by Hans van Rensburg. He will talk about their prestige with absolute contempt. They say that the people who were at the bottom of the radio news during the war, and they have said so time after time, the O.B. have said so, it is the front bench of that Party opposite, and I think that is just about as true as the stories the hon. member for Beaufort West has been telling. He is in a terrible hole. Why does he not tell us what they said about him? Is he afraid to tell the country? If anybody said about me that I was being immoral I would tell the world. I am not afraid. Is the hon. member for Mossel Bay afraid? Why does he not tell the country what the station said about him. If it was not true he would tell the world. A straight honest man is not afraid to repeat a lie told about him. Why do they not repeat it. They are afraid.

I want to try to bring the debate back to the merits of the matter.

What did they say about you?

The issue before the House is clear. There can be no doubt there was a secret transmitter that broadcasted matter no decent person would approve. I do not know whether you observed, Mr. Chairman, that in the replies from the other side of the House they tried to bring in Zeesen as an excuse, and what Zeesen said about certain persons on their side. I want to ask the House whether it is honest to compare these. Low and dirty insinuations were sent out by a wireless in South Africa. Do hon. members approve of that?

I said “No” yesterday.

The hon. member disapproves.

Yes.

Then it is the duty of the hon. member at least to vote in favour of the amendment of the hon. member for Beaufort West. Reference has been made by this side of the House to certain individuals and the other side denied what was said. I think it is the duty of the Government if the wireless was used in a manner that is not permissible and which according to our allegation could have been stopped, to appoint a committee to enquire into this abuse of the wireless. The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. Hopf) I believe used the words—he can correct me if I am wrong—“What was said over the wireless is true and I approve of it”. Will the hon. member deny that? He said he believed it was true and he agreed with it. I am one of the persons whose name was used over the wireless.

On a point of explanation, I distinctly said I did not listen to any of the programmes, but that I had been told by quite a number of people that it was merely home truths they were putting across the air.

So therefore you agreed that what the hon. member said was true.

I did not. I said that is what I was told—it was home truths.

You are trying to get out of it now.

You are talking tripe.

According to the Rules of this House, I must accept what the hon. member said, and for that reason I do so. But if the hon. member does not know what was said over the radio, he ought to be very careful not to associate himself with it. He says he is not doing it, but the hon. member stated that people were saying it was the truth. As far as I personally am concerned, I want to challenge anyone to say outside this House that what was said over the radio was the truth. In that case I shall know how to act. May I just explain something. Reference has been made here to two secret radios. Those two are completely different. Hon. members on the other side have tried to create the impression that it is one and the same radio, in order to create confusion, and so that it will not be clear what we mean. The first is the radio station which broadcast those low and filthy untruths of members on this side of the House only, but there was another radio which broadcast to Zeesen or to Germany, or which was in contact with Germany in some secret way or other. Hon. members on the other side say that we know something about that radio. I want to ask hon. members to use their common sense. In a General Election every Party tries to win as many seats as possible. Can hon. members on the other side really believe that we had anything to do with it, since that radio encouraged the voters to stay away from the polling booth because, according to them, the Parliamentary system had seen its last days? Do hon. members believe that wewould broadcast anything of that kind, if we had had anything to do with this radio? Do hon. members on the other side believe that we would humiliate out own Leader over the radio and praise another organisation, the policy of which is diametrically opposed to ours? Of course not. Every impartial person must admit that it would have been more than insane on our part to do so. But whose book did it suit to advise our people not to vote? The Government side. We are the opponents of the Government side, and if our supporters do not come to the polling booth, it suits the Government. Our argument is therefore that it suited the Government not to interfere with this secret transmitter which was in contact with Germany.

The hon. member must not use arguments which have been advanced repeatedly.

This argument has not been advanced yet.

The main argument in connection with the secret transmitter has been advanced ad nauseam.

With all due respect to the Chair, I just want to say that you can ask any member and he will tell you that I am now discussing something which has not yet been discussed. I am referring to a radio station which may still be used today, for all we know. It suited the Government if the people stayed away from the voting booths, and for that reason it did not interfere with this radio station. No, if we go into the merits, hon. members must admit that the motion of the hon. member for Beaufort West to appoint a Select Committee to make investigations, is a very fair and just motion, and I am almost inclined to make an appeal to the Acting Prime Minister. The names of certain members have been besmirched, and I do not think he would approve of that, and for the sake of the prestige of Parliament, the Minister should be prepared to appoint an impartial commission. Let us find out who misused the air to broadcast statements of this kind. I am convinced that if the shoe had been on the other foot and if there had been a broadcasting station which broadcast statements in regard to members on the other side similar to those broadcast in connection with us, the Acting Prime Minister would not have tolerated it. Let us ignore my personal case. What was said of me leaves me cold. But the Leader of the Opposition who is the Leader of a great proportion of the Afrikaans-speaking population was also dragged in. He is the official Leader of the Opposition, and disgraceful statements were made about him. He is the person who may occupy the place of the Acting Prime Minister in the event of a change of Government, and I think the Acting Prime Minister will realise in the circumstances that this motion is reasonable, and I hope he will accept it. [Time limit.]

The appeal for peace in this House made by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Sullivan) was at least intended to help the country. It was said to have nothing to do with the vote by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow). I fail to see how that hon. member’s speech, an appeal for battle, can either help the vote forward or enhance the prestige of his Party or of any party, or help forward the business of the House. I would reinforce the appeal of the hon. member for Berea and suggest we come back to the items under this particular Department. When the hon. Minister replied to me yesterday courteously, as his custom is, I am very sorry I was not in the House! I had proceeded elsewhere with a thirsty friend, a very thirsty friend, who had been listening to this debate for many hours. But I understand the Minister said that he did not know where the hon. member for Durban (North) (Rev. Miles-Cadman) got his facts from. I just want to tell him. I got the facts concerning the 1943 postal recruits from this document which I have in my hand, an authenticated one. I also want to remind the Minister that I checked the facts very carefully indeed with those set out in a similar debate last Session by others besides myself, and on that occasion he made no demur. These facts and figures have been put before the House ad nauseam for years and years and years, donkeys years. I can remember the time when the hon. Minister expressed himself as in complete agreement with them. I wish to say my figures have one virtue, that of truth. The main point of the hon. Minister’s reply was that the commission now sitting, and which I hope is now hatching something or other, will deal with this particular question and with various other grievances regarding the salaries of postal officials. I hope they will make recommendations if not on a generous scale, at least on the basis of justice, and I hope this particular matter will not sretch far into the years ahead as they have extended over the years that has passed. This may seem a small matter to those of us who sit here, but to the 187 poor people concerned it is a matter of bread and butter, without jam, and we have played with it long enough, too long. There is only one other small point, quite a safe one. A good deal has been said about the pushing and shoving of people in the post offices, non-European people and others who assemble once a month to collect the pittance known as the old age pension. With a little more consideration and re-arrangements there need be no queues whatever. My information is in New Zealand the old age pension for April can be collected at any time on any of the last four days of this month, or at any time on any one of the first ten days of May. That has the virtue of distributing widely the work of paying out, and it has been found a great help to the postal officials on the one hand, while it has also been of benefit to those aged people who come once a month for this very small amount. I ask the Minister whether what has been done in this respect in New Zealand cannot and should not be done in South Africa.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Barlow), as usual has run away after making an attack here. That is his custom. But although he is absent, I want to protest against the manner in which the hon. member for Hospital has tried for the second time to make political capital out of the death of President Roosevelt. He did so on Monday following upon the death of President Roosevelt. He made capital in this House of the death of this great man in a scandalous way. Today he repeats those statements and tries once again to make political capital out of the death of the late President of the United States. I say it is a scandalous thing and one against which every right-thinking person and member of this House ought to protest. I refer to members on this side of the House, because members on the other side associated themselves with the hon. member’s attempt to make political capital out of this. If there had been any doubt as to the object of the action of the hon. member for Hospital in connection with the death of President Roosevelt, that doubt is removed by what he wrote in his own newspaper. Referring to what happened he wrote—

Political capital! But he goes even further—

Again I say that it is clear that the whole object was to make political capital out of the death of a great man. But he went on to say—

How does the hon. member link that up with this vote?

It relates to the speech which has just been made by the hon. member for Hospital, and I want to point out with all due deference that it was allowed by the Chairman. At that time the hon. member tried to make political capital out of the death of President Roosevelt, and he again tried to do so today by stating that I had run to the American Ambassador to apologise for the action of this Party. The man who should have run to the American Minister to apologise was not I but the Acting Prime Minister, who allowed one of his members to take this step which was nothing less than a scandalous exploitation for political purposes of the death of President Roosevelt. I was not in Cape Town when this happened. I heard on the train of the death of President Roosevelt and I immediately decided when I learned what had happened, that it was my duty as an ex-Minister Plenipotentiary of the Union in America, as someone who knew President Roosevelt personally and who held him in the highest esteem, to go to the Ambassador of the United States in Cape Town to express my condolences. That is what I did immediately upon my arrival. I did the right thing and now it is being exploited in a scandalous way. I can only say that with people like the hon. member for Hospital in this Parliament, the prestige of this House is being lowered daily.

Amendment put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—33:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Boltman, F. H.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Mentz, F. E.

Nel M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Swart, C. R.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: P. O. Sauer and P. J. van Nierop.

Noes—70:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bawden, W.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bumside, D. C.

Butters, W. R.

Christie, J.

Christopher, R. M.

Cilliers, S. A.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

De Wet, H. C.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare W. D.

Hayward, G. N.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Higgerty, J. W.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

McLean, J.

Marwick, J. S.

Moll, A. M.

Morris, J. W. H.

Neate, C.

Oosthuizen, O. J.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, O. L.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Sutter, G. J.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Wanless, A. T.

Waring, F. W.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and W. B.

Humphreys.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Mr. Chairman, I find the Minister’s reply completely unsatisfactory.

Does the hon. member wish to speak on the Minister’s salary?

No, I wish to speak on the vote. I want to suggest to the Minister that that kind of reply shows us the interest he takes in broadcasting.

The hon. member can only speak on a particular item. Which item is the hon. member speaking on?

On broadcasting.

There is no such item.

There is £50,000 for it.

The hon. member must confine himself to a particular item.

But we have not passed the vote yet. We voted on a reduction of the Minister’s salary. When that vote comes up we are entitled to discuss policy. The mere fact that we eliminated an amendment to redúce his salary does not affect the matter.

The hon. member must confine himself to a particular item.

I am sorry but I cannot accept that ruling and must ask for the Speaker’s ruling. If that were the case, on the discussion of every Minister’s vote we would be confined to a particular item. Surely we are entitled to discuss general policy.

Matters of policy were disposed of when the House discussed the Minister’s salary.

May I put it this way, that there are many votes where no motion for the reduction of the Minister’s salary is moved, and yet members are entitled to discuss the policy of the Minister. I understand that that is the idea of this Committee of Supply, that one can discuss the Minister’s policy. The mere fact that there was a vote on the Minister’s salary does not affect the matter. We discussed it long before any motion for the reduction of his salary was moved. Can we have Mr. Speaker’s ruling on it.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, may I put the matter to you this way. The amendment was to reduce the Minister’s salary by a fixed amount. That amendment was rejected but we have not yet decided whether or not we want to let the Minister’s salary go through. Until such time as that has been done, we have the right to discuss his salary. At the moment we have only decided that if the Minister’s salary is passed, it must be the full amount but that may still be rejected. We have not yet decided the question as to whether the Minister should be paid. Since that has not yet been put, I take it that questions of policy can still be discussed.

The hon. member may now proceed.

Well, the hon. Minister listened to some suggestions which I made on broadcasting, but I want to suggest to him that his reply is not only unsatisfactory but completely casual, and this casualness of the Minister in dealing with this matter of broadcosting over a period of years has resulted in giving us an entirely unsatisfactory broadcast system such as we have today. Now, what does the Minister say? He says he listened to the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) and he will send the members of the Broadcasting Board a copy of Hansard, presumably with his compliments. Now, I do not know whether the members of the Broadcasting Board have time tö read Hansard. I should imagine that they go to bed too early at night. I also believe that they go to bed too early to listen to the broadcast programmes. That appears to me to be the truth of the matter, and it is not good. But this Government, after the report issued by Sir John Reith insisted that broadcasting should not be directly under the control of the Government but should be in the form of a public utility company. That public utility company, whether because of the personnel of the Broadcasting Board or not, I do not know, has been a dismal failure as regards broadcasting in the Union; and it is no use the Minister at this stage telling me that he will send a copy of Hansard to them, whether he underlines the remarks I made in it or not, but if that is as far as he is prepared to go we cannot expect any serious improvement. Does the hon. Minister think that our criticisms are facetious? I can assure him that they are not. It probably sounds funny to him, because when one listens to the broadcast programme it is funny; it is a matter of laughter to listen to the kind of programmes put across; but our criticisms are not meant in a facetious way at all. They are real and serious. We do not get our money’s worth and neither is the Broadcasting Corporation utilising this vehicle of entertainment and education to the extent to which it should be used. I cannot remember any improvement in our broadcasting since the public utility company was formed. I remember saying years ago, and unfortunately it was used for advertisement purposes by the Delagoa Bay radio, when I asked the Minister why it is that on a Sunday nearly everyone in the Union tunes in to Delagoa Bay, and the answer is obvious; you get a bright, cheerful and interesting form of entertainment from Delagoa Bay on a Sunday, although it is really an amateur station, or was because today it gets advertisements from all over the Union. But they manage to put up a bright form of entertainment. As I said before, other members have dealt with the educational and cultural side of it. That may be extended. But I also have the opinion that the educationists and intellectuals and the highbrows have a great deal more to say on that type of programme we get than they should have. Most people in the country are not highbrow. They are just ordinary people who are not interested too much in the higher culture. They have received an education in their younger days and are too tired after a day’s labour to go in for any exténsive re-education scheme, but they are prepared to pay the by no means small licence fee in order to have some entertainment. I want to know from the Minister: Is he prepared to do anything about broadcasting more than to send the directors a copy of Hansard? He said that all he would do was to send them a copy of Hansard. There is no doubt about the Broadcasting Corporation not being in the slightest interested in my remarks or those of anyone else, but I want to tell the Minister what I want done. I think the time has arrived that we should have a thorough investigation into the whole question of broadcasting, and that we should examine all the incidents which happened over a period of years—and there were many. As a matter of fact the Broadcasting Corporation is never so interesting as it is when it suddenly decides to fire someone, and then we have a 10 days’ newspaper sensation. It is far more interesting in its internal working and staff difficulties than in its programmes, and even the Minister cannot argue that our broadcasting machinery and the programmes in general are satisfactory. There is something wrong with the working of the corporation, otherwise we would not have these continuous squabbles, where personalities are bandied about in the newspapers. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, some time yesterday when the Director of Broadcasting was criticised, I, by way of an interjection, asked the Minister to tell me something about the dismissal of Cecil Wightman. We have read with interest that we would no longer be able to listen to something which was probably unique in South African broadcasting, Wightman’s broadcast. We now have to listen to Egypt, because he has gone to Egypt. I am referring to Snoektown, something particularly unique, South Africa’s contribution to broadcasting generally. Another of these broadcasts was improvised on the Afrikaans station and was very successful, namely Kriekbult. I want to ask the Minister: Has Cecil Wightman been sent overseas? Who paying his expenses? What is his mission? Is it entertainment? Does it come out of broadcast funds or out of the £50,000 contribution which the Broadcasting Corporation pays the Minister? If any amount is paid, what is done with it? Does it simply go into revenue to pay for the essential services provided by the Government? In other words, I want to know whether this Minister who appoints the board assumes to himself the right, as he should, to determine the policy of that board? I want to know why such essential subjects, of real and vital interest to the people of South Africa, as the number of its blind, is not put across the air? Once again I appeal to the Minister. In the days of Schlesinger it was possible for one of the national organisations, one of the two only national organisations in this country, to speak on the air about a subject which is of real and vital interest to the people of South Africa. Once a year we were permitted that opportunity. For the last 10 years we have been denied that privilege. I would like to ask the Minister why and to ask him whether he is prepared to take steps to exert a little more of the control which we expect him to exercise over this national utility company. It is being run for the benefit of those who are within the inner circle. The policy of that national utility company should be determined by public criticism and by democracy, and the only way of exercising any influence upon that board in that direction is here in Parliament, and I should like to know whether the Minister is prepared to exert some influence over that policy. It is no use the Minister saying this is a national utility company framed under an Act of Parliament, and that these things are left exclusively to the membership of the board. He has not handed over to that board the right to do what they like with the air of this country. We have reserved the right to put on our war intelligence and war reports. Now the Minister is exerting influence, nay demands from the utility company, the right to broadcast certain features which are of national importance. I should like to see that control exercised in a manner which will bring the direction of the Broadcasting Corporation to this House, and that it be subjected to the policy and influence of this Chamber, which is the only way in which the Minister will be able to exercise any influence at all over broadcasting by that board.

I think there is a great deal to be said for the view expressed by the hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen). The ineffectiveness of the Minister in connection with any improvement in the broadcasting system of South Africa has become a byword. I know the Minister is anxious to be fair to the people who complain to him, but my reason for rising at this moment is to remind him of a statement he made yesterday to the effect that Morris Broughton had resigned. I want to read a letter from Mr. Broughton which he addressed to the Minister on his treatment, and from which it will be seen he certainly did not resign. He was unfairly dismissed. But there are other matters which Mr. Broughton refers to which are very germane to the question of the unfairness of his dismissal; and I would like the indulgence of the Committee to read that letter. He wrote to the Minister on the 27th February—

1. (1) The “change” you suggested a year ago, you will permit me to recall was that talk’s by commentators should be recorded and interchanged between the different stations. This was ignored by the Board— the chairman, Professor Fouché, has openly boasted that he is entirely uninfluenced by your suggestions—and treated with mockery by the authorities in Johannesburg. This is, you will agree, quite different from any suggestion of dismissal.
2. (2) It must be known to you as well as it is to me that at a meeting of the Board last year, long after April, Professor Haarhoff stated: “If to get rid of Potter we have to sack every commentator then they must be sacked”. Other proofs could be adduced and are available if you desire them, but at the moment it would merely be burning the toast. The fact is clear beyond all question that there is a personal vendetta against Mr. S. B. Potter, and it is in the course of that vendetta (though I have no contact with him on the matter and do not share his political views) that I am being victimised and forced into distasteful controversy.
3. (3) No one—neither Board, director, local manager or studio manager—all three of whom I should like to add have personally dissociated themselves from this action of the Board, has suggested there is any complaint about the voice. This is a new element imported by you or on your behalf. As a Minister of State, interested in the truth and accuracy of public statement you will be the first, I know, to insist that in the light of these facts, the statements made in your name should be withdrawn or substantiated. It is immaterial that quite gratuitously, for me, it adds insult to injury but I am anxious that the Local Board as well as eventually the public, should have a correct version.

The whole of this controversy, as far as the public is concerned, shows what a futile body the Broadcasting Board is shown to be in the eyes of the public of this country, and may I say that in some respects members of Parliament who have associated themselves with the actions of the board have appeared in an equally futile light. We have the statement of one member in this House in regard to Mr. Potter that because he wrote of the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) as “an Oxford man with so pleasant and impeccably English a name” and contrasted his attainments to the disadvantage of some of his colleagues Mr. Potter was therefore racialistic. That will astound most people of ordinary intelligence. But that is the shouted opinion of the hon. member for Springs (Mr. Sutter) in this House. Then we have the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Stratford) saying that Mr. Potter has offended a large number of people, including members of the United Party. I challenge him to prove that Mr. Potter has referred in his criticisms to any member of the United Party by name excepting himself and if he has done so surely they are not quite sacrosanct. He is the only member of the United Party who has been attacked by Mr. Potter, and that for a very silly and absurd statement he made to the effect that the British connection had proved disastrous for 40 years. The hon. member for Green Point says Minister Waterson was also criticised—but the criticisms surely ‘came from the hon. member for Parktown or the chairman of the meeting. The hon. member for Parktown referred to it as a matter of disqualification that Mr. Potter had offended a large number of people. Not one single person has been mentioned in this House who has been offended by Mr. Potter, in support of the statements made by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) and the hon. member for Parktown. I do not think the hon. member for Fordsburg has brought up as an accusation that Mr. Potter had offended a large number of people. But he attacked him on account of his voice and his. “superciliosity” and for other shortcomings flesh is heir to. But I want to bring home to this committee that the attack made by the hon. member for Parktown was made primarily because he had been held up to ridicule by Mr. Potter in a very trenchant article in his paper. So much for the charge of racialism which has been foisted upon members of the House as one of the capital charges brought against Mr. Potter. It is ridiculous, it is simply absurd. It emphasises the futility of some of the members of this House who have associated themselves with the defence of that moribund and discredited body, the Board of the Broadcasting Corporation.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. Burnside) thought I was treating him very lightly, but I dealt very fully on Friday and again yesterday with the points raised by him.

What are you going to do about it?

It is all very well for the hon. member to say: “What are you going to do about it?” For one complaint in connection with one item there are a dozen or 15 or 20 people who approve of it; even in your own home, when these programmes come across there is a difference of opinion in connection with them. It is a human impossibility for any board or any manager to give 100 per cent. satisfaction.

Therefore we must have these lousy programmes.

The hon. member says we shall therefore have these programmes. Speaking for myself, I have compared the programmes that have come over from America and England with our own South African programmes. There are items in all of them that ought to be scrapped. There are some of them I have no time for. But some of them I have no time for other members of my family rather appreciate. It is a very difficult position we have in connection with the matter, but I am coming to the conclusion that there is only one way to deal with it. We have been dealing with this and arguing about broadcasting for a day and a half, and I am going to see whether some scheme cannot be evolved to have a Select Committee so that members of the House can bring up their criticisms for discussion there. In reference to the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Marwick), who has read a letter addressed to me by Mr. Broughton I sent that letter to the chairman of the board, and the chairman repudiates the statements made by Mr. Broughton, and they are not in accordance with fact, because many of the things I have asked the chairman of the board to do have been acted upon. The hon. member for Green Point (Mr. Bowen) raised the question of Cecil Wightman. He is under the impression, and I am afraid many others are under’ the impression Cecil Wightman was dismissed by the board. He was not a full time official. I agree entirely with what the hon. member said, that Cecil Wightman was one of the finds in broadcasting, a real genius. His programme was one that one always listened to with a great deal of satisfaction. But Cecil Wightman resigned his appointment because of this film of Gen. Smuts which was going to America. All the Broadcasting Board had to do with the film was to record it; they did not produce it, and they had nothing to do with the control. Maj. Caprara was most anxious that Cecil Wightman should play the part of Gen. Smuts but the producer would not have it. I have discussed the matter with Cecil Wightman. The Broadcasting Board have been waiting for over a year for Wightman to resume his broadcasting. He went to Egypt and he has again gone to Egypt. But the trip to Egypt is on behalf of the Union Defence Force as an entertainer. I hope when he returns here he will again take Up his unique feature, Snoektown Calling. There is no hostility by the Broadcasting Board or the Corporation or myself towards Cecil Wightman. We are most anxious for him to resume his broadcasts. I will go further into the other point made by the hon. member because I agree with him that this appeal on behalf of blind persons is one the board should find time for. They are doing this in one or two other instances, but they have to be very careful not to allow it ad lib, otherwise a lot of time will be taken up. But I agree that the matter of blind persons is one for which time should be found, and I will take it up with the board.

I am going to make a plea for the country listener in broadcasting. I want to point out that when atmospherics are absent we get a good service. We are able to appreciate whatever comes over the wireless. But when atmospherics are present there seems to be a diminution of the power which emanates from the main station, and the consequence is that we cannot hear the programme on account of atmospherics. But if the station would increase its power ….

The MINISTER OF POSTS AND TELEGRAPHS; That is coming after the war; they cannot do it now.

They can do it now; it is only a matter of control of power. If they would increase the power when the atmospherics are strong we could tone down our volume and receive the programme without the atmospherics being so pronounced. It is not a question of new apparatus; it is just a question of increasing the power that comes from the transmission station.

I shall repeat what you say to them. You are an engineer, I am not.

That is exactly what I am asking the Minister to do, to have a little less concern for the town listener and a little more consideration for the country subscriber. I am only about 35 miles from Durban, but when atmospherics are strong the programme seems to fade almost to nothing; whereas if they increased the power emanating from the station I should be able to reduce my volume control and thus get over the difficulty of the atmospherics. I have been struck by the relationship which exists between the Minister and the Broadcasting Corporation. It seems to me the Minister has no control whatsoever, and probably that is in the Act. I think it is about time the Minister took steps to obtain direct control in broadcasting. He has ultimate authority and responsibility to us in Parliament. Apparently the Broadcasting Board is not responsible to Parliament, so we can only criticise the Minister, whereas it is actually the members of the board we are hauling over the coals. Now I want to turn to another subject. The other day I spoke in regard to delays in the delivery of telegrams, and I was not impressed with the Minister’s reply. I was referred to the Press Room in the House of Assembly where I could see messages being sent by the telex at the rate of 60 words a minute without error. That is quite possible, but do not forget the telex works right through to the receiver’s office, and there is no delay in delivery there. Only yesterday a prominent member in the Other Place sent a telegram that was handed in by the sender at 10.30 in the morning. It was received in the Central Telegraph office here about 12.40 p.m. and delivered to him about 6.45 in the evening. That sort of thing has got to stop. These delays in delivery should be investigated, and it is not a question altogether of a paucity of messengers. There does not appear to be any system in the delivery of ordinary telegrams. It is true one can at double rate send an urgent telegram which takes priority over ordinary telegrams, and presumably these double-rate telegrams are delivered instantly after receipt at the expense of the receiver of the ordinary telegram. That is a position of affairs which should be investigated and remedied. It appears to me the old system of delivery from sub-offices has come to an end, and that delivery is concentrated in the head office, where telegrams are held up for hours until they have accumulated a tremendous number and they are then sent out to the Gardens, or Vredehoek or other places. If instead of this procedure they were sent to the sub-offices for delivery I feel sure we would receive our telegrams in a much shorter time. As a matter of fact we have a tube from here to the C.T.O. but it is only a one way tube. Our messages are handed in here and sent through at once to the C.T.O., but the messages received for us instead of being sent from the C.T.O. by tube hang over there in the ordinary way. Consequently there is a delay running into hours between the receipt of the telegram by the C.T.O. and its delivery in the House of. Assembly, and I trust the Minister will take steps to have that matter investigated with a view to effecting an improvement.

In connection with the Post Office Vote I should like to draw attention to the double charge on telegrams handed in after 5 o’clock. I believe the charge was introduced in 1942 owing to the shortage of staff and we continue to have to pay it. The position in regard to the delays in telegrams is worse today, and we are told the position will improve when more of the post office employees who are on military service return to duty. I happen to know from the Public Accounts Committee of the number of men who are constantly returning to departments like the Audit Department.

We have 500 of our men back but 1,600 are still away.

That may be so, but there are ways of supplementing the working strength of the post office by temporary measures, and there is no doubt that this double charge on telegrams is operating very unfairly on members of this House. We are kept working here until 6.45 p.m., and if any one of us sends a telegram after 5 o’clock he has to pay double. This is not an isolated thing, members are constantly having to pay at double rates for telegrams, and actually it is in the nature of a grievance amonst those who are the heaviest telegram senders in this House. For the life of me I do not see why, if you are despatching a telegram on Government or Parliamentary work, you should have to pay twice over, because the Department, on the whole, is rather understaffed. There are a number of other things in connection with the sending of telegrams through the phonogram service. I do not know whether the Minister has ever been unfortunate enough to have to live in an area where one has to send telegrams by phonogram. I have never yet in all my experience started to dictate a phonogram message without the operator saying, after learning what was required, “Well, now, will you wait a minute”. She goes away for heaven knows how long and she comes back in her own time, or perhaps in God’s good time, in any case she does not come back very promptly, and you have to wait on the convenience of these people as though you were on sufferance. I think this service requires jerking up by the postmaster, and that might tend to promote more efficiency. I must say I have been disappointed with the postmaster, very grievously disappointed. I looked upon him, on his past record, as efficient ….

Which postmaster?

…. the Postmaster-General—and I thought with his appointment we should have a, great improvement. Instead there has been great deterioration of the service. It may, of course, be entirely due to the war, but the impression is it is largely due to the slackness that seems to have supervened amongst the junior members of the staff.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 22—“Interior”, £431,400.

May I avail myself of the 30 minutes rule. The time in which we are living is pregnant with a number of postwar problems, and one post-war problem being discussed in these days is that of the populations that have been uprooted in certain countries in Europe. As the result of that the problem has arisen of finding homes for those people where new boundaries have been drawn. The shifting of peoples is occurring and new homes must be found for them; we have had the fore-runner of that in connection with the discussions that recently occurred at Yalta. It has already been decided that the half of Poland will now go to Russia and it has also been decided that a certain part of Germany shall go to Poland. We have learned that Russia is laying claim to a portion of Rumania. We saw in the newspapers yesterday that Yugoslavia is, claiming a portion of what has hitherto been Italy. But we can assume that when the war is over further new boundaries will be drawn; that will certainly happen, and the transfer of populations will occur on an even larger scale. The question immediately arises what will be done with the inhabitants who are uprooted in this way and for whom new homes will have to be found. Clearly the United Nations will have to accept responsibility in connection with the matter. That is obvious, and because South Africa is one of the United Nations, it will be expected of South Africa to play its part as well in providing homes for the uprooted populations of certain countries of Europe. As far back as 1943 a conference was held in Bermuda and certain measures were discussed there to be taken during the war, and after the war, in connection with the uprooted populations. But it is not only the Continent of Europe that will have to contend with this difficulty. Those who have followed the newspapers carefully in recent months will have observed that the question has been put seriously what the position of England will be. Undoubtedly a very difficult time lies ahead for Great Britain. War factories will have to be converted. There will be many persons for whom it will be difficult to find employment; in respect of a large proportion of the British workers it will be difficult to find employment. Apart from that Great Britain is faced with another difficulty, and that is a matter to which I have already referred this morning in connection with another Bill we discussed, namely that England will undoubtedly be confronted with a shrinkage of her export trade after the war. I have pointed out, and I wish to refer to it again, that England will be confronted with tremendous trade competition with the United States of America. That will certainly come. I also pointed out, and I mention it again, that Soviet Russia will undoubtedly play a big role in Europe, not only in those territories which will be under her control but also in those territories where she will have a sphere of influence. I have referred to the fact that Russia will develop into an exporting country, and that to that extent England’s exports to the Continent of Europe will be contracted. This will all mean there is going to be a considerable measure of unemployment in England. It is clear that already there is serious concern in regard to this. It is true it has recently been said that the concern at the moment is not so great on account of the fact that the conversion of war factories to ordinary factories will absorb a fair proportion of the labour force. That is possible, but there is an even larger volume of opinion in England that a serious state of unemployment will exist. As soon as the war is over, or within a relatively short period thereafter, the demobilisation of some millions of troops will be carried out in all belligerent countries, including England. We know what happened on the conclusion of the last war. We know what state of affairs existed in all the countries of Europe in consequence of demobilisation. It is true that this time, as is the case in South Africa, care will be taken that the whole of the demobilisation will not be simultaneous. Nevertheless on account of it the problem of unemployment will undoubtedly be aggravated. So the opinion is already being voiced in England that a home will have to be found not only for the uprooted populations of Europe but homes will also have to be found for the unemployed of England, and already the opinion is expressed that the Dominions will have to help to accommodate a proportion of those unemployed in their territories. The problem is there. It is a two-fold problem; the problem of the European populations, and secondly the problem of the unemployed in Great Britain. As we are today approaching the end of the war we are entitled to come to the Minister and to ask him what the policy of the Government is in reference to this burning and very important war problem. The problem was put to him last year, and on that occasion, in reference to a motion introduced by the hon. member for Durban (Musgrave) (Mr. Acutt), the Minister of the Interior gave what in my opinion was a very unsatisfactory reply. His whole reply runs to only 3½ columns in Hansard and he says there—

Possibly such an answer was justified at that time, but the war is now almost over. All other post-war problems are being discussed at the moment. Tomorrow there is being opened in San Francisco a great conference of the United Nations on one of the big post-war problems. We have consequently the right to come to the Minister today and to say he can no longer offer the reason he advanced last year. We are entitled to ask the Minister what his policy is in connection with post-war immigration. We on this side of the House are concerned over that question, but as I shall indicate in a moment it is not only we who are concerned. There are also persons on the Minister’s side, prominent supporters of the Minister, who are every bit as concerned over this question of post-war immigration. Hon. members will immediately put the question to me: What is your policy? and I think it is necessary and it is only just and reasonable that I should tell you what the policy of the Nationalist Party is. It has been put to the House before, but it is necessary to repeat it. The policy of the Nationalist Party is that we do not disapprove of immigration as such. Our standpoint is that we realise to the full that in South Africa with its large native and coloured population of 8,000,000 as against our 2¼ million, it is necessary to increase our white population in South Africa. There are two methods. The one is by natural growth, which is a somewhat uncertain method especially in these days of flats; the other method is by means of immigration. We can tell our people it is in the interests of the white population that there should be larger families. I fear the tendency in South Africa is for the family to become smaller and smaller. But I maintain it is an uncertain method in respect of which the Government can exercise no pressure. The remaining method is that of immigration. In regard to immigration, our standpoint on this side of the House is that while we are not averse to immigration we take up the attitude that there should be no immigration to South Africa until such time as conditions in South Africa are suitable for the reception of immigrants. In the second place we say that any immigration that takes place to South Africa must not be carried out at the expense of the interests of the European population in our own country. So we say that before there can be any immigration to South Africa provision should be made in the first place, for employment for our own people in our own country; and in the second place provision must be made for land for our own people in our own country; and in the third place, housing accommodation must be made available for our own people in our own country. What is the position today in connection with all these three points that I have just mentioned? In regard to unemployment there is no doubt that it does already exist, in spite of what the Minister of Labour stated the other day in connection with another Bill. We really have unemployment in the country, and it is on the increase, and it will increase still further when demobilisation takes place. The Minister of Labour stated on another occasion there are only 570 unemployed in South Africa. Where he got that figure I do not know, but a more ridiculous statement I have never heard made in this House. In my own constituency alone there are possibly 100. I maintain it is a ridiculous pronouncement. In any case, the mere fact of the Government bringing along a Registration for Employment Bill is in itself proof that there is not only unemployment in the country but that the Government really stands in fear of an increase in that unemployment. That is the position in regard to work, and therefore I say that while we have not a position in South Africa where every man who wants work may be provided with employment the time is not ripe for any immigrants to come from any country whatever to South Africa. We must pay regard to our own people in the first place. I will admit there are certain technical people and a certain type of artisan in respect of whom there may possibly be a shortage in South Africa. We do not offer any objection to them being admitted, but in respect of immigration generally I maintain that until such time as we have arrived at a position in South Africa when every man who is willing to work can obtain the necessary employment, it is not opportune to encourage immigration to South Africa. So much in regard to employment. But it is also stated that we can also get immigrants to dwell in the country—for agriculture. I say again look first to the people of our own country. The day before yesterday I had another letter from a man in my constituency who has been struggling to obtain a piece of land. After demobilisation there will be thousands searching for a piece of land. There is a land hunger in our country, and I say there must be no suggestion of placing immigrants on the land while there are in our country people, whether Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking who are in search of a piece of land. Now I come to the housing question. What is the position in connection with it? We have already had a debate during the present Session on the subject of housing. We have seen the statements which were made recently in Johannesburg. I do not know who Mr. Fotheringham is, but he spoke of a need for 150,000 houses and possibly more. There is a great shortage of houses in the country, and it is even stated that the position will not be settled for another century. That is no doubt an exaggeration, but I think we can assume that as the position is today and with the possibility that building material will not be available, for a considerable time, it will yet take many years before there will be adequate housing accommodation in our country for our own people. Regarded from that angle I maintain there can be no question of immigration until such time as there is adequate housing for our own people. I have said it is not only we who are concerned about immigration. In the past we mentioned this matter and always we have been met with the reproach: “Yes, here we have it again, the narrow Nationalist Party standpoint”. I am going to repeat here a statement that was made by Mr. Sibbett. Members on the other side who live in Cape Town know Mr. C. J. Sibbett, a well known man in Cape Town, a man who is at the head of the Thrift Movement in the Cape Province. What does Mr. Sibbett say? The occasion was a meeting of the 1820 Settlers Memorial Association, a meeting of an organisation whose object is to bring English settlers to South Africa—

But then he says—

That is the statement of Mr. Sibbett, the chairman of the Central Executive of the 1820 Settlers Memorial Association. I read on—

I am reading the whole statement so that it cannot be said later that I omitted anything. The standpoint taken up by Mr. Sibbett is the standpoint taken up by this side of the House, namely, that while there is not work for South Africans there can be ho talk about immigration; and then there is the further questsion of land and the question of housing. Accordingly, bearing in mind the points I have mentioned here, and the approaching termination of hostilities, I ask that the Minister should not again tell us today that there is a war on, but that he should tell us what the policy of the Government is in connection with this matter. Now I want to mention another aspect of the matter. Up till now I have spoken about immigration from overseas, but we are faced with another difficulty in our country, and it is that there are present in South Africa today a large number of persons I may describe as potential immigrants, that is to say persons who have come to South Africa either as refugees or for other reasons, who are in the country today and who may possibly remain in the country. I put the question to the Minister, how many of these people have come in. I asked the Minister of the Interior—

I do not want to waste my time, but I can assure you the figures run from 30,000 to 45,000 for each year since 1939. True enough many of these people have left, many of them are visitors from Rhodesia and the Congo or Mozambique, but if we take these figures and if we calculate on a conservative basis how many of them have possibly returned we can estimate with a great degree of certainty that at the moment more or less 50,000 to 60,000 but not less than 50,000, visitors and foreigners are in South Africa who came here on a temporary visit. These are what I describe as the potential immigrants. What is the Minister going to do about them? They are of two sorts. The first is a genuine refugee. It is, for instance, the Englishman or Englishwoman who has come here from Singapore or the Hollander from Java. I say, as on a previous occasion, that we do not object in the slightest where a man and his wife with his family are real refugees, and while their countries are in enemy occupation shelter can be given to these people in South Africa. I want to state that clearly, because on a previous occasion when this matter was discussed the Press attributed to me the statement that every refugee should be hounded out of the country. That is the usual sort of distortion to which we on this side of the House have become accustomed on the part of the Press of the United Party. While such a person’s country is still occupied by the enemy we have no objection to him being granted asylum in this country; but we add this, that when that country is liberated, and re-occupied by its own people, the time will then have come for the Minister of the Interior to ensure that they return to their own country. That is the one type. The other is what I describe as the truant type, and they are comprised, in a large measure, of individuals from England who are today filling the hotels and boarding houses in Cape Town, Durban, Johannesburg and elsewhere. Those are the people who have run away from England. They are people who did not want to endure the danger and the risk of the bombs, but more than that ….

They are Jews, of course.

No, they are comprised of all sections. There are people who have fled to South Africa not only to avoid the danger that millions of Englishmen have to go through in England but because they do not require to have coupons here to get food and clothes, because they enjoy a life of ease here, and they have a share in consuming the meat that is already so scarce. I am convinced I am interpreting the sentiments not only of persons who support this side of the House but also of persons who support the other side when I say the time has arrived when these people must be told in a friendly manner: “You must go back to your own countries, you can now return with safety because the bombing has stopped. They are to be blamed for there being a considerable shortage of houses. A little while ago I personally went to a certain hotel. The Deputy Prime Minister knows the hotel; he has already lived there himself, and the assurance was given to me that that hotel is crowded with people from England. I was told that they do not know when they are returning.

What sort of people?

All sorts of people, men and women and children from England. The hotels and boarding houses are full. The food is bought up and eaten by these people. I say it is high time that these people should be told that they must now return to the country from whence they came. We also ask the Government for once to take the necessary steps to ensure that no more foreigners are admitted into South Africa; there is no room today in South Africa for foreigners. When I say that, I do not mean people who come here on a business visit. People who come for business reasons may be admitted, but fix a period for which they can stay. A man does not need (a year to complete his business here except when he is the permanent representative of some firm or other. People from adjoining territories can also come here. South Africa naturally wants to keep the door open for people from Rhodesia, for people from Mozambique and for people from the Congo. We desire that South Africa will be visited by these people in future as a holiday resort, but there again a limit is to be laid down. There is no necessity that people should come to this country and stay here for six or seven months. I maintain that the time has assuredly come when a stop should be put to the entrance of foreigners to South Africa in view of the shortage of housing and the shortage of food and employment. Another questoin is this; in regard to the issue of temporary permits. I fear that not enough attention is being paid by the Minister and his department to the abuse of temporary permits in our country. I quote here a statement made by Mr. A. G. Barnes, previously chairman of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce, a man who ought to know what he is talking about a responsible man who fills a responsible position in the business community in Cape Town, and this is what he says —

This is not my statement. When I say things like that I am charged with racialism. No, it is the statement of Mr. A. G. Barnes, former chairman of the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce. That is our immigration policy. We are in favour of immigration in the future, but at the right time, and only when we have seen to it that our own people have been provided with employment, land and housing accommodation, and in the second place, that a stop should be put to the entry of foreigners into South Africa, except for good and sufficient reasons, until such time as things are normal again, when we can revive our tourist policy. If there is any man who is in favour of a tourist policy it is I, because I have gone through the United States to encourage people to visit South Africa, but this is not the time, when hotels are full and when there is a shortage of food, to encourage people to visit South Africa. Then there is another aspect of immigration policy that I am not going to discuss today; I have discussed it on a previous occasion, and it is that our immigration policy should rest on the principle of selectivity, that is to say, that we should seek those ’ immigrants who will be best adapted for our country and to the population of our country, who can be assimilated with the two white populations of this country. [Time limit.]

I am sorry to have to return to the charge again upon the subject of Indian aggression in South Africa. It is a subject which I dealt with at considerable length last Session, and it is very repugnant to me to have to refer to this question year after year-, but I hope the hon. Minister will realise that I do it as a matter of duty. We debated this question last Session and I think any impartial observer will agree that the Minister was completely out-debated on this subject. He ignored the authority of Parliament; he had no consultations whatsoever with the Provincial Council of Natal or the municipalities of Natal who were very interested in this very serious subject. The Minister left Cape Town, went on to Pretoria and entered into an agreement with two or three Indians who, I doubt very much, can claim to represent the Indian population of Natal. It ill becomes the Minister to treat the country in that way; it ill becomes the Minister who has no electorate to answer to, and I consider that his action in going behind our backs and entering into this agreement was a most undemocratic action; in fact, I would say it is a travesty of democracy.

The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR; Is that what you have to say about our Prime Minister?

That is what I am saying about you.

Order, order. The hon. member must address the Chair.

I am sorry, the hon. Minister was addressing me. As I have said, I do not think any impartial person would disagree with my statement that the Minister was completely out-debated last Session on this subject, and one of the arguments that he put forward rather stumped me. I claim to know something about the Indian question having been born and bred in Natal. The Minister raised the question in debate and said that the Natal Government—at that time I presume it was the Crown Colony Government—was so eager to get Indians to settle in Natal that they laid out allotments for Indians in order to attract them to become permanent settlers. That was something quite new to me. I had never heard of it. I have been engaged in the estate business in Natal for many years and I should have thought that I should know something about this question if the Natal Government at that time set aside land to attract Indian settlers. The hon. Minister gave the House the impression that the Government of that day, and the people of Natal wanted these Indians to settle in the country. He gave me that impression too. But I have taken the trouble to look at the records and to see what this amounted to. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to say so, but the hon. Minister gave the House a very wrong impression. What happened was this. The then Natal Government owed a certain amount of money to Indians, a mere handful of them, it may be 12, for passage money to go back to India. But in those days money was almost practically non-existent in Natal, but the Natal Government had lots of land to give away, and so they said to these Indians—the Minister need not look at me like that, I am not inventing it; this is all on record—“We will give you 10 acres on the South Coast”.

That is exactly what I said.

The hon. Minister tried to put across me and across this House something which I have never heard of, namely that the Natal Government of the day was so eager to retain the Indians that they laid out plots for them to settle on. It was nothing of the sort, but merely a question of a handful of Indians to whom they owed money and gave land instead. I would like to refer again to this agreement known as the Pretoria Agreement. I understand that this agreement, this conference in Pretoria, where the agreement was entered into, was attended by two Indians from Durban and one European. I would like to have some information about this European who advised the Indians. I think the country is entitled to know what his position is, this gentleman by the name of Calpin. I think that the Minister recognises that it is his duty to tell the House and the country what part this gentleman played in these negotiations and whether he is the paid servant of the Indians, or what his position is. I knew nothing about this until I saw a letter which appeared in the paper, and I would like to read one or two quotations from this letter, which was written by Calpin himself. The heading is: “The Truth about the Pretoria Agreement”, and it starts like this—

Well, I think that is very true. I should imagine that a European who is taking, the side of Indians in this very serious problem certainly is a public danger and a public nuisance too. Then I would like to quote one other small paragraph. He says—

It is very evident that this gentleman played some part in these negotiations, and as I have said, I think the hon. Minister should make a statement and let the House and the public "know what this man’s position is who was taking part in settling the affairs of the people of Natal and sealing their fate, which is what it would have amounted to had this agreement been ratified. [Time limit.]

The item “Board of Censors” under this vote affords me an opportunity of expressing sentiments which I have long held. I wonder how many hon. members in this House appreciate the potency of the film in so far as our communal life is concerned, and in that connection just the other day I read a book and I feel I should read an extract from that book, since it will serve to stress the points I wish to make. The extract is as follows—

I have read that, because this extract, I think, will enable hon. members to appreciate the significance of the film in relation to the lives we lead. I was prompted to rise in this debate because I received a protest from the Housewives’ League in Pietermaritzburg criticising a film depicting cruelty to animals, a film, which was given a title which was a misnomer. It is entitled “The Sportman’s Paradise”. The fact that this film was afterwards withdrawn from circuit rather tended to confirm the opinion of the housewives, and I would urge the Minister to secure from the Board of Censors a more rigid control so that films of such a nature will not be exhibited in future. Now, apart from this, I feel that the cinema has a potent influence and tends to give quite a number of people a view of life which is pernicious, especially the less edifying type of film. Films can be utilised for the public good and I would suggest that an enquiry be instituted in order to ascertain the reactions of the youth of this country to the suggestions which emanate very frequently from films of a fairly low type; and in this connection I would suggest to the Minister that in this enquiry the terms of reference should possibly be as follows: (a) To institute an enquiry into the physical, social, educational and moral influences of the cinema with special reference to young people, and (b) the present position and future development of the cinematograph with special reference to its social and educational value and possibilities, and (c) to investigate the nature and extent of the complaints which have been made in connection with the exhibition of films. I would like to see an extension of the jurisdiction of the present Board of Censors to enable them to initiate the production of films of an educational value, because the pictorial presentation of propaganda constitutes the finest medium for putting across constructive propaganda to the people of this country. We have in this country heard from time to time of the disease prevalent amongst the Bantu people. We have recently had a film on the question of soil erosion, and I would like to see these sporadic efforts by Government authorities in the making of films co-ordinated under a National Film Board, to put up films of an educational nature and of a propaganda nature, so that constructive information can permeate through to every part of the Union and to every section of the community, on the question of health matters, soil erosion and other items which would be of constructive value to these particular people. I refer especially to the Bantu community of South Africa. If such a board is created and that board can make us conscious of the real problems of life, it will have been worth-while.

To resume what I was saying on the question of Indian penetration, and I want to say that the people of Natal, and a good many people outside Natal, were not at all satisfied with the Pretoria Agreement, nor are they satisfied with the Ordinances that have recently been passed by the Natal Provincial Council. The Provincial Council had no mandate whatever to decide the fate of Natal on this Indian question. What the people want is restriction in the purchase of all property throughout the Province of Natal by Indians. Why should they restrict the purchase of’ private residences by Indians and leave them free with regard to everything else? In order to prove what I say, that public opinion is not satisfied with the agreement or the ordinances, I would like to quote the answers to a questionnaire which was submitted to all prospective City Councillors who were standing at the last election for the Durban City Council. This questionnaire was put up by the Durban Committee to all candidates, and the following is the report which appeared in the paper. The heading is “Unanimous Stand Taken” and it reads as follows—

Now if the hon. the Minister wants any proof of what I say is public opinion in Durban, there it is. Every candidate who stood for municipal honours at the City Council election, one and all, disapproved of the actions taken to control residential property only and to let the Indians have a free hand in every other type of property. The Minister knows quite a lot about property, as much as I do, and he knows that, from the point of view of returning revenue, residences are the’ least producers of revenue of any kind of property. Under this agreement which the Minister entered into with the Indians, the Indians were not allowed to buy residences but could buy business properties, flats, warehouses, farms and every other kind of property which is revenue-producing. The Europeans would be left with the residences and what would be the property position in 25 years’ time? The Europeans would have the residences and the Indians would have everything else.

You are exaggerating.

The hon. member says this is an exaggeration. Well, I wish to give a few facts which were laid on the Table a few days ago by the Minister of Lands, giving the report of the Registrar of Deeds for the year 1944, and he gave comparative statistics in regard to the purchasing by Indians of property from Europeans, and vice versa. These are the statistics. In 1942 in rural areas Europeans bought from Indians £11,000 worth of property, and Indians bought from Europeans property worth £24,000. In 1943, Europeans bought £6,000 worth and Indians bought £45,000 worth. In 1944 the Europeans bought £3,300 worth of property and the Indians £57,000 worth. Now I come to urban figures and I hope the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger) is listening to what I am saying. In 1942 Europeans bought from Indians £52,000 worth of property, and Indians from Europeans £512,000 worth. In 1943, Europeans bought from Indians £73,000 worth, and the Indians bought from Europeans £659,000 worth. In 1944, as far as Durban is concerned, the Pegging Act had some influence, but in spite of that influence. Europeans bought for £82,000 and Indians for £365,000. And that is going on in spite of the Pegging Act and then the hon. member still disputes my statement that in 25 years’ time, if that agreement is put into effect, the Europeans will own the residences, but Indians will own everything else. Now, I would like to pass a few remarks in regard to the Prime Minister’s statement made by him in the House recently, and I will not accuse the Prime Minister of having said what he did not believe, but I want to dispute some of the remarks he did make. The gist of his remarks is that he accused the Durban City Council of not having provided houses for Indians.

Perfectly correct.

It is constantly being stated, and being put forward by the Indians—personally I do not trust their arguments very much—that Durban did not build or try to build houses for them, and I would dispute the statement that the City Council declined to make provision for Indian housing. I have constantly refuted this statement and the City Council have circulated statements saying what they have done for the Indians, and there is no truth in that statement whatever that the City Council of Durban was neglectful in not trying to provide houses for Indians. While I was in the City Council in about 1925 or 1926, the Council purchased 220 acres specially for Indian housing. They offered this on the most favourable terms they could. They told the Indians they would build the houses for them, or lend them money to build houses, or assist them to buy ground, and they would make roads and provide areas for mosques, etc. They put up every inducement to get the Indians to take up this ground. The land was about four miles from the Central Post Office, but today it falls within the municipality of Durban, since the boundaries were extended. But what happened? These rich Indians, the class of Indian that the Minister deals with —he does not deal with the poor Indians— boycotted this project and told all the other Indians not to support the scheme at all, so that the Corporation was left with the ground on its hands. [Interjection.] I cannot say whether it is occupied by Indians now, but at that time, the Council did everything they could to make a start with Indian housing. The rich Indians said no, it is segregation, and they would not allow any of the poorere Indians to have the land.

That happens to be quite correct.

That is what happened. [Time limit.]

I should like to put a few questions to the Minister in connection with Item J, Census and Statistics. The first question is, whether the census which falls due to be held in May next year will include a census of the natives.

Yes.

I am glad to hear that. It is high time we had an accurate and complete census not only of the European population but also of the natives. But then I want to ask the Minister whether he will give consideration to assistance being given to the natives, especially those who have come into the urban areas in the western parts to fill in the forms so that there can be no doubt they are natives and not coloured people. I say this because on the occasion of the previous census considerable difficulty was experienced in connection with natives in this area who represented themselves as being coloured, and registered as coloureds. Especially in the last few years natives have come to these parts in large numbers, where the coloureds have been settled,’ and it is necessary that strict supervision should be exercised in regard to how these natives register. This is a matter of great importance in connection with the electoral law, and I would like to impress on the Minister that he should give special instruction to the officials in this connection so that when the census is taken a close eye should be kept on natives who represent themselves as coloureds to ensure they are not registered as coloureds but as natives. The definition of a native ought to be made clear to the officials. It ought to be made clear to them that the child of a native and a coloured person is a native under that definition, and also that a child of a native and a European is a native under that definition. I want specially to focus attention on those cases where natives appear on a big scale and represent that they are coloured in order that they can be registered. I cannot stress this point sufficiently in order to emphasise the danger that our people in these parts must run on account of natives desiring to register as coloureds so that they can get liquor, and also for the purpose of registration on the Voters’ Roll, and for other purposes. If a child is born of a native and a coloured that child is a native and not a coloured. This is happening on a great scale. When a child is born of a native and a European— fortunately this happens only on a small scale—it is also a native in accordance with the defintion of “native” that was fortunately inserted in the Act of 1936. I hope that the Government will give this matter serious consideration and that in the following year in connection with the census for which an amount of £24,500 is being voted here, it will take special measures to ensure that’ every native who is a native under that definition will be registered as a native. The following point to which I would like to direct attention and which is also a serious matter, is the registration of births, especially in the southern area. Officials were so obliging as to bring to our notice that this is a thing that has assumed dangerous proportions, namely that in the registration of births coloured people attempt to register their children as Europeans. What the position eventually will be in the southern parts, if the information given us by officials is correct, and if coloureds are registering on a large scale as Europeans one can hardly imagine. I do not know what will become of our people. It has now assumed such serious dimensions that the officials are at their wits’ ends what to do. The people go to the officials and state that they are Europeans. The official is in a difficult position. He cannot contradict them. It is often obvious to him that they are not Europeans, and it is obvious to him that the child that has to be registered is not a European, or else he may judge from the parents that the child cannot be a European, but they insist that the child should be registered as European, because I understand that this is happenning on such a scale that it deserves public notice I want the Minister to be so helpful especially in regard to the southern area, where these coloureds are settled, to institute an enquiry into what I have here brought to his notice.

Under this particular vote there is a matter which is exercising my mind, and that is the question of our native census. I am conscious of the fact that the Minister did, I believe, give an undertaking some little time ago that the Government were to consider very seriously and at an early date the question of taking a census.

We are going to do it.

At the same time I want to impress upon the Minister the urgency of the matter in order that we in this country, who have an appreciation of the difficulties as far as native affairs are concerned, may expedite the work to the best of our ability. One is at loss, as a census has not been taken since 1936, and when one delves into statistics, one appreciates the rate of increase in the native population, that is the population from 1911 to 1936. When one considers that the increase in the native population, which is about 2 per cent. per annum, I understand, in this country, and which is about as high as any corresponding rate in any country in the world it becomes apparent how necessary this census is. We must realise in view of that, the changes that have taken place both in our urban and rural areas must be considerable. We have to realise we are dealing with the question of medical services, and with the question of a migratory population, and unless we gain a true appreciation of what that increase in population represents, I can assure you we are simply working in the dark in connection with these various problems. I have been looking up a few statistics bearing on the point, and these figures will assist us in understanding the position. In the Transkei between 1911 and 1936 there has been an increase in the density of the population per square mile from 53.29 to 69.71. What the increase is today I am sure I do not know. When you take into consideration the annual rate of increase in our native population the present figure must be considerably higher.

You have omitted the mortality factor.

These figures represent the density of the population, so the mortality figure has already been taken into consideration. The figures I have given represent the actual increase in the population of the Transkeian territories between the years 1911 and 1936, and they are the actual census figures. Turning to Natal, we find that in Zululand between the years 1911 and 1936 the increase in population per square mile rose from 20.62 to 33.80 and in the rest of the Natal Province it increased in those years from 29.71 to 48.32 per square mile. I think those figures should make us think, and think very hard. When we come to the Transvaal, the increase was from 11.04 to 22.13, while in the Orange Free State the increase was from 6.56 in 1911 to 11.12 in 1936. I suggest that at present in spite of the mortality figure for the natives, the increase in the birthrate has been so large that the increase in the population is as high as in any country in the world. Consequently there must have been a tremendous increase in the figure for the native population between the years 1936 and 1945. I am making these few remarks to assist the Minister to realise how urgently necessary it is for us to have another census of our native population. We as a white civilisation in this country are wrapped up with our native population. We have to carry them along with us on parallel lines. These vital statistics are required to assist us to deal intelligently with problems that directly affect the natives, and indirectly concern us. For instance, inadequate health services for the native population may result in the spread of disease throughout the country. We do not realise what is involved in connection with the migratory habits of the natives between the reserves and the urban areas, and we are drifting into a very difficult and serious position. I would urge on the Government with all the force in my power, to forge ahead with this native census which is so necessary, so that those of us who take an interest in the native affairs of the Union can gain a true appreciation of the position.

On 27th March I put certain questions to the Minister in connection with the withdrawal of the naturalisation certificates of persons who were interned, and he then gave me the figure and said that there were 102 such persons whose naturalisation certificates had been withdrawn. I also asked him under what provision of the law that was done, and his reply was that it was done in accordance with Clause 7 (1) (e) of Act No. 18 of 1926. I further asked what the nationality of those people was and his reply was that they were mostly people who had come from Germany. With reference to that I wish to ask the Minister whether it is the policy of the Government to denaturalise any person who was interned during the war and who is of German descent, and whether if it is his policy to deprive people who were interned of their rights of citizenship, why was it not also done in connection with persons from other countries who sided against the allies in the war. According to the Minister’s reply it is only applied to Germans, and for example Italians were not denaturalised. I should like to know why there was differentiation between interned Germans and Italians. Then the further question arises why these people were denaturalised. According to the Minister’s reply they were denaturalised under the provisions of an Act which provides for the denaturalisation of persons who in any way are hostile towards the Union and act in the interests of their country of origin. Now one can accept that people who recently entered the country and received civilian rights only a short while ago, when the war broke out in many cases naturally had sympathy with their country of origin. There are even persons born in this country whose sympathies were not on the side of England and its allies. Why must these people be deprived of civil rights because their sympathies were with Germany or any other country from which they came? If such persons do things which are hostile towards the Union, a case can be made out for denaturalisation, but it cannot be done on the basis that they have been interned. I have here the indictment against a person who was interned, and there is no proof in it that he behaved himself in such a way that he can be regarded as somebody who committed a hostile act against the Union. He is deprived of civil rights only because his sympathies perhaps were with Germany. I now want to ask the Minister whether that is reasonable. Why must we behave in that manner against these people? We have been dragged into the war against them, they were interned during the war and therefore rendered harmless, but the bare fact that they were interned is not enough reason to deprive them of their rights. The war will be over one of these days and then we again hope that those people will come from other countries, especially people who will fit in with our population, and we know that the Germans make good Afrikaners. A very large proportion of our population in South Africa is of German descent. Why should not one of German descent have the right to possess civic rights? We disarmed them and they could be of no danger; they were interned. Why should they be further punished by depriving them of civic rights? If civic rights are taken away after a man appeared before the court and was found guilty and punished because he did something against the safety of the country, it is a different matter. But the persons who were interned never appeared in court and they never received the opportunity to prove their innocence. They were just interned and now their civic rights are taken away. They are now citizens of no country. I asked the Minister to reconsider the matter and to reinstate these people as regards their civic rights. Otherwise a great injustice will be done to these people and not only to them but to their families, to their wives and children. Many of them are good subjects and good citizens and have performed good services to the country, but suddenly they are deprived of civic rights. They are now without a country. Why must they be placed in this position?

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 25th April.