I move—

This Bill provides that improvements be effected in the allowance paid to members of the House of Assembly and Senators. At present members of the House of Assembly receive R11 per day during the session and R4.50 per day during the recess. It is now proposed that the R11 paid during the session be paid to members of the House of Assembly throughout the year. Senators receive R11 per day during the session and R2.50 per day during the recess. This Bill now provides that Senators shall receive R6 per day during the recess instead of R2.50.

Mr. Speaker, there is full justification for the improvement being effected here in the allowances of members of the House of Assembly and Senators. It is seven years since the last improvement was made and it is generally accepted that there has been a considerable increase in the cost of living during these seven years. During these seven years public servants and railway officials received increases in pay on more than one occasion. It is also a fact that workers in private undertakings from time to time received increases in their salaries and wages during these seven years, but members of the House of Assembly received no such increase in their allowances or salaries during this period. When one takes into account that the cost of living index increased from 104.5 to 122.3, it is generally accepted that these improvements are fully justified. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the fees charged for board and lodging have risen tremendously, especially here in Cape Town. One sometimes feels that considerable exploitation is taking place. Hotel proprietors and flat owners know that members of Parliament are obliged to come to Cape Town during the session and that they have to find board and lodging.

In this connection I also want to say this, that it is generally accepted that rich people should not be the only ones to come to Parliament. It will be a bad day when only the well-to-do are elected to represent the voters in Parliament. The workers must also be represented here. We must also have workers as representatives here. If such members do not receive a reasonable income, the poor man cannot be expected to be represented in this House of Assembly. In addition, it must be borne in mind that many professional men such as advocates and doctors abandon their practices when they come to Parliament, and it is essential to have them here. I think it would be a very bad day if, in view of the meagre income which they would receive as members of the House of Assembly, doctors and lawyers refused to come to this Parliament, so that we would have none of them here. It must also be borne in mind that every member of Parliament has to maintain two households, one at his home and one in Cape Town, and that this entails heavy expenditure. It cannot be expected of members of the House of Assembly, when they come to Cape Town, that they should obtain accommodation in the back streets of Cape Town because they cannot afford anything better. After all, a member of Parliament has a certain status to maintain. I am quite convinced that the general public realize the necessity for a member of Parliament to receive a reasonable income so that he may to a large extent act independently in a time of crisis and so that he may not find himself forced on occasion to seek and to accept directorships of not very sound companies, and to try to obtain a little additional income in any other possible way. I think that members of our House of Assembly ought to have decent incomes so that they can live properly and maintain their status and support their families properly.

This is an agreed measure. The initiative came from members of the House of Assembly themselves, and the Government has agreed to this measure because it has found that it is fully justified. Accordingly I have no hesitation in moving that this Bill be now read a Second Time.

I should like to emphasize that this is an agreed measure, particularly as there seems to have been some misconception outside as to the manner in which this measure was introduced. It has been a convention of Parliament that any matter affecting the members of Parliament and brought in by way of an amending Bill affecting their rights and privileges and emoluments should be an agreed Bill. I cannot emphasize it too strongly that this is an agreed measure. The Official Opposition agreed with the members on the Government side in regard to this matter. It was fully discussed and investigated, and I believe this is the proper thing to do in the circumstances. I do not think it is realized and perhaps one should say a word about it this afternoon that there are misconceptions outside among the public concerning what a member of Parliament receives, and I think they should be removed. Many members of the public have been surprised when told by a member serving on a select committee that he does not get anything for serving on the committee. There are also members of the public who are greatly surprised when told that members do not get free meals here. I believe it should be made known that a member of Parliament does not enjoy these commonly supposed privileges, if they can be called privileges—he does not behave in that way. All he receives is his parliamentary salary, which amounts to R4,000 per annum, and now he will receive approximately the same amount in allowances, with this proposed increase. I may mention that R4,000 is taxable; there was also a misconception in regard to that matter recently expressed outside. This amount has been agreed upon, I believe, so that a member of Parliament cannot make money out of his position. I think that must be emphatically expressed and clearly understood. It is such an amount as would allow him to maintain his position and enjoy a relatively decent standard of living with his family, which I believe is expected of a member of Parliament. In my experience in this House, this increase is long overdue. As the hon. the Minister said, it is seven years ago since anything in this line was done for members. In the meanwhile much has been done for others outside, and I believe hon. members have been very patient in waiting all this time to get something done in order to rectify their own position. I therefore have pleasure in seconding and supporting this measure before the House.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition has said that this is an agreed measure between the Government and the Official Opposition. It is certainly not an agreed measure as far as I am concerned.

You are a capitalist.

I am a capitalist, quite right. And it is quite a change to be called a capitalist in this House because I am generally called a neo-communist by hon. members. So it is quite a relief to have the hon. member behind me call me a capitalist to-day. I have no shame at all about being a capitalist. But I am not the only capitalist in this House: As far as I know a good number of hon. members opposite, and probably on the Opposition benches too—there are many I could mention—are equally as capitalistically inclined as I am. So I am not the only person in this House who is a capitalist.

I am not agreed on this matter at all. I think it is quite wrong that to-day, when the Government has made a special plea to the country to fight inflation, has made a special plea to commerce and industry not to give increases in wages, when civil servants as a whole have been denied increases in wages, although Railways servants have been given a small increase, this House should quite shamelessly vote itself an increase in pay.

The hon. Leader of the House has told us there are additional expenses involved for members of Parliament coming to Cape Town as they have to keep up two homes, and so on. Exactly the same applies to the civil servants who have to come from Pretoria and also have all the inconveniences of keeping up two homes. That is point number one. [Interjections.] It is no good hon. members yelling at me. It does not frighten me, and they should know that by now. It just keeps me talking longer. [Interjections.] The Government has made a special appeal to trade unions not to press for increases in wages and on the whole the trade unions have responded to this patriotic call very well indeed, and I think this House is setting a very bad example this afternoon in voting these increases in pay. Quite recently there was a new wage determination for the Iron and Steel Industry, to give an example, where increases were agreed upon between the trade unions and the employers. I might say that when I mentioned to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education that I thought that it was a disgrace that the vast majority of workers in that essential industry—and believe me they do essential work, which is more than I can say for a lot of …

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill. It is a different matter altogether.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that I am drawing a comparison.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I abide by your ruling. I will therefore say that on the whole the trade unions have responded to the Government’s call not to press for increases in wages. I think that we are setting a very bad example in this House this afternoon. I might say that the increases being granted are larger than would appear on the surface because they are increases in subsistence and allowances which are not taxable. Therefore the amounts which are being voted to-day— because of course I have no doubt that these increases will be agreed to—are even greater than would appear on the surface. Since we have been asked to keep down the inflationary trend in South Africa and other branches of commerce and industry have been persuaded not to give rises to their employees and the trade union movements and the civil servants on their part have been asked not to press for increases, I am against this measure and I wish to vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow capitalist I should like to dissociate myself from the remarks of the hon. member for Houghton. I am inclined to the view that when someone interjected and called my hon. friend a capitalist, he meant that she would make political capital out of this. That is precisely what she has done. I am unfortunately like my hon. friend in the position that I do not need this increase either. I can therefore speak impartially in this regard. I know of instances over a number of years where hon. members of this House have barely been able to make ends meet with the salary they were receiving. I think that this measure is long overdue. I support every word that the hon. the Minister and the hon. Chief Whip of the Opposition have said. It is long overdue that there should be a review of the salaries paid to hon. members of this House.

The hon. member for Houghton has drawn attention to the fact that the Civil Service has been overlooked. They have not been overlooked. They receive their increments periodically. Even during the course of this session the hon. the Minister of Finance was good enough to grant an increase in their emoluments. I say that this is quite the wrong occasion to make political capital out of an issue which I think is a measure agreed to by the entire House with the exception of the hon. member for Houghton. I personally have very much pleasure in supporting the motion before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the hon. member for Houghton has succeeded in her aim. She will again appear in the headlines of all the newspapers to-morrow. She will get this publicity. I can just see it: “Suzman against increase of members’ allowances”. She has perhaps also succeeded in embarrassing her colleagues, although I am convinced that the general public will accept this. But unfortunately her statements are not correct either. There are very few employees in private undertakings who did not receive more than just one increase in the past seven years. The hon. member can very easily verify that by just looking at what industrial agreements were concluded and what wage determinations were made during the past seven years in which provision is made for increases in salaries and wages. It is therefore not correct to say that they have been so decent as not to ask for increases and that they do not ask for anything. The railwaymen received increases on three occasions in the past seven years. The public servants received increases on more than one occasion. Therefore they cannot be compared with members of Parliament, who received their last increase seven years ago.

How much did the public servants get?

Proportionally they received more than members of Parliament are going to receive now. It must also be borne in mind that their circumstances are totally different from those of members of the House of Assembly. After all, a member of the House of Assembly is someone who has status and who has to maintain a decent standard of living, as hon. members said here. They also have families to support. They are not all so well-to-do that they can afford to live without receiving any increases in salary. I now want to suggest that if the hon. member for Houghton does not want this increase, she can simply send it back. She need not accept it at all. If she decides to-morrow that she is not going to accept it, and that she is going to send it back to the Treasury, you can imagine the headlines she would get in the newspapers as a result of the wonderful self-denial displayed by her.

Motion put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed to Committee of the Whole House.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Like the measure just dealt with, this is also an agreed measure between the Government and the Official Opposition. The Bill before the House in no way alters the principles of the existing Parliamentary Service and Administrators’ Pensions Act. It only improves the benefits that members of Parliament will receive. Hon. members will know that in recent years, along with the salary increases which officials have received, better pensions were also made available to them, and that this year it was announced that the Government would reduce the percentage contribution which officials make to their pension fund, and that the State would itself bear a greater portion of that. We do not propose to do the same in the case of members of Parliament. What we propose to do is to have members of Parliament make a greater contribution to the pension which they will eventually receive. The contributions to be made by members of Parliament is accordingly being increased from 5 per cent of their basic salaries to 7½ per cent. This will make it possible to increase the annual pension, which in the past was calculated at one-thirtieth of the member’s basic annual salary for the last four years of service, to one twenty-fifth. The effect of this will be that after ten years’ service a member will receive R1,600 a year in pension, while under the existing scheme he would have received R1,333.

From this hon. members will observe that the benefits are being increased by approximately 20 per cent, while on the other hand the contributions made by members are being increased by 50 per cent. This enables us also to increase the maximum pension which a member can earn, from R3,000 after 22½ years’ service to the new maximum of R4,000 after 25 years’ service. Just as members’ benefits are being increased by approximately 20 per cent, the scales at which the special pensions for office-bearers are calculated, are also being increased by 20 per cent. In their case the maximum is being increased from 75 per cent of the basic salary to 100 per cent of the basic salary. However, in their case, too, a longer period of service will be required to qualify for the maximum pension. I want to mention the example of a Minister. In future a Minister will have to have been a member of Parliament for 25 years, 17 of which as a Minister, in order to qualify for the maximum pension. This is a longer period than is the case at present. Another amendment is to the provision that a member who has earned a pension, to which he has contributed, is only entitled to it at the age of 50. This provision is now being repealed. A good example of a case in which this may apply is the hon. member for Umbilo. He became a member of this House at the age of 24 years. If, for example, after 20 years of Parliamentary service he should for health reasons be unable to continue as a member—I hope that this will not be the case—and if his Party should be in a position to retain him here, he would under the present legislation have to wait for six years before becoming entitled to a pension. Besides, he might not even be entitled to a disability allowance. I am of the opinion that his anomaly should now be eliminated. These then are the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill, as was the previous one, is introduced after agreement between the Government side and this side of the House. I think it is even more necessary than the previous one. It fulfils a greater need, namely to provide for a member when he retires. It must be appreciated that the basis of a Parliamentary pension is after 10 years’ service, which was—and I believe still is—the average life of a member in this House.

The average is only seven years now.

The average is now only seven years, I am informed. It has come down. I believe that 10 years is a good figure to take as members of Parliament have become much younger, and are likely to stay here longer. One has to appreciate, however, that a member must survive the hazards of political life, the nominations, the elections, and so on, to qualify for a pension. It is not on an actuarial basis, because it is impossible to do this. I believe. I think quite rightly, that members, in their wisdom, have to agree to pay a higher contribution than is levied to any other pension scheme. I think the highest that is levied in a pension scheme is 6 per cent, with additional benefits given. Contributions are mostly around the 5 per cent mark. In my opinion, and I speak as one who has long experience in this House, it is essential to do what we are doing this afternoon. The longer a member who comes here stays, the less he has outside Parliament in the way of assets, and certainly by way of earning capacity. For each succeeding five years that he stays here he has less chance, when he leaves, of getting any sort of occupation outside. I have seen members, before the pension scheme came into being, and not just singular and odd cases, gradually being pauperized in Parliament. They went out at the end of their service and the result has been a petition before the Pensions Committee on compassionate grounds. Fortunately all that was altered and a pension scheme was introduced. To-day we are increasing the amount received for each year of service given under this particular pension scheme. I believe that this is necessary. I think that the main consideration with members is the percentage that is paid to the widow should he die. Two-thirds of the amount of the pension is paid to the widow. I believe they are activated to a great extent by that thought in their minds. If a member stays here a long time, he is not likely to have much of this world’s goods outside and he has to rely on the pension that he has earned during his parliamentary career. I therefore have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to object to this measure as well. The hon. the Minister cannot say, like the Leader of the House said when he introduced the previous Bill, that this is the first time that this increase has happened in seven years. It certainly is not so. Only two or three years ago, we increased the pensions of members of Parliament. As far as I can remember we allowed ex-provincial councillors to add their years of service for pension purposes as well. I do not think that this is justified. I do not know of any profession—I speak, of course, without full knowledge here and I stand open to correction—or of any other occupation, where people get a 100 per cent pension even after 20 years of service. As the hon. the Minister said there is no principle being changed here, but certainly the amount of pension is being changed. The amount is being considerably increased. I do not think that there is any real justification for this. In cases of real hardship there is still, I believe, the opportunity to ask for special consideration to be given in the case of ex-M.P’s who are particularly feeling the pinch in their days of retirement. I believe that a special case cannot be made out, at this juncture, for an increase in pensions, and more particularly to bring them up to 100 per cent after 20 years of service, and to increase the amount throughout from whatever time any member of Parliament has been in this House. The minimum age is now being done away with and the ratio of pensionable allowance to years of service is being increased. I do not see where any particularly good case has been made for this. The hon. Chief Whip of the official Opposition mentioned that members of Parliament have got to bear all the scars of politics, etc. I would say that he is a singularly inappropriate person to talk about scars of politics. He has survived very well …

Order! The hon. member must not be personal.

I am not becoming personal, Sir. He is the oldest member of this House.

Then why cast reflections on him? The hon. member may criticize the Bill only.

I am not casting reflections, Sir. I am only saying that he is an example to all of us. If he has survived in the way he has done, I am sure that most of us will be able to do the same.

Your colleagues did not last long here, did they?

No, but not one of them has come whining for a pension. Finally, all of us are volunteers in politics, and not one of us was drafted. If the conditions of service when we entered here did not suit us, then of course we do not need to volunteer the next time when the election comes round. I therefore object to this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member who has just resumed her seat raised only one argument in regard to which it is necessary to obtain clarity. Apart from that, I do not think it is necessary to discuss her general opposition to this Bill. That has already been dealt with. She made the point that there is no other case where a person can earn a pension equal to 100 per cent of his salary, while this is now in fact being made possible for Members of Parliament. But in the first instance it must be borne in mind that most other pension schemes—and I refer to the Public Service pension scheme in particular—make provision not only for a pension, but also for a cash amount at retirement, and if an official who has spent a life-time in the Public Service retires in a senior position, and converts his cash amount into an annuity, then the annuity plus the pension he receives will amount to more or less 100 per cent of his salary. In reality this is therefore not a new principle. But in addition I must also point out that the basic salary of Members of Parliament is a relatively low one. The other remuneration, which they receive for expenses incurred, is an additional income for them during their period of service, but it is simply not possible to take the allowances, which are not taxable, into consideration for pension purposes. In reality a member of the House of Assembly will only get about 50 per cent of his total allowances plus his salary during the period for which he is in Parliament. I just wanted to make it clear that it is difficult to compare this body with other concerns, because there are special circumstances involved. This is one of the reasons why members of the House of Assembly will in future, as the Chief Whip of the Opposition said, make a greater contribution to their pensions than is done in any other case.

Motion put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed to Committee of the Whole House.

When the House adjourned last night I was replying to certain questions put, amongst others, by the hon. member for Green Point in regard to the provisions contained in section 15 of the Act, which, inter alia, makes provision for prior consultation between the Coloured Council and the Minister of Coloured Affairs in regard to legislation. I just want to add that after we had adjourned the hon. the Leader of the Opposition told me that he would unfortunately be unable to be present to-day. Whereas he was really the main Opposition speaker on this matter and is particularly interested in it, he drew my attention to a matter which was also raised here by the hon. member for Green Point, i.e. that there was concern about the question of amendments discussed beforehand with the Minister and subsequently accepted in the Representative Council. What is the position in regard to such amendments? In this regard I should like to call attention to the provisions of the principal Act. In reply to the questions of these two hon. gentlemen, it is perhaps necessary for me just to draw the attention of this Committee to the provisions of the principal Act in regard to this matter. As regards prior consultation, section 21 (2) provides, in the first instance, the following—

Now, both the hon. member and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have asked this question: What is going to happen now if this measure, in regard to which the Council, in consultation with the Minister or the Administrator, has reached agreement beforehand, is introduced in the Coloured Persons Representative Council itself and other amendments are accepted there? In this regard I must also refer hon. members to section 23 of the principal Act. Section 23 deals with consent to laws, and it provides that once this Bill has been passed by the Coloured Council, certain procedures are to be followed which I do not deem necessary to state here, except to say that such a Bill is submitted to the State President for his assent. But the provisions I want to read out to hon. members in this regard, are those contained in section 23 (2) (a), which reads as follows—

That is to say, once prior consultation has taken place and the Coloured Council has passed a Bill, as agreed or by means of an amendment, that Bill is submitted to the State President for approval, and he may deal with it as I have just read out here. But I think we should not expect the Coloured Council to consult the Minister in regard to every amendment. That would affect the prestige of the Coloured Council. In this debate we have heard certain members remarking disparagingly that this Coloured Council is merely a kind of “Village Council”. The hon. member for Houghton is not here at the moment, but she is one of those who actually distinguished herself by saying disparaging things about the Coloured Council. If we were to insert a provision to the effect that the Coloured Council would first have to discuss every amendment with the Minister, you can imagine for yourselves that that would simply be grist to the mill of people of that calibre, people such as the hon. member for Houghton, who say disparaging things about this Council by telling everybody how insignificant this Council is, how subservient this Council is, a council which cannot even accept an amendment without obtaining the Minister’s prior consent. I think that since we are actually trying here to assist the Coloureds in their democratic and constitutional development, one should show that one feels confident that they would act with the necessary understanding and discretion when they amend legislation. Within the framework of the principal Act they will have to learn what their responsibilities are, and I feel that if any further restrictions were to be imposed upon them, it would actually handicap them in their entire personality, and we might defeat our whole object, i.e. of affording them an opportunity to realize themselves.

I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for the approach which he has indicated towards this problem. I raised this last evening because of the wording which occurs in the educational legislation which has been passed by this House as it affects the Provincial Councils. In other words, no legislation or ordinance can be passed by the Provincial Councils unless it has the approval of the Minister. A practical difficulty arose two or three years ago in the Cape Provincial Council where the Administrator himself wished to move an amendment, a necessary amendment which became apparent during the debate, and that amendment could not be considered by the Council until it had been referred to the Minister. I am grateful for the approach which the hon. the Minister has indicated he will adopt so far as the Coloured Council is concerned. In other words, when the broad concept of any proposed legislation has been approved as a suitable measure to go before the Council, then that Council will be entitled to discuss it, to propose amendments to it, quite unfettered during the course of the debate, and the judgment, if there is to be a judgment or a request for a review, will take place when the measure passed by the Council is submitted to the State President for signature. I think that will be a far more acceptable procedure than the one which unfortunately does apply be cause of the wording used in the Education Act as applicable to the Provincial Council.

I am grateful to the Minister for the explanation he has given, and I am sure it will give this Coloured Representative Council what we all want, a status which will not be fettered in every aspect of its deliberations.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

I do not want to move anything. I simply want to make a statement in order to rectify a certain matter. During the second reading I unfortunately made a slip of the tongue and said something which may create the wrong impression. I informed this House on that occasion that Prof. Samuels as full-time chairman of the Board, had to resign from all boards of directors. My attention has been drawn to the fact that that is incorrect. He is in fact still attached to the Iscor group. I am merely rectifying this because it could have created a wrong impression.

Section 3 of the Act which we are now amending lays down certain qualifications which members of the Board should have. We are all in agreement as far as these qualifications are concerned, because here we are dealing with a very important board, one which deals with the safeguarding of our country and with the task of paying out enormous sums of money. Consequently there must be no suspicion or doubt about any member of this Board. As far as the public is concerned, they must not be under any suspicion whatsoever. The old Act limits the Minister to certain people in appointing members to this Board. In his second-reading speech the Minister told us that the difficulty was to get people who did in fact have the time to devote to this important work, and that that was the reason why he would like to be free of these qualifications which had been laid down.

Even if these qualifications were no longer to be taken into account, the Minister would still have to appoint men of a high calibre and they would still have to devote a great deal of time to the matter. I cannot fully understand how it will be possible for the people who will now be available to devote more time to it. Here we are facing a chronic shortage of good men in all fields and especially in the economic and industrial fields. I should like the Minister to explain to us in what way he hopes to overcome his problems by omitting from this provision the qualifications laid down by the old Act.

There is only one other remark I wish to make. Whereas the Board used to consist of seven members, the amendment now provides for the Board to consist of not fewer than seven, and not more than nine members. I should like to know from the Minister why he finds it necessary for the Board to consist of a larger number of members. Sometimes one finds that arguments increase in relation to the increase in the number of members and that time is wasted in many cases, whereas a smaller board sometimes does equally good work within a shorter period. I should like the Minister to explain these two points.

I am grateful to the hon. member for having raised these matters. In the first place that amendment is a direct recommendation of the Committee of Inquiry and one which I accepted. The reasons advanced to me, were the following. First of all, if one wants to give this Board more work, one will have to divide it into committees, something for which provision is being made in this Bill. Then it is better to have possibly nine members instead of seven so as to make it possible for different matters to be assigned to a few committees. In this way one will not be over-burdening and over-straining four or five members by having them in harness all the time as a result of the fact that it is so difficult to find suitable people of the calibre we want who can serve on a body of this kind. In other words, one is easing out their work a little so as to enable these people to carry a heavier burden.

The second reason is this. I admit, and in this I agree with the hon. member, that it is going to remain a difficult task to get people of this calibre. As regards the chairman, we have succeeded in obtaining the services of a man of that calibre. But paragraph (c) of the old Act provides that one of the members has to be an industrial economist. But say one is unable to get an industrial economist of that calibre who is free to give sufficient attention to the work of this Board, one will nevertheless still be bound by the Act. But one may be able to get a very good accountant or a very good practical businessman who has not necessarily been trained as an industrial economist but who may, from a practical point of view, be able to make a major contribution. It is merely with a view to bringing about greater flexibility that the recommendation has been made to me that I am not to let myself be restricted in my choice of people by this provision in the Act. I still have to look for people of the same calibre, but I shall be able to look for them in wider avenues than has been the position up to now. That is the reason.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

I wish to raise two issues in connection with this clause. The first is the one I raised in the second reading in regard to the removal of the provision in the original Act for consultation with the Tender Board and with the Treasury. I pointed out that the Tender Board laid down very strict rules and regulations for the handling of tenders, and that it had representatives thereon of commerce and industry. I asked the Minister to indicate to the House how he envisaged this take-over would operate. The Minister replied, but he did not give a very detailed or clear picture of what he had in mind. Therefore, in order to put clearly what we have in mind in regard to the question of tenders, I should like to move the following amendment—

I move this because it then ensures that there is specific machinery created which will have to have regulations under which it will function and which will deal with the allocation of any contract which involves the purchase or making of any armament. It may well be that this same committee should also deal with business in the opposite direction, that is with sales by the board of any of its acquisitions or manufactured products. If, as the hon. the Minister explained during the second-reading debate, the board should go over to the making of equipment which can be sold in the open market then it is equally important that contracts entered into for the sale of equipment should be as carefully controlled as any purchases. Although this does not go as far as the tender board, and although I would prefer to see private enterprise, through commerce and industry, represented on it, I realize the difficulties in regard to secret equipment, but I still feel that it is vital that where tens of millions of rand are being spent there should be water-tight machinery and rules and regulations which place this sort of business above any hint of suspicion and which can ensure that the board and the Minister, and through him this House, has the sort of control which we believe is essential in this sort of transaction. I will leave it at that until the Minister has had an opportunity to reply.

I now wish to deal with the second point, which is paragraphs (k) and (l). We feel that here is a wide open potential for possible abuse. Under normal procedure a person tenders for the supply of any equipment or any item, whether it be to the Government or to private enterprise, and he quotes a price. His competitors also quote prices, and ultimately a contract is awarded usually to the lowest tenderer. Here we have two provisions, one providing for an amendment of a contract after it has been concluded “to the detriment of the board”, and the other providing for compensation for “unavoidable loss” to a person who has entered into a contract. The effect of this is that any tenderer who wants to tender and who wants to make sure of getting the contract can tender well below the economic price.

He can tender at a price which could make it quite uneconomic for him, but which ensures he will be well below any other offers made. He gets the tender at this low price, being the lowest tenderer, and then he comes along to the board and complains, “I am suffering an unavoidable loss”. The board is then entitled to compensate him for that loss and he in fact can then receive what he would originally have received had his tender price been economic. The wording of paragraph (k) is, inter alia, “it is satisfied that fulfilment of the contract would cause an unavoidable loss to such person …”. Now any loss which is incurred in the execution of any contract, provided there is no negligence or inefficiency, is an unavoidable loss.

I realize this is not the purpose of this paragraph; I realize this is not what is in mind, but that is what stands in the Bill, and it will stand in the Act if these two paragraphs are passed. I feel that preferably we should remove paragraphs (k) and (l). In the case of any tender where an unavoidable loss is incurred the Government has the right to pay ex gratia compensation, and it is shown then as ex gratia compensation, and it is accountable. Whenever a contract is varied, and that can be done in the case of any tender, a new contract is then entered into, and that new contract could then again be considered by the tender committee. That would ensure that this loophole—which is created perhaps unwittingly—could not be taken advantage of by an unscrupulous tenderer. Therefore, unless the Minister has very good reasons why it is essential to have a provision of this nature I should like to see both these paragraphs deleted. If there are arguments, which we will listen to with interest, making these two paragraphs essential, then I believe they must at least be amended. I am, however, not going to move any amendment now. I have drafted possible amendments which we can deal with later.

The two issues to which I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give attention, are the following. I ask him to consider the possible deletion of paragraph (k) which deals with altering a contract. I can see no need to alter a contract. There may be need to provide for compensation if the Minister can make out a case for it, but once a contract is entered into I can see no purpose in amending the contract if there is machinery or provision for compensating for loss caused by the Department. If the Department should change its specification, if it should for instance specify some component and find that another component is required, then the Department is changing the contract and it is entitled to make provision for and authorize the payment of money connected with such a change. But as the paragraph now stands it allows the contract to be changed even though the Department has not asked for such change. I would, therefore, suggest that paragraph (k) is unnecessary, that paragraph (l) is doubtful, but if it should be retained then the last general proviso should be removed. I am referring to the words, “to compensate such person for such loss with the approval of the Minister or in accordance with general directions of the Minister to the board”. There should be specific approval obtained for any such compensation, and I do not feel that a general direction to the board is a satisfactory safeguard. That general direction can be that: “Whenever a person suffers loss you can compensate him.” Therefore, in terms of such a direction, there would be no ministerial control at all. Secondly, if the Minister can make out a case for compensation then I believe there should be a proviso ensuring that any compensation paid shall be dearly identified, and I will suggest later that an addendum be added to this clause that any compensation be reported in the annual report of the board.

With those remarks I then move the amendment and I will listen to the Minister’s reply with interest.

Mr. Chairman, although clause 6 provides for the appointment by the board of different subcommittees, as the hon. member will observe, nevertheless I think the amendment is an improvement and I am accordingly prepared to accept it. I must add it is the intention to draw up the necessary regulations laying down the procedure to be followed by this committee. We are already giving our attention to that aspect.

*As regards the second point raised by the hon. member, i.e. in respect of the proposed paragraphs (k) and (l), I should just like to explain the present position. Section 4 (e) of the existing Act reads as follows—

In the past, once the board had taken the necessary steps in this connection, it could, in terms of section 4 (1) (c) act as follows—

These are the steps which the board can take. Now it has been found that if often happens, especially under present circumstances, that the board enters into an agreement and that certain specifications have been laid down for a particular component of the article to be manufactured, but that in spite of the specifications laid down by the board, the component is ordered, and then it is found during the production of that component that that component is defective for some reason or that it is not the correct one. This happens in spite of the specifications. In many of these cases we are also dependent on overseas manufacturers. If then happens that the contractors suffer tremendous losses. It is particularly in view of these cases that the board wants this provision. The new section 4 (1) (k) and (l) now clearly provides that the board may vary such contracts and may make ex gratia payments. But the board may only do so after it has satisfied the Minister that it has a good case. The existing Act does not make provision for this. In terms of the existing Act the board only has to satisfy the sub-committee of the State Tender Board. In this case the board also has to satisfy the Minister. In the first place a recommendation will have to be made by the tender body of the board. Under the new circumstances the board will have to accept full responsibility, because the board has to advise the Minister. In the second place the board has to convince the Minister of the necessity for taking those steps. After the board has satisfied the Minister and has taken those steps, the Controller and Auditor-General can report such cases in his report to Parliament. In other words, we will have the necessary supervision over such cases. In view of these circumstances I regret that I am unable to agree with the hon. member. I think the necessary safety measures do exist for preventing corrupt practices. I have satisfied myself that there are in fact very good reasons why this should be done so as not to give rise to unnecessary delay and unfair treatment.

Mr. Chairman, I want to appeal to the Minister to give us examples of the way in which the board goes about the matter of varying a contract when it wants to do so after such a contract has been entered into. I am even thinking of such things as components and imported articles which have to be re-specified. In that case there are changes in the specifications, the blue-prints, etc. In all business undertakings it undeniably is the position that when a contract has been awarded to a tenderer and the person who has awarded him the contract varies that contract, the tenderer is entitled to recover additional costs resulting from the variation of the contract on a cost-plus basis from the person who has awarded him the contract. This is the general practice. I should like to assist the Minister in this connection, particularly if the position is such that it lends itself to malpractices—and it seems to us as though clauses 4 (k) and (l) may in fact lend themselves to malpractices as was [pointed out by the hon. member for Durban (Point).

A tenderer may submit a much lower tender for a specified contract than he would have done in ordinary practice in view of the fact that he is protected by the provision that in the event of his suffering unavoidable losses, he will be compensated for such losses. This introduces a factor into calling for tenders which we have never had before and which causes me to have fears as far as the entire matter is concerned. If there were to be changes in the specifications of components and if it were suddenly to be found during the production of components that certain components were to be excluded and others included, there are measures for the protection of the tenderer which provide that the tenderer may in fact be compensated on a cost-plus basis for any variation of the contract or for the manufacture of additional components under the contract.

Yes, that can be done in the case of South African manufacturers. But when components are imported from overseas, we do not have any control over that.

I realize that, but the eventual price of the components which enter the country, can in fact be indicated by a tenderer. There are no problems attached to this. To me it seems, however, as though the tenderer has all the protection he needs without these two sub-clauses and as though the board too has all the protection it needs without these two sub-clauses for varying the specifications and the blue-prints and for doing whatever it wished to do, with the approval of the Minister, in connection with manufactures or any other work given out by the board. The tenderer is protected in the same way. It does not matter whether something is manufactured locally or imported, the tenderer would still be protected if the board were to vary the specifications because in such a case the tenderer would not be bound by the contract because of the variation of the contract. Because of the fact that the specifications had been changed, he could never be held to be so bound. Whether components are manufactured locally or imported, the tenderer is entitled to recover additional costs on a cost-plus basis from the board. The misgivings we have in this connection are that we feel that the tenderer and the board are well protected in any event. We see in these clauses the possibility of malpractices, a possibility we and Parliament as a whole do not want to exist.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow this matter up because I am not completely satisfied with the reply of the hon. the Minister. In the first place the hon. member for East London (City) points out that where any specification is changed such a change can automatically be compensated for as part of the normal procedure applicable to contracts. But as the clause reads at present it makes it possible to change any contract irrespective of whether there is a change in specification or not. All that is needed is a claim that the tenderer has lost on the deal. I should like to give an example which I understand has in fact taken place. A person tendered for the supply of meat to a camp—I realize that this measure is only going to apply to technical components—but the example is also applicable in this case. It in fact happened that the price of meat went up during the course of the year and the tenderer found that in terms of his tender at X cents per lb. he could no longer make ends meet and demanded a higher price. The Department simply investigated the matter, found it justifiable and met that situation. Exactly the same thing can happen in the case of tanks, armoured cars, etc. A person can tender, enter into a contract and then simply say that he cannot make ends meet at that price. You then lose all control. I disagree with the hon. the Minister that in terms of these clauses, as they are worded, it would be an ex gratia payment. But if the Minister is satisfied that such an alteration would in fact be reported, then I would ask him to accept the following addition to that part of the clause. I shall have to move it in two parts. The Minister says that this will be reported as a variation. Would he therefore accept an amendment to add at the end of clause 4 (l) the following: “And the Board shall publish the details of any such compensation in its annual report.” That would then mean that there would be no undercover amendment of contracts to the detriment of other tenderers. If a person has tendered and a contract has been awarded to one of his competitors he should know if that competitor then later received compensation for losses. The original tenderers who had lost the contract would then not in fact be prejudiced without knowledge thereof. By publishing these instances you will also ensure that there will only be extreme cases and clearly demonstrable cases which would in fact be approved. It is a safeguard and protection for the board, as well as for tenderers and it is in line with the hon. the Minister’s own statement in his reply, namely that any such amendment of contract would be reported in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General.

Rather than having it in the Controller and Auditor-General's report, because there may be secret items involved, the board itself could report the cases without disclosing secret information. They could simply report that, in tender No, so-and-so, compensation was paid of such-and-such an amount. Then there would be no publication of secret information, and tenderers who lost in the first instance would know that there had been a variation of the contracts.

Mr. Chairman, I also raised with the Minister the question of the deletion of the power to give a general direction. The Minister unfortunately did not deal with that; so to save having to speak again when he replies, I would also like to move an amendment there. Consequently I move—

If the Minister can indicate that there is a reason for that general direction, then I will, if necessary, withdraw the amendment. But I am worried that, whilst the approval of the Minister specifically gives some protection, a general direction to the board can leave the matter entirely open and uncontrolled. I therefore move these two amendments, and ask the Minister seriously to reconsider the need for these clauses at all, and if he is convinced that he cannot do without them, then, firstly, remove the general direction and secondly, give his one safeguard that variations of contracts and compensation paid to tenderers would in fact be recorded in the annual report.

I just want to tell the hon. member for East London (City) that the present position is that the board may in fact make such variations. The only procedure is that it has to do so in consultation with the existing Tender Board. That was why I referred to the existing legislation in replying to the hon. member for Durban (Point). So the board does in fact have these powers. The only thing new which is being added is that under the changed circumstances, because the board can now no longer operate through the ordinary divisions of the State Tender Board but through a tender division of its own, the board itself is now going to accept responsibility in the first place. In the second place the board is going to report all those cases to the Minister, and in the third place this mostly concerns components which are manufactured overseas and which are added to a project on the specifications of the board. Under these circumstances I am of the opinion that what we are providing in this legislation is in fact a safety valve. We are not leaving this matter in the hands of the board. The board has to report to the Minister. In other words, the board has to convince the Minister of the necessity of variations. If there were to be corruption now, the whole board would have to be corrupt in the first place, and the Minister would have to be corrupt in the second place …

No!

Of course. No, just wait a moment. In the third place we would be assuming that the Controller and Auditor-General would know nothing about it.

May I ask a question?

Just give me a chance to finish what I have to say. In the fourth place the board has to bring all these cases to the attention of the Minister in its annual report. This happens in any event.

I am not prepared to accept the first amendment of the hon. member for Durban (Point). I am prepared, however, to meet the hon. member half way by accepting his other amendment, i.e. the deletion of the words “or in accordance with general directions of the Minister to the board”. In other words, it will now read, “to compensate such persons for such loss with the approval of the Minister”. This means that I shall have to do a great deal of additional work now in view of the fact that small insignificant amounts may be involved with which we intended dealing in accordance with general directions. But I think one should simply burden the Minister with these additional responsibilities and he should just have to accept it. Therefore I am prepared to accept it, but unfortunately I am not prepared to accept the other amendment.

May I ask a question? The Minister said that it would be reported in the annual reports in any case. Could he elaborate on that?

Mr. Chairman, the board submits an annual report to the Minister, but it is for the Minister to decide whether or not the contents of that report is to be made known. But the Minister sees an annual report on all the activities of the board. This is also what happens at the present time. The reasons for not publishing that annual report are ones of security.

It has to be tabled.

Yes, unless the Minister decides otherwise, for instance that that is not to be done for security reasons. Hon. members can understand that the activities of this board is of such a nature that one often cannot make the annual report available for general perusal. But those matters do come to the attention of the Minister.

There is no suspicion here of corruption or anything of that nature or that the board or the tenderer may be corrupt. The contention was that this system was now being exposed to malpractices. How would the board report to the Minister if A had tendered for a certain contract at an amount of RX million and subsequently proved that he had suffered losses for which he was to be compensated by the board? This is completely within the terms of the provisions as they stand. But the problem is that one will not know whether he had not tendered too low in the first instance in order to be awarded the contract.

The attitude is that the board has always been able to do so. It could do so under existing legislation. It could do so in consultation with the special division of the State Tender Board. We are now changing the functions of the special division of the State Tender Board as far as this is concerned. We are putting an end to that and we are creating a tender division of our own, in regard to which I have just accepted an amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban (Point). In order to cope with this new situation, we are introducing the Minister as a factor and we are now providing that this has to happen with the approval of the Minister. In other words, we are creating an additional safety valve.

In view of the hon. the Minister’s assurance that this will be reported in any case in the annual report, I ask for leave to withdraw my amendment in order to move only the first part of the amendment.

Amendment withdrawn, with leave.

I now move—

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

I just want to refer the hon. the Minister to section 10 (6), which reads as follows—

I shall be grateful if the hon. the Minister would explain to us why he wants the position to be that balances remaining at the end of the financial year in question, may be utilized for other expenditure and why it should not be surrendered to the Treasury and new estimates drawn up? One does not want to have any hint of suspicion that moneys voted by Parliament were not being utilized for the purposes for which such moneys had been voted. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister would explain to us the reason for this provision.

The hon. member must not take it amiss of me for pointing out to him that he has just asked me a question relating to a matter of which I have given a full explanation in this House. I spoke about that in my second-reading speech and in the Other Place I announced it as a very drastic change which was going to be introduced in the Department of Defence, i.e. that programme estimating was going to be introduced. I said that that was one of the results of programme estimating, and that the very reason for that provision was to eliminate the weaknesses attached to item estimating, which was the procedure which had been followed up to the present time. I also said that we had had a special study made of programme estimating in other countries with a view to enabling us to give people with whom we enter into contracts extending over a number of years the assurance of project planning and programme estimating, which goes with it. For this reason this board should not be dependent on item estimating, which may vary from year to year. It must be able to utilize funds voted for armaments according to a programmed project and programme estimating.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining clauses and title of the Bill put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Amendments in clause 4 put and agreed to and the Bill, as amended, adopted.

When the House adjourned I was on the point of dealing with the provision relating to the Post Office Staff Board in the Bill now before the House. These provisions are closely related to the experience of the past 10 to 15 years in regard to the development of and the difficulties experienced by the Post Office. The hon. the Minister gave us a sketch of these developments, and in the course of his speech he was most lavish—and in most instances justifiably lavish—in expressing his appreciation of the work which certain people had done in this connection in order to find out what was wrong and in order to propose remedies and to attempt to introduce those remedies. He thanked other Government Departments, and it was right that he should do so. He thanked officials of the Department, and I am quite sure that the officials work hard, particularly those of the Post Office Department. He thanked those who had served on commissions. Again he was right in doing so, and he had a special word of thanks for the members of the Wiehahn Commission who drew up many of the recommendations on which this Bill is based. But there was one significant omission. The hon. the Minister failed to thank the hon. the Minister. I am not suggesting that the hon. the Minister should have beaten his breast and thanked himself. The other hon. Minister whom he could have thanked or mentioned or recognized was his predecessor.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill.

Sir, ten years ago a certain commission was appointed by the previous Minister to go into the problems of the Post Office. I refer to the Du Plessis Commission. After that there were two other commissions, mainly grievances commissions, and then there was the Wiehahn Commission. All these commissions were appointed by the previous Minister, and I trust that the hon. the Minister will allow me to express my surprise at this strage omission on his part.

Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to do something in that connection when he replies.

I know my duty; you need not remind me of it.

Order! I have ruled this matter out of order. The hon. member must proceed to discuss the Bill.

As I say, I was dealing with the Staff Board and the provisions of this Bill with regard to the Staff Board. I had stated that this Staff Board was better than the old one, and that that was one of the reasons why we were supporting this Bill with reservations. But, Sir, having said that the new Staff Board is better than the old one, I fear that there is not very much more one can say in defence of these new provisions. I do not share the hon. the Minister’s optimism that he will be able, through this new Staff Board, to meet many or rather most of the just demands which have been made in the oast by members of the Post Office staff. The hon. the Minister set out the previous position in the Post Office; he mentioned that members of the Post Office personnel were all members too of the Public Service and that they were bound by the rules of the Public Service Commission. He complained. I think justly so, that it had been impossible in the past for the Post Office to create its own post structure and that at the same time it had also been most difficult for the Post Office to create its own special wage structure, which should have been applicable to the Post Office if it had to be run on business principles.

The hon. the Minister then dealt with the new position we are going to have under this Bill. He admitted that the decision in the future in regard to payment and service conditions would not rest with the new Post Office Staff Board. I believe that this failure is one of the most significant ones in this Bill. This failure is found in clauses 10 to 12 and particularly in clause 12 itself. The hon. the Minister said that changes in future could be made only after consultation with the Minister of the Interior and, in certain cases, with the Minister of Finance. At the same time the hon. the Minister admitted that the Post Office would need a new post structure, and he said that the Post Office could not institute this on its own. He did promise that he would go into the matter and take steps, presumably through this new Post Office Board, to see whether something could not be done in regard to this. But, Sir, in the past similar steps were also taken and in the past the Post Office was basically powerless to make any changes, on its own, which are necessary if we are to run the Post Office on business lines as envisaged in this Bill.

I personally believe that the Minister in this respect is living in a dream world. As the new clauses will read—I am trying to read this new Bill together with the Public Service Act which it amends—“recommendations made by the board as to the scales of salaries, wages and allowances of all the various classes and grades of officers and employees, as well as the making of recommendations as to the provisions of the regulations which are to be made, will have no force unless they have been approved by the Minister”—fair enough, but then it goes on—“in consultation with the Minister of the Interior,” which in effect means with the approval of the Public Service Commission which falls under the Minister of the Interior. That, as I see it, is one of the big weaknesses in this Bill at the moment.

I am sure that the majority of the Post Office staff had hoped fondly that in this regard the Post Office would be placed in the same position as the Railways. The Railways have their own staff structure; they have their own wage scales; they have their own system of recruitment; they issue their own regulations which can be different from those of the Public Service Commission. Surely the reason why that was done in the case of the Railways was to be able to run the Railways on business principles. Would it not be logical then to apply this to the Post Office too? Would it not be logical to say that if you want to run the Post Office on business principles, then you should adopt similar methods to those adopted by the Railways in regard to their staff? The hon. the Minister himself was Deputy Minister of Railways and I think he realized what the problems were. But I think he will admit that his problems would have been immeasurably greater if he had had a Staff Board such as the Post Office Staff Board as contemplated in this Bill.

Sir, this Bill is being introduced so that the Post Office can be administered on business lines. Whoever heard of a business not being able to determine the whole structure of its staff—its managers, its accountants, its salesmen, its bookkeepers, its secretaries, its store-men? The hon. the Minister will not have the full power that he should have to determine the wage scales of the staff. I am sure that in this regard the members of his staff and most of the staff associations will be most disappointed. After all, the Minister himself must realize that if he could determine his own wage scales and his own salary scales and his own post structure, it would give him much more scope to improve the Post Office and to run it on business lines. I am not saying necessarily that we should remove the consultation with the Minister of Finance which is provided for in this Bill. Naturally one does not want to give the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs the power to revise salaries to such an exaggerated extent that it will affect the economy of the country. There must be a final brake which can be applied by the Minister of Finance. But even in that case, looking at the Railways, there might be justification for bringing in alterations in that regard, too.

I want to ask the Minister whether with these provisions relating to the staff and the Public Service Commission, he will be able to adjust overtime rates, for instance, to conform with those of the S.A. Railways without landing himself in an immense amount of trouble with his colleagues the Minister of the Interior and the Minister of Finance, and with the Public Service Commission. Can he increase the chances for advancement in the Post Office, as can be done on the Railways? In the Post Office the chances for advancement are far worse than in any other Department. Can he supply the Post Office with the top technical and administrative staff which is so urgently needed to see that our telecommunication system does not collapse? Above all, to what extent will this Bill contribute towards solving that urgent problem which the hon. the Minister has in his Department, namely the shortage of staff and the continuous resignations. It is no use deciding that we are going to run the Post Office on business principles if we cannot get the staff to do so, if we cannot train the staff adequately, and if a large percentage of the staff resigns year after year. This provision in section 12 might nullify all the good that can be done in regard to the new relations which are envisaged between the Treasury and the Post Office. Some of the staff associations have pointed this out to the Minister. Here is the view of the Postal Association, which said in its publication of March. 1968—

Now the hon. the Minister disagrees with me in what he said in his introductory speech. I am prepared to allow the future to decide who was right, whether he has sufficient powers in regard to staff matters vis-à-vis the Public Service Commission in order to run the Post Office on business lines in future. If I have convinced him, as I hope I have, he will have the opportunity to move amendments in the Committee Stage. We might even suggest an amendment to him.

But you have not listened to my speech.

I not only listened to the Minister’s speech, but I got his speech from Hansard and I have read it, just as the Minister also read it.

Then you did not understand it.

The hon. the Minister will have a full opportunity of replying again and pointing out to me where exactly in his speech he contradicted what I had said. He has great hopes; he has dreams, but what are the facts? He has to look to the facts of the Bill which he is giving to the Post Office. In fact, the success of this Bill and of him as Minister—let there be no mistake about it— will depend, firstly, on whether there will be a satisfied staff, and whether there will be fewer resignations, and on whether there will be better services to the public.

I trust that this Bill will give him the power to alter the priorities that he has granted in regard to Post Office development in the past. You will remember, Sir, that it has been stated that there were difficulties in regard to buildings, etc., and the funds needed from the Treasury, and that often a lot of time was wasted in getting the money and that he therefore could not plan ahead. I trust that this running of the Post Office on business lines will now mean that there will be a new series of priorities in regard to services, and that first and foremost he will give priority to the telephone services and the telephone shortages in this country, and that after that he will give priority to the buildings and the facilities available to the public. Then I believe he can come to matters such as direct dialling and other important matters such as additional services to the public, and then a very important matter which I think over the years we shall discuss fully, but which I do not intend mentioning here, and that is the use of satellites for telephonic communication, not only between different countries but also in the interior of South Africa itself.

I conclude by saying that this Bill is not all that the Opposition could have wished. We have the interests of the whole country at heart. We are pleading for those interests and we do not believe that they are being adequately served by this Bill, as they could have been served by another one. It is not all that the staff of the Post Office could have wished, because the Post Office will still be tied to the apron-strings of the Public Service Commission. It is not all that the public could have wished, because the public would have wished for a crash programme to be announced by the Minister in regard to services. But it is an advance; it is a step forward. Parliament will be giving the Minister a fresh weapon, and I can only say that if he fails to use it to solve his staff difficulties and other service difficulties, he will be doomed, he will be condemned and he will be rejected, even as his predecessor has been.

Before I discuss this Bill on its merits I should, at the very outset, like to state a related matter briefly. This matter is in my opinion not directly concerned with the contents of this Bill, but the hon. member for Orange Grove, who has just concluded an extraordinarily long speech which actually lasted two days …

Without saying anything.

I want to agree with that interjection, i.e. that nothing much in particular was said, but I shall nevertheless, in the course of my speech, refer to a few things the hon. member said which I think have some substance.

I want to begin by referring to the statement made by the hon. member that “since 1948 nothing substantial has been done”.

To solve this particular problem.

The hon. member had an hour in which to state his case, and since I only have half as much time, you will afford me an opportunity of stating my case.

But he made very poor use of that hour.

I agree with the hon. the Minister, but that is what we have come to expect from the hon. member in this House. We must forgive him for doing so. I want to say that in the first instance this reference, i.e. that “nothing substantial has been done”, casts a reflection on the former Minister who dealt with this Vote. If that is so, I shall have a few words to say about that in a moment, but I believe that this undeserved and reprehensible statement, that accusation which the hon. member made, was also aimed directly at the 40,000 and more Post Office workers, because the fact of the matter is that even if one has an extremely capable Minister, and one does not have responsible and dutiful staff to carry out one’s policy, it can be a reason for “nothing substantial having been done”. On the other hand it is also true that under the reverse circumstances no results can be achieved either. Therefore, the hon. member cannot wriggle out of having made this reflection by saying that he leveled it against Dr. Hertzog or that he leveled it against the staff. I believe that both are concerned in this accusation and I do want to inform the hon. member that in view of the results which have been achieved since 1948 to the present, the hon. member really owes the staff of this Department an apology. I should like to prove this briefly. I do not want to mention too many statistics, but we have so many statistics at our disposal, that it is obvious that they will disprove the statements made by the hon. member.

If we consider the handling of postal articles over a period of only the past two years, you will see, Sir, that in 1965-’66 the tremendous amount of 1,141,308,000 was handled by this staff, which can do nothing substantial. In 1966-’67 this amount increased to 1,193 million. This is only domestic post. If one considers air-mail consignments during the past financial year the staff handled five million pounds of air-mail. If, in addition, we consider the expansion of our telephone services and the distance in miles over which it has increased, and the introduction of our telecommunication services at home and communications abroad, then we must again repudiate that hon. member and demand that he withdraw what he said and apologise to those officials.

I challenge you to prove that I insulted the officials.

Another statement made by the hon. member, and this is the last one I shall mention before I proceed to the discussion of this Bill, is that “the Post Office is in financial difficulties”. I want to prove the contrary. He also said that “part of the profits should be used to decrease tariffs and to increase salaries”, and towards the end of his speech he spoke about a “crash programme”. All this he wants to have achieved by the staff which only a day or two ago he accused, as it were, of being incapable of doing anything substantial.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that word.

I withdraw it.

In addition he wants to achieve it by decreasing tariffs. One would have to be a wonderful financier if one can decrease one’s revenue and then provide better services and pay increased salaries. I should like to know from what source of revenue this should be done. But I leave the hon. member at that. In conclusion I just want to tell him this. We have grown accustomed to his cheap politicking and the game he plays here, but I hope that he will be reasonably grateful to those who have been rendering 24-hour service to South Africa for quite a number of years. The hon. member referred to salary increases over the past few years, but is his memory so short that he cannot remember that considerable increases were granted to the Post Office staff only a few years ago?

Now I want to proceed to the discussion of this Bill. The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the Post Office and stated that it was in “financial difficulties”. I want to prove the reverse of this statement and also refer to the financial implications thereof. However, I should first like to deal with one little matter, namely clause 12, to which that hon. member also referred. It is painful for me to admit that I have something in common with that hon. member, and that is in regard to the statement he made here in regard to the position in which officials of the Post Office will find themselves after the passing of this legislation, which does not differ from the present position. However, the hon. member made one blunder and that is that he wanted to leave the thought with us that the hon. the Minister would have no power whatsoever in regard to salaries and conditions of service.

That is not correct. But there is one thing in regard to which I agree with the hon. member, and I should like to put it to the hon. the Minister. It is that after a trial period, after the application of this clause in terms of which the staff of the Post Office will in future fall under the Public Service Commission, as in the past, consideration should be given to whether our officials should not fall exclusively under the control of the hon. the Minister, without interference from the Public Service Commission. I see no danger in this, and I suggest that it should be considered in the light of developments and complications.

However, I feel that if it could be done in this way, I should now give my reasons why I regard it as practicable that consideration should be given to this. In the period of development which South Africa is now going through, in regard to these communication services as well, it may be necessary that highly skilled technicians will be needed for the expansion of our telecommunication services. It will be impossible to obtain this staff if the salaries and conditions of service of experts cannot be adjusted to the tasks they have to fulfil. This task is one which only well-trained persons can do. In the light of these circumstances, i.e. that our hon. Minister may possibly find himself in the situation where he would have to supplement his staff in that field, it may perhaps be necessary that he will have to use his own discretion. However, I fear that he may not have the full co-operation of the Public Service Commission. J put it to him for consideration.

I now want to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my gratitude and appreciation to the former Minister of Posts, since this is the first opportunity I have had of doing so, for the wonderful service he rendered South Africa as Minister in control of this Department. In this regard many facts can be mentioned. Notwithstanding the continual and unfair attacks on the part of the Opposition, the facts speak very clearly for themselves, and indicate in truth that tremendous progress had been made. I should also like to wish the new hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who began his service to this Department on a very high note, every success. He commenced with the introduction, the handling and the passing of this important Bill. This Bill, the Post Office Re-adjustment Bill, we can regard in no other way than as a juncture at which a new era is being ushered in. I want to wish the Minister every success with the handling of his new portfolio. I am not being provincialistic when I say that I cherish great expectations of him. Hon. members will probably agree with me that we have tangible proof that good people have often been produced by the Free State, and also by Parys …

Order!

I beg your pardon, Sir, I actually mean the constituency in Bloemfontein, and that good people have been produced by those places. I wish the hon. the Minister every success in future.

I return now to the statement made here, something which coincides with this measure. This Bill makes provision for the creation of the Post Office Fund. It has been alleged here that the Post Office was in financial difficulties. But from reports at my disposal I can prove that in the financial year 1964-’65 a profit of R17.7 million was made, while the profit in the financial year 1965-’66 was R13 million. In 1966-’67 the profit was R10 million. This is a wonderful achievement, particularly in view of the fact that the Post Office did not introduce continual tariff increases. No, the Post Office was able to produce these good result merely as a result of normal expansion and operation. Under the new dispensation this capital, which remains in the General Revenue Fund and which has been appropriated again by the House of Assembly, or by the Treasury for other services, can now be made available to the Post Office.

The cash revenue of this Department has increased to the tremendous amount of R121 million, whereas the cash expenditure was R91 million. The total business turnover during one financial year amounted to as much as R732 million. This represents an increase of R57 million. But according to the hon. Opposition there was no progress, nothing whatsoever. As someone coming from the country I must say the following now, and the Opposition must not take it amiss of me: They often put me in mind of a stubborn mule. The more you pull him forward, the more he pulls backwards. But the tragic part of it all, is that this particular stubborn mule also has plugs in its ears, because not only does it not want to budge, it cannot, or will not, hear either. I am sorry, but that is the impression the Opposition gives one.

I maintain that under the new dispensation this major profit which the Post Office has shown over the past three years will be fully at its disposal in future. However, I have a few reservations in respect of our tariffs. I do not wish to intimate here that the tariffs should, in my opinion, be increased. But in the foreword to his most recent annual report the Postmaster-General stated it very explicitly when he had the following to say—

Order! We are not dealing with the Estimates now. I hope the hon. member can relate his remarks to the Bill.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall do so immediately. This Post Office Fund is being strengthened by the handling of postal articles, and included under those postal articles is printing. This printing is subject to certain tariffs. These postal articles provide the Post Office with revenue. In his second-reading speech the hon. the Minister stated it very explicitly to us that it was being envisaged that the Post Office would in future be controlled and run as a business undertaking. There is, as far as my knowledge goes, no business undertaking which does not want to close its yearly estimates with a credit balance. In this annual report one item is mentioned, which perhaps forms a minor part of the total, and I want to comment on it, because it is one of the factors which must be taken into account. Our tariffs are tremendously low, and the tariffs provide the Post Office with revenue. I want to refer specifically to commercial printing. Commercial articles, sample packages, etc., cost only one cent per two ounces, and here it is the lowest in the word. In Australia for example the tariff is 2.57c and in the U.K. it is 2.57c per two ounce package, and so it goes on. In Canada it costs 1.4c for a two ounce land post package. If one considers the quantity which is being handled and the revenue it earns, then one feels that it is really a waste of time to have this particular printing work distributed and handled at such a low tariff.

Another point I want to mention is the following. It is not a specifically good source of revenue, but it is time-consuming, and in any undertaking time is, after all, money. I am referring to the surcharge letters. In my opinion the surcharge on them is too low. A great deal of time is taken up in franking, sorting, re-addressing, etc. There are quite a good number of these postal articles. In 1962-’63 for example, they amounted to 1,456,000. Although the surcharges paid did in fact bring in a small revenue, the surcharges are in my opinion too small. We are not after that additional revenue for our Fund, but we would prefer to save that time, we want to save our officials that wastage of time, in order to be able to render better service.

I said that in my opinion the tariff structure was of such a nature that it should really be revised. That is why I hope the hon. the Minister will in the course of time reconsider the tariffs of letters, postcards, as well as periodicals which are very cheap—only a ¼c per copy—and effect an alleviation there as well. But in my opinion attention can be given to these kind of postal articles, the handling of which is so time-consuming, and which do not in any case bring in a good revenue. We believe that a good deal of the success of this new undertaking will depend upon the strength of this Fund, which will now be administered and controlled independently.

I come now to another aspect of the activities. This is a service which brings in a revenue and which must necessarily strengthen the funds of the Post Office. I am referring to our telecommunication services. Telephone services have been expanded tremendously, but the telecommunication services, and particularly the micro-wave system, have also been expanded a good deal. I really believe that any person who is capable of expressing appreciation will not hesitate to direct a word of gratitude and appreciation to all the officials in this case, from the highest to the lowest paid official, in regard to the establishment of this communication system.

The micro-wave system will in future require a great deal of capital. It has already been expanded to such an extent that since 1959 already a distance of 2,000 miles has been covered by this system. It already links most of our major cities in South Africa. It is a wonderful achievement, and a great deal of capital will be necessary to expand this system further. Together with our mainline channel we now have communication links over the tremendous distance of 300,000 miles here in South Africa. This is truly a wonderful achievement. Our overseas service is also a service which demands a great deal of capital. I am thinking here of the radio station at Olifantsfontein and the one at Derdepoort near Pretoria. It is a wonderful undertaking for a young country such as South Africa. Of course we need well-trained technicians in order to control and to expand these facilities further. It provides 50 channels to overseas countries—a wonderful service.

Mr. Speaker, last but not least, there is this subterranean cable which is now being laid. It will cost R50 million and will to a large extent have to be financed out of this Fund. It is in fact a company which will control and finance it, namely the Established South Atlantic Cable Company. This was truly a farsighted idea. This cable will make 360 high channels available for communication between South Africa and London, New York, Australia, South America and Canada as well; a tremendous network of communications. I am mentioning this …

What has this to do with the Bill?

It is the capital invested in that. That is what it has to do with the Bill, or does the hon. member think it is being done for nothing?

The Industrial Development Corporation and the Minister …

It will have to be controlled through this Fund. The hon. member can raise any arguments he wishes; it will have to be financed and controlled through this fund. This is our share in that. I do not want to go into this matter any further; I only want to say that it is with appreciation that I have taken cognizance of this step forward by the Minister and his officials. For South Africa this communication system and the measures contained in this Bill, the creation of the fund, the staff board for control, etc., are essential in order to apply this legislation successfully.

I conclude by wishing the hon. the Minister and his Department every success with this new dispensation.

Mr. Speaker, it is always a matter of regret for me as a member of this House to hear members on both sides of the House making personal attacks on the person who has spoken before them. That is why I regret those things that the hon. member for Harrismith this afternoon has said about the hon. member for Orange Grove. He made a personal attack on the hon. member for Orange Grove, but I would say that, having read most of the Post Office debates for the last 10 years, this House should be grateful to the hon. member for Orange Grove for the hard work that he has put in, and in particular, for his annual duel with the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, whereby he has brought to the attention of the House and the public outside the widespread dissatisfaction which from time to time existed under the regime of the previous Minister.

I think it is also fair to point out that, by and large, the member for Orange Grove never criticized the staff in the postal services; he criticized the conditions of service under which they had to work, and he always pleaded for better conditions for them. I am sure that the staff associations in the postal services have taken note of the hard work that he has put in over the years on their behalf. Now I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Harrismith on his support for the hon. member for Orange Grove, more particularly in respect of clause 12 of the Bill. As the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned earlier in his speech, we have reservations about the wording of clause 12, and we shall at the appropriate time move an amendment whereby the Minister of the Interior and thus the Public Service Commission will be excluded from the ambit of that clause. That is our argument which he in fact endorsed, and I think illustrated very well, by referring to the possibility of the postal services having to employ highly paid technical people to carry out work in the Post Office. This could not be done unless the Public Service Commission is excluded.

Secondly, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Harrismith for drawing the attention of the new Minister to many of the deficiencies in the postal services in South Africa to-day, of which the hon. member for Orange Grove has complained over the years. In his polite way, and bearing in mind that he is on the same side of the House as the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, he made pleas for improvement of the inadequacies of the present system. In that way he, as a Government member, has in effect given his support to the arguments of the Opposition over all these years.

On one point only.

We applaud on this side of the House the introduction of this Bill. We believe that it is a step on the road to autonomy for the Post Office, which we consider is long overdue; it is something for which many members of the postal services have pleaded for many years. But we certainly do not regard this Bill as a charter of independence for the Post Office. There are far too many strings attached, and we feel that a far better Bill, with respect to the hon. the Minister, could have been produced even at this stage, although we appreciate to a certain extent that this is a transition stage, and that it is an experiment.

It is to me quite incredible that in 1967 and 1968 this great Government Department of Posts and Telegraphs should still be governed in effect by an Act of 1911. The 1958 Act, as far as I can see, seems to have done very little other than to translate high Dutch into Afrikaans, in accordance with modern practice. For the rest, the provisions of the 1911 Act are completely unchanged, and that is the Act that has governed the growing postal services in South Africa until the advent of this present Bill. For example, there is no definition in the 1958 Act of such a thing as a telephone or any reference whatsoever to air mail services. I am assuming that in 1911 there were no telephones and aeroplanes. And yet this postal department of ours is one of the largest in South Africa! ! It has a staff of the best part of 50,000 people. Yet it has been governed all these years by an antiquated and obsolete Act! ! I believe that it is because of this that there has been dissatisfaction among Post Office workers, that there have been complaints of the low wages in comparison, for example with the Railways, that are paid to Post Office workers, they have fewer prerequisites than most other Government departments, and most of the postal officials are working a six-day week and not a five-day week, as is the case in most other Government departments. I believe that there should have been, even if that would mean a delay, a more complete, modern and up-to-date Bill instead of the Bill that is styled, the Readjustment Bill for the Post Office. My confident forecast is that next year, or the year after, there will either be substantial amendments to this Bill, or else the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will come forward with what I believe is required, a charter for the Post Office, a brand new Bill.

I think so often we all take the postal services and the Post Office for granted. I wonder how often we consider exactly what the postal services of South Africa comprise or the diversity of activities in the postal services. I think the best description given of the Post Office, was that given by the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in his policy statement in the Other Place in 1959. He referred at the time to the fact that the Post Office was the second largest division of the Public Service, that its duties were, inter alia, to collect State money by way of sale of revenue stamps, to collect licence fees on behalf of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, to collect customs duties, to make State investments, at that time Union Loan Certificates, and operate Post Office savings accounts, and pay pensions, both old-age pensions and war veterans’ pensions. Those functions he enumerated in addition to the very obvious other functions, such as postal deliveries.

He said at the same time that there were two main principles which any businessman would concede necessary for the successful running of any business. He said that there should not be divided control, and secondly, that there should be both power and responsibility. I maintain that, if ever there was a case of divided control, of insufficient power and responsibility, then it has been the way in which the Post Office has been run to date. For example, buildings referred to by the hon. the Minister when he introduced this Bill, have to be constructed at the request of the Post Office by the Public Works Department. If the Post Office requires capital, it has to wait for the Budget introduced by the Minister of Finance. If it requires transport for its purposes, it is beholden to the Minister of Transport. It has the power to raise tariffs on its own but it does not have the power to spend that money for its own purposes. Then as regards its staff, application has to be made to the Minister of the Interior through the Public Service Commission for the creation of any new post in the postal services. It is because of this duality and the unsatisfactory position that has obtained so long that there has been this dissatisfaction in the service, that there have been resignations, that there have been promotion delays, that there have been shortages of staff and longer working hours and that there has been a very large backlog in the building programme of the Post Office.

In addition I think that it is as a result of this situation to which I am referring that there are such incredibly poor facilities available to the staff of the postal services throughout the country. They have poor lighting in their offices, antiquated offices and poor recreation and toilet facilities. I think that it must be accepted that there has been a downward trend in the postal services particularly in the last 20 years. If one refers to only one section of the postal services, namely the telephone section one finds that because of shortages of equipment and staff and other reasons there has been a backlog of telephones accruing in the past five years from 11,900 in 1964 to a reputed 56,000 in 1968. What has been available to the Minister, and the previous Minister particularly, to improve conditions in the Post Office? There has been advice aplenty, going back to the Select Committee, to take a fairly recent example, of 1940 when the then Postmaster-General, Col. Lentin, apparently a man of considerable experience in the postal services since he was Postmaster-General from 1926, said in giving evidence before the Select Committee on Public Accounts in its Third Report:

Then he enumerated their complaints. I mention this because the complaints he then made and the line which he suggested should be taken even in those days are the lines which are being followed in the provisions of this Bill. His complaint was that under the then existing situation there was unnecessary correspondence within the Public Service Commission even about minor matters. They were unable to employ additional staff, even an additional messenger, without application to the Public Service Commission. He complained that they were quite unable to draw up a long-term plan for the development of the Post Office because they did not know what financial support and assistance they would be given by the Minister of Finance until the Budget of the following year. In his report to that Select Committee he urged that the Post Office should be given independence on the lines of that given at the time of Union to the South African Railways and Harbours. He said that there should be far greater freedom of action and that the result would be a rapid improvement and a more efficient service. We also had the Centlivres Commission which recommended that the Post Office: “in wese ’n besigheids-onderneming behoort te wees”. We have had pleas from the congresses of Assocom for the past 10 years and of course also from the Chamber of Industries. Various other businesses and Government departments have also made representations advertising greater autonomy for the Post Office. Apparently the most recent commission was that presided over by Dr. Wiehahn. At this stage I should like to say how regretful we on this side of the House are that this Commission’s report has not been made available to us before the introduction of this Bill. I find it surprising, particularly if one takes into account the trouble that was taken in the United Kingdom when a change similar to that which we are considering at the moment was made, When White Papers were issued to the members of Parliament about the future status of the Post Office in the United Kingdom and a memorandum of great detail was issued to the members concerning the proposed Bill so that the members could have every opportunity of considering the situation before the Bill came before the House of Commons. I regret that this has not been done in this particular case. I must however assume that the main recommendations of the Wiehahn Commission have at least been incorporated in the provisions of this Bill. That commission must have recommended the main elements of this Bill because I am sure that the Minister would have not been so reckless as to introduce a Bill contrary to the recommendations made by that commission.

Reference has been made to clause 12 of the Bill. I said earlier that we shall move an appropriate amendment which I regret that the hon. member for Harrismith did not have the courage to move himself because we would have supported it. We intend to move an amendment whereby the Minister of the Interior and the Public Service Commission are excluded from the ambit of that particular clause. If I may refer to the situation in the South African Railways and Harbours, I should like to point out that there is no such thing as a clause 12 in its Act. No restriction is placed on the Railways recruiting staff. There is no restriction on the commencing salaries of Railway employees. It can also bid for staff in the open market. I feel that that really is the fear of the Minister and the Cabinet because that would be the case if the Minister of the Interior were excluded from the ambit of clause 12. It is perhaps for that reason that the Minister said when he introduced this Bill that we shall first have to apply the Bill in practice and after a reasonable lapse of time submit amendments to bring about changes, where necessary.

I am sure that the staff associations of the Post Office could not have agreed to the provisions of clause 12. I also wonder whether the staff associations have been consulted about the provisions of this Bill and whether they have given it their wholehearted approval because after all they are the people most intimately affected by the provisions of the Bill. I feel that after years of dissatisfaction in the postal services the Government has been forced into taking this step. It is nevertheless a step for which I congratulate the Minister for having had the courage to take. I feel that the step itself is inadequate. I have already referred to the fact that I believe that very shortly, and the Minister appears to agree with me, there will have to be substantial amendments to this Bill, perhaps even the introduction of a new Bill. I regret that I must say that I regard it as a somewhat half-hearted and timid step, although it is definitely a step in the right direction. The Opposition has, through the hon. member for Orange Grove, indicated its support for this Bill. We congratulate the hon. the Minister on having introduced it. We regret that it is not a Bill that we would have liked to have seen but we nevertheless hope that with the amendments that we shall move it will receive a safe passage through this House.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of congratulating the hon. member for Simonstown. He at least made use of this Bill to make to a certain extent a positive contribution here. The introductory portion of his speech unfortunately detracted from the rest of his speech, i.e. where he referred to the hon. member for Orange Grove and stated inter alia that this House should be grateful to the hon. member for Orange Grove for what he had done for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in South Africa. During the course of my speech I shall return to the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Orange Grove particularly in regard to this extremely important legislation. I should like to associate myself with previous speakers and state that I believe that this Bill, in my opinion, is probably one of the most important, if not the most important, pieces of legislation which have been dealt with in this House in respect of the affairs of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in South Africa. From the nature of the case this Bill has become essential in order to make it possible for the Post Office to keep pace with the development of our country.

Mr. Speaker, although I am grateful for the fact that the Opposition are supporting this Bill, I do regret, however, that the hon. member for Orange Grove, once again tried to make political capital out of this important matter. I am sorry that this should be the case, and to start with to-day I want to speak very seriously to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I am sorry that, when we were discussing important matters such as these, he simply could not refrain from descending to trivialities, as he usually does. What did we find in the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove? In the first instance he made it his task to try and belittle the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in this House. I think it is absolutely disgraceful. In the second instance the hon. member for Orange Grove tried to intimate that with the introduction of this Bill we, as a Government, were to a large extent admitting that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs was in a deplorable condition. To a large extent he tried to intimate that with the introduction of this Bill we on this side were admitting that the affairs of the Post Office had deteriorated. Surely the hon. member for Orange Grove knows, just as well as we on this side of the House do, that this is not the case. If you would allow me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a friendly appeal to the main speaker of the United Party in respect of Post and Telegraph affairs in this House. Since we are, with this Bill, entering a new dispensation for this Department, I should like to express the hope and trust that he will in future refrain from trivialities, and that he will instead co-operate and support this side of the House in developing that Department as we should like to see it develop.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also made the charge against the Government that the legislation which is under discussion now should have been introduced years ago. From that we must imply that the hon. member for Orange Grove is intimating that things are going badly with Posts and Telegraphs in South Africa. The hon. member kicked up a great fuss in regard to this matter. He stated very dramatically that the National Party Government, which came into power in 1948, did absolutely nothing in the five years to 1953 in respect of the autonomy, the financial independence, of the Post Office. He states further that for another long period of five years, up to 1958, absolutely nothing was done. He stated, inter alia, that this National Party Government had been in power for the past 20 years, and that during those 20 years nothing whatsoever was done towards effecting the financial independence of the Post Office. Sir, what are the facts? Did the Select Committee on Public Accounts not recommend as far back as 1940 that the Department of Posts be placed on a similar basis to the Railways? I mentioned the year 1940. I think we are all aware that the United Party was governing this country at that time. Surely it is something we cannot forget. In 1948 the Centlivres Commission—the hon. member for Simonstown referred to that—recommended that this Department be placed on a business basis. We all know—we cannot forget this either—that the United Party was governing this country in 1947. In spite of all the recommendations the United Party Government did absolutely nothing about this matter. However, I now come to an important matter, and the hon. member for Orange Grove might as well listen. In 1959, a date which the hon. member for Orange Grove also mentioned, the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made an important speech in the Other Place when he stated, inter alia, that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs should be separated from the Treasury and that the Department should stand on its own feet. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove might as well listen because I want to quote to him what was said on that occasion by a front-bencher of the United Party, a person of whom I naturally have to take far more notice of than the hon. member for Orange Grove—I do not want to be personal, and I am saying that in the utmost decency—because that person was, inter alia, a Minister of Economic Affairs under the United Party Government, as well as Minister of Finance. I am only mentioning this because the hon. member for Orange Grove leveled the accusation here that the Government had neglected its duty and obligation in respect of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs disgracefully. I want to read out to you what the hon. member for Constantia said about this important matter. I am referring to the Hansard, Col. 3736, of 13th April, 1959.

Quote what he said about the utility company. May I put a question?

No I am not prepared to reply to questions. I want to read what the hon. member for Constantia said.

Order! The hon. member asked whether he could put a question.

No, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would find it much more interesting to hear what a front-bencher of the United Party said at that time, than to put a question to me. I quote—

I may just say in passing that this debate took place under the Vote of the then Minister of Finance—

Referring to the late Dr. Verwoerd—

That was said in 1959. I want to state it very explicitly here, so that hon. members on that side of the House cannot claim for themselves the credit for this major step forward in the life of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, because this has never formed part of their line of thinking. The National Party Government has never acted precipitately in respect of any important matters affecting South Africa.

It has always been the motive and the line of thinking of this Government in regard to our service Departments to make only the best services available to South Africa.

In his second-reading speech the hon. the Minister indicated to us what factors had given rise to this Bill, and I should just like to dwell briefly on a few aspects. The fact remains that over the years no government, not even the United Party Government, have taken any positive steps towards making the Post Office independent, because the Post Office was fundamentally and closely linked with the rest of the Public Service and the finances of the Public Service. With the phenomenal economic development in South Africa to-day, and particularly over the past five, six or seven years, and with the major prospects which exist for further economic development in the country, it has definitely become necessary in the public interest to establish a new dispensation for the Post Office. Then years ago it was of course not necessary because we had not, at that stage, undergone such phenomenal economic development as we have during the past five, six or seven years. We still remember Sharpeville and the establishment of a Republic. At that stage there was in fact an economic recession in South Africa. Only after becoming a Republic did we begin to undergo phenomenal development in an economic sphere, and in the spheres of trade and industry, and now that we have combated inflation to a large extent, it is obvious that this country will in the years which lie ahead, develop more rapidly in the economic field, and that is why it is clear to me that this Bill is a timeous measure. It is clear that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, as a result of the phenomenal economic development which we are experiencing in South Africa to-day, should be organized in such a way that it will at all times in future be able to keep pace with that development. I believe that with the introduction of this Bill the horizons for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in South Africa have been expanded. Communication is a prerequisite for businessmen, and in the same way efficient means of communication with countries abroad are a prerequisite for the promotion of our foreign trade. To-day we are introducing a modern cable system between South Africa and Europe, and naturally it is very important that our domestic telephone system here in South Africa should be expanded in such a way that it will at all times be able to keep pace with this modern cable system. As far as trade with countries abroad is concerned, I also believe that this legislation in itself is a major step forward.

The Department of Posts and Telegraphs is a major Department to-day. As regards turnover of business, it is only surpassed by the Railways Administration. The number of staff members to-day totals almost 50,000, and comprises almost a quarter of the Public Service with its 36 Departments. To-day the doors of 1,630 post offices and 1,480 postal agency offices are being opened for business, and for 24 hours a day constant communication links are being maintained here in our country. Now we must not lose sight of the fact that the Department of Posts is not a rich man’s services. One does not receive a major amount for all the services the Department is rendering—if we think for example of a letter which is sorted, transported and ultimately delivered at its destination for a few cents. It is an everyman’s service, for the rich as well as the poor. I want to express the hope and trust that the profit motive will always remain subservient to the service motive. After all these facts which I have just mentioned I can only express the greatest praise for and nay tribute to the Department of Posts and all its officials, which have in past years, under the most difficult circumstances, in the first place as a result of the fact that they were to a large extent financially hobbled and dependent for their funds upon the Treasury, and secondly, seen in the light of our phenomenal development in the economic field, been able to keep pace to such a large extent with all those developments. I concede that in respect of certain services there is a backlog, but there are reasons for that, and we have indicated them briefly. But I am convinced that with this new dispensation that backlog will be made up and the problem solved within the foreseeable future.

It may be interesting to refer to the size of this Department, and what has been done from 1948 up to the present day. The business turnover of the Department of Posts in the year 1948 was R168 million, whereas at the present moment it is R732 million. The number of leased telex services was a meagre 220 in 1948, and to-day it is 3,300. The number of telephones was 318,000 in 1948, and to-day it is 1.2 million. The number of telephone calls of all kinds was 458 million, and now it is 1,330 million. I can continue in this way, but I do not want to take up much more of the time of the House. I can mention many statistics to indicate that the Post Office services have developed tremendously under the National Party Government. Because we often have criticism in this House from the Opposition in regard to the backlog of telephones, it is perhaps interesting to note that in the entire world there are only 18 countries which have more telephones than we do, and that despite the vastness of our country and its small white population. The concentration of telephones in South Africa is in fact seven per 100 of the population. A good 76 per cent of South African telephones are already automatic and a good 43 per cent of the telex services are automatic. With the establishment of an automatic telex exchange between Kimberley and East London next year this service will be fully automatic. The mainline telephone system is being automated to an increasing extent. Since the system was introduced for the first time in 1956, the system whereby subscribers in automatic exchange areas could dial rural exchanges directly, the system has expanded so that subscribers in Pretoria are themselves able to dial calls, local and longdistance, to more than 100 manual exchanges and 33 automatic exchanges, including places such as Durban, Kimberley, Bloemfontein, Pietersburg and Welkom. I could take up a great deal more of your time in describing the scope of this Department, but I should not like to take up much more of the time of the House.

In conclusion I just want to say that with the introduction of this Bill I believe we are ushering in a new era in the history of our Post Office. It creates a new dispensation, where the Department can with greater freedom carry out its task of ensuring that post and telecommunication services keep pace with the rapidly growing requirements of the country. I believe that in the years that lie ahead, and with this new dispensation the Minister will be able to supply only the best services for South Africa. I am also convinced that in the future we will be able to look up to the Post Office as a Department of which we may all be justifiably proud.

The hon. member for Welkom began his speech by congratulating the hon. member for Simonstown on a constructive speech. I regret that I cannot reciprocate in regard to the hon. member’s speech. He has accused the hon. member for Orange Grove of making politics out of this debate, but I think he has fallen into the same trap himself. He admits that the hon. member for Orange Grove was quite correct when he said that the affairs of the Post Office are in a deplorable state.

When did he admit that?

He admits it and I think his speech is a complete vindication and justification of what the hon. member for Orange Grove has said in this House over all these years, when he brought to the notice of this House and of the public the shortcomings and the failings of the Post Office.

I proved the contrary.

The hon. member for Harrismith, I must admit, did give us a constructive contribution, and I will deal with what he said a little later. I must admit that this hon. member had the courage to come out and say to the Minister that certain things were wrong in the Department and in the Bill, and that is where we agree with the hon. member for Harrismith.

The hon. member for Welkom also mentioned the Centlivres Commission of 1947. Now, 1947 was almost a black year for South Africa; 1948 was the black year. But we have had 20 years of Nationalist government, and it has taken them almost 21 years to get somewhere near the implementation of the report mentioned by the hon. member for Welkom We maintain that it should have been done immediately. Who was responsible for the delay? The Nationalist Government. I want to cross swords with the hon. member in regard to the quotation he read from Hansard alluding to the hon. member for Constantia. This statement by the hon. member for Constantia confirmed that the Post Office was in a mess as far back as 1959. The Minister himself admitted that it was in a mess as far back as 1959. But this hon. member has rather twisted … [Interjection.] I am sorry. I withdraw that. He misconstrued what the hon. member for Constantia said, where he said that we were opposed to the establishment of this body which was suggested. What this side of the House opposed was the establishment of a public utility company. If one reads the Hansard, it is clear that the hon. member for Constantia was not opposed to the Post Office receiving its independence. What he was opposed to was that it should be taken over by a public utility company, and if the hon. member had sense enough to ask himself why we opposed it, he would know that it was because a public utility company is outside the control of this House. [Interjections.]

We have before us to-day a Bill which provides for three things, firstly the establishment of a Staff Board for the Post Office, secondly the establishment of a Post Office Fund, and thirdly, to provide that the administration of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs shall be run on business principles. For the rest, this Bill is merely incidental and gives effect to these three principles. The Minister’s predecessor announced to the country over 16 months ago, in January, 1967, that the Department will get independence. At that time certain increases in tariffs were introduced to create a fund to enable this Department to get its independence and to run its own affairs. Since then we have waited most impatiently for this measure, as we hoped that it would lead to greater efficiency in the Department and better services to the public. The hon. member for Orange Grove has referred to the report of the Wiehahn Commission, and it is obvious that this Bill has stemmed from it. This report has been in the hands of the Minister’s predecessor and of his Department for some time. Regret has been expressed that it was never tabled in the House. I admit that it was a departmental report, and as such it need not necessarily be tabled. But when we have a measure as important as this Bill is, arising out of this report, I submit that that report should have been tabled, or at least a White Paper should have been issued, in the words of the hon. member for Simons-town. The Chairman of that Commission was not an employee of the Department, but a private individual, and he was paid a fee. Surely it is up to this hon. House to be able to consider whether the fee paid and voted by this House was used adequately. Parliament has not had the opportunity to decide whether it was used to the best advantage, and surely it should have been able to decide.

Another question arises. Does this Bill embody all the recommendations of that Commission? We have heard from the Minister during the second reading that it does embody most, but what about those recommendations which are not included? On this side we are wondering whether that report perhaps suggested that the Post Office should have full autonomy, like the Railways, or did it suggest a lesser degree of control than is provided for in the Bill? Surely Parliament should be afforded the opportunity to assess the validity of these recommendations and to consider whether or not these other recommendations should perhaps be implemented and be incorporated in this Bill.

I said there were three provisions in the Bill, and I now want to deal with the question of staff in the Post Office. We had hoped, and in fact at my first reading of the Bill I believed, that this Department would now have true independence and that it would be able to negotiate with its staff associations without being tied to the Public Service Commission. We had hoped that the Minister would now be able to grant better working conditions and improved salaries and even meet the requests of his staff associations. We had hoped that he would be a law unto himself like the hon. the Minister of Transport, and we were sure that if this had been done it could only have led to greater efficiency and to more loyalty within the Department. Perhaps such recommendations were made by the Wiehahn Commission. Unfortunately we do mot know. Perhaps the Minister himself would rather have had complete independence, like the Minister of Transport has. One wonders whether the decision was not perhaps that of the majority of the Cabinet, and that they are afraid to hand over to him the power which the Minister of Transport has, because he might also make unilateral decisions such as were made by the Minister of Transport when he had the courage to give to his staff an increase in pay, to which they were fully entitled.

I want to prophesy now this is not going to be the end. I do not think it is going to be very long before this House is going to be asked to amend this provision, if the amendment which we will move is not accepted, an amendment to give this hon. the Minister autonomy, independence, to control his own affairs and to run them on proper business lines.

It is a great pity that 40,000 postal workers, those who were intimately connected with the administration of this Department, were not afforded the opportunity to give evidence, we believe, if reports from post office staff magazines are to be believed. They were not given the opportunity to give evidence before the Wiehahn Committee. This Minister, when he introduced the measure, spoke of “ondernemingsgees”. This is the spirit necessary for the development of an enterprise which the Post Office will become, and is to-day, for that matter. This is not the way to develop such a spirit, to ignore completely the people who are doing the work. How does he hope to foster this spirit when employees and their associations are not consulted in far-reaching and important matters as were considered by the Wiehahn Commission? Until this Bill was published, those postal workers were in the dark. According to one of their magazines they were not asked to contribute even their modest share to the planning of this independent State Department. The Postal and Telegraph Association want a say in the establishment of the independence of this Department of theirs. They tried to find out what was happening, but, in their own words, they “were not let in on the secret”. These are the people the Minister is going to depend upon for the efficient running of this Department, and I am sure he will rethink this matter, will take them into his confidence, and will consult with them when it comes to matters of local administration within the Department.

The second matter provided for in this Bill is the establishment of a Post Office Fund. This is a very good thing. We find that R21 million are to be paid in immediately from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, that this is to be used for the running of the Post Office Administration and the provision of services to the public. We find also that the Fund will take over assets valued at R199 million plus, which has been expended in previous years. The Fund will take over the debt of R199 million subject to giving an undertaking to repay this over a period of 20 years plus interest at 6 per cent. If I have time I will deal with this more fully later, but I am sure there are other speakers on this side who will deal with it.

Now, I want to ask the Minister why the name of the bank account referred to in clause 18 is to be the “Postmaster-General’s Account”. Is there any particular reason why it should be called the “Postmaster-General’s Account”? Let me say I feel that a better name would be the “Post Office Fund Account” or even just straightforward the “Post Office Account”. We find in the same clause that the account of the Railway Administration is the “Railway and Harbour Account”. It is not the “General Manager’s Account”. The Postmaster-General is an individual, and I have a very high regard for him and for the post which he occupies, but I feel it is wrong that the bank account of a State Department should be in the name of an individual officer of the Department. I want to raise one other small point with the Minister in this respect, and that is that I believe at the moment the Postmaster-General has an account styled the “Postmaster-General’s Account” which he uses for the disbursement of certain small amounts which are necessary from time to time. This can only lead to confusion.

Use your common sense.

I am doing that. The third point which is provided for in this Bill is the most important, and that is in clause 2. where it is provided that “The affairs of the Department shall be administered on business principles, due regard being had to the promotion, by means of efficient postal and telecommunication services, of commerce, industry and agriculture in all parts of the Republic, and to the promotion of the Republic’s foreign trade”. This is very far-reaching and very high-sounding. I wish to say now I wish the hon. the Minister and his Department luck and I hope they are going to “bring this off” and create here a true business enterprise, run on business lines, efficient and profitable, within reason, within the limits provided for in this measure, a profitable business which can only be to the benefit of South Africa as a whole.

Dealing with this question of business principles—a principle has developed in modern business of running a “loss leader”. The accounts, as pointed out by the hon. member for Harrismith, show that during the financial year 1966-’67 the postal services operated at a loss of R3,127,000. This is something which the Minister’s Department cannot afford. It cannot afford that any section should operate at a loss. The Minister himself said so during his second-reading speech. He said he could not afford to supply any services at no profit, or at cost, that is the term I think he used, and most certainly not at a loss. No business can afford to operate any section which is going to show a loss of R3 million in one year. Every section must at least pay its way. The hon. member for Harrismith raised the same question and at one stage I almost got the impression that he was advocating an increase in tariffs, but towards the end he did say he was asking for a review of tariffs. Let me say I agree with him 100 per cent. This, once again, is where the Minister can call on his staff, the people who are working with these things, who can tell him where his tariffs are wrong. I do not want anybody to run away with the idea that I am advocating an increase in tariffs. Not at all—that is the last thing I am advocating. This is what I referred to earlier when I said improve salaries, improve conditions, and you are going to get greater efficiency and greater loyalty within the Department.

As I said to the Minister, he must consult with his workers on possible improved methods of operation and administration within the Department. I am sure there is not one postal worker who does not feel at some time that some of his colleagues are not pulling their weight; some are not fully occupied, whilst others are over-worked. In certain cases there is a duplication of work and in some cases there is lack of adequate control. In some instances reorganization is required. For instance, the hon. member for Harrismith said tariffs should be reviewed. The Minister must consult with his people, he must build up with them an esprit de corps and develop greater efficiency and he will then find this loss wiped out.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said the aim of the Post Office administration should be to give the best possible service to the greatest number of people at the lowest possible price. He also went on and mentioned a list of priorities which the Minister should apply when allocating funds available in his Department. The first priority the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned was telephones. I want to agree with him 100 per cent. I must admit the telephone department has gone ahead fantastically. In this regard I want to quote from The South African Digest of 8th March which quotes the Postmaster-General as saying—

He went on and referred to the national subscriber trunk dialling service, and said the following—

We find in The Natal Witness of 12th December, 1966, under the headline “Automated Telephones in South Africa by 1980”, this statement by the Postmaster-General—

There are other headlines, such as “Microwave Boost for Telephone Services”, and so on. The hon. member for Harrismith thanks the Department and expresses appreciation for the new service. I want to associate myself with that, because it is a commendable service. This is all very good. By all means let us modernize our services, let us keep pace with development and improved technology. But there are over 56,000 applications for telephone services which either cannot or have not been met, and I wonder if somehow we have not got our priorities mixed up. It is very nice to be a subscriber where there is a large automatic exchange, for he can dial direct anybody in any other large centre with an automatic exchange; it is also very nice for the comparative handful of telephone subscribers who wish to contact others in small country towns to be able to dial direct to the manual exchange there. But would it not be better to provide telephone services to the “have-nots” first? I want to mention to the hon. the Minister and this hon. House what was said to me by a high official in the postal service in Natal when I asked him about improving services for certain subscribers.

Which clause are you discussing?

I am talking about business principles. This high official said to me: “There are people who have got some service. Admittedly it can do with improvement, we know that. But there are others who have no service,” and he went on to say: “Before I can improve the service to those people who have got some service I must provide some service for those who have not got any service at all.” I am in complete agreement with that principle, and I commend this idea of one of the officials of the Minister’s Department, to him. I ask him to accept this as the official policy, namely first give those who have no services some service. He has embarked on this programme in which R35 million is going to be spent. Let that money be spent. It has been planned and must go on. But I do ask the Minister to bear these two points in mind, both him and his staff. They must consider the possibility of giving the “have-nots” some service before we spend millions of rands more on schemes like this, which are very commendable if there is a service already, but these schemes are no good whatsoever to those people who have no telephones.

In conclusion I want to say I consider this Bill a step in the right direction. If our amendments are accepted the Post Office should go ahead and will provide the best possible service to the greatest number of people at the lowest possible price. I want to repeat: I wish the Minister and his Department luck in their new enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, we have before us a Bill which, as it has rightly been called, is going to be a milestone for the Post Office. It is also a privilege to us to be able to-day to come forward with this Bill. We as a House must decide on the principle of whether or not we are going to launch the Post Office on a business basis.

It is very interesting to note that after ten years the Opposition has finally become Nationalist as regards the attitude they adopt towards the Post Office, for it was in this very same House in 1959 that three different speakers of the Opposition stated that they were opposed to the principle that the Post Office should develop independently and be administered on a business basis. I find it very interesting that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, says that they are going to propose amendments to make the Post Office completely independent and grant it full autonomy.

In addition to the passage quoted by the hon. member for Welkom, I want to quote a further passage to prove how this Opposition opposed this principle in this House in 1959. In addition to what was said by the hon. member for Constantia, the hon. member for Drakensberg had the following to say (Hansard, 1959)—

That was the policy of this Opposition, and that was ten years ago. That was how they felt at the time. I should like to quote a third speaker, namely the then member for Umlazi. In the same debate—Hansard, column 7072, 1959—he said—

That was the Opposition’s policy, the view held by them, ten years ago, when they opposed this policy which the hon. Dr. Hertzog, the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, presented in his policy motion in the Senate as his policy for the future. A few things were dished up here this afternoon. The hon. member for Orange Grove stated that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had said in 1959 that the Post Office was in a precarious (haglike) state. I want to say that that was not the case.

In a “distressed” (benarde) state.

In a “distressed” state is just as bad. The hon. the Minister did not say that.

He said so at the congress this year.

I just want to say that according to the 1959 Senate Hansard report I have here, this is what the Minister said in the Other Place at that time—

Then the hon. the Minister continued and said that nothing was perfect, and that the moment somebody considered something to be perfect, it was quite stagnant. Then one cannot make progress and develop.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Is it true that this report in Die Burger entitled “Postal Department in Plight, says Hertzog”, is incorrect?

I shall give the hon. member a reply to that. On addition I just want to quote what the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said in the Senate (Hansard, 1959): “Look, this is my argument: here one has a business department from which one requires efficiency, and since it is a business department, it ought to be operated on a business basis”. That was the National Party’s policy. It was not the policy of this hon. Minister alone; the hon. the Minister who spoke on behalf of the National Party. And then, time after time, that hon. member still becomes pedestrian and banal when he indulges in personalities and disparages a Minister, or tries to do so, because he could not do so. That was the National Party’s policy. Now I want to say that it took us 11 years to get the Opposition to accept our policy. Therefore I still have hope for them for the future. I took notes when the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke the other day. If he had not adopted a decent, respectable tone this afternoon—I think he did contribute something to the debate this afternoon—then I would simply have ignored him, because I believe in the proverb, “He who touches pitch will be defiled”. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that he had four complaints. One of the complaints concerned the Wiehahn Report, which had supposedly not been made public, and another was that a White Paper had not been issued here.

Then he also complained about the Post Office staff who had not been consulted, as well as about foreign trade. I just want to give the hon. member a reply to some of those matters. This Wiehahn Commission was, except for Professor Wiehahn who was the chairman, a departmental committee. Is it necessary, desirable or customary that the report of every departmental committee should be tabled and published? After all, this is a competent Government; this is a competent Department, with officials who have performed their duty and work over the years. It was this Government that saw to it that it first gained the necessary knowledge in regard to this matter before it came forward in a topsy-turvy fashion with this legislation to make the Post Office completely autonomous and to set right matters that were wrong. That would have happened in the days when the Opposition governed, but not now. The members of that commission were competent members, all of them. In that respect I am in agreement with the hon. member. They are competent persons, and they brought out a report, and on the strength of that report this legislation was subsequently adopted. The complaint was that they had already brought out the report in November last year. “Why is the legislation only being introduced now?” is the question which is being asked. But surely, with the opening of Parliament this year the Acting State President said in his address in the Other Place that this change would be introduced this year. Or should everything have been introduced on 1st February? Is that what that hon. member wanted? After all, it was announced beforehand. It is not as though this Government had not given prior warning. It was as early as on the day of the opening of Parliament that it was said that this legislation would be introduced.

I still want to go much further by saying a few words about that White Paper which was not published. The hon. member for Orange Grove complained and said: In England they brought out a White Paper. But are we always to follow the example set by England? Are we supposed to do exactly what they do? I thought that we had been weaned, but it seems to me as though that hon. member has not yet been weaned. I want to say that the Post Office staff, the Minister and all these commissions have investigated this matter thoroughly, and it is not necessary for a White Paper to have been brought out here. It was not necessary for us on this side to have obtained so much information. We think for ourselves, too, but it seems to me as though the hon. Opposition wants to be spoon-fed. They could not think for themselves to a certain extent and make out for themselves what was happening. I just want to quote what that hon. member said. His own words were—

Read the next words: “And I did study it thoroughly.”

When I remarked across the floor of the House that the hon. member had not studied the Bill thoroughly, the entire Opposition was up in arms and here we have his own words. He, the main speaker, admitted that he had not studied this Bill properly. I think it is a disgrace. I want to say that we are glad about such admissions, too. However, I also want to speak about the Post Office staff associations, which were allegedly not consulted. Surely, that is not true. These associations have made their requests over the years. They have been making their pleas to the Minister and conducting discussions with him. That hon. member already holds it against the Government that so many commissions have been appointed. This staff has been consulted over the years. The hon. member for Orange Grove quoted in this House what the Minister had said. It stands in the hon. member’s own Hansard. At first he leveled the accusation that the staff associations had not been consulted, and then he quoted the reply the hon. the Minister had given him—

Surely, if that is the case it is untrue when the hon. member says that those people have not been consulted. Here he has the Minister’s reply to the effect that the Wiehahn Commission took into account and considered all these recommendations made by the committees, etc. On the strength of that the Wiehahn Commission issued a report. After all, that is very clear. The Minister said that he had not asked them to do so, but their reports were in fact handed in. In view of the fact that the Department had all those representations and the reports of the commissions, I do not think that it is necessary to ask for them once again. But I want to quote something else that was said by this hon. member, namely—

This Minister has never refused to do so. He was not even Minister of Posts and Telegraphs at that time. He was only recently appointed in that capacity. By that time the report had been issued a long time ago. But then the hon. member levels at this hon. Minister an accusation of this nature.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, the Minister knows that you make false accusations. That is true, he knows it, because that is not the case. This Minister was appointed only recently. The Wiehahn Commission did not refuse to take any evidence either. I want that hon. member to adduce proof to the effect that the Wiehahn Commission refused to take any evidence from the staff associations. Here we have the reply the hon. the Minister gave him. He quoted it himself. I read it out here to prove that the Wiehahn Commission had made use of it.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Would the hon. member kindly mention to me one staff association that was asked by the Wiehahn Commission to give evidence?

The Wiehahn Commission did not ask for that. They already had this evidence. This matter has grown over the years. These things did not arise overnight. The autonomy of the Post Office was part of the policy of the National Party, and it has grown from 1959 when it was disclosed that this was the policy of the National Party. This thing did not arise overnight. I think it is unnecessary to go into this matter and to want to mention it.

But the hon. member for Orange Grove had other complaints as well. He also asked the following question: How is the autonomy of the Post Office going to promote our foreign trade? He also raised a further complaint in regard to commerce and industry. The hon. member for Orange Grove maintained that the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had allegedly blamed commerce and industry for the shortage that existed in respect of telephones. That is merely a statement of fact. It was as a result of the tremendous expansion of our commerce and industry that this position came about. The hon. member knows how, under the régime of the National Party, South Africa has developed in the sphere of commerce and industry. It was an explosion. It soared sky-high. How could the Post Office have kept pace with that tremendous expansion? After all, that hon. member knows that there are technical problems. He knows that there are capital shortage and staff matters that have to be taken into account. Technicians do not drop from the skies. These facilities cannot be provided overnight. That hon. member knows that it is very easy to start a new company. One obtains large offices and asks for 500 or 600 telephones in one application. That is what is being asked, and that hon. member knows it. He knows that 500 or 600 telephones, with all the complications they entail, cannot be provided overnight. No, I think we should approach these things a little more soberly.

But I do not wish to go into that hon. member’s complaints and grievances any further. However, there is one other thing to which I want to reply. The hon. member said that the previous Minister had allegedly said that the Post Office was in a precarious state in 1959.

No, it was in a distressed state in 1958.

I just want to say that the National Party took over in 1948, and considering the wretched state in which South Africa and the Post Office in particular was at that time, it would have taken any government more than ten years to get them out of that mess. I just want to quote something to show in what a distressed state the Post Office was at that stage. I shall quote an authority who spoke authoritatively at that time. At that stage we had a United Party Government, and here we have an open letter written by an authority to the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs, Mr. Sydney Waterson. He said—

This Minister is the only member of the then U.P. Government who still has a seat in this House to-day. He was one of those who excelled, but this is what this authority thought of him. Now you must know how bad the bad ones were if this was the best one. Now I want to indicate what the bad ones were like. The late Senator Charlie Clarkson was the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. This is what this authority had to say about him in an open letter which he sent into the world and in which he told him what he was—

That is what was said of the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. How could we therefore expect the Post Office to have been in a satisfactory state?

Who said that?

This authority is a certain Mr. Etienne Malan, who was the editor of the Kruithoring in 1943!

Mr. Speaker, now I would rather adopt a positive course. Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with the principle of whether or not the Post Office should become autonomous on business lines. That has been the policy of the National Party for the past ten years, and now the Opposition has accepted it too. I thank the Opposition for having accepted it. I think it is a progressive step for South Africa that in future we need no longer differ with one another as far as this matter is concerned. And now I am pleased and grateful that they themselves have said that they are going to propose amendments. These may be amendments which we have already discussed and which may possibly be effected—perhaps not now, but possibly in the future. The first aspect they mentioned is that the Post Office Staff Board, namely that it had to function quite autonomously and be quite separate from the Public Service. It is my personal considered opinion —and I also think that it is a fact—that as a result of this process of growth we cannot expect the Post Office to have become autonomous by now. For the Post Office to become autonomous now, one should make haste slowly. One should not proceed precipitately and so wreck everything. As regards the staff, the hon. member for Orange Grove put it in such a way that it seemed as though the Post Office staff would now be plunged into misery as a result of the fact that they would not be granted complete autonomy. Up to this stage the Public Service Commission has been looking after the Post Office staff. They will still receive the same treatment and even better treatment. After all, we are making progress. We do not stand still in South Africa. I hope and believe that this (process will continue and that within the foreseeable future the Post Office Staff Board will be quite autonomous. I hope that development in that direction will become possible and will take place. The National Party is certainly not going to commit itself by saying that it will in fact do that. We are sensible, logical and consistent. As the process develops we shall see what there is to be done. If things are best as they are at present, they will remain so. If it will effect an improvement in any way—irrespective of what it is—we shall introduce new legislation to attend to this matter. Then only this one question arises. If the Post Office becomes independent, there are only two aspects that have to be taken into account. The first is whether the necessary staff is available, and the second is whether we are financially in a position to do so. As regards the staff, everything is in order. I think that in the Post Office to-day we have the most competent staff one could possibly desire. We know that they are good. It does not matter whether the present system or the autonomous system obtains. The work will be done. We have the staff. The second aspect is, as I have said, whether we are financially in a position to do so. As regards finances, there is just one point I wish to mention. The hon. member for Orange Grove wanted to know what had become of last year’s one cent increase. The hon. member put it in such a way that it seemed as though the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had added one cent to the price of telephone calls, but had not utilized it in the Post Office. That insinuation or statement was made here. Surely, the hon. member knows that the one cent increase introduced during 1967-’68 did not amount to R13 million. The expenditure was R13.136 million more than that of the previous year. That is where that amount is included. After all, the hon. member knows that. Or does he not understand figures? But I do want to say that in view of the fact that the Post Office is doing its share and the hon. the Minister is following a straight course, we should not ask questions of this nature, sow suspicion and then keep quiet. The hon. member is also aware that during 1968-’69 the appropriation in respect of expenditure was R12.68 million more than that of the previous year. In conclusion I just want to quote a few figures to prove that the Post Office, as regards its finances, can stand on its own feet. But I think that it would also be good for the record if I mentioned a few figures taken from the time when the present Opposition comprised the Government. I want to mention to you that during 1941-’42 …

Should the hon. member not rather mention that when the Vote comes up for discussion? Is it relevant to this Bill?

I just want to show how the Post Office has grown and that the Post Office can in fact stand on its own feet.

Does it bear any relation to the Bill?

We cannot pass the Bill if the Post Office is not financially autonomous. We do not want to increase tariffs or anything else. Nor do we want to decrease salaries. We want to see whether under present circumstances the Post Office is financially and economically sound. Under the then United Party Government the expenditure of the Post Office amounted to R9 million. That was in 1942. This expenditure had increased to R14 million in 1946-’47. You can see, Sir, that it grew. When the National Party came into power, it grew. In 1948 the figure increased from R3½ million to R17½ million. Over the subsequent ten years the revenue of the Post Office, as well as its expenditure, was virtually doubled. After all, we are in the fortunate position to-day that, as far as the Post Office is concerned, we can cover all its expenditure with the aid of very little loan capital. According to the printed Estimates, Post Office revenue during the year 1967-’68 amounted to R138 million. Total expenditure, under the Revenue Account as well as the Loan Account, amounted to R131 million. That means a surplus of R7 million with which, for the major part, provision can be made for interest and depreciation, which have not been mentioned here. In the light of the small amount of loan capital which is needed to carry the Post Office, it is possible for the Post Office to stand on its own feet in every respect. It has the necessary staff, its economy is sound and so are its finances. The National Party, with this new Minister who knows how a Department is to be administered autonomously—by virtue of his experience of transport matters—is grateful for the fact that we can second this legislation. Therefore we are looking forward to a very happy period for the Post Office.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill is the first to be introduced by the new Minister in his capacity as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. While I wish him success with the outcome of this Bill, I must agree with other members on this side of the House in expressing my regret that there was neither a White Paper, nor the Wiehahn Commission’s report. The previous speaker, the hon. member for Sunnyside, referred to the fact that Dr. Wiehahn was the only person on the commission who was not associated with the Post Office. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the Bill of his colleague the hon. the Deputy Minister for Finance which we will be discussing next. There we have another departmental committee report, namely the committee of inquiry into the Usury Act. This was followed by a Bill for the limitation and disclosure of financial charges. Here is a case where the Minister felt that it was reasonable and advisable to give us the benefit of the commission’s views. While I do not intend to go into the past as far as Posts and Telegraphs is concerned, I hope that the hon. the Minister will consider this question of business principles. The question of business principles is one on which I would like the hon. the Minister to enlarge upon in his reply, because I think it is a matter of some importance. Business principles, as I see it, envisage that there is going to be initiative and leadership. If one should go into the history of this country one will find that towns and cities have developed when post office services were provided. Very seldom have towns and villages developed where there were no services. If the attitude of the department is going to be that they will provide the service where there is the demand for it, they will surely find themselves in the position, in the ensuing years, that they will always be lagging behind. There is an old cliché that trade follows the flag. That is the position to-day in the business world. If you want to spread your business activities, you have to go and look for new customers. You have to go and see where new customers can be found. You do not only rely on existing customers, but you try to extend the field. If the hon. the Minister will bear in mind that he is going to run the Post Office on business lines, he must not only be concerned about making up the backlog, but he must also be concerned with taking the lead. There has been tremendous development in postal and telegraph services during the last few years. If one travels overseas and sees the development that has taken place in this field, and one compares it with the developments in this country, one realizes that although great things have been done in this country there is still a lot of leeway to be made up. If one should go to a country like Switzerland—a modern sophisticated country—one will find that one can dial any city and village in the country direct. You can go to that same country and you will find that every town and village of any consequence has a number. If persons want to ensure that they have express mail service, that number goes on the bottom of the envelope. The result is that as soon as that envelope reaches the district post office it goes on to an electronic letter sorter, which sorts the post under the relevant number. The number is first checked before the numerical sorting takes place. I realize that the department is probably contemplating this and that in one or two of our cities the matter is under consideration. I want to point out that if business principles are to apply, the hon. the Minister will have to keep up and keep ahead, because, otherwise, he will find himself always with a time lag. We will then have what we have had during the last 20 years, i.e. criticism because the postal services are lagging behind in the development of this country. This country has grown fast, and each party in power takes credit for its growth. The country has grown fast in spite of any government, and in spite of any particular political move.

“Because of” not “in spite of”.

In spite of any government. Economic development is far stronger than political development, and any intelligent person should know that.

You are not intelligent now.

One finds, just as a country grows fast, the services should grow with it. At the present moment what has happened is that economic development has outstripped the demand for services. Businessmen are always impatient. The businessmen should not always be blamed for the development as far as the development of postal and telegraph services are concerned. I wonder if the hon. the Minister has got any idea as to what extent the telephone services are used, not only by businessmen, but also by the private individual. I think that with the metering of telephone calls a lot of domestic shocks are going to come to a lot of people. I am not so sure that this will not bring a few marital difficulties when, at the end of the month, the telephone account has to be explained when local calls have to be paid. That may be necessary. The demand for services may be such that, in particular in villages outside our main cities, when the housewife rings the daughter, or grandchildren, and the telephone meter runs on, she is going to find herself in difficulties. These are the difficulties that the Minister will have to face up to. What I want to point out is that if the Minister is going to run his department on business principles he must not use this service as a taxing machine, because he is taking his money out of the taxing machine. The tax man is the hon. the Minister of Finance. If he is running his Department on business lines he must adopt the same attitude as we demand from the hon. the Minister of Transport, that is that he runs the Railways in such a way that he balances his budget. There is no call on the Minister to use it as a taxing machine so that he can make a profit.

You did not say this when you discussed transport. You said exactly the opposite.

The hon. the Minister of Transport is not the issue now. We will discuss Transport at the right time. The point is that it is not the duty of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to make use of posts and telegraphs as a taxing machine. He must balance his budget, and when he balances his budget and if he is going to use a certain portion of his budget for capital expenditure, that must be made clear. He must also make clear that the basis of allocating costs is such that it will satisfy this House. Far too often we were told by the Department that this service is losing money. When we ask what the losses are, we are told the figure; but when we ask what the basis of the allocation of costs are, we get no answer. I hope that the hon. the Minister, now that he proposes to run this service on business lines, will ensure that in respect of any service, where he has to allocate or apportion the costs, he will indicate the basis proportionately.

Another matter that I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister is the question of capital expenditure on buildings. I think that the hon. the Minister should give very careful consideration to the extent to which he is going to incur capital expenditure on buildings. He should consider whether it might not be economical to lease buildings, rather than to invest capital in buildings. I do not doubt, that when it comes to a telephone exchange, it will be desirable from a communications point of view to have it in a Government building. When it comes to district post offices, however, I often question whether the Government is not wasting money by spending money on capital works like land and buildings, where they could more profitably use that money on equipment, and have a lease agreement with a local firm. Quite frequently the hon. the Minister will find that where he goes to private enterprise and asks to lease a portion of the building he will find himself in the position of getting a very advantageous rate. This will be more advantageous than investing the money in a building. The private individual welcomes the Post Office in his building, even at a very nominal rent, because it will attract other customers to the building. It will also attract people to come to the shops in the vicinity. Why should we have a building standing in isolation? The hon. the Minister should only go round the country and see the various post offices. He will then agree with me that some of them are very much outdated. If in some of our growing suburbs, the hon. the Minister, instead of investing capital funds in bricks and mortar, could lease property for a lengthy period, or have an option where he can extend the lease, he will most probably be able to negotiate a very favourable lease, both to his advantage and to the advantage of the people of the district. I commend this suggestion to him.

There is another matter which has not been dealt with during the course of the debate, namely the Post Office savings bank. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister, now that he is going to take over the postal department and presumably also the Post Office savings bank, whether he will adopt a new look for the Post Office savings bank. Will he not consider the extent to which this service is dated? I submit that there has been very little improvement in this service over many years. When the Minister has seen the development that has taken place overseas, I am sure that he will be surprised. He may probably be aware of this. To-day the Post Office savings banks overseas, are virtually the ordinary man’s bank. You can go to Britain to-day, and you will see that the ordinary working man can open his post office savings bank account. He can notify his employer of the post office bank number. From that time onwards the record of his account is done by a computer. The employee who has a Post Office Savings Account notifies his employer of the amount. The employer, at the end of the week or at the end of the month, makes the deposit into the employee’s savings bank account. The employee takes a slip along to the Post Office indicating the accounts which he wants paid and those accounts are paid by way of transfer from the employee’s account to the relevant trader’s account. It is all a matter of a bookkeeping entry which is done electronically with the speed of light. The result is that the worker has found that he has the Post Office Savings Bank organization as his friend, as the keeper of his money and as the earner of interest on his day-to-day balance. There have been most startling developments indicating the popularity of this service as a result of the introduction of modern electronic devices introducing the computer and introducing district to district information to help the Post Office organization to give a modern service to these people. The development of computers, as the hon. the Minister knows, involves the attachment of the telex organization to the computers. The Minister is already giving consideration to that. Certain computers in this country are using telexed messages connected to the computer and then get the result telexed again. To-day in most leading countries the computer is not used seven or eight hours a day but 24 hours a day. In fact, in this country there are far too many people employing computers un-economically. For a computer to work efficiently it must work 24 hours a day. At the close of business at the end of the day, the results are fed into the computer and the next morning you have the answer when the day staff starts to work because the staff on night shift has done the work. I hope that when the Minister says that he intends to run the Post Office on business lines he is going to run it on modern business lines; that he is going to lead the way and show the country how efficient that department can be. He is going to have a difficult task in getting the equipment and in getting the trained personnel. But if the Minister shows that he means business he will attract the personnel because the modern development of electronics is an exciting experience. Our young university graduates will be only too pleased to come into an up-to-date organization which is going to give them an opportunity of showing what can be done. We wish the Minister success in this new venture, but we do hope that when he says that he is going to run the Post Office on business lines, he is going to lead and that he is not going to deal with a backlog all the time. If he does lead, then he will get our support. On the other hand, if he chases the backlog year after year then I am afraid he will be exposing himself to the same criticisms which have been leveled against Governments in the past. This is a difficult problem. It is a problem that needs imagination and drive and a sense of adventure and I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to instill that into his Department.

In the first place I want to thank the speakers on this side of the House who participated in the debate for their constructive contributions to the discussion of this Bill. I should also like to express my gratitude towards hon. members on that side of the House for their congratulations and the success they wished me. I want to thank the hon. member for Orange Grove for the fact that he congratulated me on this Bill. I do not doubt the good intentions of the hon. member in this regard, but I think the hon. member will concede that in actual fact I do not deserve the congratulations in this regard, but that the credit for this legislation and the congratulations should go to my predecessor, Dr. Hertzog. Dr. Hertzog played a tremendous part in regard to the Bill which is now before the House. In 1959 he took the initiative in effecting the independence of the Post Office, and for the past nine years he had been engaged on this task with enthusiasm, inspiration and diligence. Over the years it called for major efforts and enthusiasm on his part to bring the matter to where it is to-day, where the Post Office stands on the point of becoming independent of the Treasury, and to a very large extent, of the Public Service as well. For that reason I want to convey my sincere gratitude to my predecessor, Dr. Hertzog. On behalf of this House I think that we should convey our sincere congratulations to the hon. the Minister of Health in this respect. I want to give Dr. Hertzog the assurance that I am not only expressing the gratitude of this side of the House, but also that of the other side of the House, of the country outside, and also of the Post Office staff, for what he has done in this respect. We want to thank him very sincerely for having brought this matter so far that it is now possible to realize this ideal.

Mr. Speaker, I found the criticism of the main speaker on the Opposition side extremely disappointing. I must say that I am also disappointed in the other hon. members on the opposite side, with the exception of the hon. member for Pinetown. The speeches made by the other two hon. members on that side who spoke here were an unmotivated repetition of what the hon. member for Orange Grove said. I want to say here this afternoon—I would have preferred not to say it, but I think I would have been neglecting my duty if I did not—that I have never heard a more irresponsible speech from the chief critic of the Government on the Opposition side as that same speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. In the first instance it was in bad taste. Apparently he was under the impression that the subject under discussion was not the Bill but that it was a personal vendetta against my predecessor, Dr. Hertzog, in which he was involved. His speech had nothing to do with the Bill. In the first 35 minutes of the hon. member’s speech he never came near to discussing the Bill. The hon. member for Orange Grove neglected to convey the token of gratitude which I have now conveyed to my predecessor for the sound contribution he made in this regard; he did not even do that, and he came forward here to-day and charged me with not having thanked Dr. Hertzog in my introductory speech. He ought to feel ashamed of himself because he, who tried to launch this personal onslaught against my predecessor, did not even find it necessary to thank him for his share in it. If the hon. member wants to be honest, then he will admit that Dr. Hertzog played a great role in this matter. [Interjections.] No, the hon. member for Orange Grove must listen to what I am saying now; he must not speak out of turn again. He is usually speaking out of turn.

He enjoys doing so; he thinks it earns him praise.

I want to go further and state that his speech was an irresponsible one, and I have good reason for making this assertion. He stated that the Wiehahn Commission reported on 15th November last year, Note the date: 15th November, 1967. He stated that it took the Minister and the Cabinet six months to come to a final decision in regard to what they were going to do about this matter.

Five and a half months.

No, the hon. member said six months.

I have worked it out now; it is five and a half months to the day.

But the Cabinet did not decide on the matter to-day. The Cabinet decided on the matter on 8th February. Within a period of three months after the report of the Wiehahn Commission had been submitted to the Cabinet, the Cabinet took a resolution in that regard. But the hon. member stated that it took six months. Sir, when shooting a line he goes the whole hog. Is this irresponsibility which the main speaker on the Opposition side has displayed not sufficient and justifiable reason for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to remove him from his shadow cabinet immediately? Surely he cannot have such a spectre sitting in his shadow cabinet! I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has far more reason to remove the hon. member from his shadow cabinet than the British Leader of the Opposition had for removing Mr. Powell from his shadow cabinet. But now I want to tell the hon. member that when he tried to sow suspicion in regard to the unwillingness supposedly displayed by the Cabinet in taking decisions, was the hon. member not aware that when a report is submitted it is, after all, necessary to wait for comments by the various sections of the Post Office in that regard? Is the hon. member not aware that not only the Post office is involved in this matter, but that it also affects a considerable number of other Departments, and that it was also necessary to obtain their opinions? I think that taking a resolution in the record time of three months after the report was submitted, with Christmas and the holidays in between, was really an achievement on the part of the Cabinet.

Charlie Clarkson would never have done it.

And what happened after that? A Bill had to be drawn up by the Department, and subsequently checked by the law advisers. To-day’s date has nothing to do with the matter, because this Bill was introduced as long ago as the 29th March. Where are the five and a half months the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about?

The hon. member was guilty of misrepresenting facts. He stated in his speech that there had been five grievance commissions in regard to the Post Office during the past few years. Where did the hon. member get that from? We have never yet heard of grievance commissions being appointed in regard to the activities of the Post Office. I am not aware of there having been such commissions. Apparently only the hon. member for Orange Grove is aware of them. Nobody on the other side, except that hon. member, is aware of such commissions. There were in fact commissions of inquiry in regard to the envisaged independence of the Post Office.

Also in regard to complaints by the staff.

Oh please. What impression is the hon. member trying to create? With everything he says he tries to sow suspicion against the Government. The fact of the matter is that there were quite a few commissions of inquiry in regard to this matter with which we are dealing and which has now crystallized their recommendations in the form of this Bill before us, but that is a completely natural phenomenon. The Post Office administration of South Africa is cast into the same mould as the old British Post Office. In fact, our Posts Act is derived directly from the British Posts Act. It took years for the British Post Office to become independent, and it was a gradual process, and since this process took place in Britain over a period of so many years, how can the hon. member expect it to be otherwise in South Africa, or that it could happen without it having been preceded by the institution of a proper investigation from time to time?

In addition the hon. member made a very poor study of the Bill. He was not acquainted with the Bill in regard to which he acted as chief critic. He stated that the difference between R21 million and the actual profits of the Post Office is being paid into the Post Office fund as a nest-egg. You must listen carefully now, Sir. He spoke of the difference between R21 million and the actual profits of the Post Office, but that is not the case. [Interjection.] That is what the hon. member said in his speech. Only now is he coming to his senses. What he has just said by way of interjection is in fact a denial of what he said in his speech, but he merely leaves it hanging in the air as a presentation of the actual facts, in the hope that he will get away with it and that we will not spot it, and that nobody will deny it, so that he can quote it again outside in public in order to sow suspicion against this legislation. I want to inform the hon, member that it is not a question of subtracting, but a question of adding.

But the Act speaks of the difference.

Yes, but you say it is the difference, if you subtract it, and that is all that is being paid into the Post Office fund. [Interjection.] Yes, the Act speaks of a “difference”, but the hon. member only read clause 3 (2) (b). The hon. member clean forgot about, or did not read clause 3 (2) (a) at all. What he stated there deals with the R21 million which is also being paid into the Post Office fund.

I did not deny it.

No, the hon. member did not deny it, but he said only the difference between R21 million and what the actual fund will be has been paid in. If the hon. member for Orange Grove will now concede that he is not very good at arithmetic and that in addition he cannot read very well, or that he has the tendency to skip things here and there when he reads a Bill, then he must not draw hasty conclusions. What is the conclusion he is drawing? What did he say in this regard? He said—

He asked why this R21 million had not been used. Here it becomes very apparent now how little the hon. member for Orange Grove knows about the Bill. He talks about the R21 million profit, but he did not know where this profit came from, because he did not read the Bill. He wants to know from me why this R21 million is not being utilized for capital expenditure.

Your predecessor promised to do so.

That interjection reconfirms once again the impression, the totally incorrect impression, the hon. member has of the Bill.

Show it to him on television.

This profit of R21 million is not a profit which was made in the past. It is that part of the expected profit for the financial year 1967-’68, which closed on 31st March, 1968.

A large part of that was already there. Look at the counterfoils and you will see it was already there.

Unfortunately I shall now have to read to the hon. member what the Act states. Clause 3 (2) states—

That is for the financial year 1967-’68, which ends on 31st March.

Mr. Speaker, does the business knowledge of the hon. member for Orange Grove not extend so far that he can realize that a person cannot spend funds which one still expects to make as a profit, but does not yet have, in defraying capital expenditure? Surely that is elementary. It is simply impossible for one to spend money one does not have.

Now I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove—and the hon. member for Simonstown must give him a chance to listen now—that he must not ask me ridiculous questions. I do not mind reacting to them, but I think it is doing a great deal of damage to the hon. member’s image as chief critic on that side in regard to postal affairs. He wants to know: “To what extent does he (i.e. myself) forsee that this Bill and the acceptance of business principles by the Post Office will lead to the promotion of the Republic’s foreign trade?” He states that it is not clear to him why it is specifically necessary for us to mention foreign trade in the Bill. What a ridiculous question! Why does the hon. member for Orange Grove not ask why we are placing the Post Office on a business basis in order to bring about the promotion of trade, industry and agriculture here in this country? It ought to be clear even to the hon. member that the Post Office is not being managed solely in order to render efficient communication services at home, but also to establish deliberately efficient communications with countries abroad, by which means communication with other countries, and therefore the promotion of foreign trade, will be brought about.

The hon. member’s speech was interspersed with veiled insinuations. Now I would very much like the hon. member to tell me what he meant by these insinuations. I take very strong exception to them. He was talking about the business principle, and said: “Indeed, one wonders sometimes on what principles the Post Office has been run in the past”, but the hon. member knows as well as I do that in the past the Post Office was run as a Government organ, and that only now, after this Bill has taken effect, will the Post Office be run as a business organization of the State. Why ask this question then? What does the hon. member want to insinuate by that? What does he mean by such a statement? Is he making a statement like that in order to sow suspicion in regard to the management of the Post Office at present, or in regard to the way in which the Postmaster-General, under the supervision of the Minister, is running the Post Office?

I have reservations in regard to your predecessor.

Now the hon. member is making another veiled insinuation. He stated: “I take it that it would have been highly irregular (he was talking about the Wiehahn report) of the Minister to make the report available to members of his group, and not to members of my group”. What does the hon. member wish to imply by that?

[Inaudible.]

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not an assertion one makes just like that. Does he want to imply that my predecessor, Dr. Hertzog, or I, publicize confidential Government documents? No, it is a purely innocent matter. I supposedly made it available to members of my group, but not to members of his side of the House.

I say you did not do so, but I wish you would make it available to both sides.

Yes, but why do you say that then. Does the hon. member have any doubt in that regard?

No.

But why does he say it then.

Because both sides would like to see it.

No, Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that these veiled insinuations which the hon. member for Orange Grove is making, are quite reprehensible, and I reject them with the contempt they deserve. If the hon. member lives in a glass house himself, he must not throw stones at other honest people. I want to state explicitly to the hon. member for Orange Grove to-day—it may be of great service to him in the future when we discuss Post Office matters here—that if he wants to make accusations, he should make them candidly, openly and frankly, and that he should state his proof. The hon. member will get nowhere with me if he makes use of veiled insinuations. I want to tell him in advance that the kind of veiled insinuations he makes, I am rejecting in advance with contempt. I shall only take notice of the hon. member for Orange Grove when he gets up like a man here and makes an accusation directly and produces the proof to support that accusation.

The hon. member stated that the staff associations of the Post Office had not been consulted or informed by the Wiehahn commission. I now want to tell the hon. member that the Wiehahn committee was instructed in the first place to go into the financing of the Post Office. They were also able to make recommendations in regard to the liaison between the Post Office and other Departments, including the Department of Finance, but with this reservation that as far as staff matters were concerned, the Post Office would remain linked to the Public Service as far as was practicable in order to maintain a general unified structure.

That formed part of the terms of reference.

That is what I am telling you now. Nor is the Bill, as the hon. member, will admit, introducing any far-reaching changes as far as the Post Office staff is concerned. The Public Service Act and regulations in regard to conditions of service still apply to them. The Wiehahn committee went further than that. It took into its confidence the three staff associations of the Post Office. At a special interview it informed their presidents and secretaries of the most important aspect of its findings in regard to staff matters, and they discussed it with them.

The interview was very fruitful and the staff associations expressed their appreciation in that regard. In fact, the staff associations have been pleading for the independence of the Post Office for many years. It was not necessary to hear special evidence again in regard to the matter. The Department, as well as the Wiehahn committee was fully aware from all the representations that had been made over the years, of what the staff wanted in this regard. Now the hon. member is saying, and he is being supported in this by the hon. member for Simonstown and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District), that it is a pity that the report of the Committee was not laid upon the Table. The Wiehahn report dealt with an internal matter of the Public Service. For the most part the recommendations proposed changes affecting the finances of the State and administrative arrangements between Government departments. These matters are internal affairs, and do not affect the nature of the services being rendered to the public.

Are those provisions in this Bill?

I shall furnish you with a reply in that regard. Under the circumstances it was decided that the preparation of the Report for Tabling was not justified.

I also want to inform hon. members that as regards the Wiehahn committee, the vast majority of the most important recommendations have been accepted by the Government. They are contained in the Bill now before this House. The hon. member for Orange Grove also stated that it seemed that the recommendations of the committee were not always unanimous. On what grounds can the hon. member make a statement like that? How can he make a statement like that in respect of a report which he has never seen, a report in regard to which nothing has ever been written? He stated here that it seemed to him that the recommendations of the committee were not always unanimous. On what grounds did the hon. member say that?

Let us see the report; then we shall know.

In its inquiry the Committee thrashed out all the aspects very thoroughly, and alternative approaches to these problems were carefully discussed. I can give the hon. member and other hon. members who discussed this matter, the assurance that all the members of the committee were unanimous.

Is the Wiehahn Commission report the basis of this Bill?

No, the basis of this Bill is the reports of commissions of inquiry, which have been appointed over a period of a few years, and, of course, this measure contains to a large extent the same recommendations, a consolidation of the recommendations of those commissions of inquiry. The measure is based on that, not only on the work and recommendations of this commission of inquiry only.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also wanted to know why a White Paper had not been published. The hon. members reference to what the Postmaster General said in regard to a White Paper before the Federated Chamber of Industries is correct. The Postmaster General thought that there was a possibility that a White Paper ought to have been published at an early stage. However, after reconsideration, it was decided that it was not necessary to publish such a White Paper. This measure related chiefly to the finances of the Post Office, and more specifically, to the financial arrangements which do not affect the general public directly. For the rest, the Post Office remains within the Public Service dispensation, and it retains its Staff Council, which is a development of the existing system of the Public Service Commission. If it was a question of an explanatory memorandum which we did not submit, then I want to say that we made a mistake in this sense that we would then perhaps have had an intelligent approach on behalf of the Opposition, and even on the part of the hon. member for Orange Grove, to the extent they are capable of displaying an intelligence approach, and they would perhaps have had a better knowledge of what is contained in this Bill.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the R21 million which must still be made as profit in the 1967-’68 financial year. He is asking why, since the Minister had it at his disposal, the Minister did not use it to improve the capital services of the Post Office in order to improve the telephone shortage, a shortage which is increasing by approximately 1,000 per month? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) pleaded, as a business principle, that telephones should be provided for people who did not yet have them. I do not know how one can reconcile that aspect with business principles. Of course we are trying to provide telephones for those people who do not have telephones, and who want them, but we are supplying them according to a stipulated policy we are following, and that policy will fall within the framework of this principle.

You missed the whole point of what I said.

That may be, but then the hon. member did not put his point very clearly, and he will be able to state it more clearly to me in the Committee Stage. I am realistic enough to realize that the backlog in respect of the provision of telephones has increased since local calls became more expensive with effect from 1st January, 1967. But the extra revenue was not utilized for purposes other than the improvement of services. It is not possible to convert additional money which becomes available into additional telephones straight away. Hon. members ought to know that the Post Office cannot really go ahead and utilize additional accumulative revenue for capital expansion. What happened was that the Post Office was granted additional capital funds with which to accelerate its capital expansion programme immediately prior to and subsequent to the introduction of tariff increases. The additional capital funds were as much as the Post Office was able to utilise at that stage. Of course we are also faced with problems in respect of staff shortages, particularly in regard to technical people. These people cannot always be obtained and their services cannot always be utilized so that the advantages of the extra capital appropriations can become immediately apparent. This evening I want to give this House, as well as the country outside, the assurance that since the tariff increases, the Post Office has made every effort to expand the communication system, in order to make up the backlog in respect of telephone services as rapidly as possible. But I want to add this at once. The Post Office has planned a major expansion programme, and it is continuing with that programme. However, hon. members should not expect telephones for which applications have been made to be where they should be overnight. The purchasing of land, the acquisition of buildings to accommodate apparatus, the manufacture of telephone apparatus, as well as the installation of the apparatus, are all things which take time, and it is only logical that the result of the accelerated capital works programme will not be immediately apparent. It will become apparent in due course, in the future, and within a few years we shall see major changes. We should be able to make up the backlog in the field of telecommunication services over a period of five years, provided unforeseen difficulties do not crop up.

All of five years?

Yes, five years. Do not exaggerate and go and say in your constituency to-morrow or the day after that I said 10 years.

The hon. member also spoke about the backlog of 54,000 telephones and of the many applications which were still waiting to be dealt with. But the hon. member did not say that over the past three years no less than 228,000 had been made available by the Post Office. That is more than four times as much as what the backlog was on 31st December, 1967.

Does that include transfers from one place to another as well?

Use your common sense. The hon. member for Orange Grove also said that according to the Estimates the Post Office revenue will amount to R150 million and its expenditure to R107 million. He said the Minister was therefore expecting a profit of R43 million. At this stage already he is telling me what my profit is going to be. In addition he said that it would be preferable to utilize major profits for decreases in tariffs rather than to spend everything on capital improvements. It is very clear to me that the Post Office and the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is still going to experience a great deal of difficulty with the hon. member for Orange Grove. He simply wrenches everything out of context and makes his own conclusions left, right and centre, without having made a thorough study of the matter. The hon. member is losing sight of the fact that the difference between the revenue and expenditure of the Post Office, as reflected in the Estimates, does not represent the profits. I am really surprised that the hon. member, who I hope has made a study of post office matters for so many years, does not now possess this knowledge and that I should have to supply him with it to-night. I must explain to him tonight how one calculates the profits of the Post Office. At the end of each year a profit and loss account has to be drawn up in which all the obligations and receipts of the Department are calculated. I think the hon. member is still a member of the Public Accounts Committee?

No.

He was probably a member long enough, because he is also an authority in the field of asking questions in this House regarding things which appeared in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General. If the hon. member would look at the Profit and Loss account of the Post Office in the report of the Controller and Auditor-General if would be clear to him how the profit of the Post Office is calculated. The profit for the 1968-’69 financial year will probably be more than the expected R21 million for the year 1967-’68, but it cannot be nearly as much as R43 million. The Act does not prescribe to the Post Office what portion of its expansion should be financed from revenue, and what portion should be financed from loans—that is a matter of policy. I want to inform the hon. member for Orange Grove that Parliament will also have a say in this matter when the annual estimates of the Post Office are discussed. The hon. member can accept that the profits of the Post Office will not be sufficient to finance all its capital works. Of necessity, the Post Office will, for a long time, have to finance its large scale expansion extensively from loan funds. According to business principles this is the correct course to adopt when one has to deal with a tremendous backlog of services.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg asked me whether it was not possible to change the names of the Postmaster-General’s account. He suggested that it should be something like the Post Office account, similar to the “Railways and Harbour Account”. I just want to inform the hon. member that this designation of “Postmaster-General’s Account” has been in existence since 1910 and I see no reason to change it now.

Hon. members are now trying to get away from the quotation read out here by the hon. member for Welkom in regard to what the hon. member for Constantia said, and here the hon. member for Orange Grove was at his best again with his wiles. When the hon. member began to quote, the hon. member for Orange Grove was already so nervous that he was unable to take it any longer. He then said “Yes, but you should also read the condition under which the hon. member for Constantia used those words”. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove is trying to hide behind the excuse that the United Party did not want the Post Office to become independent because they did not want to turn it into a public utility company. The hon. member for Orange Grove must tell me what a public utility company is—he must be very careful now because the hon. member for Constantia also stated in his speech what such a company was. Can the hon. member tell me what the difference is between a public utility company, and an undertaking such as the Railways?

There is Parliamentary control through the Controller and Auditor-General.

Let me quote to the hon. member what the hon. member for Constantia said. He quoted what my predecessor, the Minister of Health, had said in the Other Place, and then went on to say—

Apparently therefore the hon. member for Constantia and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), or is it Hillbrow, do not have similar views in regard to the matter. He does not have the same attitude as that of the hon. member for Constantia in regard to what a public utility is.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but nevertheless the fact remains that the hon. member for Constantia could not have had any misconception or incorrect impression in regard to what he wanted, and what he stated here in the House was the policy of the United Party. He went on to say—

He was referring to what the former Minister had said in the Other Pace—

That is, the then Minister of Finance—

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.