Mr. Speaker, I move—

INTRODUCTION

This is an historic occasion for me and the Department. It is the first separate budget ever to be introduced for the Post Office and I feel honoured to perform this task.

I wish to give the assurance that it will always be my aim on this occasion to inform this House as fully as possible with regard to current as well as expected conditions in the Post Office. Concerning the Department’s previous assessment of its trading results on a profit and loss basis, I must point out that the analysis was totally different from that which is necessary for a business undertaking. Consequently certain adjustments must necessarily be effected and to the extent that this becomes possible financial reporting in the future will be more comprehensive and in greater detail. It is necessary for example to build up proper trading and other statistics in order to be able to relate tariffs to costs and tendencies and to give a clear picture of the position to this House and the country.

The Department’s new status as a State business undertaking also calls for a new approach with regard to its functioning and management. In this connection the six Headquarter Divisions of the Department were combined under the control of three Deputy Postmasters General with effect from 1st July, 1968, and the 19 separate Divisional Control organizations in seven Regional organizations as from 1st January, 1969. Additional powers were delegated to the Regional Directors to enable them to perform a wider and more important range of functions in the areas under their control. The further rationalization of the Headquarter and Regional set-ups will be finalized in the course of this year. These steps will not only ensure improved services to the public and more efficient management, but will also bring about savings.

At the end of the financial year 1967-’68 there was a backlog of some 59,000 waiting applicants for telephone service. It is estimated that the backlog as at the end of the current financial year will be more than 73,000. Apart from increased activities with regard to the elimination of this backlog, the ensuing financial year will impose additional heavy demands on the Department and its staff as a result of the continuous extension of Post Office activities in other fields.

To illustrate the growth in the Department’s activities I should like to mention that its business turn-over has increased from R652.6 million during 1964-’65 to R834.4 million during 1967-’68, i.e. an average annual increase of more than 8.6 per cent during those three years. Similarly, the total number of postal articles handled annually has increased from 1,110 million in 1964-’65 to 1,258 million in 1967-’68 and the total number of telephone calls from 1,520 million to 1,722 million. This means an average increase of 4.2 per cent per annum in the case of postal articles and 4.3 per cent in the case of telephone calls during the particular period of three years.

Against this background, I shall now deal with the results of the financial year 1968-’69 and the expectations in respect of the financial year 1969-’70.

THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1968-’69

Capital Works

Expenditure

Although originally provision was made for an expenditure of R35.5 million on telecommunications services during the financial year 1968-’69, it is now expected that an amount of R39.5 million will be spent. This is the largest amount ever expended in one financial year on telecommunications development and exceeds the amount of the previous financial year by R9.5 million. This acceleration in the tempo of spending is the result of positive steps to expedite planning and execution and to wipe out with the least possible delay the backlog in the telecommunications field.

Telephone services

Almost 70,000 additional telephones (including extensions and other services) will be provided by the end of the financial year. This will bring the total number of telephone connections to some 1.31 million, representing an increase of 5.6 per cent in comparison with the previous financial year. These additional services were made possible by the erection of new and the extension of existing automatic exchanges. The cost involved in the erection and extension of automatic exchanges amounts to more than R12 million and in this way some 34,000 additional lines for new services were made available, whilst approximately 240 additional switchboards (almost 11,000 lines) were provided at manual exchanges.

Microwave System

The communication miles of the trunk-line system has been extended by means of carrier and microwave systems from 1.527 million to 1.750 million; an increase of more than 14 per cent. The first phase of the national microwave system, comprising more than 2,000 route miles, 55 stations and 350,000 communication miles, is now completed and all the larger cities in the Republic are connected by means of the microwave system.

Subscribers’ Trunk Dialling

The national subscribers’ trunk dialling system has been extended considerably and, with rare exceptions, all the automatic telephone areas can dial direct all the manual exchanges in their vicinity as well as many other exchanges. This entails that subscribers in Pretoria, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein, Bethlehem, Kimberley and Welkom can dial direct the majority of trunk calls to subscribers in other automatic areas, whilst subscribers in Durban, Pietermaritzburg, Klerksdorp and Pietersburg can communicate direct with all exchanges in the Witwatersrand system.

Farm-line service

As far as farm lines are concerned considerable progress has been made and at the end of the financial year there will be 99,500 farm-line telephoes. This year there has been an increase of 4,200 in comparison with 2,200 in the previous financial year and it is estimated that there will be only 1,200 waiting applicants at the end of this month. In the course of the ensuing financial year the stage will be reached where it should be possible, almost without exception, to meet applications on demand.

Submarine Cable System

The most spectacular development in the field of telecommunications in our country is without doubt the recent commissioning of the submarine cable between Cape Town and Lisbon and, in conjunction therewith, the most modern international terminal exchange here in Cape Town. This new facility enables subscribers in South Africa and South-West Africa to make calls without any appreciable delay to most other countries, whilst overseas telephone operators can dial subscribers in automatic areas in South Africa direct.

Telex service

As far as telex services are concerned, approximately 900 new services have been provided during the course of the current financial year, representing an increase of 24 per cent. The internal telex service is now completely automatic and telex subscribers throughout the Republic can dial each other direct over a distance of 1,500 miles. Direct telex circuits are now also available to Australia, France, Britain, Italy, Japan, Switzerland, the U.S.A. and West Germany.

Data Transmission

The (provision of data transmission facilities is a reasonably new need for which the Post Office must cater. This service has been extended considerably during the current financial year and data terminals have been increased from 55 to 95 and data lines from 64 to 84. Several Building Societies and other organizations are already making use of long distance connections between their branch offices and a central computer.

Land and Buildings

In the course of the current financial year good progress has been made with the provision of accommodation in the various fields.

Hirings

The Department makes use to the fullest extent possible of hired accommodation for accommodating small post offices at remotely situated towns, and branch post offices and clerical sections in the cities. Together with the new accommodation for which leases were concluded during this financial year, the number of hirings now total approximately 1,200. In this way the Department succeeded reasonably in overcoming the problems encountered in connection with the shortage of buildings.

Official Residences

The Department has succeeded in expediting the progress with the provision of official houses for its staff. The amount of R500,000 originally provided for this purpose has been increased to R700,000, and it is expected that approximately 70 additional houses will be provided during this financial year.

Minor Works and Maintenance

It is expected that an amount of R970,000 will be expended during 1968-’69 on minor works on and the maintenance of certain post office buildings. As far as possible, small post office buildings not exceeding the minor works limit are also erected under this provision. During the past 18 months altogether nine such works have been completed.

Purchase of Land

The shortage of building sites often in the past seriously delayed the Department’s building programme. A factor which largely contributed to this, is the special requirements which apply in connection with the siting of a post office, in that a specific position is dictated by practical and economic considerations, particularly with regard to the existing or planned cable and other telecommunication construction. Since the Post Office now controls its own finances and commands the necessary authority in connection with the purchase of land, it is now in a better position efficiently to meet its needs for building sites. Its own buying organization has already been properly equipped for the task.

Major Works

Business Results

The total operating expenses for the financial year 1968-’69 are estimated at R126,865,500. This amount consists of the total revised estimate of expenditure, i.e. R115,157,900, plus R10,390,500 provided for in the Estimates of other Departments, plus R2,867,100 of which particulars do not appear in the Revised Estimates (since the sub-heads and items have been changed to conform to the amended form of the Estimates) minus R1,550,000 provided on behalf of the S.A.B.C. Hon. members will observe that provision on behalf of the South African Broadcasting Corporation is no longer made in the Post Office Estimates. This provision will now be incorporated in the Estimates of the Minister of Finance.

Gross receipts for the financial year 1968-’69 are estimated at R177,906,000. This amount consists of the operating surplus of the previous financial year (R23,444,764), allocated to the Post Office in terms of the Re-adjustment Act; 1968, and an operating revenue of approximately R154,462,000. The increased operating revenue is mainly derived from the 1c increase on local call units introduced at the beginning of 1967.

The total gross receipts enables the Department to finance in full its operating costs and capital expenditure and leaves a surplus of R5,403,000, which will be carried forward as an opening balance to the new financial year.

As far as the capital expenditure is concerned, I wish to explain that although the amount of R45,637,500 is provided under Loan Account, it is not regarded by the State as a loan. As provision for the capital expenditure of the Post Office was still incorporated in the joint Appropriation Act of 1968-’69, the amount had to be included in the Loan Account for budgetary purposes. It is, however, being defrayed from the moneys received by the Post Office in the course of the financial year.

THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1969-’70

We live in a period of phenomenal development in well-nigh every conceivable field of our existence. Apart from the backlog in certain fields to be wiped out, the expansion that is taking place in the country imposes ever greater demands on the Post Office. Without efficient communication facilities the country’s economic and social development cannot come into its own. The progress of the Post Office and the steps that are contemplated to improve and further extend the various services at greater speed, are clearly reflected in the estimates and in the expected development during the ensuing financial year.

I shall now proceed to deal with the new financial year’s capital expenditure under the following headings:

• Postal services
• Telecommunication services
• Purchase of Land
• Buildings
• Redemption of Loans
• Housing.

Postal services

Steps are continually taken to facilitate and expedite the handling of postal articles. A letter sorting machine has already been installed in Pretoria for practical experiments.

Machines automatically picking up postal articles like newspapers, parcels and letters, facing up these articles and cancelling the stamps are being used successfully in overseas countries. Since a big staff is required for this type of work at each of the larger sorting offices in our country, facing-up/cancelling machines have been ordered for the purpose of relieving the staff position as well as for expediting the facing-up/cancelling processes. An amount of R535,000 is required for this purpose, while an amount of R195,700 is requested for the purchase of motor vehicles for use on postal services.

Telecommunication services

An amount of R52,302,000 is requested for the further expansion and modernization of the telecommunication system. In this manner it is contemplated to provide more than 75,000 additional telephones, which will increase the number of connections by April, 1970, to approximately 1.53 million.

Although the additional number of telephones expected to be provided during the new financial year is only 5,000 more than that provided during the previous financial year, I must point out once again that it is not merely a question of providing additional telephone services to wipe out the backlog. To achieve this, much more is necessary, e.g. new exchanges must be built or existing ones must be enlarged and cables must be laid. An important task, however, is also to extend proportionately the capacity of the whole telephone network in order to eliminate bottlenecks in the handling of traffic. This requires the design, manufacture and installation of a large quantity of complicated and sophisticated apparatus and unavoidably prevents a telecommunications system from being extended and improved at short notice. In the new financial year over R8.5 million more than in the previous financial year will be spent on capital works to extend the capacity of the system.

Automatic Exchanges

Seven manual exchanges will be converted into automatic exchanges, 21 other automatic exchanges will be enlarged and a further two new automatic exchanges will be taken into commission.

Seven contracts to the value of R2,608,000 have been allocated to suppliers of telephone equipment for the installation of big automatic telephone exchanges. This will not only expedite the work in this connection, but will also release the Department’s trained staff for other essential and urgent works, since the contractors make use exclusively of their own staff.

Subscribers’ trunk dialling

During the past three years more than R12 million has been spent to provide the country with a national subscribers’ trunk dialling system. In this way the automatic trunk system has been extended enormously, with the result that 60 per cent of all trunk calls can be dialled by subscribers. Large-scale extensions of these facilities are contemplated in the new financial year, also in Johannesburg, and this will enable all subscribers on the Witwatersrand to dial direct to subscribers in all other automatic exchange systems throughout the country. It will also assist in relieving the congestion at present experienced in the Witwatersrand system. This important step forward will bring about considerable advantages for the public in general and for business concerns in particular.

Upon completion of these extensions all subscribers, with the exception of those in Cape Town, Durban and Pietermaritzburg, will be able to dial almost all subscribers at automatic systems direct. (Cape Town will be incorporated in the network by the end of 1970 and Durban and Pietermaritzburg during 1971).

Telex services

The number of telex services will increase by 800 to a total of 5,400; the completion of the international telex exchange in Pretoria by the middle of 1969 and the use of the submarine cable will enable telex subscribers in South Africa to obtain telex calls to most Western countries without delay. Oversea telex subscribers will be able to dial subscribers in South Africa direct; the same service will be available in the opposite direction by the middle of 1970. New applications will be met on demand almost without exception, in other words, there will be no waiting list.

Microwave System

Three additional microwave systems will be taken into commission and, by means of a great number of carrier systems and additional circuits on microwave systems, the number of trunk and junction lines will be increased by 2,250 to 18.750. There will then be a total of approximately 2 million trunk communication miles.

Data transmission

It is expected that the number of data terminals will be increased in the course of the year from 95 to 200 and the number of data lines from 84 to 134. Data transmission is increasing in popularity and special arrangements are in train for making available the circuits necessary for the provision of such services to business concerns with the least possible delay.

Computer

For the purposes of improving and streamlining various work processes in the Post Office, a contract was concluded during May, 1968, for the supply of a computer to the Department. Progress is being made with the development of procedures and systems to conform to the requirements of the computer and it is expected that various programmes will be available when the equipment is delivered during the first half of 1970.

Purchase of Land

In order to meet our needs for additional building sites, an amount of R600,000 is provided for in the Estimates.

Buildings

An amount of R7,618,950 is requested for buildings.

For the rendering of adequate and efficient services, suitable buildings and the rate at which they can be provided are of great importance. In this field—and this applies to living as well as working accommodation—the Department has a large backlog. Its needs—which are growing continually—are assessed at 430 new buildings for working accommodation and 810 official residences for the staff.

I should like to take this opportunity to extend appreciation to the Department of Public Works, which undertakes the erection of large building works for the Post Office, for its positive endeavours to assist the Post Office in catching up with the backlog in this important field. Without the sound co-operation of that Department the task would have been a far more difficult one.

Redemption of Loans

For the repayment of capital on existing and new loans an amount of R7,007,000 is provided for in the Estimates.

Housing

An amount of R1,050,000 is included in the Estimates for the erection and purchase of official living accommodation for postal officials. This amount is necessary to provide, with the least possible delay, more living accommodation for postal officials, especially in the country areas, where they experience many problems in finding accommodation. These officials are subject to transfer and the Post Office is morally obliged to provide suitable accommodation for them at the fastest possible rate. The amount requested includes R300,000 in respect of South-West Africa. It is contemplated to increase the rate at which these residences are provided to at least 100 per annum.

Telephone System of the Durban Corporation

Another important step is the incorporation into the national telecommunications network, with effect from 1st April, 1969, of the Durban Corporation’s telephone system. This emanates from an agreement concluded with the City Council of Durban whereby the State will take over the system at a purchase price not exceeding R18.8 million. Agreement has also been reached regarding the staff of the Durban Corporation who will join the Post Office with the take-over of the system, and legislation to protect their rights will be introduced later. Provision is made in the Estimates for an amount not exceeding R18.8 million for this purpose.

Re-adjustment of relations with South-West Africa

Arising from legislation introduced this year with regard to the re-adjustment of financial and administrative relations between the Republic and South-West Africa, the post office service in South-West Africa will be incorporated into that of the Republic with effect from 1st April, 1969. The additional expenditure in connection with the operation of the service in the Territory has been included in the Estimates.

Staff

As in any other undertaking, the human resources of the Post Office are also its most important asset. At the outset I wish, therefore, to convey to the Postmaster General and all the members of the Post Office staff my sincere thanks and appreciation for the efficient services they are rendering. If we take into account the increase in the Department’s activities which I mentioned earlier, and note that the Department’s authorized staff establishment increased by an average of only 2.4 per cent per annum during the three years 1964-’65 to 1967-’68, we have striking evidence of the high productivity of the staff.

At the end of last year I gave the staff the assurance that, as regards salary improvements, they would not be worse off than officials in the rest of the Public Service. This means that as from 1st April, 1969, all fulltime white and non-white officers and employees of the Post Office (excepting non-whites remunerated according to the system of local rates of pay) will be paid a pensionable allowance of 6 per cent of their basic salaries. This arrangement will not, however, apply to the technician and artisan groups for whom special provision is being made.

Before dealing further with the salary improvements, I should like to mention that, in so far as service conditions are concerned, it has also now been decided to divorce the Post Office from the rest of the Public Service. Legislation to achieve this has already been introduced.

Professional Group

The Department is to a large degree dependent upon its engineers for the planning and development of its telecommunications network. In order to eliminate the present backlog and to provide for increasing requirements the present network will have to be doubled within the next ten years. Sufficient engineers are essential for this purpose, and with a view to the recruitment of additional engineers and the retention of the services of serving engineers, new salary and posts structures are being introduced for this group of officers. It also entails the creation of posts of Senior Engineer to provide improved promotion prospects for enginneers.

Technical Group

Sufficient technicians are essential for the development and maintenance of the telecommunications network. The training of a single technician costs about R5,000 and the Department cannot, therefore, afford to lose the services of such officers. Consequently, and also to stimulate the recruitment of technicians, a new salary structure is being introduced for this group. This will result, inter alia, in the payment of higher commencing salaries to this group of officers.

To provide for the training of more technicians, the obsolete and inadequate facilities for the training of technicians at Baragwanath are being replaced by a new college and a hostel which are being erected at Olifantsfontein. Tenders for these projects closed on 24th February and it is expected that building operations will commence early in the new financial year. The project is estimated to cost R2,118,000. Additional training equipment costing approximately R500,000 has already been ordered for the college and comprises the most modern in the world in the telecommunications field. Training of a continually rising standard which is necessary to keep pace with the phenomenal technological advancements will be provided at the new college.

Clerical/Administrative Group

The commencing salaries of Administrative Assistants are being increased. Matriculants will start at R1,200 per annum and those in possession of a Junior Certificate at R1,020 per annum.

With the amalgamation of grades which took place on 1st January, 1966, a considerable number of officers lost their administrative status, and I am pleased to be able to announce that the following grades are being re-introduced—

• Postmaster, Grade IV
• Superintendent
• Senior Clerk
• Assistant Accountant.

The salary scale R3,000 × 120 - 3,600 will apply to these grades.

The foregoing will result in the regarding on a higher scale of the salaries of the next higher grades, namely, Postmasters, Grade III, etc.

Postmen and Male Telephonists

For some considerable time now the Department has been encountering serious difficulty in recruiting enough Whites for these types of work at certain places, and in retaining the services of those already in its employ. There is a general labour shortage, but in these two grades there is an abnormally high staff turnover owing to the unpopularity of the work. To provide relief at particular centres, such as Johannesburg and Pretoria, where the most serious shortages are experienced, an improved salary scale and accelerated salary progression are being introduced there for postmen and male telephonists, and at those places the grades of Senior Postman and Senior Male Telephonist are also being re-introduced.

Female Telephonists

Here too, improved salaries and accelerated salary progression are being introduced at the points where the greatest difficulty is experienced, such as Johannesburg, together with the re-introduction of the grade Senior Female Telephonist.

Artisans

In view of the expansion of the telephone network, it is essential that more liberal provision should also be made for skilled artisans who are employed, for example, on the maintenance of air-conditioning systems in automatic telephone exchanges, emergency power plants and mechanical aids. Consequently an improved salary scale for Senior Artisans is being introduced and a new grade of Chief Artisan is being created.

Cost of salary improvements

All these improvements will become effective on 1st April, 1969, and will entail an estimated additional expenditure of R7.8 million.

House Ownership Scheme

As a result of the ruling prices of properties and the rate of interest at which loans can be made available, Post Office officials are finding it increasingly difficult to acquire homes of their own. It gives me pleasure, therefore, Mr. Speaker, to announce that the Government has decided that the Post Office may introduce a staff house ownership scheme. Details of the scheme are still to be worked out, but it will provide for a considerable portion of the interest liability on such loans being borne by the Post Office. An initial amount of R2.5 million is included in the Budget for this purpose. This concession will also contribute largely towards making the service conditions of Post Office officials more attractive.

Expected operating results 1969-’70 and expected closing balance

The total operating expenditure for the financial year 1969-’70 is estimated at R154,939,000 and the revenue at R172,170,000, thus leaving a gross surplus of revenue over expenditure of R17,231,000. Taking into account the surplus of approximately R5,403,000 from the financial year 1968-’69, which is being carried forward to the 1969-’70 financial year as an opening balance, and an estimated amount of R6 million from accumulated funds in the Telecommunications Renewals and Development Account and Government Buildings Account of the South-West Africa Administration which will accrue to the Department as a result of the re-adjustment of financial and administrative relations between the Republic and South-West Africa, a surplus of approximately R28,634,000 is expected to be available. Of this amount, R24,308,650 will be applied towards defraying part of the capital expenditure of R88,108,650. The remaining capital expenditure of R63,800,000, comprising R18.8 million for the purchase of the Durban Corporation’s telephone system and R45 million for capital works, will be financed from loans obtained from the Treasury. The Department accordingly expects that the financial year 1969-’70 will close with a surplus of approximately R4.3 million, which will be carried forward to the next financial year as an opening balance.

TABLING

I now lay upon the Table—

Mr. Speaker, this being the first Budget presented by the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, I think it behoves us to convey to him our congratulations on this auspicious occasion. At the same time I think I express the pleasure of all of us on this side of the House that after so many years of struggle, in which the United Party played no small part, the Post Office has taken another important step on its road to autonomy under the law. The third cause for satis faction is to see to-day amongst those present in the House the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. We are indeed glad that he is here. He has not been as regular a visitor as we would have wished, but I shall have something to say to him later in this debate and I sincerely hope that he will contribute to this debate in the way he has so inimitably done in the past.

I wish to say in the beginning that we on this side are labouring under some difficulty in regard to this Budget speech of the hon. the Minister. We received copies only when the Minister started his speech and we thank him for that concession, but I trust that the House will realize that the opportunity granted on other occasions when other budgets are presented, where the House is adjourned so that a study can be made of the ministerial Budget speech, has not been granted to us in this instance. I trust the House will realize these difficulties and I hope that this system will be regarded as an experiment only and that as the result of our experience the necessary changes might be made in future.

I have congratulated the hon. the Minister on his Budget speech, it is true, but when it comes to the content of the speech I am afraid there is small cause for rejoicing. We notice that of the profits announced by the hon. the Minister, only the paltry sum of R7.6 million is being applied towards increasing the salaries of the staff; only a small proportion of the actual profits which are being made is being used for that purpose. The staff had looked forward to getting an increase of at least 6 per cent, and on that basis they had the right to look for more, instead of only expecting this basic 6 per cent. As my colleague here says, they had hoped for 10 per cent, based on newspaper reports. We also notice with dismay that the difficulties in regard to staff, overtime and building accommodation appear to be no nearer solution than they were a year ago. In fact, in some cases there is a decline in the position. We notice with frustration, and even with anger, that the telephone shortage is even worse to-day than it was a month ago, two months ago and a year ago, instead of there being the improvement we had fondly hoped for. We notice further with shock that there was no mention in the hon. the Minister’s speech of that organization of which he appoints the Board of Governors, namely the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation, and we notice with further deep disappointment that there has not been a single word to indicate that at last some constructive steps might be taken in regard to television. It is clear to me that the hon. the Minister has not yet got a full grasp of the extent of his duties and obligations. What we have had is no courageous Budget, but a pedestrian and plodding document. In view of this, I wish to move the following amendment—

1. (1) the Post Office will in practice be run on business lines and that it will, inter alia, ensure—
   1. (a) a reasonable post, salary and wage structure for a full complement of staff, operating under better working conditions;
   2. (b) the elimination of the unparalleled shortage of telephones; and
   3. (c) an improved, streamlined and expeditious postal and modern telecommunication service to the public;
2. (2) the monopolistic, one-sided and intolerant political propaganda of the South African Broadcasting Corporation will be terminated and replaced by an impartial, modern and factual service in the best traditions of broadcasting; and
3. (3) immediate and effective steps will be taken to ensure the introduction of a high-grade, impartial and self-sustaining television service for the Republic”.

This, Sir, you will realize is only a condensed version of what we could actually have said in our amendment about the hon. the Minister and his administration. In the short time that I have, I wish to deal with the Budget and with the duties of the hon. the Minister under the following headings, namely, finance, staff, service to the public, the S.A.B.C., and television.

Let me deal firstly with finance. The picture the hon. the Minister has painted of the financial affairs of the Post Office is one of a reasonable surplus of funds, one might almost say of a dam bursting with money, but what is lacking are the proper channels for diverting that surplus of water for the most fruitful purposes to which they can be applied in this country. Let us remember, Sir, that we have the admission that he made to us ten minutes ago that the profits made by the Post Office are mainly due to one factor and to one factor only, and that factor is the increase of one cent in the telephone charges to the public. Sir, is that something to be proud of where the hon. the Minister has the final say in regard to matters such as this, where he is in full charge of a monopoly and can arbitrarily increase his income at any stage? The hon. the Minister was honest enough to admit that his income increased as a result of these increased telephone charges and the resultant increased telephone revenue. Sir, I wonder what the experience of hon. members has been, whether their experience has been the same as mine, and that is that nowadays when you try to get a number on the telephone it is very often only at the third or the fourth attempt that you get the correct number, after three or four wrong numbers, and you know, Sir, that for those two or three wrong numbers the subscriber has to pay. I ask the hon. the Minister to deny that the public of South Africa are paying for every wrong number to which they are connected. No wonder the profits of the Post Office are increasing by millions and millions of rand to-day. Sir, we are glad to see the surplus that the hon. the Minister has announced and also the surplus that he has announced for the ensuing year. He has given us a vast number of figures. It seems as if his cash surplus is in the vicinity of R52 million, of which R23 million, however, is represented by what he got as a first contribution to the Post Office Fund. Then he has cut it down in certain other respects too and he has brought it down to about R4.2 million. Of course, it is difficult to judge the actual way in which the Post Office is progressing nowadays, because unfortunately over the past year we have not had the statistics and the figures that we should have liked to have. Sir, I am not going to criticize the Minister strongly in this regard, but it is a fact that if you wanted to know what the income and expenditure and what the exchequer receipts and issues were in respect of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or the Railway and Harbour Fund, you could go to the Government Gazette every month and find the particulars there. Unfortunately this has not been the case during the past year in regard to the Post Office Fund. I believe the Minister is in agreement with me that that state of affairs is less desirable than it could be and I trust that he will ensure that in future we have regular monthly statements of the income and expenditure of the Post Office Fund. We do not know, for instance, and we did not hear from the hon. the Minister whether he was satisfied with the way in which the contributions to the Post Office Fund and the recent additional amount voted to the Post Office Fund were adjusted. Is he satisfied that the Minister of Finance has given him the proper amount after the adjustment for the services rendered by the Post Office to other departments? Is he satisfied with that? The hon. the Minister of Finance is very satisfied. He undoubtedly came the best out of the deal. He had the better of the deal by far. But let us hear from the hon. the Minister whether he is satisfied with the deal that the Post Office has been getting.

Sir, we had expected an improvement in the Post Office over the past two years, but we have been alarmed by certain facts that we have read about in official documents. I want to mention here in passing some of these factors which have alarmed us, and I would like an assurance this afternoon from the hon. the Minister that the alarming figures I am going to quote now will not be as bad in the ensuing year. Do you know, Sir, that in one year the losses through theft and fraud in the Post Office administration doubled from R54,000 to R102,000—not through faults of the staff, the public were largely responsible, but there was not sufficient staff to exercise supervision and to ensure that this would not occur. Do you know, Sir, that damage to and thefts from call boxes increased by 60 per cent in a single year; that losses through the theft of wire and cable increased by 100 per cent; that losses through the writing off of stores and equipment increased from R138,000 to R241,000, an increase of almost 100 per cent? I can mention many instances of maladministration. I think of one where it was decided to make certain alterations to a Post Office building, after the plans had been drawn up and the architect and the other responsible people had been paid thousands of rand. Those plans had to be changed and the money spent was lost. This involved R16,000 of the public’s money. Sir, we are indeed justified in asking that the Post Office should in fact be run on business principles. We on this side have been kind to the Minister. We have agreed to give him the greater powers that he needed. There is still further legislation to come which will give him greater powers, and he will not find us unreasonable in granting those powers to him. We are prepared to give him the powers, but we demand that he indicates by his deeds and by his results in practice that the grants that we have given him have been justified.

Sir, I now come to the staff. Here we have a picture of a hard-working, conscientious, overworked and dedicated body of men. [Laughter.] Sir, however much the hon. member for Maitland may laugh at the difficulties of the staff, however much he may ridicule their hard work, we on this side say “all honour to the members of the Post Office staff”. We honour these men and women—more than 40,000 of them—for the great work they are doing. We sympathize with them for having to work close on nine million hours of overtime a year, more than in any other department, apart possibly from the Railways. We sympathize with the staff, who have waited too long for these salary increases, which probably will only catch up now with the increases in the cost of living over the past many months while they have been waiting for these increases. Sir, I wish the hon. the Minister had been kinder to the staff and had made these increases retrospective to Christmas Day last year. He would then at least have given the staff a fine Christmas Box instead of these belated rises. The hon. the Minister in his Budget speech announced certain new scales and certain new adjustments of posts. Sir, these are acceptable but again I say it is not enough. If you compare how basically the wage and the post structure on the Railways differs from that of the Post Office, you can see how much more can be done with a view to obtaining a new post structure. It is no use the hon. the Minister telling me that he is waiting for legislation. He can do this under present legislation if he can persuade the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of the Interior not to interfere. He can do so before new legislation is adopted. We are concerned, Sir, to see that staff losses, as stated in the report, totalled 12,737 in one year. I cannot imagine that the position has improved, because last month speaking in Bloemfontein the Minister said: “Die personeelverliese in die jongste tyd baar kommer.” So I cannot imagine there has been much improvement. On the contrary, it would seem as if the position is becoming even worse. Unless the Minister can establish a post structure in which there are more higher administrative and technical posts, and many more of them, he will not get as many people in the postal services as he would like. Only two per cent of the posts in the Post Office structure are these higher posts, while in the case of other departments, for instance the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, 8 per cent of the total number of posts are higher paid posts. No wonder that at the present moment the Post Office is not such an attractive proposition for people who might want to work there.

I come closer home to the Minister and I want to blame him for the deplorable working conditions under which thousands upon thousands of his staff have to work every day. He is the one who should see to it that over-time is properly and judiciously applied, he is the one who should see to it that his people do not work so much overtime that their task is made utterly impossible to-day. I will not only make an accusation, I will also give an example to illustrate what I mean. I will give the example of the exchange staff in our big cities. These hard-working young men handle our telephone calls, including trunk calls, night and day. I am going to tell the House what the hours of hundreds of them are. First of all, more than 80 per cent of them have to start work at five every morning. Their first three hours are so-called “ordinary” time, and then, for some reason or other, this is followed by four hours overtime; that gives us seven hours altogether. After that they get five hours off, i.e. from 12 noon to 5 p.m., during which time they are at a loose end. At 5 p.m. they have to start working again and they only finish at 10 that night. In other words, they start working at 5 o’clock in the morning and they do not finish until 10 o’clock that same night. I was told that dozens of these young men have to get up as early as 3.30 in the morning to catch a train to their offices, and they cannot get a train back home until 11.30 in the evening. This means they scarcely have sufficient sleep. I think the public should bear in mind when they do have difficulties with the exchanges in our big cities what terrific strain these people are working under. I blame the Minister for this state of affairs.

He is a slave-driver.

Someone has said he is a slave-driver—well, he is indeed the Simon Legree of the Post Office.

The worst thing is these staff members may not complain properly. They are ordered to make use of certain channels before they can lodge their complaints even with hon. members of this House.

Those people are treated almost the same as the Railwaymen.

Yes, it is almost as bad, Sir. I am sure the hon. the Minister learnt many bad habits when he was the Deputy Minister of Transport. There was a notorious circular last year, circular no. 371, forbidding Post Office workers from bringing their complaints to authorities except through clearly defined channels. So bad are these provisions that the Postal and Telegraph Herald, the official organ of the biggest staff organization of this department, wrote the following—

He is said to be like a man with a machine-gun with a cartridge belt fully loaded. That is how members of his staff to-day see the Minister in this respect.

I think I have dealt at sufficient length with the staff and I come now to the services to the public. We are, above all, disappointed, we are amazed, we are angered because there has been no improvement in the telephone shortage position in this country. Indeed, the Minister had to admit that since he last gave figures to this House there has been an increase of 1,000 in the total of 72,000 telephones needed and which have not been supplied to applicants who are still waiting. It is an appalling state of affairs striking at the root of our economy; it is causing wastage; it is causing frustration. I trust the public of South Africa will note the silence on the part of the hon. members sitting behind the Minister on this subject. Most of them have never yet opened their mouths to plead for their constituents who demand, who are crying for telephones to-day. What is more, the position is going to worsen, it is going to get worse and worse, before there is any real sign of improvement. [Interjections.] It is interesting to see the lack of consideration with which hon. members opposite treat this vital problem to-day. To them it is a laughing matter that thousands of people in this country cannot get telephones, it is a laughing matter that thousands of people in their own constituencies cannot get telephones.

The Minister gave us certain figures about new telephones that will be installed. I challenge him to say that the number of new installations which he has mentioned will in any way considerably reduce the backlog within the next 12 months. I challenge him in his reply to state that. He knows the backlog will not be reduced, he knows the figures he gave us here are in fact meaningless when it comes to the most important point of all, namely, will the backlog become smaller? We have had excuses and we have had a grim picture of worse things yet to come. What an admission of inefficiency, what an admission of lack of drive on the part of the hon. the Minister!

Let me as an example quote to him what is happening in certain other countries. I shall not use the customary example of the U.S.A. Let us take another country which has a postal system very similar to ours, namely Great Britain, and let us see what is being done there according to the latest White Paper issued by the British Government. The White Paper states that in Britain over half of the requests for new telephones and three-quarters of the requests for miscellaneous work are completed within 21 days. You can get your telephone within 21 days of applying for it. I received a letter yesterday from a person who has been waiting for six years for a telephone. He lives in Pretoria, he is a prominent public servant, and he is writing to me now. In Britain this year 315 new telephone exchanges are being installed. Do you know, Sir, how many new exchanges we have in this country compared to the position two years ago, according to the figures given in the latest report of the department? Not 20, not 10, not nine, not five, not one—indeed, we have one exchange less than what we had two years ago! This is despite the fact that there have been so many lines added and extended, as the Minister will no doubt tell us. He spoke about the telex services which are at last being improved. Four thousand new telex services in a single year were introduced in Britain, more than the total in the whole of South Africa since the year dot.

The hon. the Minister spoke about capital expenditure. It sounds impressive, R88 million, part of which is to go to the Durban Corporation I believe. Sir, it is a paltry sum, compared again with Britain, which has a system similar to ours, where the capital programme for one year amounts not to R88 million, but to R680 million. In Britain 850,000 new phones are supplied annually. The paltry figures of the hon. the Minister fade into insignificance in comparison with this other country that has a system which is the same as ours. It is quite clear to me that the hon. the Minister has shown no real drive in attempting to solve the telecommunication crisis.

What is the comparison in relation to the number of people in Britain?

That is a fair question. I should like the hon. the Minister of Transport to work out a comparison on the basis of our population and that of Britain of what is being done. He will find that in Great Britain they are doing three to four times, comparatively speaking, as much as is being done in South Africa. If the hon. the Minister worked that out, he will find that I am correct. This telecommunication problem is a great problem and the hon. the Minister should make use of the experts on his side. I am sure he has many experts. They have an expert: I am thinking of the hon. member for Pretoria (District), particularly when it comes to tape recorders and telephones. There is an association between those two instruments. I would like him to take part in this debate and give us some of his vast experience in telecommunication.

There are other postal services I wish to deal with. The delivery of post in the big cities is to-day a frustrating factor in our economy and our daily lives. I think it is disgraceful that there should be only one delivery a day in these modern years of ours. Again I refer the hon. the Minister to the White Paper in regard to the position in Great Britain. It says that “the percentage of fully-paid letter mail delivered on or before the first working day after posting rose to 93 per cent”. One posts a letter in Great Britain; in 93 per cent of the cases that letter is delivered the same or the next working day. Why can it not be done in this country? It is done throughout Great Britain, from Lands End to John O’Groats.

The hon. the Minister spoke about buildings. I think he has painted a sad picture of the situation in this country, indeed. When he spoke a month ago, he said that there was a backlog of more than 400 in big buildings costing more than R15,000. In his Budget speech to-day he increased that figure to 430. What he did not tell the House, was that his estimate last month was that of those 400 large buildings that are urgently needed, no more than 230 will have been completed or will be nearing completion by the end of the next five years. Half the present backlog will have been taken up in five years. One’s imagination can only boggle at the size of the real backlog after these five years.

I am coming now to the next topic, namely the “ghost topic”, the topic which was never mentioned. The Minister evaded the question of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. I start off by saying that I think it is most deplorable that we do not have, as we have had in the past, the annual report of the South African Broadcasting Corporation available to us. The latest report we have is 15 months old. I admit there are difficulties connected with the change-over to this new system. I trust the hon. the Minister will do his best to persuade the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C. to change their financial year or to make the necessary arrangements so that the actions of the S.A.B.C. can be timeously discussed in Parliament during this Budget, and that we have the latest report available. In regard to the S.A.B.C., I must say that I had expected a statement from the hon. the Minister, more particularly in regard to challenges which have been thrown at him; not so much by our side of the House, but by his own side, his own newspapers.

Ask your Leader whether he has ever reacted.

I should very much like the hon. the Minister to put those questions to my Leader. One thing I do know, is that if criticism had been made against the United Party by an official Nationalist publication, with Ministers on the board of directors, and with the support of the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, my Leader would not have remained silent. He is too much a man of courage and determination. The S.A.B.C. is an organization which is dominated to-day by a “Broederbond” hierarchy. It is heedless of control. It is reckless in its irresponsibility. It is a grotesque example of a monopoly gone berserk. It has become so powerful to-day that it is turning on its own creator. At last the Government is awakening to the fact that the S.A.B.C. might be going too far and that it is too violent in its criticism. Let it be noted that it is not on account of the principle that the S.A.B.C. should not be biased or intolerant, but solely because that bias and that partiality has now been directed against the Government itself and its own newspapers. We have read the most scathing criticism of the S.A.B.C. and its programme “Current Affairs” in a recent leading article in Die Beeld. I might as well quote it. Die Beeld wrote the following (translation)—

“Oppervlakkig, partydig en onsmaaklik” are the words of one of the chief Nationalist newspapers, Die Beeld.

Did an English newspaper not write that?

No. These are the words coming from the ivory tower of a Nationalist newspaper, directed at the organization controlled, or supposed to be controlled, by an hon. Minister in this Cabinet. That was a direct accusation.

Which of those Ministers are on the board?

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

It is interesting to read in this article how Die Beeld goes from the general to the particular and accuses Current Affairs of being guilty of distasteful gibberish, “onsmaaklike gebrabbel”, and of “an arrogant and tasteless chunk of ignorance”. This is fighting talk. It is good and aggressive journalism, reminiscent of Addison of The Spectator, or the leading article writer of The Thunderer, 150 years ago. It is quite amusing to see how the Government is now belatedly discovering that this Current Affairs programme which had tickled them so much in the past, is really a viper in their own bosom. There is one important part of that leading article that cannot go unnoticed, and that is a challenge to the hon. the Minister, a challenge by Die Beeld. Die Beeld says this—

This is a challenge to the hon. the Minister. This is his test to-day. This is his chance to show whether he is a Minister and a man, or a pawn and a peon. [Interjections.] Let me say to my hon friend, the hon. the Minister: “Basie, ou vriend, is jy Basie of is jy ’n Hasie?”

Order!

Is the hon. the Minister prepared to force the S.A.B.C. to be impartial in future? Will he show who the boss is; he, the Minister of the sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, or the gloomy Torquemada of the S.A.B.C., Dr. Piet Meyer? I challenge the hon. the Minister to show the country that he is a man of courage who can put the S.A.B.C. in its place. At the same time, I also challenge the previous hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs—I understand he is only out of the House for a couple of minutes—to come into this debate and to tell us what he thinks of these shocking broadcasts in Current Affairs at the present moment and also what he thinks of this leading article of Die Beeld. We should like to see the great unanimity of which we hear so much in the ranks of the Government party on matters such as these—how they stand together, “verkramp en verlig”, north and south … [Interjections.] In the very few minutes that are left to me I want to raise the last matter at this parliamentary feast, namely television. I again want to express my deep disappointment that the hon. the Minister has given us nothing constructive in regard to that. What he has said holds no hope or genuine promise.

He lays down his conditions.

I have had the opportunity, as that hon. member too has had no doubt, to analyse in detail the speech recently made by the hon. the Minister in which he laid down six so-called “points” about the introduction of television. I am going to give the hon. the Minister my analysis of the key sentence in that speech and he must tell me whether I am wrong. The key sentence in that speech on television was—

Let us analyse that sentence.

They want to cooperate with the inevitable.

The hon. the Minister does not want to introduce television, he has to be forced into it by technological developments and other circumstances. What are these technological developments? I think that both he and Dr. Piet Meyer have let the cat out of the bag. There have been reports in scientific journals abroad that within six or seven years it will be possible for television broadcasts from other countries to be telecast by a satellite to South Africa without the intervention of a receiving station in South Africa. In other words, one will have direct television broadcasts. It is because they are afraid of that that they may be forced to introduce television. It is also because they are afraid of the fact that in one of the Bantu states on our borders there might be a television service, that they will have to introduce one of their own.

Do you really think you have discovered a great secret now?

The hon. the Minister says that it is not a secret. In other words, it is true; it is a well-known fact. This Government will have to be dragged by its hair into television. If television does come it will be based on fear. But even so, it will be better than nothing. We on this side will continue our demands for television, and we shall get television despite this hon. Minister, and despite his fears we shall get a good television service.

The hon. the Minister can no longer talk about television costing so much. We no longer hear the frantic words of the hon. member for Innesdal, who is copiously making notes and, I trust, will also enter this debate. He once predicted that the cost of a colour television service in this country would be R300 million per year. The hon. the Minister for his limited service, has very fairly mentioned the running expense item of R3½ million per year, that is apart from the programme, and R24½ million including the first year’s capital expenditure. So, this bogey has been slain. There is another bogey and that is that we do not have sufficient technical manpower in this country to run a television service. If we do not have sufficient technical manpower, I want to ask the Minister one thing—I hope he will reply to it—and that is, why did we have sufficient manpower to send technicians of the S.A.B.C. to Malawi to give them, according to a report in the Press, a broadcasting station of their own at a cost of R50,000, which has to be borne by either the S.A.B.C. or the taxpayers, and to build a broadcasting station of R20,000 in Malawi? I have no objections to his manifestation of the outward policy of the Government; much less than the hon. member for Innesdal. But then the hon. the Minister must not tell us that there is no money and that the technical staff is not available.

The little black box is not so black.

The hon. the Minister, in reply to us, usually demands us to state what type of service we want. I have not time to tell him now, but if I have the opportunity on a later occasion, during this debate, and he wishes to repeat that question, I shall certainly do so.

I wish to express it as my opinion again that the hon. the Minister can even now rehabilitate himself by giving clear assurances on the staff, on the services to the public, on the S.A.B.C and on television, on all of which, I am afraid, he has performed most disappointingly this afternoon. He has been Minister for more than one year, but I am afraid that the high hopes which we based on him, are slowly beginning to fade. He has been weak, where he should have been strong; he has faltered where he should have been firm.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude by referring to Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland to illustrate my point: In this wonderland of the South African politics, we were overjoyed to discover one fine day that we no longer had the Mad Hatter presiding at the Post Office tea party; but may our country be spared the spectacle of seeing him being replaced by the White Rabbit!

Mr. Speaker, it so happens that on this occasion, in the discussion of this Vote, it is my task, and not a very pleasant one at that, to reply to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. Before replying to some of his statements, I want to ask you first to allow me to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on this first Budget of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It has entailed hard work and conscientious dedication to make a business undertaking of the Postal Services. In the light of the documents made available to us, I now want to claim that there are sufficient facts to support the statement which I am justifiably making here, i.e. that the hon. the Minister has changed the Postal Services into a business undertaking of the State. At a later stage I shall indicate that, according to these Estimates the Postal Services are in fact founded on a business basis. When we passed this legislation last year to make the Post Office an independent undertaking and to place it on a business basis, we on this side of the House immediately cherished the great expectation that the Post Office Readjustment Act would be the beginning of a new era in the existence of the Post Office. Before I go into these expectations any further and say something about them, I now briefly want to respond to what the hon. member for Orange Grove had to say. He moved an amendment which covers a wide field, which, in the brief space of time at my disposal, I shall never be able to cover, since the hon. member had much more time at his disposal. He suggested that a new cost structure should be created, that there should be a reorganization of posts and that the delivery of mail should be improved. The hon. member then said something very strainge, i.e. by referring to Great Britain and the wonderful way things were done there as regards the delivery of postal items. Does the hon. member not know that Great Britain is only as large as Natal, and that his comparison is therefore a poor one? One cannot compare a country such as Britain with its masses of people and small surface area with the great surface area of the Republic of South Africa. One can only expect such comparisons from the hon. member for Orange Grove.

He also made another very strange statement when he spoke of the programme “Current Affairs” which is broadcast by the S.A.B.C., and of the introduction of television. He referred to the hon. the Minister and asked him whether he was a “basie” or a “hasie”. I want to declare that that hon. member made a jack-rabbit of himself, and that also reminds me of that rabbit of the hon. Senator in Bantry Bay. I think one can draw a good comparison. I want to say to the hon. member that in the course of my speech I cannot respond to everything he has said because my time is too limited, but that there will in fact be a thorough response by other hon. members on this side of the House to every statement which he made here.

The first expectation which we cherished was that the Postal Services would be capable of eliminating obstacles. We admit that from time to time there were obstacles so that our Postal Services could not be developed as we would have liked. At a later stage in my speech I shall also indicate how this Budget is creating the necessary machinery for the elimination of these obstacles, and contains the assurance that there is hope for the future. The second expectation was that the Post Office, with more capital available, would be able to eliminate the backlog. I refer here to the backlog which has such a heartbreaking effect on the hon. member for Orange Grove, i.e. the shortage of telephone services. Throughout the years we have acknowledged that there is a shortage, but in these Estimates there is already proof that with the new dispensation those shortages will be eliminated much more speedily than under the previous dispensation. The third expectation was that improved salaries and conditions of service would be established for the Post Office staff.

The hon. member ridiculed the amounts which are being made available here, but according to these figures the increase in the amount being appropriated for salaries, wages and allowances is R16,003,500. When one looks at the Estimates one sees that an amount of R94.5 million is being made available as against the revised estimate of R78,553,000 and I consequently find it strange that the hon. member can ridicule it in such a way. In my knowledge of the Opposition I want to say that even if this amount had been R160 million, they would still have ridiculed it and we therefore need not attach any importance to this statement of the hon. member. Improved conditions of service and salaries will definitely be introduced according to the Appropriation which we are now discussing. Another bottleneck was the manpower shortage and according to my personal point of view it is to a large extent attributable to insufficient remuneration for the hard work which the people have to do. With the previous dispensation we had to listen to the same tirade year after year from that hon. member, i.e. his very severe criticism of the services supplied by the staff and officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We have never heard a single word of praise for them from that hon. member, and the statement which he made about how hard they work and about how sorry he was for them was mere hypocrisy and nothing else. Had the hon. member appreciated the efforts of these people he would not have adopted this attitude towards them. In my view this manpower shortage can in fact be eliminated systematically with this new dispensation, because R16 million is now being made available. The fact that R559,000 is being made available for the subsistence and the transport of the officials will also contribute to the improvement of this situation. The pension liabilities are now also being taken over from the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions and these amount to R9,674,000. Seen in the light of these large amounts which the hon. the Minister has at his disposal, I state here that this constitutes a tremendous increase. It constitutes a total increase of R39,781,000.

We know that through the years there have been a large number of resignations for various reasons, and remuneration was one of them. This improvement in salaries and wages and conditions of service will, I hope and trust, decrease the number of resignations to a large extent. This number of resignations also includes women who get married and one cannot blame a young lady if she prefers a good marriage partner to a good position, and I do not think one can expect anything else of a young lady. The grand total of capital expenditure is R88,108,650, while the Budget for 1967-’68 was R45.798 million. This means an increase of R42 million over this period, and I believe that this large increase of capital which is being made available will in fact enable the hon. the Minister to create thoroughly improved services. It will perhaps enable him to supplement these salary increases with other benefits.

In the changing of the posts structure there is already an increase in salary for certain categories. The backlog which has mounted up over the years as a result of a lack of capital must now gradually be eliminated. We appreciate it that the Minister and his Department have tackled this particular matter so energetically. When the rate for local telephone calls was increased by 1 cent in 1967, the undertaking was given that the revenue from that would be used for the financing of capital services, etc. That undertaking is now being met in the application of this gigantic sum. For telecommunication services alone R52 million is being made available, an increase of R12.8 million on the previous year. We know that the shortage of accommodation was a great problem in the past, but large amounts are now being made available for this, much larger amounts than before. In fact, the amount which could be made available in the past, i.e. R3 million, has now been increased to not less than R4.9 million. If necessary, even more will be appropriated to relieve the accommodation needs, because it is a fact that even though a worker receives a high salary to-day, he can hadly be satisfied if there is no adequate housing for him. Therefore it is particularly heartening that the hon. the Minister has not overlooked the question of accommodation for his officials.

The attitude adopted by the hon. member for Orange Grove to the programme “Current Affairs” proves once again that when one’s patriotism has withered away to a large extent, one becomes allergic and sensitive when comments are made about things such as are commented upon in this programme. Among the actual matters which are referred to in this programme, there is also the question of our relationship to our country, as well as the question of our every-day mutual relationships. As far as I am concerned, I can only speak of this programme with the greatest degree of praise.

Do you regard Die Beeld as unpatriotic?

Many of you are unpatriotic. In fact, you are to-day just as unpatriotic as seven, eight years ago. At that time you opposed the creation of a Republic. You are to-day still just as unpatriotic as you were when you opposed the political development of our country, and its industrial development. You have still not changed in the least. At any rate, that is the conclusion one must draw from the reaction of the hon. member for Orange Grove to these broadcasts.

We did not blow up post offices.

You were too scared to do that.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Orange Grove is so disparaging and full of criticism towards the officials of Posts and Telegraphs. On the other hand, if one takes the overall image of the progress which has been made, one can do little else but state one’s gratitude for the services which these men and women have furnished under difficult circumstances. But we do not get that from the other side. Instead of that we get a plea for television. The hon. member wants to use millions of rand for such an insignificant and harmful installation. Does he then prefer this to the construction of dwellings for our officials, to better salaries? We already have a manpower shortage, especially in respect of technicians. Does the hon. member want to have us use more of these technicians, these highly skilled men, to devote their attention to a television service while essential services suffer? Mr. Speaker, the time for begging for things we can do without has long passed, things which, moreover, are damaging to the nation. We should rather make every effort to try and put our own house in order. This Budget of the hon. the Minister is an important step in that direction.

The hon. member for Harrismith dealt with the business basis of the Post Office. He told us this was the beginning of a new era and that there was hope for the future. That there is hope for the future, is in itself an improvement. He also dealt extensively with the capital set-up of the Budget. With all these aspects I shall deal in the course of what I have to say.

I must also congratulate the hon. the Minister on the occasion of this, the first Post Office Budget. At the same time I want to say that I am sorry that the debate was not adjourned after delivery of his Budget speech. We could then have had more time to study it. We are dealing now with an entirely new financial structure for the Post Office. The position is further complicated by the fact that the hon. the Minister has now taken over the radio, postal and telegraph services of South-West Africa and of the Durban Corporation. I think we could have had a far more meaningful debate, something more in the interests of this House, if the debate had been adjourned after the Minister had delivered his Budget speech. It could then have been dealt with at a later stage after we had had an opportunity of considering it in detail.

The Minister does not want that.

Well, I suppose the Minister, being aware of the shortcomings of the postal organization, likes to get it over with as soon as possible, and I cannot say that I blame him for that. However, I want to thank him for the memorandum attached to the Estimates of the Revenue and Expenditure. That will be of considerable help to us. The Minister is almost contemplating a one-line budget, because in his speech he irretrievably mixed up revenue and capital. I do not at this stage want to debate the merits, or otherwise, of a one-line budget, apart from saying that with a one-line budget it is rather difficult to separate the different figures. However, it does seem that for 1968-’69 the Minister is going to produce a surplus of some R27 million, in comparison with a surplus of R23 million for 1967-’68 and an expected surplus of R17 million for the coming year—despite an estimated increase in expenditure of nearly R40 million. Now, this is a very large surplus, and the Minister must not be deluded into a false sense of confidence. As the hon. member for Orange Grove so rightly said, the Minister has a captive public. He has a monopoly of an essential service, without any competition whatsoever. In the circumstances he can produce any profit he likes, or any loss for that matter. He only has to move his tariffs up or down, as the case may be. But the Minister must realize that the yardstick of any achievement is not the surplus he produces, but the efficiency of the service he provides to the public. The standard of Post Office efficiency can only be judged in one manner, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has pointed out. It can only be done by comparing it with the services in other countries. It is no use hiding behind population differences and things like that. We must go for a goal. In the United States, for instance, you can get a telephone not within 21 days, not even within the same day, but within two hours. That, surely, is a goal the Minister should strive for. That you can have a telegram delivered within one hour, is another goal for the Minister to strive for. That you can phone 3,000 miles away only knowing the name of the person you want to reach, not even his telephone number or address, and reach him in a matter of minutes, is another goal the Minister should strive for. The hon. member for Orange Grove is correct when he points out that in England a housewife can order her groceries by letter in the morning and they are delivered in the afternoon. These are the targets the hon. the Minister must set for himself. If he attains these targets or gets anywhere near them, we will be in a position to congratulate him.

In the budget there are three main expenditure increases. The increases in salaries and benefits to the staff, the additional expenditure incurred in the take-over of South-West Africa and the Durban Corporation telephone system, and—here I quote the Minister—“the Department’s accelerated development programme to wipe out the backlog in the provision of services in the shortest possible time”. Now we have no quarrel with these sentiments of the hon. the Minister. In fact, they are the vital part of his budget. In the past the backlog of telephone services has been increasing year by year. In 1967-’68 it increased by 12,000, and in 1968-’69 it increased by a further 12,000. Now the Minister has got what he wants. He has an autonomous authority and he has an increase in revenue over expenditure of some R30 million, over and above his liability for pensions, which now falls on his shoulders. He has an increase of capital expenditure of some R17 million, if we exclude his redemption of loans of R7 million and the purchase of the Durban Corporation’s telephone system amounting to some R18 million, about which I will have a little more to say later. We now expect results from the hon. the Minister. We are hoping that through him one day this Government may be redeemed in regard to the bungling we have had from them over the years. I do not believe the country is prepared to tolerate any longer the inefficiencies and the frustrations with which it has had to put up. The tragedy is that there is nothing in this budget to indicate that there is going to be any change whatsoever. When we passed the Post Office Readjustment Act last year, we placed the responsibility on the hon. the Minister of running the Post Office on a business basis. I put a question to him yesterday asking him how much it was going to cost to supply-the capital cost—the 60,000 telephones he is in arrear with, and I was told it would be R17 million. I was also told that the gross income per annum from these telephones would be R6.9 million. The Minister could not tell me what the net income would be. Well, I will have a guess and tell him. If we take the additional R6.9 million gross income and we apply to it the net profit percentage that he is making on his present income from the Post Office, I would say he will make a profit of something of the order of R1.5 million per annum on an investment of R17 million, which would give him, after all expenditure and after payment of interest on the money he borrowed, a profit of something like 8 per cent to 9 per cent. That is pretty good business, Sir, 8 per cent or 9 per cent after paying all your expenses. And the sooner the hon. the Minister realizes that the sooner he can satisfy the requirements of those people who want telephones, the sooner will his profits from telephones reach their possible maximum, while still maintaining his present rate of charges. After all, it has been said in this House time and time again that his only money-spinner is his telephones. All his profits come from his telephones, or at least 90 per cent of them. It is very sound business to hard sell the commodity which brings you profits, and that is the hon. the Minister’s telephones. It is time he got down to the job and I hope the Minister will learn this lesson, because from the budget this does not appear to be the case and I will come back to this a little later when we talk about the capital appropriation.

Another item of increased revenue expenditure is the R5.8 million on overseas hire of circuits. I wonder whether the Minister will be good enough to tell us whether he expects a profit or a loss as the result of the hiring of these circuits at R5.8 million per annum.

On Capital Account this year the hon. the Minister is going to spend R88 million, or R42 million more than in 1968-’69. Of this amount R7 million will go towards redemption of loans and R18 million towards the purchase of the Durban Corporation telephone system, leaving R63 million. Last year the Post Office spent just under R46 million on capital works, so this year they have an additional R17 million to play with, of which about R13 million will be for telecommunication services. What happened in 1968-’69 with a capital expenditure of R46 million, of which R39.5 million was for these services? The backlog of telephones increased by 12,000. Now the Minister tells us he is going to provide an additional 70,000 telephones this year, but it is not likely to reduce the backlog in any form whatsoever. In 1967-’68 he provided 59,000 new telephones and ended up with a backlog of 60,000, 12,000 more than the previous year. Last year he provided 70,000 new telephones and he ended up with another additional backlog of 12,000, to bring it up to 72,000. This year he proposes to provide 75,000 new telephones, but what is his backlog going to be this year? Another increase of 12,000? It would seem so, Sir. He is probably going to end up with a shortage of 84,000 telephones, because he seems to have the figure of 12,000 fixed in his mind as the increase every year. Giving the Post Office autonomy was intended to get rid of this backlog of telephones, and there is nothing in this budget to indicate that this is going to be the position. It is quite clear that the additional capital funds which have been made available to the hon. the Minister will be insufficient to clear his backlog, and that brings me to the question of the take-over of the Durban Corporation telephone service.

I understand that the Durban people are perfectly satisfied with their telephone service, more so than with the Government service. I also understand that this take-over has been talked about for more than 20 years. So what is the urgency for the take-over? The Minister has just started his independent role. He is just beginning, we hope, to put his new house in order. What is the hurry at this stage to add this new burden to his portfolio? Perhaps the hon. the Minister has been caught by the take-over fever that is raging in South Africa at the moment. But it seems that he is determined not to get his priorities correct. I would suggest that he would be far better advised to leave the Durban Corporation telephone system alone for a year or two until he puts his own house in order, and that he use the capital funds, the R18 million, for the 72,000 telephones he is in arrear with; because his priority is to provide telephones for the people who want them and so increase his own income as the result of providing them. If the Minister’s problem is one of labour besides capital, then he must expand the new policy on which he is now starting, and one with which we agree entirely; he must get private enterprise to do the job for him, and then we may perhaps get something. The Minister may have forgotten that he has a staff problem on his hands, because out of an establishment of 41,305 as at 31st December, 1968, over 11,000 posts, or over 25 per cent, were not filled by permanent incumbents. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this. What is the staff establishment of the Durban Corporation telephone system? How many of the present incumbents does he expect to retain, because if he is not going to retain the bulk of them he will be in bigger trouble than he has ever been in before.

The hon. the Minister in his Budget speech, which we have only had a chance to glance at, said that without sufficient and efficient communication facilities, the country’s economic and social development cannot come into its own. This is a truism, Sir. Without a proper infrastructure and without communications, we cannot come into our own. I do not want to deny that the hon. the Minister has done a considerable amount in the year since he took over. He has reorientated the Post Office to an extent which we hope will bring fruits in time, but he has urgent problems. The main task of the hon. the Minister is to sort out what is urgent and what is not urgent, to put his priorities in proper order, and not to take over South-West Africa when he does not have his own house in order and not to take over the Durban Corporation telephone system when he does not need to take it over, but to use his energies and his brains and those of his Department and the capital we are providing him with to do the job that South Africa needs, and that is to provide more telephones and more efficient services.

I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the staff on this very first independent and separate Post Office Budget. I am sure that it is an occasion which the Post Office as a whole has been looking forward to for many years and at last the glad day has come.

I cannot find much fault with the utterances of the hon. member for Parktown, who has just resumed his seat, except that he said that inefficiency prevails in the Post Office. I want to deny that.

Where do you live?

That surely has nothing to do with the hon. member for East London (City). If one can interpret the shortage of a product as inefficiency on the part of the suppliers, then I do not know what inefficiency is. I know many of the officials who are at the head of the Postal Services, ex-colleagues of mine, and I know their efficiency. I know their idealism. I know how they do things, and that is unfortunately what is wrong with hon. members opposite; they do not know how things work. I am also grateful that the hon. member for Parktown said that the hon. the Minister had done well in the past year. With that I want to come back to the main speaker on that side of the House, the hon. member for Orange Grove, who once more merely harped on the same old subject as before. After we had witnessed a Post Office readjustment here, I honestly expected that the hon. member would also readjust his debating methods in a positive direction, thereby enabling him to make a contribution to the debate, but it was all negative. He had all manner of complaints. He spoke of insufficient salaries and a lot of overtime and the fact that the S.A.B.C. does not function to his liking. I may remind him of their period of government when people almost worked themselves to death on overtime. I remember the time when we had to work overtime in order to subsist because the salaries were so negligible. They really had nothing in the past of which they can be proud. I must regard all these utterances of theirs as mere lip service, because they had the opportunity and did nothing. Sir, do you still remember Major Caprara who used the S.A.B.C. as the United Party propaganda machine? Have they forgotten it? We are not making propaganda; we are merely commenting. [Interjection.]

If I am talking nonsense that hon. member will be able to understand it, because that is all he can understand. With that I want to leave the matter there as far as the hon. members on that side are concerned. There are still many members on this side of the House who can square accounts with them properly on all these small complaints which they lodged here.

The Post Office undertaking is a tremendous one. It is the undertaking which probably makes daily contact with the greatest number of members of the public in South Africa. The Post Office has millions of clients. The transactions which they must conclude in a year amount to thousands of millions. If one thinks of the 1,285 million postal items which are handled, and if one thinks of the savings bank transactions and of the telephone calls made annually, it amounts to millions and millions. If one takes those transactions into consideration the items which are handled and the number of telephone calls which are put through, the Post Office conducts business with an average of 8 million people a day. In this connection, especially as a result of the negative criticism and the manner of debating which the hon. member for Orange Grove always displays, I want to ask whether more cannot be done to bring all the good work which the Post Office does every day with millions of people, to the attention of the public. We know that there is a publicity division under the control of an under-secretary of the Department. We know that at every large centre there is a public relations officer who liaises with the public. For example, if someone at a centre posts a great many items in the ordinary post box, the public relations officer will indicate to the member of the public that if he or she were to make use of the bulk postal dispatch method, it would not only assist the Post Office, but it would also mean a saving for the person concerned. There is the Post Office Guide; there is the Post Office Bulletin, which brings the good work of the Department of Post and Telegraphs to the attention of the public. But I feel that this alone is not enough. More can be done in another way, both on the part of the Post Office officials and also on the part of the public, to propagate the good work of the Post Office.

In view of the fact that the Post Office is experiencing certain problems, especially in the supplying of telephones, which we heard so much about from the other side, I wonder whether in certain cases the Department could not abandon the reply by cyclostyled letter which is sent to an applicant for a telephone service. Sir, it is so impersonal. Many times it is an important business entrepreneur who is requesting a telephone service or additional telephone services. He then receives a very impersonal cyclostyled form in which it is merely stated that the service cannot now be supplied. In many cases no reason is forthcoming and no indication is given of how long the applicant will still have to wait. In cases where persons have phoned me, I have put them in touch with responsible officials of the Department, and subsequently the members of the public were satisfied after having ascertained the precise circumstances. One realizes that everyone who applies for a telephone cannot expect to receive a personal letter, but in the case of larger undertakings and where special circumstances prevail, their needs ought to be met in a personal way.

Another matter which perhaps bothers the public and also the Post Office officials is the impersonal manner in which complaints, if there are any, are dealt with. A person phones, for argument’s sake in connection with a number for which the telephone service has been suspended because the account has not been paid. He talks to an official who does not divulge his name; or, if he is inquiring about a trunk call, he speaks to an official who as a rule does not divulge her name either. One does not expect every young lady answering the telephone to give her address, name and age to every caller, but in cases where telephone calls are handled by senior staff of the Post Office about a serious matter, it would be a great help if they would identify themselves. I also think that it will help a lot to improve good relationships between the public and the Post Office. I may also say that courtesy on the part of the public and the staff also contributes greatly to promoting good relationships. In this regard the example which I set should not be followed. There used to be a rule in the Post Office that if a person dispatched a package he had to affix the stamps himself. The package is weighed by the official; the official tells the person how much it will cost, takes the amount from him and then gives him the stamps to fix onto the package. One day a lady came along with such a package. She was an English-speaking lady. When I gave her the package with the correct stamps, she asked, “Must I stick this on myself?” to which I replied, “No, madam, on the parcel”. One cannot promote good relationships in that way. Mr. Speaker, there is another sphere in which good relationships can be improved. Who of us have ever offered the postman a cup of tea when he arrives with his heavy mailbag, and how many of us are only too inclined to criticize him if the delivery of post is perhaps a half an hour late. He will perhaps not even accept the cup of tea which he is offered, because his time is limited, but if it is offered to him, it will improve the relationships between the public and the Post Office.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have the highest regard and appreciation for what the Post Office officials are doing for the whole of South Africa. They are doing so much good work, for which they do not always receive the thanks they deserve or the necessary publicity. I am convinced of the fact that under this new dispensation, where the Post Office is independent and self-sufficient, it will develop, in the public life of South Africa, as a public service of which we, the public and the officials of the Post Office, can all be proud.

In the minute or two at my disposal I merely want to refute one more complaint from the other side in respect of the buildings which are supposedly not there to-day.

Four hundred.

In Germiston I worked in a building which was erected by the late President Kruger. In Germiston in 1940 I worked in the Post Office in a building which, immediately after the United Party was removed from office, had to have an extra floor added because their planning could not even extend further than eight or nine years ahead. The City of Bloemfontein received new buildings to the value of R1½ million, if I remember correctly. I worked there in 1942 while the previous buildings were under construction. They had also merely planned a short space ahead. They can therefore not cast that recrimination at us because they were even more guilty of it in their day.

Sir, I conclude by saying that we on this side of the House do not merely do lip service to the officials; we do what may be expected of a responsible government under present circumstances.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) had two complaints about what was said from this side of the House. In the first place he felt that we should not allege that there is inefficiency in the Post Office. Of course, one can understand why he says this and I do not blame him for it; he is an ex-Post Office employee and it is only right that he should defend his ex-colleagues. Then he went on to say that he would like to see the hon. member for Orange Grove change his style. I can understand that too because the hon. member for Orange Grove causes some very uncomfortable moments for hon. members on the other side of the House. Then I want to say that I too was very disappointed that the hon. the Minister made no mention whatsoever of television in his first Budget speech. I say this quite seriously because television is to-day something which the ordinary man in the street considers to be very important indeed; it is very topical and I believe that the hon. the Minister is playing a game of brinkmanship in this regard and that he should come out plainly and tell the people once and for all whether they are going to get television or not and when they are going to get it.

Sir, during the short time that it has been my privilege to serve as a member of this House, I have always looked forward with a great deal of interest to what has now become a hardy annual, the yearly debate on whether the people of South Africa are to be allowed to enjoy the amenity of open television. I find too that the debates in this regard now conform to a very set and familiar pattern. On the one hand we have the hon. member for Orange Grove who comes along year after year with a very well-prepared, well-reasoned, constructive case for the introduction of television in this country, and on the other hand we have the Government, through its Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, adopting a very stubborn, dogmatic and negative attitude in regard to the provision of television. Sir, they do this for reasons which I hope to go into a little later. I hasten to add, however, that after reading the statement made by the hon. the Minister in the Other Place just recently, one dares to hope that there has been some serious rethinking within the establishment of the Nationalist Party in regard to television; that attitudes are changing and that the valiant fight put up by the hon. member for Orange Grove over the years is about to receive its just reward. Sir, I believe that it was on the 10th November, 1936, to be precise, that the people living in the United Kingdom of Great Britain were privileged to see the first-ever open television broadcast, and it seems quite incredible to me that now, nearly 33 years later, we should be debating in this House the question as to whether or not South Africa should get in step with the rest of the world by providing the amenity of television to its people. That we are completely out of step, is of course, beyond dispute, because we find that since this historic broadcast in 1936, no fewer than 97 countries have introduced television, and among these are 13 of the emerging States on our own Continent of Africa. The surprising thing is that despite what we have heard from that side of the House about the so-called disadvantages and evils of television, we find that there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the morals or the intellectual growth of the people in these countries have been affected in any way whatsoever. We find that wherever a country has introduced television, there has been no request either by the Government or by the people to disband it after it has been started.

Or by the Churches.

I want to say, too, that when one analyses the speech made by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in this House during last session, one finds that the Government has only two basic objections to television in this country. It is apparent that these two objections are, firstly, that the introduction of television in this country will detrimentally affect the morals of our youth, and, secondly, that television will be too costly. I do not think I need deal with the second objection because I do not think anybody really believes that South Africa, with its booming and ever-expanding economy and its more than satisfactory growth rate, cannot afford to have television.

Let me then deal, therefore, with the Government’s first objection to this medium. There is no doubt that this is the main objection because throughout his speech the Minister kept on referring to the alleged bad effect television might have on the youth of South Africa. This is what he said, as recorded in Hansard, volume 22, column 1645—

In column 1654 he said: “I am thinking in particular of the ineradicable influence which the service can have on our children”. He ended his speech with these words, as reported in column 1654—

One wonders seriously why the Government harbours this fear that their being exposed to television will harm the morals of our youth. I have mentioned earlier that there is no evidence to indicate that where countries have introduced television the morals or intellectual growth of those people had suffered in any way. Therefore I want to ask the Minister, why he believes that this will happen in South Africa? Has he no confidence in our youth, does he have no confidence in parental control? I want to suggest to the Minister that in the final analysis it is parental control and guidance that decide the future of a child, and not the withholding of an amenity like television.

In his speech the Minister went to very great lengths to explain to us what he believed was good television and what he believed was bad television. He specifically mentioned the U.S.A. and in no uncertain terms told us that he thought this type of television was thoroughly bad television. I am very pleased that the Minister mentioned the U.S.A. in this regard because I, too, want to use that country as an example but to show that there is no substance whatsoever in the Government’s first objection to television.

Let us for a moment have a look at the television picture in America. The Minister is quite right when he says their television system is purely commercial. It is a round-the-clock service offering a very wide variety of programmes. It also uses a lot of time showing old and out-dated films. I think we can assume that no other nation in the world is exposed to this type of bad television, “bad” in the opinion of the Minister, than the people of the U.S.A. If a form of decadence does really go hand-in-hand with this type of television, then it should manifest itself very clearly in the U.S.A. But what do we find there? That country, where the youth have been exposed for many years to the so-called evils of open television for 24 hours a day, still happens to be the most powerful country in the world. It needs to yield to no other country in the fields of education, science, industry, and commerce, and what is more, this country is really our only insurance against communistic domination. I want to say, too, that this country has managed to draw from its people men with the moral fibre and the intellectual ability necessary to create a situation where man is about to register the greatest scientific achievement of all time, namely the landing of a man on the moon in a few months’ time. And in that country the people are continually exposed to a type of television, which, so we are told, must never come here because it will corrupt the morals of our youth. I am afraid this excuse really has no substance whatsoever. I want to say too that if we were to go into the background of astronauts James McDervitt and David Scott, and of the thousands of young Americans who made the achievements of the two men I have mentioned possible, we would find that they all had more than their fair share of exposure to this type of television. Yet they have done what they have done.

I sincerely feel the Minister and the Government can leave the morals of our youth and their future intellectual development very safely in the hands of their parents and the institutions that are there to see to that. I honestly believe that the excuses given by this Government year after year have no substance. I want to say to the Minister, too, that if we could have a referendum to-morrow on the question of whether television should be introduced or not, he would find that the majority of the people of South Africa want television, and want it soon, and are perfectly prepared to pay for it.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, devoted his entire speech to a plea for the introduction of television. We have been growing accustomed now, for a long time already, to the hon. member for Orange Grove doing this. But, just as the hon. member for Orange Grove year after year actually tries to create a frame of mind which is favourable to television and does not in any way touch upon the pros and cons of the matter, the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) also did today. He made a few statements which he could in no way substantiate. He said for example: “There is no evidence whatsoever of intellectual growth being affected”.

Where is your proof?

Nobody says that this is happening, that the intellectual growth is being restricted. But it is no use setting up skittles and knocking them down yourself. He says that in countries where television has been introduced there has never been any request to have it abolished. What is the hon. member now trying to say with that argument? Does he want to tell me he does not know that in Britain, France, Germany and America there are large organizations which, year after year, voice their disapproval in regard to the poor quality of the programmes? Does he not know that a book appeared in Britain last year, written by a woman who had been a Roman Catholic nun but who had renounced the veil in order to wage a campaign against the poor quality of television programmes? What does it mean when he makes a statement like this?

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Innesdal did not interrupt the hon. member for Johannesburg (North), and I expect him not to interrupt the hon. member either. I also expect other hon. members to afford him an opportunity of making his speech.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member also stated that “South Africa is out of step”. He then went on to say that since 1936 97 countries in the world had introduced television, and that 13 of them were African states. But will the hon. member, at some time or other, take the trouble to acquaint himself with the nature of the services which have been introduced in the African states? The broadcasts are made for a limited time only, and the quality of the programmes is of the cheapest and lowest possible level imaginable. If the hon. member wants to tell us that we should introduce that kind of service in South Africa, on those conditions, I can only express my extreme amazement that a responsible man can hold an opinion like that. For the most part those television services are still being controlled and financed from outside those states. The states themselves have a minimum say in and influence on those programmes.

The hon. member referred to the Minister and said that the Minister’s objection to the bad influence of television was totally unfounded. He also said that the references to the television services of the United States “have no substance whatsoever”. Then he said that, despite the fact that there were diversified television services in the United States, and despite the fact that the population had been exposed to television services, America to-day was still the “most powerful country in the world” in the fields of science, industry and commerce, and that she was our only bulwark against communism. Actually, America’s television services only began to develop into what they are to-day in the late fifties. If he does not know that, he knows nothing. Television services in America have not even been in existence for half a generation. Now he wants to say that we must, on that basis, come to a final decision on what the effects of television in America are. I shall tell him what other people say. I do not want to reflect on the hon. member’s status, but I can quote to him what persons have said to whose opinions in regard to this matter I really pay more attention and attach more value than to his.

There is the case of Stuart Cloete who was in America for years. He said that “98 per cent of the television programmes are rubbish”. He said: “Television in America can be termed a school for crime”. That is what a man like Stuart Cloete says. Nobody can tell me that he does not have respect for Stuart Cloete’s opinions as far as these matters are concerned. I can quote to the hon. member what other people in America are saying, but I think that America is the extreme example of poor television programmes, and I will not even tire myself by doing so. Let us look at Britain, where commercial television was introduced for the first time in 1956, when Independent Television was established alongside the B.B.C. The Association of Education Committees states—

It is the Association of Education Committees of Britain which says this, and the standard in Britain is by no means as low as that in America.

The Educational Institute of Scotland states—

[Interjections.] But surely these words are very clear. This is not what we in the National Party are saying; this is what the people in Britain who have to deal with these influences are saying.

The National Union of Teachers states—

Does the hon. member now want to tell me that this is rubbish? The Church of England also states: “Programmes which contain brutality, sexual incitement, or the condoning of moral depravity, however dressed up, have a pernicious effect upon those who watch them.” The Baptist Union states—

Now I want to ask that hon. member, is this rubbish?

But one can control it.

These are countries which have controlled television. I quoted to the hon. member what the churches and the educational associations in Britain, which has controlled television, are saying. Now I want to ask that hon. member: Did he know about that before? Apparently not. I shall forgive him, but if he did know this and failed to mention it, he was committing a shameful act of omission against this House.

It is rubbish to say that the television in South Africa will be like this.

Order!

I shall leave the hon. member at that. Let me make it clear that we on this side of the House realize that one, when one is dealing with television, is dealing with a miraculous technological development. It is something which has during the past few decades developed considerably with the introduction of colour television. But let us be very level-headed about this. As far as content is concerned, television offers nothing which is not already being offered by the cinematographic film, the radio and the periodicals. Since the United Party has year after year been arguing here that we must introduce television, I want to ask them very specifically what they actually advocate. Merely to speak in favour of television is tantamount to saying here in this House, “I am in favour of reading matter”. What kind of television are they in favour of? I shall tell the hon. member what we are opposed to, but then they must tell us, when they advocate television, how many channels they want in South Africa for example. Do they want a separate channel for the Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people and for at least two or three Bantu nations in South Africa? Or do they only want one channel through which the entire population of South Africa can be reached? As far as the defrayal of costs of television is concerned, let the hon. member tell us clearly, once and for all, from whence this must be recovered.

R300 million.

No, the defrayal of costs; I am not discussing the costs yet. And as far as the costs are concerned, let the hon. member tell us clearly now whether he wants to introduce television for the entire country, or is this television which he wants to sell with this slogan “Want T.V., vote U.P.” merely restricted to the few urban complexes in South Africa? The hon. member must tell us whether he wants to give it to the entire country or whether he wants to restrict it to a few urban complexes in South Africa, and in this way create the fiction that it will not be as expensive as is being claimed. Possibly they will come forward with a figure which is based on a television service for a few urban centres, and mention those costs, but omit to mention that this is for those small areas only.

I want to say to the hon. member that we are opposed to television for very specific reasons. We are opposed to the cheap television programmes which that hon. member apparently wants to burden us with in the name of development in Africa, that kind of television service which he wants to burden us with in the name of novelty.

We are definitely opposed to television owing to the prohibitive costs. We are taking clearly into account the fact that if a television service were to be introduced in South Africa, we would be sitting with a first-rate problem of where the programmes must come from. If we in South Africa cannot meet those needs in accordance with our policy and the needs of South Africa then it becomes a very serious consideration against the introduction of television. I want to remind the hon. member for Orange Grove of the fact that it is this Government which in the early sixties diversified the radio service to such an extent that instead of the old Afrikaans, English and commercial transmissions we, with the introduction of the F.M. service, supplied almost every Bantu language with stations. This was done because we believe that such a means of communication as the radio and television should be integrated with the cultural views and existence of every ethnic group. Such a powerful means of communication as television dare not be used to destroy that very differentiation which exists among race and language groups. We believe that this should in fact be strengthened and stabilized by these means. Between that consideration and our consideration there is a wealth of difference.

I am afraid that the hon. member for Orange Grove and his kindred spirits and colleagues are allowing themselves to be stampeded by commercial interests who want a mass means of communication in South Africa by means of which they can reach the entire population through one channel and by means of which they in fact want to try to eliminate the boundaries of race, culture, religion and language, and even, as is the case in America and other countries, the difference between age groups and even the difference between sexes. This must be done by means of one great common denominator where the individual is reached through this medium and by means of the message it bears. To achieve that purpose and to reach the greatest number of people with one message, the level of the programme must be kept as low as possible. Time and again, when the need arises to draw more viewers, those viewers must be drawn from beyond the borders. That is what they wanted to do in South Africa. When the programme for Whites has been reduced to the lowest level they want to go and fetch viewers beyond the colour bar.

They did this in the newspapers.

Yes, it is already perceivable there. The hon. member will admit that it is an astonishing situation that a Party such as the United Party, of all things, with all the opportunities which it has of testifying to its objectives by means of a factual statement of principle, is known in the history of South Africa as the Party which wanted to come into power with the promise that they would give this country television. I cannot imagine a more shameful reputation for a Party to have.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a strange re-entry in the House to-day by an hon. member who can be excused for believing that he had taken the wrong seat. I was very intrigued with the hon. member for Innesdal but I would have liked him to turn round and face the hon. member for Turffontein. If he had seen the look on the face of the hon. member for Turffontein he would have been quite surprised.

He was lost in admiration.

The hon member for Turffontein no doubt will pay him homage in due course. The hon. member for Turffontein gave us a long talk the other day on the benefits of television. We have now heard the hon. member for Innesdal retreating to the last century and telling us about all its evils. But I have great faith in South Africa. I believe that the nation who has withstood the effects of the programme Current Affairs •during the last two or three years will survive, even with television. We have never heard the hon. member for Innesdal on the programme Current Affairs. That would have been most interesting. We have always had his views on television and we know that the hon. member has always been leftfooted when everybody else is rightfooted. But I would have liked to have heard him on Current Affairs. That would have been a new innovation because it appears as if Current Affairs to-day embarrasses the Government. The other interesting point about the hon. member for Innesdal is that in his first speech of the session he dealt with a thing like television. It just shows how important he thinks television is to South Africa. I believe that we are going to hear an announcement by the hon. the Minister before the next election that the Government is introducing television for the good of the South African nation. That announcement will no doubt even impress the hon. member for Innesdal. I should now like to leave the hon. member for Innesdal to the hon. member for Turffontein because here that hon. member and I are in complete agreement. The other reason why we may find that television is not so far away is because of the fact that the papers comprising the Nationalist Press are no longer the friends they used to be. They are now beginning to fight among themselves and they are no longer one in their opposition to television.

I too should like to join members on this side of the House and congratulate the hon. the Minister on introducing his first Post Office Budget. I should like to say that it is an historic occasion but unfortunately there will be little to remember about this historic occasion. I feel very sorry for the officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I know the sort of thing they have to contend with and I would hate to have the job that some of these officials had in trying to tell people that they cannot have telephones year in and year out. I do not believe that there is any member on this side of the House who envies them their task. From the Estimates given to us it is very clear that no fewer than 127 new post offices and telephone exchange buildings are in the process of being built or planned. I should like to suggest that this figure of 127 is not as impressive as it would appear to be for the simple reason that with the present staff position in the Post Office there is very little chance in fact of very many of these 127 buildings being completed, let alone started, in the years ahead. This whole question of staff shortages which has echoed through every Government department this year, is something which the Government should now give serious attention to.

I think the time is well past where we can have hon. Ministers year after year telling us that they are employing non-Whites in jobs formerly done by Whites, but that it is a temporary measure. I believe the time to be honest has come in South Africa and that the Government should tell the people quite honestly that they are never going to get the Whites to do the jobs that they have to have done. In the last seven years the number of Whites employed in the Post Office alone has decreased by something like 2,000, but the number of non-Whites has increased by 4,000. This is despite immigration and the fact that the population has increased. [Interjection.] What is wrong with this is that the Government tells us year after year that these non-whites are employed in a temporary capacity. If this is the way to solve the problems of South Africa, I believe that we are going to be in much worse trouble than we are now in regard to the shortage of telephones, post offices, and so on. We do not have the necessary manpower and anybody in authority will admit that the Post Office is not short of telephones so much, but of the manpower to instal those telephones and the lines. That is where the shortage lies. Unfortunately one cannot manufacture manpower, but I submit that manpower can be trained. This is something the Government and the Post Office have not given any attention to because 1,000 non-Whites are now employed in a temporary capacity. I believe that the Government owes it to South Africa to admit the truth, because we in South Africa are waiting for an intelligent reply and it is very difficult to get an intelligent reply out of the Government as they always play politics at every possible opportunity.

I would like to refer the hon. the Minister to page 11 of the Post Office Staff Board’s report where we find some interesting figures about which I would like an explanation. Under the heading “General B” a figure of 5,547 is shown in the column “Women” which is the number of posts not filled by permanent incumbents. Under another column a figure of 4,055 is shown in respect of married women who are being employed in this capacity. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister that since this figure of 5,000 includes 4,000 married women, whether it is true that these married women are merely shown as temporary employees because they are married. I would like the hon. the Minister to give an explanation about this, because this figure of 4,000 out of a total of 5,000 is most interesting. If they are temporary employees because they are married women, does it mean that they do not receive the same rate of pay as single women, and does it mean that they cannot be taken on the permanent staff of the Post Office? If this is so, it is a very peculiar system indeed.

I would also like to refer the hon. the Minister to the statement he gave me in regard to the take-over of the Durban Telephone Department. When I raised this question of the Durban Telephone Department last year, the hon. the Minister quite rightly said that this matter was still being negotiated and that he could not reply at that stage. The negotiations are now past that stage and I want to repeat the questions I put to him last year. The one question is what happens to the unilingual members of the Durban telephone service who will now become employees of the Post Office. The second question is what will now happen to the non-white technical staff of the Durban Post Office, because in the Post office now there are no posts for these people. What will their position be now and in what grades will they be taken on? I will be pleased if the hon. the Minister could make a full reply in regard to the staff position of the Durban Telephone Department, because I think it is a matter that can be left no longer. I would also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has investigated, now that the Post Office is a separate entity, the position as I pointed it out to him last year. Has the position now been corrected, namely where a non-white employee of the Post Office works a 48 hour week and the white employee who works alongside him only works a 44 hour week. I asked the question last year and I believe the difficulty was due to the regulations of the Public Service Commission. I raise the matter again, however, because it seems to me that this is almost as peculiar an idea as the ideas that float around in the head of the hon. member for Innesdal. We have the position that two technicians work together and that one has to work a 48 hour week before he starts earning overtime, and the other one works a 44 hour week and he then works overtime. What happens is that white technicians work 48 hours and earn 4 hours overtime and then sign off and that the non-white persons working alongside them work 48 hours and do not receive any overtime. When I raised this matter in the past I was informed that this was because of the difficulty regarding the Public Service Commission. Now that the hon. the Minister is to a very large extent his own boss I would be more impressed than I have been with some of his colleagues if he will be able to tell me that this matter has been adjusted.

The final point I want to raise is in regard to interviews by the S.A.B.C. I know of people who were interviewed by the S.A.B.C., but because the answers given to the person conducting the interviews were not the sort of answers that the Government would like to hear, those interviews were never broadcast. This has happened on more than one occasion and I personally know of two occasions where it has happened. Questions were put by the interviewer and in these cases he provided the answers as well, but where the person interviewed said that he wanted to say something else and he was then interviewed on that basis, surprisingly enough, in both cases, those interviews were never broadcast. When I said that the time has come for some honesty on the part of the Government I believe that the time has come for some honesty on the part of the S.A.B.C. as well. If the S.A.B.C. are going to be so undemocratic as they have been up to now by only putting out the things they want to have said, I think the time has come that perhaps we should have some competition for the S.A.B.C. and “Current Affairs” and have some form of the television from outside the borders of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said that the faces of certain persons should be watched, but I wonder if he saw the face of the hon. member for Durban (Point) when he got up to speak. The hon. member for Parktown spoke about finance, tout I just want to say to him that he knows what measure of esteem and respect I have for his criticism in financial debates as far back as the old provincial council days. The hon. member made the statement that the hon. the Minister knows what profits there are on telephones, and that he should immediately install all the telephones so that the profits can be made. Why does he not rather tell the whole world that we should extract all the gold in South Africa at the same time and make a good profit? The hon. member must not come along with these arguments because we are also colleagues in another sphere. The hon. member must criticize as he has always done, and must not make absurd statements here. Other than that I have no criticism on what the hon. member said.

The hon. member for Orange Grove, however, made some insinuations here and Í think I owe it to the staff of the Post Office to rectify the position. Where is the hon. member for Orange Grove? I hope he is here. [Interjections.] I am sorry, Sir. I see him lying over there now. He levelled an accusation when he asked whether the Minister knew of all the theft, wastefulness and inefficiency which was taking place. In other words, everything he mentioned boiled down to the fact that he was insinuating that our Post Office staff were a lot of thieves, wastrels and incompetent persons.

Did you not listen to what I said? I said that it was not the fault of the staff.

That is what that hon. member was insinuating. He must not distort the facts now. He then also challenged the Minister. I think that we in South Africa must toe grateful for the service which we receive from the Post Office staff. They are doing a difficult job. The way in which they have done their work in South Africa in running the Post Office and in extending it, and in rendering service to the public, does not justify that kind of insinuation. On the contrary, it deserves our gratitude. From this side of the House I want to convey our thanks to all ranks of the Post Office staff.

I want to analyse one of the statements made by the hon. member. He said that we were spending such a paltry sum on capital works. Then he compared South Africa with Great Britain. In making that comparison he included matters in respect of South Africa which ought not to have been included. He did not compare the population figures of these countries. The hon. member must also tell the House that, in comparing Britain with South Africa, he must compare the population of Britain with the 3½ million Whites, and not with the entire population of 19 million as he did.

Why?

Those hon. members know why. Surely they know that all our Bantu do not have telephones and that they are not so well provided with capital. Are we now to compare this under-developed community with the highly-developed population of Britain? Where is that hon. member’s logic? If we make the comparison only in respect of the Whites of South Africa, it means that Britain has 16 times as many Whites as we do. If we then multiply our capital expenditure of R88 million by 16, it will mean that in proportion we are actually spending an amount of R1,408 million. Surely this is something that must be taken into account.

There is another subject that I want to touch upon, and that is the programme “Current Affairs”. A good deal has been said about it to-day. I should like the hon. member for Durban (Point) to listen now. He is a man who likes to talk, is he not? The hon. member for Orange Grove challenged the hon. the Minister to make a statement in this connection.

Your own newspaper, Die Beeld, says so.

I am coming to that. The hon. member need not become impatient. The Opposition is continually attacking the S.A.B.C. about the programme “Current Affairs”. I want to say something in this regard to-day. Internal transmissions by the S.A.B.C. on the white services amount to 667 hours a week. In the case of the Bantu services there are 575 hours a week of broadcasting. Transmissions to foreign countries amount to 177 hours a week. This gives a total of 1,419 hours a week. The number of news bulletins a day on the White services amount to 114. For the Bantu services there are 50 news bulletins, and for the foreign services 52. This gives a total of 216. These transmissions are excellent, brilliant, the best in the world. Then there is this programme, “Current Affairs”, which is broadcast for five minutes a day. All the criticism is centred on that. If hon. members had reason to criticize I would have conceded it to them, but I shall come to that. Why has no word of thanks and praise been expressed to the S.A.B.C. for these good services which we receive from them? That hon. member quoted from Die Beeld. I have the issue concerned here, with the editorial, which appeared on the 16th March. I also have an article of the 11th March in connection with “Current Affairs”. When I read this article in Die Beeld, I wondered to myself whether it had not been written by that hon. member. The language used in this article corresponds to the language which he used, especially when he was still editor of Die Kruithoring. I shall come back to this. It is the kind of language he used then and which he uses across the floor of the House. It is the type of language which he used to the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, when the majority of us blushed with shame at his disrespect and his poor conduct towards a Minister. I now want to quote—not the entire piece—from “Current Affairs” of 11th March, 1969 (translation)—

This is now what the terrible squabble about which that hon. member said the Minister should make a statement, is all about—

That is what Die Beeld said, to which the S.A.B.C. replied as follows (translation)—

Is it now attacking that newspaper? Which newspaper has it attacked here? Nothing and no one whatsoever. The statement continues—

Who drew that up?

It does not matter. I am reading out something which was broadcast over the radio. It went on to say—

This is what I say, and it is true, and does that hon. member now want to deny it? Is it a healthy state of affairs if one makes circulation one’s only motive? Is it proper or respectable? I am asking the hon. member, but he will not reply because he never has the courage of his convictions. He can never say yes or no when challenged.

May I reply to the hon. member?

Order! No, the hon. member must proceed.

The hon. member cannot even ask a question; he simply wants to answer. I want to continue—

That is what the S.A.B.C. said and I think that we should thank the S.A.B.C. for that objective view. It implicated no newspaper; it mentioned no newspaper by name. It was concerned about the things the Sunday newspapers are saying these days, and I think we have now reached a point where South Africa—and this includes that side as well as this side—should say to our Sunday newspapers, the English as well as the Afrikaans newspapers: What do you have in mind; where are you heading? Are we a Christian nation, yes or no? If those hon. members tell me they are not Christians …

We are satisfied with our Sunday newspapers.

If they say that they do not care what happens on Sundays, I shall understand. But I think that the time has cone for us to say to these Sunday newspapers: So far and no further; whether it be Dagbreek, the Sunday Times, Die Beeld or the Sunday Express, or whatever Sunday paper it may be, if that is the manner of reporting, i.e. disseminating discord, quarrelling, dissension, denigration and everything which is base and immoral, on the Sabbath, on Sunday, the time has come for us to consider putting a stop to it. We have now reached the stage in our lives where we must act maturely and I want to say this to the Opposition today. I think that the time has come for them to act maturely in these matters and they must not always hide behind their poor policy. Come forward with a proper, decent, respectable, civilized policy and fight the National Party on the basis thereof.

I want to deal with a few things which appeared in “Current Affairs”. I just want to deal with a few which were broadcast during the past month. We had the “Murder of Mondlane”. What was wrong with that programme? The next was “Indifference threatens Farming”. That was an objective, decent, respectable piece. There was “Visit of Portugal’s Minister of Defence”. I want to know from the Opposition whether there is something wrong with that. Must we establish friendly ties with our neighbours such as Portugal and negotiate and co-exist with them in a decent, respectable way, or must we offend those people? Let us go further. There was “Russia as a Naval Power”. This was discussed, and now the hon. members must tell us whether we should oppose Russia or accept it as an ally? Where does the Opposition stand? They must state their viewpoint very clearly. Then there was “Rhodesia’s Constitutional Future”. That was objective, and I ask the hon. member who is going to follow me up to pinpoint anything that is wrong under any of these headings that I have just read out. The officials of the S.A.B.C. are here and we are here to take note of that point of view. If you have any criticism of the S.A.B.C., you must express that criticism now. This is the debate, the place and the time. But merely to break down gets no party and no country anywhere. I am going to mention a few others. “1970, the Water Year.” Surely it is a fact that our greatest future need is water, and we can probably never speak enough about water. I now want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove whether he has any objection to our discussing water affairs? Does he have any grievance against the fact that it was dealt with in “Current Affairs? I just want to say that we in South Africa are a Christian nation. We believe in the almighty, we believe in God and we believe that we must live in such a way that our lives and all our actions are decent and respectable ones—without making a daily display of this; and I say that these Sunday newspapers of ours should all observe this. I now want to ask the Opposition whether they agree with me that we should appeal to our Sunday newspapers to show a little more respect for the Sunday, yes or no? If they do not want to respect the Sunday, they must say so. Then we know where we stand with the Opposition.

Are you afraid of the Sunday newspapers?

I am not afraid of the Sunday newspapers, but I respect the Sabbath. I just want to say this. We are grateful and glad that we have reached this milestone in the career of the Post Office and that we have this fine Budget, and we not only want to thank the Minister, his staff and the entire Department, but from the bottom of our hearts we want to wish them good luck, prosperity and strength for the future; we know that South Africa’s postal services are now on the road on which we have always wanted them to be, something for which the previous Minister and all his officials struggled for years, and we want to wish the Minister strength to achieve the great heights which he is going to reach with this new system.

To me it is significant that this afternoon’s debate has been dominated from the other side by the verkramptes in defence of the attack by “Current Affairs” on the Sunday newspapers. I would like to know from hon. members who have spoken why they are afraid to reveal the person’s name who writes the broadcast for Current Affairs. What is so secret about it?

It is not a man by the name of Wainwright. He can only write letters.

I wish it were. [Interjections.] First of all, I want to discuss some other items about the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation. There are items which disturb me. When the S.A.B.C. announces the broadcasting of world news, we expect the news to be international world news. But only the other day I happened to time this particular “World News” programme, and I found that out of 13½ minutes of the so-called world news, 8½ minutes were taken up by South African weather forecasts and only 5 minutes of this time was in fact devoted to international news. This came over the “A” Programme News during lunchtime. Another item which I think is bad timing, although possibly advertisers may consider it to be good timing, is to broad cast or advertise details on regional news just during the lunch hour about certain sewerage schemes being installed in certain places. Then they go on to say, in advertising that a dustbin is the dinner-gong for germs, and this is at lunchtime when the dinner-gong has gone. I think the S.A.B.C. can improve a lot in its advertising and its news items, especially during meal times.

“Current Affairs” programme, if it were not so serious, would be a comic relief for our listeners. We on this side of the House have complained about “Current Affairs” not only during the last few months but for many years already. We complain that it is nothing but a medium for Nationalist Party propaganda, and cheap propaganda at that, at the expense of all those who have to listen to it and pay their licences. What amazes me here this afternoon is that no one on that side of the House has attempted to defend the slanted broadcasts of “Current Affairs”. If they want to continue like this, I would suggest that they give the other parties in South Africa equal opportunities to give their point of view. [Interjections.] The hon. member says “O mag-tig!” He realizes what a mess that will create. Why should we only have to hear the Government side every time? After all, there should be equal opportunities. The radio belongs to me as much as it does to the hon. the Minister. Why should I not have an opportunity of airing my party’s views as well? [Interjections.] No, I do not think this would be such a good idea. I would not like to see my party lowering its standard by putting its policy across to the nation by abusing the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation in that manner. I only hope that the hon. the Minister will have the strength, the “kragdadigheid” to put his foot down and see to it that we all have more fair play over the radio. Sir, people who listen to Current Affairs can easily be divided into four groups. We have the first group who mainly support the Government and the Nationalist Party and who listen to, enjoy and in fact support the Current Affairs broadcasts. The second group consists of people who listen to it and think it is most amusing. People have told me that they think it is very amusing. Then you have the third group, a large group, who listen and feel that it is nothing but a despicable propaganda movement. This third group is in fact being antagonized more and more every day, to the opposition’s advantage and to the Government’s detriment.

Why are you complaining then?

This is the psychological effect it is having. If this is not so, why is there all this fuss in the Sunday newspapers about Current Affairs? We see that the jackal is beginning to bite its own tail. In fact the chickens are coming home to roost. We have been very patient, but the “verligtes” are now losing their patience, over one broadcast. Then we have the fourth group of radio listeners in South Africa, who do the easiest thing and that is to switch the thing off.

And they are gaining in numbers.

Sure!—Current Affairs used to antagonize and upset me, but now I see it is having the opposite effect to what I always thought it would have. I believe that if you give the verkramptes enough rope they will hang themselves, and this side of the House must ultimately benefit.

Sir, here we are still discussing television to-day in a world where there are more television sets than telephones. I have no time to discuss telephones in South Africa, but we know that to-day we have a shortage of 72,000. In the world to-day there are more television sets than telephones and here in South Africa, the most advanced and the wealthiest State in Africa, we are still bickering about the effect of television on the moral standards of our people.

Have you got a telephone?

I happen to have one and every member of Parliament has one, because we are members of Parliament but unfortunately there are at least 72,000 people outside who cannot get them because they are not members of Parliament. The Minister always has an excuse, sometimes it is because there is no “line” available. Sir, in a recent survey we saw that 68 per cent of South Africa’s men are in favour of television, and 64 per cent of South Africa’s women want television. In a special survey conducted by Market Research (Africa) it was revealed that in Natal 75 per cent of the people there want television. In the Transvaal 68 per cent want television. In the Cape Province 63 per cent want television and in the Orange Free State more than 50 per cent want television. A matter of 53 per cent of our Free State Friends want television. I now ask the hon. the Minister: What about the “volkswil” which we hear so much about? Why is the “will of the people” not taken into consideration when it comes to television sets? The watchword of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation has been and still is “Hearing, not seeing, is believing”. As long as you can hear something, even if you do not see it, you must believe it. I want to ask hon. members—they can answer when they stand up to speak—has the S.A.B.C. corrupted anybody’s mind in South Africa; on the other hand, are our high moral standards being maintained in South Africa, because we happen to listen to the S.A.B.C. broadcasts, but cannot see them? Not at all. Then why all of a sudden should we hear that one of the reasons against the introduction of television in South Africa is that it will lower the moral standards of our people? I have not heard greater nonsense in Parliament for a long time. The Minister himself has relaxed the restriction to permit greater use of closed circuit television in the hospitals, in the schools, in the industries, in commerce and last year in December a tennis coach used the system at a tennis display here. As I say, the Minister has relaxed the restrictions on closed circuit television. We have always said that it will have to come sooner or later. Why not let us have it sooner; by virtue of the fact that the restrictions on closed circuit television have been relaxed?—the Minister gave us the figures on the number of closed circuit television sets in South Africa here the other day, but, no, when it comes to television it will corrupt the morals of our people and the second reason is that it will be too expensive. If it is too expensive for South Africa, with our progressive people and our sound strong economy, how is it that a state like Rhodesia which is suffering under sanctions, can afford to run television? There is no logic in the arguments advanced by hon. members on the Government side. In fact, this “expensive television”, this expensive luxury as they call it, will only cost us R24 million initially and the cost of upkeep will be between R3 million to R4 million per annum.

May I put a question?

I wish I had time to answer the hon. member’s questions. He only thinks in terms of pamphlets; he has not even thought about television yet. He likes running around issuing pamphlets at elections, pamphlets which do not even contain the truth.

May I ask the hon. member whether he knows how much a colour television set will cost in South Africa?

The hon. member wants to know if I know what colour television will cost in South Africa. We are pleading for television. Give us television; let it be black and white. Colour television can come later. I do not think the hon. member knows himself, I imagine that it will cost ten times more than the standard black and white television. But what has that to do with the price of television to-day? The figure I am quoting is R24 million for black and white television. Colour television can come later. It still has to be developed and perfected anyway. Sir, what does sometimes worry me about television is this: Whenever I listen, as I frequently do, to the S.A.B.C. and Current Affairs, and the despicable broadcasts which they give us, I find that everything which Ministers happen to say when they open or close something, is broadcast to the public, and when one of our leaders on this side should support the Government in some matter or other, then it is regarded as news; then it is good for public consumption, but when anybody criticizes the Government, whether here or overseas, then it is not news; then it is not good for public consumption and no one hears about it. We are still prepared to accept and welcome television, and we want it in spite of what we believe might still happen. Can hon. members on this side of the House imagine what will happen? Every day we will have to be prepared to see the faces of those hon. Ministers appearing on television …

Save us that!

Yes, but this might have the same effect that Current Affairs is having and turn the people against the present Government.

In the course of my speech I shall respond to what the hon. member for East London (North) said here this afternoon. Perhaps I may just say at the outset that the figure he mentioned in respect of the cost of open television in South Africa is hopelessly wrong, but for the present I shall leave it at that; in the course of my speech I shall return to it. To strike a higher note, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to avail myself of this opportunity to extend to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and his Department my very sincere congratulations on the introduction of this, the first autonomous Budget of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, a Department which is one of our largest service Departments and which is only second to the Railways Administration. It is an acknowledged fact that, as a result of the rapid economic development that has taken place in South Africa in recent years, especially since we became a Republic, extremely heavy and extensive demands have been made on this Department.

However, I believe that, with the introduction of this autonomous Budget, wider horizons are in the offing for the Department of Posts in South Africa. Whereas in the past the Minister and the Department of Posts were handicapped owing to the fact that they were dependent on the Treasury for their funds and that at present they can function with a large measure of autonomy, I do not have any doubts whatsoever that in this year and in years to come this Department will continue to provide even greater services to South Africa, because from the nature of the case it is an acknowledged fact that the National Party Government, together with its service Departments, is adapted to one major basic principle only, i.e. to render at all times only the best service to the inhabitants of South Africa. Deep down I am convinced that this fine, momentous day in the history of this Department will usher in fine days and fine years for us.

In the time at my disposal I want to touch briefly upon a matter which has once again been raised repeatedly by hon. members opposite this afternoon. As usual the hon. member for Orange Grove once again delivered a major tirade this afternoon in regard to open television for South Africa; the same applies to other hon. members on that side. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, tried to make out a case for the immediate introduction of an open television service for South Africa. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I say this in all sincerity, that it is a very great pity that we have such a bankrupt Opposition here in South Africa, an Opposition which has continually, year after year, for as long as I have been a member of this House, been trying to seize upon television, which is a popular slogan—let us concede that—and to see whether by those means they cannot gain a few extra votes for their Party. They saddled that horse in 1966. Television formed part of their election manifesto. Sir, it is very easy to advocate something in a most irresponsible manner, something which apparently seems to be popular, without grasping or understanding its implications. But when one has to do with a responsible government, such as this Government, one realizes that sometimes it is also its duty and its task to do things which may apparently seem to be unpopular but which are in the interests of South Africa. This Government has never hesitated to do things even if they appeared to be unpopular with the public outside. It has never hesitated to do things when they are in the interests of South Africa.

A week or two ago the hon. the Minister reconfirmed the National Party’s policy in respect of television in the Other Place—and I want to underline this: he reconfirmed it. Immediately after that hon. members on that side tried to create the impression that as a result of the pressure they were bringing to bear this Government was now beginning to yield and was going to introduce television at once. The Saturday after he had made his speech in the Other Place, the hon. member for Wynberg said in a Press interview that if we got television to-morrow or the day after, the public had to realize that this was a result of the pressure brought to bear by that side of the House. They are touching upon this matter for the simple reason that they want to see whether by doing so they may gain a few votes.

What are the facts in respect of the Minister’s reconfirmation of this policy in the Other Place? What are the facts in respect of this matter? The attitude adopted by the Government and by the National Party in regard to open television for South Africa is at present exactly the same as it has been over all these past years. It is exactly the same as it was set out by the late Dr. Verwoerd. I think that for the sake of the record it would perhaps be a good thing to pause for a while at the speech made by the Minister in the Other Place. Amongst other things the Minister said the following there: “In order to do so it can only be done, in the first place, by introducing a State-controlled television service.” At the very outset I now want to ask hon. members opposite whether they agree with this principle. What did we find here this afternoon? One Opposition speaker after the other launched attacks on the S.A.B.C. As we all know, the radio is an important means of communication. Now those hon. members are suggesting that we on this side of the House are using the radio for our own political gain. If we were to introduce a State-controlled television service and we were to use this for our own political gain as well, there would be absolutely nothing left of that side. The Minister continued and said the following—

I am not going to mention all the points that were mentioned by the Minister; I shall only quote the last one. He expressed himself as follows—

It is, therefore, very clear what the attitude and policy of this side of the House is in respect of this matter. It is a great pity that hon. members opposite are always debating this matter on a political basis. I want to say this, and I say it very sincerely, and now hon. members apposite should not fall off their seats. I want to admit frankly that, because of facts I shall mention, I am in favour of an open television service in South Africa at some stage or other in the future. I say “at some stage or other in the future”, and I am in favour of it for technological reasons. If I had the time to do so, I would be able to furnish detailed reasons why, in my modest opinion, it would be necessary. I have every confidence in the hon. the Minister and his Department. The hon. the Minister said that, if this service were introduced in South Africa one day, it would be controlled by the State. Just as the State controls other bodies and other matters in South Africa, so I am convinced deep down that, if in the future we get this service as a result of technological reasons, it would be controlled in such a way that it would do the least possible harm to the people of South Africa. To me it is simply contrary to all logic to expect such a modern invention, which does have its disadvantages—that is something I readily grant—never to be introduced here. Other hon. members pointed out that television definitely entails disadvantages, but in my modest opinion it also has major advantages, and that is why I believe that it cannot be kept out of South Africa for ever.

When one deals with and debates a matter such as this in a realistic manner, then the point at issue—and hon. members opposite must agree with me now—is, after all, the major principle, i.e. that we in South Africa can definitely not afford it. I believe, and I am being very frank, that we cannot afford it at present because there are many other more important matters in which we are engaged and which are still in embryo.

The hon. member for East London (North) referred to costs. Let us look for a moment at what the costs of such a service would be. It is estimated that a limited service which has ten broadcasting stations with programmes of three to four hours per day and which provides a multi-lingual service for non-Whites, would cost approximately R24.5 million in capital. This is for a black and white service. The hon. member said that they did not mind if we only get a black and white service. Once television has eventually been introduced here, it will be the task of this side of the House to provide only the best service. The cost of a colour service is estimated at approximately R50 million. It is calculated that a black and white set would cost R300 and a colour set approximately R500. On a previous occasion the hon. member for Orange Grove said he believed that more or less 500,000 people in South Africa would buy television sets, and this gives us the considerable amount of approximately R250 million in round figures. This is my objection: I believe that we in South Africa cannot afford television as yet.

The fact of the matter is that I believe that there are many more important matters in South Africa to which preference should be given, instead of spending millions upon millions of rands for the sake of entertainment. We must bear in mind that a very small white population would have to undertake this project, would have to carry it through and would have to bear the major part of the burden it would entail so as to ensure the welfare of all our non-white population groups in South Africa, together with the welfare of the Whites.

Millions upon millions of rands have to be spent to ensure a future for the Whites of this country and to make possible a peaceful co-existence with the non-white population groups in South Africa. When we are discussing this aspect, an aspect which will in fact determine our future as Whites in this country, I believe—and I think the hon. member for Orange Grove will agree with me in this respect—that one really cannot mention this and television in the same breath. I say that these matters are, as far as I am concerned, of paramount importance. We have to spend millions upon millions of rands on our defence. We are living in grave and difficult times, and as a responsible Government, such as this National Party Government is, it is most definitely its task to look after the safety of the country at all times. When we discuss this, we cannot mention it in the same breath with television in South Africa either. We are trying to conserve our water resources. From day to day we are spending millions of rands on constructing dams, etc.

I repeat that when one mentions these things, they really do not bear mentioning in the same breath as television. I notice that my time has almost expired. I am sorry that I have not been able to deal with the technological aspect of this whole matter. In conclusion I just want to say that hon. members opposite should not be so concerned about the responsibility of this side of the House. In everything this side of the House does in South Africa, it is definitely intent on one ideal only, i.e. to do at all times, whether it is popular or not, only what is in the best interests of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the trouble is of course that we all differ in our views as to what is the best thing for South Africa. That is our great difficulty. What the hon. member, who has just sat down, considers to be in the best interests of South Africa may not in fact be views shared by other people, who perhaps live more in the second half of the 20th century that that hon. member does. I must say that we have all had a very interesting game this afternoon. I call it “spotting the super verkramptes”. That is the game we have had this afternoon. They have been popping up and down in their seats like rabbits. This is no reflection on the hon. the Minister. I am talking about hon. members close to me and immediately opposite me, from whom we have had nary a squeak for about two years. Suddenly they have been popping up out of their little seats and giving us the benefit of their opinions on television. I have not quite decided to what category the hon. member who has just sat down belongs. I think he is probably between the verkramptes and the super-verkramptes. At one stage he almost became a verligte, because he pronounced bravely that he was actually quite in favour of television, as long as all sorts of conditions were fulfilled. Of course, he made most of those conditions sound absolutely impossible of fulfilment, as though he were talking about some extraordinary form of witchcraft which had just been introduced to the world, and not the great modern means of communication that every country which has any sort of pretentions to being modern, has long since adopted. Is it not extraordinary that none of those countries has found it necessary to wait for colour television before going ahead with ordinary black and white television? I think we might just as well not have purchased any aircraft in South Africa for years because the Concord is shortly to be put into service. Or, we should not have abandoned the ox waggon, because who knows what sort of fancy electric motor cars are going to be invented sooner or later. Surely the idea is to progress as modern inventions come on the market. One takes advantage of them and then one goes further as new inventions become available. Before I leave this subject, there is something more I should like to say. It is extraordinary that such a subject should even be debated in this day and age in a country like South Africa, with its vast resources and technological advances and its financial resources. It is remarkable that this subject is even debated. But here we are, debating it solemnly year after year. Tempers become frayed. All sorts of people get excited about it. I wondered what this reminded me of. I had some sort of feeling this afternoon as I listened to the debate. What did this remind me of? Now I have remembered. It came to me in a flash. I remember the arguments we used to have in this House ten years ago about immigration. We heard exactly the same sort of heated debates about what was going to happen to South Africa and how her moral character was going to be undermined because all sorts of riff-raff were going to come streaming into the country, instead of producing enough citizens via the cradle. How well I remember the thundering world of the hon. member for Krugersdorp about producing enough South Africans from our own resources through the cradle. None of these foreign elements that might undermine our true South African character were to be tolerated. It is exactly the same thing. Everybody has forgotten about that, because willy-nilly, of course, immigration had to be accepted. The Government had to adopt that policy. Now we are going to have exactly the same thing. I prophesy that, within a much shorter time than any one in this House anticipates, we are going to have television in this country, because we cannot withstand the requirements of modern communications any more than we could withstand the necessity for immigration into South Africa. I say that it does not matter a scrap whether we start with black and white television. I believe that we can afford it quite easily. There are priorities in every country. I am not denying that. But, Sir, there is wasteful expenditure in other directions which could easily pay for television. I think of the quadruplication of all the services in our country, namely the white services, the Coloured services, the Indian services and the African services, with their multiplicity of departments and the tremendous sums the State has to spend on capital expenditure, on different buildings to house all these administrations, and on all the staff we have to employ. This is all done instead of using our youth and training them for technological purposes, rather than as clerks sitting in these departments trying to manage this huge, unmanageable edifice of apartheid. I can think of a million ways in which we could save money and divert it into this enormously important medium of communication.

The hon. member for Innesdal thinks of television only in its political light. That is of course quite natural for him because he is completely obsessed with the political angle of everything he considers. Everything he considers is important only from a political point of view. He is worried about the political effects of television on the South African public, which will no longer be captive to its particular language group, but which will now be able to watch a programme which is universal for all the people of South Africa. There need be only one channel, if necessary, to start with. This can be a bilingual channel. I shall not say that there should be a ratio of 60 per cent to 40 per cent. Let us act according to the Constitution and make it 50-50. I may say that the Africans, the Coloureds and the Indians would be perfectly happy to watch such programmes. There is no need to go in for all these absurd cultural differentiations in television programmes. It is quite unnecessary. That can develop afterwards as a side-line. Surely, when we first started with radio in South Africa, we did not have all-Afrikaans programmes and all-English programmes and four or five Bantu-language programmes. I am sure that we had nothing of the kind. That is something which developed. The same thing can happen in the case of television if necessary. To deny the whole country this wonderful modern means of communication until we can produce the whole shooting works, is ludicrous.

Of course, I can understand one fear of the hon. member for Innesdal. Can you imagine what would happen to the National Party if these hon. members were put on the television screen? How long would they last in power? Imagine the shock to the unsuspecting electorate of South Africa if they were suddenly confronted with hon. members on the opposite side appearing in their drawing rooms, at close quarters. What a terrifying thought! I can understand the fears of the hon. member for Innesdal. I should, however, like to suggest that we should cut out all politics on television. That would be really wonderful. Instead of repeating the pattern which we have on Radio South Africa, where some unhappy captive audience sits listening to that sibilant voice on Current Affairs expounding those nonsensical pieces of propaganda into their ears, let us have a television service free from all politics. There are innumerable programmes … What a pity. The hon. member for Innesdal is leaving us. I was going to suggest some programmes which even he would enjoy listening to. There are for example the sports programmes. Why not have the Bloemfontein games on television, for instance. Think of that.

And the Stock Exchange.

Yes, even the Stock Exchange. I am just giving examples. All the great sporting events could be televised. The tennis finals, when South Africa was in the finals of the Davis Cup, could be viewed. Then there are rugby matches. We have a great sport-loving public in South Africa. We have huge areas with scattered populations. There are people in farmhouses, many miles from any of the centres which provide any entertainment whatsoever. All these things could be televised. Education is so obvious that one hardly need mention it. In the school rooms scattered all over South Africa the most magnificent educational programmes could be brought to children who otherwise would never have those advantages. I want to make a plea, the obvious plea, for the lonely people, the old people, the sick people, the people who never get an opportunity of participating, even indirectly, in what is going on in modern life to-day. To these people television is a lifesaver—it is the only way I can describe it—because it gives such people, who otherwise cannot get out into the world and enjoy any of these privileges, a feeling of participation. We deny ourselves all these advantages, because hon. members opposite are afraid of the politics of the television. That is the only reason. I refuse to believe for one moment that finance has anything to do with it. I know exactly how rich South Africa is and how she can afford it. I refuse to believe for one moment that this advanced country cannot provide the technological services required for television. I prophesy that it will not be very long before we in South Africa will be watching sports programmes, documentaries, Apollo trips to the moon, all these wonderful things that are happening in this day and age. We will have long left behind us the ideology expressed by the hon. member for Innesdal and the hon. member for Welkom.

Having said that about television, I want to turn just for a moment to this old problem of the telephone service. I hope the hon. the Minister is feeling strong, because I am going to congratulate him. I hope he is going to withstand the blow of receiving a congratulatory message from me. I want to tell him that I am delighted with the new overseas’ service. I wish to congratulate him on the opening of this new service. It is a joy to be able to pick up a phone, and within a few minutes one can be connected to London on the clearest possible circuit. [Interjection.] One can get through to London on a much clearer line and much faster than one, of course, can get through to Johannesburg from Cape Town.

Or to Sea Point.

Or to Sea Point, but I seldom have to ring Sea Point. But anyway, one certainly can get through overseas much faster. Apart from privileged members, who have the very excellent services provided for us by our own telephone exchange in this building, I pity the poor public that have to sit around, waiting endlessly, even to get a “hello” from the long distance exchange, overburdened presumably as they are. I want to make again a suggestion that I made to the hon. the Minister and to his predecessor, namely how to relieve the tremendous pressures on the long distance service during the week by transferring a lot of these calls to the week-ends, to Saturday afternoon after one o’clock and throughout Sundays. He should not charge one and a half times, but half the amount which is charged for long distance calls at these times, as is being done in other countries of the world. I know the answer we will get. There is a shortage of staff and the hon. the Minister cannot make the Post Office staff work overtime, and so on. Other countries must face the same problems concerning staff. We should pay overtime to the staff that work overtime on Sundays and public holidays. It is the only way to relieve this tremendous pressure on the long distance service. I must say that I agree with other members who have discussed the shortage of staff. The obvious thing is not to try and draw only on the resources of our 3½ to 4 million white people in South Africa. We have to start training non-white people to take on some of the semi-skilled and skilled jobs in all the essential services in this country, not the least of which is the telephone service. Again we are not going to be able to withstand it any more than the hon. the Minister of Transport has been able to withstand it or the hon. the Minister of Labour, who had to admit the other day that it would be sheer idiocy to try and do so indefinitely. Why not grasp this opportunity to train Coloured, Indian and African people to take on jobs, which they are perfectly able to do, in our telephone services? The earth would not collapse and the heavens would not fall. It is amazing what we have become accustomed to in South Africa over the years. Practices that people thought would bring the heavens down have been gradually been accepted in this country. Gradually people have realized that, after all, it is not so terrible to have a Coloured postman delivering a telegram. Even in the Transvaal this extraordinary, eccentric thing is happening. Coloured men are actually delivering telegrams.

Do you not think it is responsible for the drought, Helen?

It may well be responsible for the drought; it may not be. There is a possibility. Anyway, the point is one adapts oneself to ideas. One gradually turns away from prejudices and adapts oneself to new circumstances. I am quite sure that after the South African white public’s ear has been shocked a few times by hearing a voice with a distinct Coloured or African tone in it answering the telephone and they see that they get efficient service, they would even get used to that. I put this suggestion to the hon. the Minister without making any party politics about it, but as an essentially practical measure. As everybody knows, women like using telephones too.

Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal I do not want to examine in detail what the hon. member for Houghton said about television. I think the House knows what my standpoint is. I have repeatedly stated it outside and in newspaper articles as well. I am in favour of television if it is controlled by the State. The hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members tried to create the impression this afternoon that we on this side of the House are a lot of backvelders and that we are backward in our approach to the question of television. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the National Party has never been opposed to the principle of television. It was repeatedly stated by our former leader, Dr. Verwoerd, when he made a speech here in the House of Assembly, that the National Party was not opposed to television in principle, but that there were certain reasons why this country was not yet in a position to introduce it. The present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had repeated it times without number. He repeated it only recently in the Other Place. He once again stated very explicitly there that he did not regard television as something evil, but that there were very sound reasons for our not introducing television at this stage. As has been very clearly explained here by the hon. member for Welkom, it is the question of the cost of introducing television that has to be taken into account. There are many other important priorities and projects that must first be deal with in South Africa. That is all that I want to say in connection with television this afternoon.

In the short time at my disposal, I do not want to talk about “Current Affairs”, but about two other programmes of the S.A.B.C. Firstly I want to say something about Fanus Rautenbach’s “Flink uit die Vere”. Like politicians, Fanus has his admirers and his critics. As for me personally, I want to make it clear that I enjoy listening to that programme from time to time. He can be marvellously witty sometimes and his good-natured banter and jokes have a cheering effect. If one gets out of bed on the wrong side in the morning, he cheers one up with his quips and wisecracks. But I think that a period of 90 minutes in the morning during the parliamentary recess and 70 minutes when “Gister in die Parlement” is broadcast at 7.30 in the mornings, is far too long for this programme. No person, no matter how witty he is, can possibly keep it up for such a long time for five days a week. In my opinion he should not be on the air for longer than 45 minutes. During the parliamentary session part of that time could rather be devoted to a longer survey of Parliamentary affairs, i.e. to “Gister in die Parlement”. I am sure that there are many people outside who are as much interested in what happens in Parliament as in what Fanus has to say in his programme “Flink uit die Vere”.

I also want to ask whether the time has not come for the S.A.B.C. to consider re-introducing a radio programme along the same lines as the late A. M. Burger’s very famous “Mielieblaarklub” of before and shortly after the War.

Hear, hear!

I am very glad to have the support of the hon. member for Kensington.

Oh, yes! It gave me the greatest pleasure!

Many hon. members will recall this famous programme. They spared virtually no thing and no person when it came to satirizing daily events. In our own country with its multi-national composition, and especially since we have two white national groups, there is nothing healthier for our people than sometimes being able to laugh at themselves. I remember that one of the biggest admirers of this “Mielieblaarklub” was no less a person than the former State President, Mr. C. R. Swart. In the war years the “Mielieblaarklub” sometimes dealt with United Party Cabinet Ministers in such a cutting way that the programme was quietly silenced one fine day during the war. It was only in 1948 under this Government that A. M. Burger could resume broadcasting this programme.

While I still have some time left I want to return to the matter of “Current Affairs”. We on this side of the House have never yet maintained that “Current Affairs” is beyond criticism. However, I want to make it very clear that what the Opposition is losing sight of is that “Current Affairs” is nothing but a sort of leading article such as appears in any newspaper. What is wrong with that? After all, the S.A.B.C. is free to feature a leading article in which they can give free expression to their opinions. The hon. the Opposition is also forgetting that we in this country accept two basic truths, the one being that the vast majority of the people in South Africa accept the policy of separate development, and the other that we are anti-communist and opposed to Liberalism. The programme “Current Affairs” is based on those two truths. I now challenge the hon. the Opposition to tell us what is wrong with that.

Mr. Speaker, if I have to sum it up, this debate actually dealt with three important matters. Firstly, the Opposition complained that we did not have telephones; secondly, they complained that we did not have television, and thirdly, they complained because we had radio services. The difficulty one has with the Opposition is that if they were able to get television, what will definitely happen will be what the master said about the dog who chased motor cars every day. He said that every day the dog chased all the motor cars which drove past, but that if he should ever catch one, he would not know what to do with it. I am afraid that when the Opposition will be in a position to get television one day, they will still not be able to tell us what shape that television service should take.

As long as you do not give it to Piet Meyer.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place I want to deal with the question of the radio services. The hon. member for Turffontein, who has just resumed his seat, asked me to curtail the morning programme of Fanus Rautenbach, I do not want to express an opinion on the programmes of the S.A.B.C., but I want to say that this particular programme is one that I enjoy every morning. I really think it takes some doing to be funny every morning on an empty stomach. There are in fact occasions when Fanus is definitely not funny, but still, to be funny every morning, five days in the week, at that time of the morning certainly takes some doing. That is why I have a great deal of appreciation for Fanus’s programme.

I do not know what the S.A.B.C.’s opinion would be on the introduction of a programme similar to the Mielieblaarklub of A. M. Burger which was broadcast in earlier years. I understand, however, that one unfortunately does not find a person like A. M. Burger every day, who can be responsible for the compilation of such a programme. That programme was compiled in Bloemfontein and I can remember quite distinctly that A. M. Burger was often, after the programme had already commenced, writing the last part of that programme so that it could be broadcast that same night. A. M. Burger was a true artist. I do not know whether it is possible, but if one could find another person like that, the S.A.B.C. should certainly consider introducing a programme like that. Mr. Speaker, I want to read a quotation to you here, with reference to the complaints which have been made about the radio programmes, particularly certain radio programmes: “Then I enter the political arena by saying that I think that everyone who participates in this debate, or any one who seriously advocates the introduction of television, does so on the assumption that it will be properly controlled. Proper control must be exercised over it, just as the S.A.B.C., throughout the long period it has been in operation, except for one or two lapses, which I do not want to elaborate on now, was a properly controlled means of communication. There ought to be no place in this country for the kind of abuse one can find in regard to means of communication.” The hon. member for East London (North) elaborated at length here on the programme “Current Affairs”. The other hon. gentleman who spoke here probably had that programme in mind as well. Bearing in mind what we heard this afternoon from the hon. member for East London (North), and also what he heard from the other hon. gentleman in regard to the S.A.B.C., one cannot imagine that they belong to the same party. This gentleman to who I am referring, does not play a mere subservient role in the United Party. He is no less a person than Senator Cadman. One finds here a divergence of opinion in their views on radio services.

He said that about “Current Affairs”?

But I read out to you that he had spoken about the “one or two lapses” which the S.A.B.C. had during its long period of controlled existence. Listening to the hon. member for East London (North) one would have said that there was in fact nothing which the South African Broadcasting Corporation could do right. There was so much criticism. In regard to the programme “Current Affairs”, which is presented by the S.A.B.C., one must accept that there will often be people who will hold different views from those expressed on that programme. These people will differ with the opinions expressed there, as the hon. member for Turffontein rightly said. This programme is in effect the leading article of the S.A.B.C. which is broadcast every day. There will be statements of opinion, with which one will differ.

Do you agree with Die Beeld’s criticism?

Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to express an opinion here on what the newspaper said about this programme; but I will still come to this later on. I will not avoid the issue, but I prefer in this debate to reply to questions as I want to reply to them. The hon. member for Orange Grove has had his opportunity, and he will not prescribe to me what I must reply to and what I must not reply to.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to quote something here which was said by a certain hon. gentleman. I quote (translation)—

This is really a very objective opinion and it is also an opinion which was expressed by an hon. senator on that side of the House, the same senator to whom I referred just now, i.e. Senator Cadman.

He had something else to say this year.

But this is precisely what the hon. member said this year. Mr. Speaker, there is not enough time for the other arguments I want to raise, and for that reason I shall continue when business is resumed tonight.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Just before the adjournment I was pointing out that the S.A.B.C. sends out broadcasts every minute of the day to which millions of people listen and it is obvious, no matter how good the services is, that it will never be able to satisfy everybody. We had typical cases here. Hon. members were complaining about “Current Affairs”. I quoted what an hon. United Party Senator said in the Other Place, that he thought there had been only a few minor lapses. But if I had to give an account to this House of the programmes of the S.A.B.C. it would be impossible for me to give an account of the contents of all the programmes. That is obvious. If I had to venture into that field we would be able to talk for days about what hon. members like and what hon. members do not like, and I do not think it was ever the intention, not under the former United Party regime either, that the Minister should in this way interfere in the programmes of the S.A.B.C.

But last year I noticed that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition travelled through the country and in my town, in Ermelo and other places, he made an attack on the chairman of the S.A.B.C. and on the S.A.B.C. itself, alleging that the S.A.B.C. allowed itself to be used to cram the propaganda of one political party down the throats of the public of South Africa. I reacted to that and I challenged the Leader of the Opposition because he had also made an appeal to me to intervene in this matter. I reacted to that at Bloemfontein during the Free State congress of the National Party when I said to the Leader of the Opposition that he should mention specific examples to me. [Laughter.] Yes, it is easy to laugh now.

Die Beeld did that.

I shall come to Die Beeld. Do not try to distract me from the issue I am trying to settle with your Leader. I know he will do his utmost to try to avoid the issue, Sir. I challenge the Leader of the Opposition to mention specific examples to me explaining why he thought that the radio services were dragging politics into its broadcasts.

You will say, just as Albert Hertzog did, that you cannot interfere.

I am still waiting to-day for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to respond. [Interjections.] It is easy to make accusations and then, when you are called to account, avoid the issue. Sir, I shall be most willing to proceed when those hon. members opposite have finished plying the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with suggestions in order to help him out of his difficulty.

May I put a question? Does the hon. the Minister assume responsibility for what is broadcast over Radio South Africa, something which his predecessor never did?

I shall come to that. [Interjection.]

He is running away.

If the hon. members do not want to accept this I shall react now to the hon. the Leader’s question, and I want to make it very clear so that there will be no doubt about this. The hon. members are trying their best to help their leader out of his difficulty, but they need not be so concerned. He can probably defend himself. I want to state very emphatically to-night, so that there can be no doubt about this, that it is my view as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs that it is not the S.A.B.C.’s task, in any programme which they broadcast, to venture into the sphere of party politics. [Laughter.] Sir, just look at the commotion in the dove cote!

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. the Minister a chance.

I am furnishing the hon. the Leader of the Opposition with a reply, and I am still doing so, but just look how they are carrying on! What are they afraid of? It seems to me they are afraid, just as they are always afraid of the Broederbond. If the S.A.B.C. should in any way perpetrate this kind of thing, then I should like to give the assurance that I will not hesitate to take steps.

But I come back to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He never responded to my challenge and I am still waiting for an answer. I at least expect the hon. the Leader of the Opposition to be friendly and courteous because I know him to be a courteous man. I do not expect him to consult the hon. member for Orange Grove and try to get advice from him when I am replying to him. [Interjection.] I really think he needs it, but he would be helping his Leader from the frying pan into the fire, just as he did in regard to this case. Apparently the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, when he did not reply to me, left it to the hon. member for Orange Grove to reply and to furnish us with specific examples of how the radio services were allegedly guilty of political interference. Sir, you will not believe me. That was towards the end of last year. The hon. member for Orange Grove quoted no fewer than ten examples, I think, of how the radio services were allegedly interfering in politics, and do you know that he had to go back all the way to 1967 to find these examples? I take it that he was unable to find a single example in 1968 of where this programme, “Current Affairs” did this kind of thing. I have them all here in my possession and I shall read out the dates to you: 10th January, 1967, 11th January, 1967, 25th January, 1967, 18th January, 1967, 3rd June, 1967, 3rd April, 1967, 19th October, 1967, 3rd March, 1967, 26th May, 1967, but not a single example of 1968 when the Leader of the Opposition had occasion to make an attack on the S.A.B.C. with reference to its so-called political interference. I think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would do better to rely on someone else. I read through those radio talks. They were classified by the hon. the member for Orange Grove, and contained attacks on the Press and the freedom of the Press which had allegedly been made by “Current Affairs”; attacks which had allegedly been made on the standpoints of certain English churches and churchmen; attacks on the right to hold opposing views; and then there is a single example here of propaganda, which can be interpreted as the hon. member for Orange Grove professed, for the race policy of the National Party.

Do you think so?

No, the hon. member thought so, but when a person is suffering from a guilty conscience then he sees politics in everything, and that hon. member is suffering from a guilty conscience. And then he came forward with quotations from attacks on other nations, in particular the United States of America, Britain and Israel. What has that to do with the internal politics here in South Africa? I read through these radio talks. I do not want to take up the time of this House by going into details, but I can tell you that I found no political propaganda in them.

You have a funny idea of politics.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this programme, Current Affairs, is to cast a positive spotlight at all times on national and international matters; to consult with a large number of experts and in the light of information gleaned in this way to give a factual analysis of matters affecting our country, when this is necessary; to bring situations at home and abroad into perspective; and not to cast doubts on the right of the Press and acknowledged public bodies to express criticism. Sir, you will agree with me, if you had listened to the talk the other evening to which Die Beeld referred that that talk did not attack the right of the Press to express its opinion, or the freedom of the Press, in any respect. A further purpose of this programme is to require of any criticism that it does not distort the image of our nation, nor the voice of its people and, where criticism was unfounded, to expose and rectify it. In so doing the radio services are not serving party political ends, but the interests of our country as a whole.

Was there no politics in those talks? Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

No, I can furnish the hon. member with the reply to the question he wants to put. I wish the hon. member would go and read the talk again.

Order! I must ask the hon. member to give the hon. Minister a chance to make his speech.

The hon. member for Orange Grove sees politics in everything. In 1945 he wrote in Die Kruithoring (translation)—

Jack Basson’s father-in-law.

I am quoting further (translation)—

Mr. Speaker, the second matter which was raised a great deal here was the question of television, but before I come to my standpoint, which of course is not unknown, I just want to say this: There may be people in the country who are mischief-makers, who deliberately misinterpret me, but what I have said has always been very clear, and one of the people who deliberately misinterpreted me is none other than the hon. member for Orange Grove. Last year, during the National Party Congress of the Transvaal, when I once again expressed my opinion about television and the Government’s standpoint in respect of the introduction of a television service, the hon. member for Orange Grove said that I had changed my mind, and did so after I had repeated word for word at that Congress what I have said here in Parliament. Where does the hon. member get such misinterpretations from. Cannot he take the trouble, before running to the Press to issue a statement, to verify the facts. Of course I can understand that the hon. member is competing strongly with the hon. member for Hillbrow to appear every Sunday in the Sunday Times. I can understand that, but he must at least make sure of his facts before making such irresponsible statements. Here I have a further item of proof, Sir. I am quoting from the Sunday Tribune of 11th February, which appeared recently—

This was said with reference to the request for permits for use of closed circuit television. What are the true facts in this regard? Here one has an entire article about the alleged dissatisfaction among the people as a result of the way in which the Government is treating them when they apply for permits for closed circuit television. What are the facts? During the past year no complaints were received in connection with the conditions in terms of which permits for the use of or demonstration of closed circuit television were being issued. There was not a single complaint. But the hon. member for Orange Grove is shouting and carrying on up and down the country because the Government is allegedly treating the people who made applications like children. In fact, the number of permits issued increased from 76 to 152, and the few applications for the use of closed circuit television which were refused were in the case of non-essential services where the intention was to use the apparatus for entertainment purposes. But nobody complained. Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat now what I have said about television. The Opposition must not think that I am going to carry on like a weather man and that I am going to adopt a different attitude on television every day, so as to satisfy their moods. If the hon. members think that they will pressure and push me in a direction they want me to take, then they are making a big mistake. I am not a vain person, Mr. Speaker. If somebody gets the impression that I am a vain person, then it is definitely a wrong impression. But I will not allow myself to be pushed, least of all by the Opposition. I want to repeat clearly, for the information of the hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members on the opposite side, what I said. I want to repeat it very clearly because many misinterpretations were attached to my words, inter alia, by people outside as well. I am quoting what I recently said in the Other Place (translation)—

I then proceeded to mention six principles on the basis of which we would decide. I furnished the details of what the Government’s views on this matter were, and what sort of service would in its opinion limit the dangers of television to a minimum. These are all principles in regard to which I put questions to the United Party in this House last year. I received replies to some of them. The hon. member for Orange Grove told me last year—I want to concede this—that firstly, he was in favour of a State-controlled television service, and that secondly, he was in favour of a cultural service. That is the hon. member for Orange Grove’s standpoint. However, the hon. Senator Crooke told me in the Other Place that there was something I ought to know, i.e. that there were certain large business interests in Germany who were prepared to introduce television here at their own expense, provided they were granted the right to sell their products in this country, in other words a commercial television service. Perhaps this is the right time now for the United Party to formulate for themselves a clear and unequivocal standpoint in respect of television so that when they discuss television here again they can tell us—and they must not play to the gallery and the stalls then—what their policy actually is. They must tell us how an open television service should be used here and what kind of television service they want in South Africa. The hon. member for Orange Grove tell me every time he is in favour of a State-controlled television service and a cultural service, but after him the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) went out of his way this afternoon to indicate to me what a good service there was in the U.S.A. He held this up to me as an example; that was all he spoke about.

I said it was a bad system.

We are of the opinion that the American service must in no respect be imitated, because it is a commercial profitmaking service, and because it has to a large extent become an extension of the film industry. These are our objections to their kind of television service.

I recently put the same question I asked in this House in the Other Place as well, and did not receive any replies. The hon. Senator Cadman did in fact tell me that he was definitely in favour of it being a State-controlled service, and that he was definitely in favour of the two official languages being treated on an equal basis. [Interjection.] He said this of his own accord even before I replied to the debate.

When?

The hon. member is asking when. It was recently in the Other Place. Less then two weeks ago he said this to me in the Other Place. I am prepared to discuss the pros and cons of television, but then the United Party must tell me what their standpoint is; they must say what kind of television service they want here. I am prepared to argue the merits of that. I now want to state that I believe that we in South Africa will eventually—and hon. members opposite must not misuse and misinterpret my words again—as a result of technological circumstances, not always be able to avoid television. That is so.

What technological circumstances would those be?

But did the hon. member not blurt it out this afternoon as a great secret? Is it not something he found out? [Interjection.] Yes, the hon. member was partially correct; sometimes he is correct. After all, the hon. member cannot be wrong all the time.

I come now to the question of telephones, the provision of telephones. When the Post Office acquired its independence last year I accepted, with certain reservations, the challenge to make up most of the backlog in regard to the provision of telecommunication services within five years. I am grateful that I have the full support of the entire Department in this respect, as personally expressed and confirmed to me by the three Post Office Staff Associations on various occasions. However, I must warn that the realization of this task depends very closely upon the recruiting of staff and the ability to retain the services of trained and experienced manpower. This problem, as hon. members know, makes itself felt in certain areas in particular, and can thwart our honest attempts. The hon. member for Orange Grove acted as if he had issued a tremendous challenge to me this afternoon. He challenged me to tell the House that the telephone shortage would be less within the next 12 months. But surely that is not a challenge. After all, the hon. member knows that I said on a previous occasion that that was not possible.

To make up the telephone backlog does not mean that only the necessary telephone services must be provided. To be able to do so we have to build new exchanges, we have to expand existing exchanges, cables have to be laid, etc. One of the most important tasks, and I mentioned this again this afternoon in my Budget speech, is to expand the capacity of the entire telephone network proportionately in order to avoid the creation of traffic congestion. In the mean time the need for additional services is increasing at a rapid rate, with the result that the backlog is expected to increase gradually until 1971, after which date the Post Office hopes that the number of awaiting applicants will decrease rapidly. Is that clear now? When the United Party was in power there was also a telephone backlog. The other day I read out to the House a little report which the hon. member for Orange Grove wrote in Die Kruithoring of that time. He wrote how Minister Mushet predicted in 1946 that the telephone shortage would continue to climb until 1951, but now the hon. member is telling me that this telephone shortage of 73,000 is unequalled in the history of the Post Office. But surely that is not the case, Sir. In 1951, the year in which, according to ex-Minister Mushet, they would first begin to make up the telephone backlog, our telephone backlog was 102,000, i.e. 30,000 more than it is to-day, and yet that hon. member states here, without turning a hair, that our present telephone backlog is absolutely unequalled. [Interjection.] The stone I have thrown into the dove cote has apparently struck home in several places. Every time we hear an outcry from them!

As I explained earlier to this House, a telecommunication system cannot be expanded considerably, or improved, on short notice, even if adequate capital is made available. I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove again that I appreciate the confidence he has in me, I appreciate the compliment he is paying me if he thinks that I as Minister can eliminate this telephone shortage in a year’s time. That is a compliment to me, I accept it gladly, but even I am only human, and I need time to make up this backlog. It takes anything from two to three years to design and manufacture the complex equipment. After delivery of the equipment by the suppliers, it takes a further 18 months to install it, depending of course upon the size of the installation. Even if the apparatus were to be ordered from overseas, it would not facilitate the provision of equipment. Sir, the last time we had a debate on this matter the member for Orange Grove also went to the newspapers. In his haste to outdo the hon. member for Hillbrow he made another statement. He said that it was not I who was the guilty party. He said he had discovered who the guilty person was, the person who was responsible for the telephone shortage in South Africa. It was my colleague, the hon. Minister of Planning. His reason for that statement was that the Minister of Planning was not making enough Bantu labour available to the factories manufacturing telephone equipment. Does the hon. member still adhere to that standpoint?

Yes.

Sir, I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that if there was ever an allegation which was devoid of all truth it is this one, because it is simply not true. Not a word of it is true. Apparently he sucked the information he obtained out of his thumb, because there is no truth in what he said in that Press statement.

The hon. member told us this afternoon how easy things were in Britain. He said that it only took three weeks there before an applicant got his telephone. But we must be very careful if we want to believe the hon. member for Orange Grove. Here in this House the other day he mentioned Brazil as an example. He said that 340 telephones were being installed there every day. He held Brazil up as a fine example to South Africa. What is the position there? In 1968 Brazil only had 1,473,000 telephones available. The annual increase in the number of telephones was only 2.9 per cent, as against the 5.1 per cent in South Africa. That means that in fact the number of telephones in South Africa for the year in question increased almost twice as fast as the number in Brazil.

After all, the hon. member also knows that that is not the whole picture. He is not giving us the whole picture when he says that if a person in Britain applies for a telephone he can get a telephone within three weeks. Do you know, Sir, that there have been people who applied to me for a telephone in the morning and who were provided with a telephone that same evening? However, that is not the general rule. I can just tell the hon. member that the telephone shortage in Great Britain recently was 217,000. So where does he come by his statement that telephones there are being supplied within three weeks?

The hon. member also said that the announced improvement in salaries was inadequate and that it compared unfavourably with that of the Railways. How does the hon. member know that? Where did he get the details of these salary increases from? How can the hon. member adopt such a considered standpoint and say that the salary increases are inadequate and that they compare unfavourably with those of the Railways? Sir, you will not get any reply from him because this is another one of those irresponsible statements which are so typical of him.

The hon. member also stated that the Minister should see to it that the way in which overtime was being worked did not make the position of the staff unendurable. At least he did not, as the hon. member for Yeoville did the other day, talk about “excessive overtime”. However, he said that the Postmaster-General and I were overworking the Post Office staff. It is of course necessary, owing to the staff shortage at certain centres, that overtime be worked in order to prevent delays. Directives have already been issued, however, to the effect that as far as it is practicable, it must be ensured that the maximum services for overtime of individual officials should not amount to more than 20 per cent of their salary. Where this limit is exceeded, it is mostly done on the insistence of the officials themselves, who want to supplement their earnings in this way. That is the truth of the matter. The fact that during 1968 a total amount of R68,474,000 was paid in salaries, and that an amount of only R9,167,000 was paid in overtime, indicates clearly that the staff is not being over-burdened, particularly if it is borne in mind that the present hourly overtime tariffs are considerably higher than the ordinary hourly remuneration tariffs which applied during the previous year. Hon. members know that overtime payments were increased in February of last year.

There is something else which the hon. member for Orange Grove said. Every time he says this I find it a joke I want to laugh at. He said that the United Party had played a great role in bringing about the autonomy of the Post Office.

Hear, hear!

Hear, hear! That is funny. The hon. member for Constantia would prefer not to say “hear, hear”. I do not blame the hon. member for that. He has his standpoint, and he has the right to adopt it. I have already, on a previous occasion, read out to the hon. member for Orange Grove that the hon. member for Constantia was definitely opposed to the Post Office becoming independent, away from the Treasury. Hon. members can find this in the Hansard reports of 1959. The former hon. member for Drakensberg, at present Senator Mrs. Van Niekerk, also expressed her opposition to the Post Office becoming independent on various occasions. Now, after the former Minister and this Government have brought the Post Office to independence, those hon. members also want to pluck whatever fruits there are to pluck. They now want to derive benefit from that for their own party as well. This is not the first time the United Party has in this way tried to pluck the fruits which the National Party ripened for South Africa. It will not be the last time either. That habit is so ingrained in them that they can no longer get rid of it. It has become part of them.

The hon. member for Orange Grove made the remark that during the past year hon. members were not able to peruse the statistics and figures as they would have liked to have done. However, the hon. member for Orange Grove must realize that the 1968-’69 financial year was a year of transition for the Post Office. It was not even a full financial year. In reality we only became independent on 1st July. The Post Office fund was only established three months after the commencement of the financial year. Subsequently transfers and adjustments between the Consolidated Revenue Fund and the Post Office Fund had to be made in respect of the first three months of the financial year. I want to agree with the hon. member in this connection. It is desirable that these statistics should be made available in a convenient form to interested parties. As soon as it is conveniently practicable the proper statements will be published in the Gazette.

Why the hon. member for Orange Grove is always trying to arouse suspicion I really do not know. He wants to know whether the Post Office is satisfied in respect of the profit which was paid by the Treasury to the Post Office the 1968-’69 financial year. If the Post Office is not satisfied, surely it would say so. The hon. member for Orange Grove must not tell us when we must be satisfied and when we must not be satisfied. The fact of the matter is that the amount was calculated by the Post Office itself. The Treasury was only prepared to pay out R2.44 million more, instead of the R21 million for which the Estimates of the Minister of Finance had made provision after the method of calculation had been furnished to the Treasury. The Post Office is satisfied. The hon. member for Orange Grove also said that the Government had rendered specific assistance to Malawi, and in view of the fact that there was such a shortage of engineers, he wanted to know how the Government could set aside technical officials for that service while there was such a shortage. Is the hon. member in favour of that? Is his party in favour of that, or are they not in favour of our lending assistance to our neighbouring states? Are they opposed to assistance being rendered to the States in Southern Africa that ask for it? Is he in favour of that? Now the hon. member has nothing to say. Now the hon. member is silent. One of these days there will be another Newcastle and he can then go and make propaganda there among our people. Fortunately our people no longer allow themselves to be taken in by that sort of thing. The fact of the matter is that only one engineer was seconded for two years to help the broadcasting corporation of Malawi. Funnily enough this was done by the S.A.B.C, without my interference; the verkrampte S.A.B.C. did this in order to further the outward policy of the National Party Government! The hon. member for Orange Grove also asked about the fruitless expenditure of approximately R16,000 in respect of a building the planning of which had been stopped. Now I want to explain that as a result of a thorough investigation into the efficiency of the Department’s organization in regard to the keeping and distribution of stores, a new system was recently introduced by means of which the large bulk of certain stores are being centralized in Johannesburg. The new system is resulting in major savings. In addition to other savings, approximately R500,000 will be saved by the termination of accommodation in various places, or for the use thereof for other purposes than the keeping of stores. Under the new system it will be possible to substitute for a large stores building in Port Elizabeth, for which the planning has already been done, a much smaller building which will cost R200,000 less. With a view to this saving it was decided to discontinue the planning of the large building and write off the expenditure of R15,763 which had already been spent on the planning. When the hon. member for Orange Grove levels criticism here during the Second-Reading debate of this Bill, he must not come and complain and carry on here about trifling amounts. He can do that in the Committee Stage. This always betrays another characteristic of the hon. member. He betrays himself to the people by doing that because he is always fidgeting and scratching around with trifles. What an insignificant percentage does this not constitute of the overall total?

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the amount of R5.8 million on the Estimates for the hiring of communication channels of the Transatlantic cable and other foreign systems and asked what the revenue would be. This system of communication with countries abroad was only recently taken into operation, as the hon. member knows. It is therefore not possible to give a precise explanation of what the income for the ensuing financial year will be. There is no tendency or anything of that nature on which a calculation can be made. However, the Department knows that the traffic overseas is increasing tremendously as a result of the excellent facilities which the cable channels furnish, and that the revenue will in due course be ample compensation for the rentals spent on the channels. In addition the hon. member for Parktown said that I must get my priorities right. I must give preference to matters which ought to enjoy preference. He actually criticized me in regard to the take-over of the Durban Corporation’s telephones at this stage. I think the hon. member meant this to be well-intentioned criticism. I accept it in that way. With the automation of the telecommunications system we would like to see it being developed as a unit. If it is not developed as a unit throughout the entire Republic of South Africa, we will not be able to regard it as fair that the rest of the country should bear the high costs of automation and so on while the Durban telephone subscribers share the benefits of the improved national service, and the municipal taxpayers pluck the fruit of greater profits, but the rest of the country has to pay for it. I also want to explain that the one cent levy on local calls, introduced since 1st January 1967—and the Government undertook to do so—has to a large extent been introduced for the development of our telecommunications system in South Africa. And if we do not incorporate the Durban Corporation into this, then it would mean that the Durban Corporation can apply those fees—because the Corporation in fact obtains that part which has to be paid to it—not for the purpose for which it is being paid and for which it was introduced by the Government, but for purposes other than the development of the national system. In addition I want to explain that if the national subscribers’ main line dialling system according to which main line calls, in the same way as local calls, are automatically registered, were to have been introduced while the Durban Corporation was still independent, it would have made the accounting between the Post Office and the Corporation a matter of impossibility. Durban will only be incorporated in the system by 1971. I also want to tell the hon. member that there are approximately 350 workers in the employ of the Corporation’s telephone system. He raised objections if it should appear that it was not possible for some of those workers to be transferred, I suggested that it would increase my staff shortage difficulties. The leaders of these staff members have personally indicated that they are satisfied with the take-over and that the vast majority of the staff is prepared to come over to the Post Office. Putting off the takeover would not have been of benefit to anyone. On the contrary, it would only have resulted in disadvantages as far as the development of our national telecommunications system in South Africa is concerned.

The hon. member for Port Natal asked whether the 4,000 temporarily appointed married women were receiving the same salary as their permanently appointed counterparts. The reply to this is that we still fall under the Public Service, and that the conditions of service which apply to temporary employees are still determined by the Public Service Commission. These are not the same as those which apply to the permanent staff of the Post Office. I just want to mention to the hon. member that in terms of the Post Office regulations, female employees who get married, remain on in a permanent capacity after their marriage. It is the policy of the Post Office to retain the services of experienced women so that they can share in the favourable conditions of service. The hon. member also wanted to know, further in connection with the Durban Corporation, what the position would be in regard to unilingual persons whom we took over with the Durban Exchange. Their position is entrenched by legislation and the Government has decided that in spite of their unilingualism they will get promotion in their own positions there in Durban. The third question asked by the hon. member was why non-Whites had to work 48 hours per week while the Whites who worked with them only worked 44 hours per week. In terms of the Public Service Act workers are classified into various sections according to educational qualifications, and various hours of service are allocated to the various classes. There are also white groups which have to work 48 hours per week.

The hon. member for Houghton, as she did last year as well, proposed that telephone tariffs be reduced over week-ends in order to alleviate the load pressure during the week. However, I do not think that it is a very practical suggestion at this stage, because it would mean that the staff—and the hon. member for Orange Grove will object to this—will have to work many more hours overtime because many of these service have not yet been automated. However, I want to tell her that her proposal will be considered when the national subscribers’ main line dialling system is introduced in the Republic and the handling of main line calls will no longer require so much labour.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I want to touch upon a matter which I regard as being of great importance, i.e. the Post Office tariffs. I just want to say to the hon. member for Simonstown that I cannot let this matter which he raised on a former occasion pass without comment. He said that the tariff for local calls in South Africa was among the highest in the world. Now I want to explain to him that although the unit cost of 3½ cents for local calls in the Republic is higher than that which applies in the country mentioned by the hon. member, it is however the case that all the overseas administrations charge installation fees in respect of new connections which are not applicable here in this country. The cost varies from R20 to R220 per connection. In addition the conversation time for a local call in the Republic is unlimited, while in England, for example, there is a time limit of six minutes on such a call. The hon. member will see therefore that the calls here are not as expensive as he thought.

I expected the hon. member for Orange Grove, instead of discussing trivial amounts in the Second Reading debate, to discuss more important matters. Perhaps I expected too much from him. Hon. members will note that the expected expenditure of the postal services have exceeded the expected income by R11.764 million, while the telecommunication services will provide a gross surplus of R29 million. Since the hon. member for Orange Grove is so insistent that the Post Office should be established on a business basis, I want to inform the member that the Post Office has in fact been placed on a business basis. Since he placed so much emphasis on this, I expected him to come forward with this point of justified criticism, but unfortunately he did not do so. With reference to this I want to say that we are still trying to provide the most efficient services at the lowest possible tariff. However, a great many of the tariffs which apply at present are unnecessarily complicated. Some are even unrealistic and others have very little to do with actual operating costs. Under the old dispensation these tariffs were determined on an entirely different basis than was necessary for an undertaking such as the Post Office. Tariffs were not determined on an operational economic basis, because the Post Office had of course not yet been placed on a business basis. I intend subjecting the entire tariff structure of the Post Office to a probing investigation at the earliest opportunity with a view to the rationalization and simplification thereof, and also to bring them closer to actual costs and service provisions. However, I am not at this stage envisaging any fundamental changes in tariffs, and changes which will eventually become necessary as a result of adjustments, will to best effect be neutralized by the provision of other cheaper services in order to maintain the overall equilibrium. Subsequently it may possibly be necessary to increase tariffs in respect of postal services somewhat, because, as hon. members know, the expenditure exceeds income by R11 million. As a business undertaking the Post Office cannot afford to render uneconomic services. I take it that the hon. member for Orange Grove will also see this matter in this light, because it was he who advocated that the Post Office be placed on a strictly business basis. In this connection I must point out that it is accepted that the Post Office, as an essential public service rendering body will continue for example to render services in remote areas at a loss, but in general every service must be self-supporting. However, increases will not be proceeded to before a probing study of the entire tariff system has been made and the scope and effect of certain other economic tariffs has been determined, tariffs such as the agricultural package post tariff, and the tariffs which apply to second class postal articles, and whether the adjustment of such tariffs will sufficiently alleviate this position. Of course if I find that the profits of the Post Office are quite out of proportion to telephone tariffs, the hon. member for Orange Grove can rest assured that I will not hesitate to reduce telephone tariffs either.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion.

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—86: Bodenstein, P.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, M. W.; Botha, S. P.; Carr, D. M.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, J. A.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Delport, W. H.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, J. M.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, J. J. P.; Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Havemann, W. W. B.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Hertzog, A.; Holland, M. W.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Loots, J. J.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, W. T.; Maree, G. de K.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Ootto, J. C.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pienaar, B.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Rall, M. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Raubenheimer, A. L.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H., Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smith, J. D.; Stofberg, L. F.; Swiegers, J. G.; Torlage, P. H.; Van den Berg, M. J.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D.K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van Niekerk, M. C.; Van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visse, J. H.; Visser, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Vosloo, A. H.; Vosloo, W. L.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J.

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout, G. P. van den Berg, P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

NOES—35: Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bennett, C.; Eden, G. S.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Higgerty, J. W.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Mitchell, D. E.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Moore, P. A.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Taylor, C. D.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Waterson, S. F.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

There are quite a number of matters in the speech of the hon. the Minister to which I should like to reply and I shall try to deal with as many of them as possible. What I found particularly alarming was the last part of his speech, in which he discussed the possibilities of tariff increases and said that he intended to make every service self-supporting. The question then occurred to me: What about the telephone service on which he is making these tremendous profits; is he prepared to make the telephone service self-supporting, not to make those enormous profits and then to give the undertaking that he will not increase tariffs as long as reasonable profits are made on the telephone service?

Let me just clear up a misunderstanding. I did not say all tariffs must be increased in order to become self-supporting. I was talking about the remote areas and said that we would grant assistance there as a matter of course.

In other words, according to the reply of the Minister there is in fact a possibility that he will overburden the public and the ordinary telephone subscribers in order to make millions of rands out of them and out of a poor service. I am grateful for that admission and I hope the country will take note of it.

The second matter which the hon. the Minister mentioned was the question of television and he challenged us to state our attitude in regard to it. The United Party has repeatedly stated its attitude in this regard in the past. We have never been afraid to do so, but I hope the hon. the Minister will listen if I tell him to-night what our attitude is in connection with it, as it has already been stated in previous motions and speeches by this side. Firstly, we are in favour of a bilingual service, either a combined bilingual service or separate Afrikaans and English services plus a multilingual Bantu service. Secondly, we would like to see television controlled by an authority or a board which will be responsible to this Parliament and whose books will be audited annually by the Auditor-General. Thirdly, although we agree that television will have to start on a basis of four or five hours per day, a small service, we nevertheless want it to be a full-fledged service. It must maintain a true balance between education, news and entertainment. It can be a parallel service to the radio service, although on a smaller scale. That is what the hon. the Minister does not want. He does not want a parallel service. This can mean that he does not want television to broadcast news services or matters of that nature. He is the one who has to explain; we do not have to. The fourth point is that advertisements can and ought to be accepted under strict protective measures, i.e. that we shall not allow advertisers to control the programmes, but that the advertisements will also fall under the control of this body. And the last point is that there are details such as colour and black and white television about which a final decision cannot be taken at the moment, but that with that in view that it is necessary that a representative commission should be appointed immediately, as soon as possible, to go into the matter of which is best, black and white or colour, how many stations there should be and precisely what steps should be taken in order to introduce television into the country as soon as possible. Please, does the hon. the Minister now understand what the policy of the United Party is?

The following is a very interesting matter, a very interesting phenomenon.

Will you please explain it to the hon. Senators in the Other Place as well?

Of course they know what the policy is. I say we have had a very interesting phenomenon which seems to me to be a major change of policy on the part of the Government in connection with the control to be exercised by the hon. the Minister over the news services and the propaganda of the S.A.B.C. If I am not mistaken, the words used by the hon. the Minister were that it is not the task of the S.A.B.C. to express its opinion in any political sphere. Is that correct?

Yes.

If there has ever been a tremendous reversal of policy then it is this statement by the hon. the Minister. Year after year we asked his predecessor in this House why he did not do something about this matter and whether he could not tell the S.A.B.C. not to interfere in politics. What was his reply?

In party politics.

His reply was that he could not, would not and was not allowed to interfere, but the hon. the Minister tried to lay down the law to some extent to-night, an enormous volte face in theory. Of course we welcome this.

He must be “verlig”.

But let us look at the position. Does the hon. the Minister agree that that broadcast in “Current Affairs” recently which caused so much resentment in the Nationalist newspapers, was a political broadcast? I thought I would get a reply. Perhaps I misunderstood the Minister. Did I understand him correctly when he said that in his opinion there had not yet been a broadcast in “Current Affairs” which was political?

Let us understand each other very clearly. I shall control them according to my view, and not according to yours. [Interjections.]

Then I want to ask the Minister what his view is. I put this very simple question: Does he regard this controversial “Current Affairs” about which the leading article appeared in Die Beeld as a political report?

Not as a party-political report. Will you read out to me where there is party-political interference in that programme?

The hon. member for Sunnyside read it out. But let me go further now. Let me read to him one example of a broadcast in the “Current Affairs” of a fortnight ago—I have the English copy of it—and then the hon. the Minister must tell me whether it is something which interferes in politics or not—and I am talking of party politics, not only of politics. This was featured in “Current Affairs” over the S.A.B.C. a fortnight ago—

Of course this is not party politics; it is only a leader of a political party who is saying this—

That is not party politics either. Oh no, it is not a party-political statement.

It is the policy of the country, just as the war policy was. [Interjections.]

What hon. members opposite say is the policy of the country, but what we say is party-political policy! We have different norms of comparison. Then the same “Current Affairs” goes on to discuss what Dr. Malan, a man who had “nothing” to do with party politics, would have said, and that his Minister of Native Affairs said in 1950 that apartheid included territorial segregation. But that is not party politics. The hon. the Minister sees nothing of that nature in it. [Interjections.]—

That also is not party politics either.—

And so it continues. These are one-sided statements on party-political matters, and on party-political matters which fit in with the policy of the hon. the Minister. [Time expired.]

Once again it is my privilege to follow the hon. member for Orange Grove in a debate in this House. This is not the first time. Year after year we have to listen to the same accusations and see how he carries on in this dramatic manner. He moved his hands and feet about, and all he had to do to complete his stunt was to turn somersault. But I just want to say that if he does perform that stunt of turning somersault, he should only take care not to land on our side, because we most definitely do not want him here. Year after year we have to listen to that moan. Time and again it is the same old story. We know that story. This afternoon again the accusation is that the Minister and the Department of Posts have done too little and that we are not keeping pace with the development in this country. We listened to the plea the hon. member once again made for television. By this time the hon. the Minister has repeatedly furnished him with the reply as to what the policy of this side of the House is. I want to say that with the way he acts, we do not need television; the hon. members conduct ranks amongst the greatest entertainment one could find. That is the way we know them to be. What was left after the hon. member had spoken here?—the ostracized old bull of the Kruithoring. Nothing but dust was left. He actually said nothing; he did not come forward with anything new. I want to refer to a few statements he made in this debate. This afternoon he referred here to the poor quality of the telephone service we get in this country. He said that if one dialled a number, one could not get that number or it remained engaged. I took the trouble to consult the Johannesburg telephone directory, for he referred to Johannesburg in particular. Sir, I could not find the hon. member’s name in the Johannesburg telephone directory nor in the Witwatersrand directory. I do not know what the reason is for his name not appearing in either of those directories; if he is not fleeing from his voters, I must conclude that he does not know to use the telephone and that he apparently dials wrong numbers.

He uses a pseudonym.

It seems to me as though he does not know how to use a telephone.

The second statement the hon. member made here, was that this side of the House had increased telephone tariffs; that is true, and at the time it was made very clear that that money would be used for extending our telephone communication services. He also said here that a meagre share of the profits, i.e. approximately R7 million, was being applied for granting salary increases, and he wanted to know what had happened to the other profits. If one is so stupid that one is not capable of analysing the statements submitted to one, and of realizing that the balance of the surplus is being applied for the extension of telecommunications, then one should not display one’s stupidity in this House. The hon. member went further and referred to the efficient telephone service which is allegedly being provided in Britain. He said that in Britain a telephone was provided within 21 days. But the hon. member omitted to tell us what the rental for a telephone amounts to in Britain. If we had to make our people pay that expensive rental, we would most definitely not have had the backlog with which we are faced at the moment. Over there it costs R32 per annum for a telephone within a radius of three miles. Here we are only paying R18 per annum. But in Britain they go further than that: one also has to pay installation costs. Therefore the hon. member once again presented a half truth to this House …

As usual.

… and then he expects our people, who have a sober approach to these matters, to swallow all that cheap nonsense which he is dishing up here. This is what the hon. member is trying to deliver himself of here. Sir, we can go further. After all, we know the old story with which he comes forward here year after year. It feels as though it was only yesterday that he rose here, in 1966, and wanted to know from the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs what he was doing about the capital extension of the Post Office, what he was doing in order to obtain the necessary capital for extending telephone services. These are questions he asked here a few years ago, and now that real things are being done, the hon. member is still dissatisfied. Or does he not understand them? Apparently he is very stupid and finds it very difficult to grasp things. Sir, I shall try to prove what the Government has done so as to meet the existing needs. I do not want to quote fictitious figures to you, Sir: I want to furnish you with real figures so that we may see what this side of the House has done. Let us look at the turnover of the Post Office first. During the year 1966-’67 it showed an increase of R57.7 million as against the previous year. In respect of the said financial year this figure had increased to R732 million, i.e. an increase of 8.6 per cent. In the next financial year the increase was R102 million. The growth rate in that year was 13.9 per cent. Surely, in the light of these figures we cannot accept that in the past this side of the House neglected its duty, i.e. to meet the needs of the public as far as these services are concerned. But we can go further than that; we can also look at the expenditure account of this Department over the past few years. In the year 1967-’68 R102 million was appropriated; in respect of the current financial year R155 million has been appropriated. If we take away from that the amount of R15 million in respect of pension contributions, which did not appear in the Estimates in the past, as well as the amount in respect of cable hire, we find that the growth rate as regards expenditure is 31 per cent. If we take away the R16 million in respect of salaries for additional posts in the Department, the growth rate is 16 per cent. How can that side of the House level these hollow accusations? But let us go further; let us come to the crux of the matter, and that is the capital programme. The amount appropriated in respect of the year 1967-’68 was R29 million; in respect of the year 1968-’69 it was R35½ million, and in respect of this year it is almost R88 million. If we take away the R18 million provision for the take-over of the Durban system, we find that provision is being made for an expansion of 50 per cent. In other words, a huge amount is being voted for the necessary capital expansion. Take telecommunications. In these Estimates provision is being made for R52.3 million; this is more than the entire capital programme for the Department of Posts has ever been in the history of the country. Sir, that very same hon. member asked the present Minister last year how he would make up the backlog. The Minister told him that we expected to spend approximately R113 million on telecommunication expansion over the next three years. Here we are appropriating R52 million in one year. Why is he so concerned about the matter, i.e. that we shall not make up the backlog? It is obvious to me that the accusations that side has levelled at this side of the House, are unfounded. It is very clear that we shall make up this backlog within the foreseeable future, as the hon. the Minister phrased it. Let us look at the increase in telephones. In 1963-’64 the increase in the number of telephones was 48,461: in 1964-’65 it was 59,300; in 1965-’66 it was 61,000; in 1966-’67 it was 60,000; and in the next year it was roughly 60,000 again. This was the increase in the number of telephones over the past few years. Mr. Speaker, I have furnished this information here in order to show you that this side of the House will most certainly comply with what is required as far as telecommunication services are concerned.

I just want to come back to one local matter and make representations to the hon. the Minister in this regard. I do not expect a reply from him to-night. I refer to the reception we are getting on our F.M. service in the Vaal Triangle. The reception in this area is not very good and I want to ask whether this cannot be investigated. Particularly in the low-lying areas the reception is poor. Finally, we also want to extend to the Minister our hearty congratulations on this excellent Budget. We know that under his administration of the Post Office we can face the future with confidence.

Before I call upon the next hon. member to address the Committee, I want to say that I am also putting Schedule 2, Capital Services, because it seems to me that there is a certain amount of overlapping, and in order to facilitate debate I am putting Schedule 1 and Schedule 2.

Schedule 1: Revenue Services (continued) and Schedule 2: Capital Services:

Just before I deal with the more important points, I want to say a few words about a topic which apparently gives hon. members opposite a great deal of pleasure. It gives them pleasure to quote from the Kruithoring, a publication which dates back to more than 20 years ago and for which I was co-responsible. In the first place, I want to say that what was written there, was the official policy of the Nationalist Party, and to-day I am one of those who repudiate that official policy because I am openly and frankly admitting before the country and before the House of Assembly that in those days I was immature and wrong. Is it wrong to admit that one was wrong in one’s political career? But what is strange, is that hon. members opposite say they are still adhering to the policy of the Nationalist Party, which they claim is a consistent one, but at the same time they are attacking the official policy of the Nationalist Party as laid down by Dr. Malan, Adv. Frans Erasmus and Dr. Eric Louw, as they are doing here to-day. But you find, Sir, that the Cape members are not attacking it. The hon. member for Stellenbosch, who was the editor of that publication at a later stage, does not attack it. It is the Transvaal members who are doing so, because this is a covert attack on Keerom Street.

Which schedule is the hon. member discussing now?

Mr. Chairman, I am proceeding to the important point, i.e. to refer once again to Current Affairs, the programme in which the hon. the Minister sees no politics. I have read out to him exerpts taken from this particular Current Affairs programme. Would the hon. the Minister admit that at present a certain interpretation is being given to the policy of the Nationalist Party, an interpretation which does not tally at all with the policy of the Nationalist Party of the past, that “numbers do not count” is the policy which is being advocated now, and that the S.A.B.C. is going out of its way to defend that policy, in the face of statements made in the past by leaders of the Nationalist Party, in the face of statements made by a leader of the Party such as a previous Minister of Defence who said, “I know that it is a terrible thing to divide South Africa, but this has been the policy of the Nationalist Party all along.” Of course, it is politics; of course, it is party-politics, and Current Affairs does, of course, interfere with one of the major aspects of party politics in South Africa in this regard. Sir, what did we see here this afternoon? A fantastic spectacle …

That was when you were talking.

What did we have here? An attack by the hon. member for Sunnyside which cannot be allowed to pass without comment, an embittered attack on Nationalist Party Sunday papers as well as English Sunday papers, but especially on Nationalist Party Sunday papers, namely Die Beeld and Dagbreek, because they dared to criticize what was said in Current Affairs. Have we ever experienced the like? I want to ask the hon. the Minister the following question: Does he endorse the words of the hon. member for Sunnyside in regard to those Sunday papers of his? Is he not perhaps on the board of directors of one of those papers, or was he perhaps overlooked by the boards of directors of those newspapers when they wanted to appoint a Free State director? We shall find this out later, but perhaps he can tell us now. Those newspapers have virtually been accused of immorality, of false propaganda, of lies—his own newspapers. Does he agree with that? Or does he not agree with that?

Why do you permit the U.P. to abuse you so?

The hon. member for Kliprivier, the young leader of the Nationalist Party in Natal, wants to know why I allow myself to be abused by the U.P. I want to tell him that I do not allow myself to be abused, but I think that they did not abuse him, but made a fool of him …

Order!

Fine, I shall not go into that any further. I do not like quoting the history of what happened in Natal in regard to the leadership there, in view of the fact that the hon. member has now, instead of becoming a Cabinet Minister, become one of the chief tellers here at the Table. Sir, we witnessed a strange spectacle here this afternoon, and I want to know from the hon. the Minister what his attitude is in regard to that particular editorial to which he referred here. We want to know that. Does he agree that it is as base as that? Die Beeld was most definitely of the opinion that that article was about politics, but the Minister says that it was not a political article. What a fantastic attitude! We want to hear his views on the speech made by the hon. member for Innesdal who launched a vile, vehement attack on television here, an attack such as we have not heard for years, and the hon. the Minister remained silent. How is it possible for such people to be in the same Party?

Order! I want to ask the hon. member to withdraw the word “vile”.

I withdraw it. I leave it at that, because I know that the hon. the Minister is not afraid of replying to such matters. He will tell us what he thinks of Die Beeld; he will tell us whether that particular Current Affairs broadcast from which I quoted and to which Die Beeld referred, was political or party political.

Then I come to the following matter. I am satisfied that we now have clarity in this regard, i.e. that the Government does not want television and that it is only technological circumstances which will force it to introduce television. The technological circumstances which I mentioned, no matter how fantastic they may sound, amount to this, i.e. that they are afraid that at some time or other broadcasts will be beamed from satellites to South Africa by other countries, and especially by neighbouring Black states. That is the reason why we are to have television! Are there not hundreds of better reasons for introducing this wonderful invention into our country than this panic-stricken motivation of the hon. the Minister? I am glad that we had the admission in his speech to-night that the telephone situation would deteriorate until 1971. Let me endorse this again and again as an example of the total incompetence of this Government in this regard. But the hon. the Minister referred to an even worse phenomenon, i.e. a shortage of 100,000 telephones in 1951. Surely, that was very naïve, for who was in power in 1951? The Nationalist Party Government, and not for one year or for two years, but for three years, and during this period of almost four years the figure increased to that fantastic figure. I am making the hon. the Minister a gift of that argument. There was a time when the telephone shortage was more extensive, but that was also under a Nationalist Party regime. The hon. the Minister asked me whether I knew that at some juncture or other there was a telephone shortage of 200,000 in Britain. That was the case at one stage, but this figure has been brought down so that at present it is only 1.5 per cent of the total number of telephones, whereas the percentage in South Africa is four times as high at present. I challenge the hon. the Minister to look up the figures furnished in a recent White Paper published by the British Government.

The hon. the Minister attacked me because I had referred to a negligent amount of R234 which had been wasted. The amount was not R234, but more than R200,000. I never mentioned an amount of R234. In this regard I want to quote from the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General. In Part II the following is said on page 215 in paragraph (3)—

The hon. the Minister may come forward with as many of these minor diversions as he likes, but the important question still remains: what is he going to do in regard to the S.A.B.C.? The hon. the Minister made a statement of policy here and we shall quote his words from Hansard and challenge him to take action. He has now stated his policy, and he should not say here again that this is only the policy of the S.A.B.C. When I ask him a question in this Parliament, I am asking it about his own policy and I want him to reply to that. Would he be prepared to do so? [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very attentively to this debate, and I have come to the conclusion that if the entire United Party supported their main speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove, they would give me the impression—which one often gains from them—that they are like insects. South Africa’s way of life is like a flower, and those who are kindly disposed towards South Africa, towards her institutions and problems, extract honey from that flower. Hon. members on the opposite side, however, are like spiders, because they use every matter of a South African nature and every problem which arises because we have a different way of life or live under different conditions in South Africa, as a source from which to derive poison. They find pleasure in belittling, as far as they are able to do so, those things which we hold dear.

The hon. member for Orange Grove asked at the end of his speech what the hon. the Minister was going to do in connection with the S.A.B.C. I shall reply to that by telling him that the hon. the Minister is not going to do anything at all. The S.A.B.C. will continue exactly as it does at the moment, and just as that hon. member wrote himself out of the editorial staff of Die Kruithoring, so he will also talk himself out of the United Party by speaking so much nonsense. The hon. member made a statement here to the effect that the S.A.B.C. had entered the sphere of party politics in that it had quoted statements by certain Prime Ministers and Cabinet Ministers. Does the hon. member not know what a senior member of a party ought to know? He ought to know by this time that when a Minister is quoted in order to prove an assertion or when a view of a Prime Minister is quoted in order to prove a standpoint, it has nothing to do with party politics The particular Ministers and Prime Ministers to whom the hon. member referred, were quoted in their official capacities, and any Minister of the Republic, or of the Union of South Africa before we became a Republic, who is quoted in regard to any matter, is not quoted as a party politician when he is quoted in his official capacity. For that we have the National Party congresses. As regards the great outcry and the obsession with which the United Party recently and at the 1966 election and even before that time so assiduously tried to gull the South African public into believing that it would be in our interests to have television, and quoting speeches made in this House this afternoon, I want to say that that it is as clear as daylight that they are implementing a diabolical plan which they could not execute when in terms of their education policy they wanted to teach the non-whites in South Africa through the medium of English. They want to carry out this diabolical plan now by means of television, by casting suspicion on every White person engaged in operating communication media such as telephone services and radio services in the national interest, so that the non-White masses outside may think that we are hiding something and are too afraid to introduce television. They and the business world know very well that the majority of radio licences is to-day held by non-Whites, to the annoyance of many employers, of whom I am one.

What did the hon. member say was the cost?

The hon. member must give me a chance to finish my speech. If the hon. member had listened to me, he would have known what it was all about. I was not discussing the cost and that is a separate item quite on its own. I spoke about the diabolical plan which hon. members on the other side wanted to carry out by suggesting that the Whites were practising party politics by means of their radio. This is untrue and there are absolutely no proofs to be found in this regard, except of course if one has one’s feet in the air and not on South African soil, and if one refuses to accept the way of life of the South African people. If one does this, one can make such assertions as were made by the hon. member for Orange Grove and all the other yappers that follow him. That is the point.

A quotation has been made here from an article which appeared in Die Beeld and which stated that the S.A.B.C. had made an attack on Die Beeld. As far as I am concerned, this has nothing to do with the radio service in our country. If hon. members do not feel like listening to what is presented in these programmes, then why do they not adopt a positive attitude? Why do they attack the radio service and its programmes in this House year after year? Why do they not put forward positive proposals? Sir, let me tell you that the United Party has so little that is positive to offer in connection with the government of the country that they have to resort to these trivialities. Then they criticize our Ministers, our radio service, the lack of progress and the inadequate provision of telecommunication services. They are doing this knowing full well that if we had the staff, we would find the money in one way or another. If it depended on the will of this Government, it would within the next year provide the entire Republic of South Africa with all its telephones, with a complete radio network and with everything which in our opinion is of importance to the country.

Within one year?

If we had the technicians, we would do it within a year. There are, however, two factors which are preventing us and the Post Office from making faster progress. I just want to mention them, but I do not want elaborate on them. The one is the availability of material and the other is the availability of manpower. Let us be honest and admit that, with the small manpower resources at our disposal, we should take off our hats to what has been accomplished by the Minister and his entire staff during the past year, and also in previous years, after we took over that bankrupt estate of the United Party as regards the provision of communication services and telephone services.

I also want to say something about a local matter. It may perhaps be a positive suggestion. I like to adopt a positive approach in stating a case. I am faced with the problem that Vryheid, in Northern Natal, my constituency, is situated in a rapidly developing area. In the Railway Budget the other day several millions of rands were once again voted to be pumped into the Vryheid area. At the same time we are experiencing tremendous growth there. I want to put a request to the hon. the Minister in this connection. A tremendous backlog is developing now in regard to the provision of telephone services, and also in regard to the provision of buildings to accommodate the manpower available. I therefore think it may be advisable for the planning division of the Post Office, when undertaking their planning, to make an annual journey to the areas in respect of which they are planning certain projects for the future. They should then try to ascertain whether the rate of development in those areas is not more rapid than that provided for in their planning. If this is the case, they may find that their planning should be speeded up, and that those particular services should be rendered to those areas at an earlier stage. In other words, I should like the planning division to conduct an investigation at least once a year. In that respect I should also like to suggest that the Post Office consult us as the representatives of constituencies to obtain our views in regard to local trends. This will enable the Post Office to undertake their planning accordingly. Then the new Department of Posts and Telegraphs need not set about matters in a haphazard way, as the hon. member for Orange Grove maintained they did. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to identify myself with the last thought expressed by the hon. member for Vryheid, but I should like to leave the rest of his speech until next year’s debate. We will then be able to judge whether his optimism was justified or not.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to refer to what was said by the hon. the Minister before dinner to-night. The hon. the Minister quoted from a speech recently made by Senator Cadman, as follows—

Order! What is the hon. member quoting from now?

It is in connection with the S.A.B.C. and the programme “Current Affairs”.

I am sorry, but I cannot allow the hon. member to read that out.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the hon. the Minister quoted from speeches by Senator Cadman.

In terms of Standing Order No. 121 no member shall allude to any debate of the same session in the Senate, except to a speech made by a Minister. As the hon. member is now quoting from a speech by a Senator, I cannot allow it.

Was the Minister then out of order?

The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, then I wish to take the liberty of saying that the conclusions drawn by the hon. the Minister before dinner to-night in connection with a recent speech by a Senator, were absolutely unfair and wrong. I should like to refer to television and what was said by the hon. member for Innesdal. He is obviously against the introduction of television in South Africa, just as his leader, the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The former Minister said here in this House—

What is the hon. the Minister’s point of view? Does he endorse these words of the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? Or does he support the idea expressed here to-night by the hon. member for Turffontein? That hon. member said he was a supporter of television for South Africa. That is not all. On 11th February, 1969, Die Beeld wrote the following under the heading “Changes” (translation)—

This is of course a reference to the former Minister—

We on this side of the House are entitled to ask the hon. the Minister whether he subscribes to the attitude adopted by the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and that adopted by the hon. member for Innesdal, or whether he subscribes to the view held by the hon. member for Turffontein.

Of what help will it be to you if I tell you?

I should like to refer now to the Estimates as such. We on this side of the House welcome the small improvement in salaries received by Post Office officials. To my mind, and in the opinion of this side of the House, it is too small. It is an amount of only R7½ million, which amounts to an increase of 6 per cent as against an increase of 10 per cent received by officials in the Public Service.

When?

Over a period of two years.

Well, the Post Office officials are going to get that too.

It will only affect 35,000 Whites in the Postal Service. Year after year the official bodies of the Post Office and the Opposition have pleaded for improved working conditions and improvements in salary. I am very pleased that the Government has now granted Post Office officials a small improvement. But the Government was practically forced to make this concession as a result of a flood of resignations from the Post Office. That flood of resignations had to be curbed. Two years ago there were 12,000 resignations from the Post Office. Last year there were 6,500 resignations. The strongest argument advanced by the Post Office bodies as well as the Opposition was that the private sector was luring Post Office officials away by offering better working conditions and better facilities. As Mr. Liebenberg warned, it would have resulted in a complete collapse of essential services. The promise made by the hon. the Minister to-day was one of better working conditions. I hope that the Post Office officials will have better working conditions in future. Secondly, I welcome the hon. the Minister’s statement that a staff home-ownership scheme will be introduced. However, I regret that only a meagre R2½ million has been devoted to this. Thirdly, I should also very much like to welcome the hon. the Minister’s announcement that certain grades are being reintroduced in the Post Office. When certain grades were abolished at the beginning of 1966 and certain grades were amalgamated, certain of the Post Office officials lost their administrative status. We on this side of the House objected to that. Now that the position has been restored, we should like to welcome it.

In regard to the telephone shortage I wish to say that it remains a fact that there is still a shortage of 72,000 telephones at present. According to the hon. the Minister this position will get worse before improving. When the increase of one cent was announced in 1966 by the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, we thought that it would meet all the needs of the Post Office. This is obviously not the position. According to what the hon. the Minister said to-night, we can expect a further increase in telephone charges shortly. I think that is a disgrace. Though I cannot argue with the hon. the Minister in regard to what he quoted earlier to-night in referring to the statement made by me in the previous debate to the effect that our telephone charges were the highest in the world, I should very much like to reply to that point on a later occasion. When this hon. Minister assumed office, there was a shortage of 59,000 telephones. To-day that shortage is 72,000, that is, an increase of 20 per cent.

You are wrong. It is 72,001.

On the Reef this shortage has doubled itself over the last two years. The present shortage there is 29,000, while it was 12,000 in 1966. According to a recent article which appeared in one of the Transvaal newspapers, outside assistance is going to be called in to speed up the provision of telephones. The hon. the Minister also referred to this in his speech to-day. Personally I regret that the hon. the Minister has not sought more effective assistance from outside, seeing that we are in such poor circumstances at present.

Mr. Chairman, this evening I have a bone to pick not only with hon. members of the Opposition, but also with one of the hon. members on this side of the House. The hon. member for Turffontein had a few things to say about Fanus Rautenbach. Although Fanus once called me the “Rus van Rustenburg”, I do not hold that against him. There is an Afrikaans song about Turffontein and I do not know whether the hon. member for Turffontein takes offence to that song. If one has to contend with an Opposition like this every day of one’s life, this programme, as far as I am concerned, is a fine programme which at least makes one start one’s day with a smile and a laugh.

This Opposition is harping on the telephone shortage. They want to use this as proof of inefficiency in the running of our country’s affairs.

But that is the case.

I shall now tell hon. members that that is not the case. I am not afraid to make the statement that our telecommunications system in South Africa, in spite of the shortage of 72,000, is an excellent system. Now the Opposition may broadcast to the whole country, and the hon. member for North Rand may broadcast to Rustenburg, that I have said that the telecommunications system is good in spite of the alarming shortage which exists in my constituency. [Interjections.] The time has arrived when we can no longer allow ourselves to be upset by their wild tales. To-night I want to put it on record that the telecommunications system of our Republic is excellent; it is not only excellent but more than excellent in comparison to what the position was in those prehistoric days when the United Party was in power. In 1948 there were 318,500 telephones in the whole of the Republic of South Africa. Do you know what the shortage was? It was 79,000. If the hon. member for North Rand can do arithmetic, he will be able to work out on a percentage basis that 24 per cent of the applicants for telephones could not obtain telephones. Now is that a fine achievement? What is the present position? To-day we have 1,239 million telephones in South Africa. If we accept that the present shortage is 70,000, this figure, expressed as a percentage, comes to 5 per cent. The intelligence of the “botterbulletjie” has decreased. From 1948 to 1968, i.e. over a period of 20 years, there was a fourfold increase in the number of telephones in South Africa.

Goodness me!

Let us give some consideration to the economic growth in South Africa, which has the highest growth rate in the world. Over a period of 19 years our aggregate economic growth rate was 146 per cent. Does this not bear testimony to the fact that the affairs of the country are bein run properly? Does the fact that we have been able to increase telephone services by 400 per cent during that same period not bear testimony to good service? Come now, let us be honest. What is the history of the Post Office and of what achievements over the past 20 years is the Post Office proud? Let us examine the statistics. Over the past 20 years the turnover of the Post Office increased from R168 million to R834 million. Telex services increased from 220 to 3,700. To-day we again heard from the hon. the Minister that this telex service is 100 per cent automatic. This is an achievement. The telephone service is automatic to the extent of 76 per cent. Because of the serious shortage of manpower which we have in South Africa automation has been delayed to a large extent, but in spite of that 76 per cent of telephone exchanges are automatic. Let us consider the farm lines. Those hon. members do not represent farmers. Farm lines increased from 55,700 miles to 210,000 miles. Telephone subscribers on farm lines pay instalments of R23, whereas this is costing the Department of Posts and Telegraphs R2 million per annum. This proves that the public is not being milked but that a service is being rendered to the entire Republic. This Department is prepared to provide these telephone services to people living in remote parts of our country. Derogatory and disparaging remarks were made about this telephone service. Do you know, Sir, that there are only eight countries in the world that have more telephones than South Africa has? Do you know, Sir, that there are seven telephones per 100 of the population in South Africa? I am now speaking of all population groups. When one considers how small our White population is and that the ratio nevertheless is seven per 100, this really is an achievement. But yet it is being said that there is no telephone service. That is ridiculous. Because the hon. member for Orange Grove always makes such a fuss, he reminds me of the old English saving, “A little fish must never try to spout like a whale”. He is a real political sand-shark.

Mr. Chairman, if you are prepared to make an analysis of the statistics which are available to all of us, also to hon. members opposite, you will find that tremendous amounts are being spent on national subscriber trunk dialling. The telephone service of the future will be based on national subscriber trunk dialling. Tremendous amounts are being spent not only on cables but also on the microwave system. Our system is the most modern in the world. Sir, do you realize—the Minister did not conceal this either—that as soon as these services can be rendered, this will facilitate the provision of telephones? When we consult the Estimates, we find that an amount of R52 million is being voted this year for the communications system—R13 million more than last year. Do you realize, Mr. Chairman, that according to estimates R150 million will be spent on this system in the next three years? If we had done as the United Party did when it was in power, we would have been able to have provided these services to the 72,000 people to-day. What kind of service would that have been? Completely inefficient services, inefficient in the sense that the contacts between towns would not have existed, and also in the sense that facilities would not have existed in the exchanges. I can use my own constituency as an example. There the exchange is being swamped with work. Under such circumstances it will never be possible to bring about efficiency. That would be impracticable. The object of automation is mainly to render efficient services. Cable installations are essential. What do we find under the present state of affairs? In the short period since the Post Office has obtained its own identity, i.e. since it is being run as a business undertaking of the State, drastic changes have already been made to the running of its affairs. The Opposition should not pretend that they were in favour of that in any way. As long ago as 1911 a commission was appointed to investigate the question of an own identity for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Committees repeatedly recommended, in 1936 and in 1938, that the Post Office should obtain its own identity. What are the objectives of the hon. the Minister with the legislation which has been implemented for only a few months? In the first place, a reorganization and a re-valuation of posts. One can already sense this in the Department; the Department is full of vitality and purposefulness. What else has happened as regards the change-over to and the introduction of new automatic exchanges? In this respect we find that the Minister was far-sighted enough to obtain the service of private contractors and suppliers. Do hon. members know that some of these private suppliers are attracting White employees from overseas for doing this work here in the temporary employment of the Department or the suppliers? Contracts entered into with suppliers contain the provision that if they should ever attract officials or technicians of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to them, their contracts will be cancelled immediately. You see, Mr. Chairman, this is vision! What would the opposite side of this House have done? They would have said to the dickens with the colour bar, and they would have employed Coloureds, Whites or Blacks indiscriminately. That is why … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rustenburg started off by saying that the situation which obtained in the department, was a perfect situation, notwithstanding the shortfall of 72,000 telephones. What a tremendous admission to make! A couple of years ago an hon. member on that side congratulated the hon. Minister’s predecessor because there were only 49,000 applications for telephones outstanding. Now we have someone congratulating the present Minister because there are “only” 72,000 people in this country …

72,001!

I beg your pardon, there are 72,001 people who want telephones in this country, which the hon. Minister and his department cannot supply.

Numbers are unimportant.

Mr. Chairman, his benchmate the hon. member, who is now leaving the Chamber, needs the use of a tape recorder, because I suppose he has been unable to get a second telephone. The hon. member for Vryheid prior to this hon. member said that there were two reasons for the shortfall of telephones. He said that if there had been enough manpower and if there had been enough equipment there would have been enough telephones for all. After all we have heard in this House during the last couple of weeks about the shortage of manpower, which the hon. Minister of Transport has denied …

Why do you always deal with the shortage of manpower?

This hon. member says that there is a shortage of manpower. He admits, and I am glad that he has had the courage to admit, that there is a shortage of equipment. After the 21 years during which this Government has been in power, surely this is the greatest indictment of that hon. Minister and his department—a lack of planning, because after 21 years, there is still a shortage of telephones because of a shortage of equipment. Mr. Chairman, they must not tell me that they cannot find the equipment: if ordered to-morrow, the United States will bring them 5 million telephones by return. Therefore, it is not a question of a shortage of equipment; it is a question of a lack of planning, a lack of foresight on the part of his department.

Is that not the same speech which you made in the Railway debate?

A statement by the department was published in an edition of South African Digest during March, 1968. It stated that the Post Office was going to spend R35 million on telecommunication in the 1968-’69 financial year as part of big development and modernization. It went on to say how it was going to be improved. How did it improve? It improved the position from a backlog of 49,000 telephones to a backlog of 72,000 telephones. This year we find that the hon. the Minister is going to spend R52 million. I hope he gets somewhere, but he has already admitted that he is not going to get anywhere. He has admitted that there will be a greater backlog at the end of spending R52 million. I do not think that this is all. There is the lack of foresight, as I have said, but there is also the question of priorities. I know that money has been spent, but has it been spent wisely; has it been spent for the benefit of the people of South Africa? I have here a cutting from a newspaper which appears in Durban. It is headed, “Dial O for your comfort”. All that is in here is a reproduction of the first page of the Natal telephone directory. This tells you how to get in contact with various exchanges. I find that subscribers in Durban and Pietermaritzburg can dial directly to the Witwatersrand, including Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark, Sasolburg; they can also dial Amanzimtoti and other places in and around Pietermaritzburg and Durban. I also found that they can dial the exchange directly at eight centres, ranging from Port Shepstone in the south to Mtubatuba in the north and as far inland as Pretoria and Bloemfontein. I have also found that there are another seven exchanges—that makes a total of 15 exchanges—which can be dialled directly in a matter of seconds, provided that the exchange is on the ball. A subscriber in Pietermaritzburg or Durban can get through to places like Mandini, Gingindhlovu, Dalton, Ixopo, Umzinto, immediately. This is very nice, for those people who want to phone subscribers at these centres! What has the department spent on this magnificent equipment, to dial the exchanges of these centres? How many telephones would that amount not have provided for the people who want to phone the grocer around the corner, or for the people who want to phone their businesses from their homes? The hon. member for Houghton earlier this afternoon told the House of her experience when she wished to phone London. It took her 44 minutes to get through. The hon. member for Germiston, who is unfortunately not here now, asked me a question across the floor when I commented on what the hon. member for Houghton stated. He asked me how often I phoned London. Mr. Chairman, that is the whole crux of the matter. I do not want to phone London but I want to be able to telephone around the corner, I want to be able to phone within a radius of 20, 30 miles of where I am, and this is what the people are not able to do to-day. It is not a question of “Dial O for your Comfort”, it is a case of "Dial M for Murder”, because it is murder trying to get through anywhere from the Durban or Pietermaritzburg exchanges; it is absolute murder to try and get anywhere.

Now you are really talking a lot of nonsense.

That hon. member does not know what he is talking about, he is talking a little bit lower than the tail. The whole crux of the matter is that by dialing two or three digits I can dial a place 150 miles or even 500 miles away if I want to dial Pretoria, but I cannot dial around the corner, I cannot get a business in Durban. If I want to make a trunk call from my home, which happens to be on the Durban exchange, to Hammarsdale, which is 30 miles from Durban and only 13 miles from my home, it takes me 30 minutes to raise the exchange and then I am told there is 1½ hours delay. It is quicker to get into my car and go there, and this I have done on numerous occasions. As regards these services to places like Mandini, to Mtubatuba, to Ixopo, to Umzinto, are these direct line services fully utilized, are they justified in other words, and is the Post Office justified in going on with this other list? I think there are about 15 further centres to which this type of services is going to be extended in the near future. Their names already appear on one of the pages in the front of the telephone directory. Are these extensions justified whilst in Pietermaritzburg we have over 1,100 people who have not got telephone services and in Durban nearly 10,000? What was the cost of these services? I want to repeat my question whether the Minister and the department have not got their priorities wrong on this particular point?

While we are talking about priorities, I want to come back to these centres that one can dial direct, places like Mandini, like I said. Ixopo, and Umzinto. I say this with all respect to my colleagues who represent those areas. Why have those places received priority over a place like Richmond; why is the service so shockingly bad from Richmond? Richmond is a matter of 30 miles from Pietermaritzburg and you can never on a weekday get a call through to Pietermaritzburg inside 1½ hours. It is impossible to do that. The service from Richmond to Pietermaritzburg is absolutely shocking. There is another point I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister while I am talking about Richmond. I refer to the difficulty which many subscribers have when trying to get through to numbers in Pietermaritzburg. I refer for instance to the position when parents try to telephone their children at boarding school there when they are only permitted to telephone those children during certain times. What happens? Richmond exchange dials that number in Pietermaritzburg, but it is engaged on a local call; Richmond exchange cannot cut in and say that number is required for a trunk call. This is something important to the parents of children. I ask the Minister to look into this matter and see if there is not some way of arranging that these callers can get through much sooner. These complaints do not only concern Richmond; they come from other parts as well, but mainly from Richmond. Is it not possible that exchanges that can dial these numbers direct can cut in when a number is busy with a local call?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, discussed two matters really. The first was the so-called tremendous shortage of telephones in his area. I learn from my friends here, however, that that actually was a blatant exaggeration. In addition he spoke of automatic telephone systems which he would not like to have in his area. I think he is the only hon. member who does not want such a system; I think all of us welcome automatic telephones, and I hope his voters will take cognizance in due course of the argument he advanced here.

Actually I have risen on this occasion, even though it is at a late stage in this debate, to express my gratitude towards the S.A.B.C. for the excellent programmes it gave us during the past year.

Such as “Current Affairs”?

I shall come to that. I should like to express my gratitude on two accounts. The first is that I and my family enjoy the programmes of the S.A.B.C. as they are suitable for my family and suited to family life, and the second is that the S.A.B.C., in the programmes it is presenting for us, always tries to maintain a balance between what is really artistic and important on the one hand and what is merely amusing and entertaining on the other hand. In this regard one would like to mention the excellent programmes we were privileged to listen to and enjoy last year. For example, on the Afrikaans programme we had “Die Taal wat ons Praat”, “Wat sê die Bybel?” and “Rekenskap”, a programme which dealt with topical issues and on which experts and true scientists discussed problematic matters. On the English programme there was the fine adaptation of Stuart Cloete’s well-known work “Rags of Glory”, there was “The Broken Link”, the well-known “London Letter”, and many more. I must say that the programmes which the S.A.B.C. presented for us in the past year, really gave sheer listening pleasure to everyone who heard them. One cannot refrain from mentioning our youth programmes. How much the poorer would our kiddies have been without the fine Siembamba children’s programme. Then there is the programme “Die Jongspan” for the bigger children. For the young people “Ateljee 68” was presented last year and this year we have “Ateljee 69”. At the moment there are approximately 1,700,000 licensees, which probably is an increase of nearly 100,000 on the figure for last year, and this gives one a picture not only of the popularity of the service but also of the magnitude of the service.

In addition I want to express my gratitude to the S.A.B.C. for creating a medium for our authors to give expression to their creative urges. Here I have in mind our radio dramas, our radio plays, presented by the Radio Services to a large listening public in which they are acquainting our people with these works. I think our public can feel nothing but gratitude for the really magnificent work the S.A.B.C. has been doing for our people and our country. [Interjections.] But now I find it strange that although we have been conducting a debate here for many hours, not a single member on the opposite side of this House—and I am including the hon. member for Durban (Point)—even tried to express one kind thought or one word of appreciation to the S.A.B.C. As regards the programmes and the presentations of the S.A.B.C., I challenge hon. members opposite to mention me one country in the world which can surpass our radio services. For that reason I am asking them: Why the fuss from the hon. member for Orange Grove and his political compeers we have been having all day long to-day? Why all this opposition, why this absolute and blatant lack of appreciation for the work of the S.A.B.C., which is being enjoyed and appreciated by our country and its people? Is it possible that an institution such as the S.A.B.C., with all its fruits and all the very fine things it is offering us, does not in any respect evoke the appreciation of hon. members opposite? Is it really possible that the entire Party on the opposite side, which surely also has a function in our fatherland, can participate for a full day in a debate such as this and fail to see a single one of these positive things? Surely there must be a reason for that? I do not believe hon. members opposite will hold it against me if I were to mention a few reasons for their silence on all these positive aspects of the S.A.B.C. at this stage, even though it is late in the evening.

If we were to go back on their road, if we were to go back on the road followed by them in respect of South African institutions, we would find only one reason for this blatant failure on their part to recognize these things. This reason is that they have become so steeped in an anti-national feeling throughout the years that they have even become anti-South Africa at times.

Nonsense.

The hon. member for Walmer may say that this is nonsense, but I shall now quote to him what was said by his own Leader. After I had had the privilege of being a member of this House for three days, when I was sitting somewhere at the back here, I listened to the debate on the motion of censure moved by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. He dealt with the dissatisfaction of the hon. members opposite as far as our radio service was concerned, and he concluded by saying the following—

Hon. members opposite speak of national feeling, of being pro-South African. Well, if these are the words of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, what can I expect from his followers?

I think there is a second reason for the complete lack of appreciation for the grand job which the S.A.B.C. did in the past year, and that is that we have in the S.A.B.C. a truly loyal and patriotic citizen of the Republic of South Africa. It most definitely always is pro-South Africa and it is and remains a champion for those things which are peculiar to the mother country. Consequently I do not find it strange that we so often are on different wavelengths, that the S.A.B.C. and the hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members opposite are on completely different wavelengths.

There is also a third reason for the obvious lack of appreciation on that side of this House as regards the fine work which the S.A.B.C. did for us during the past year. Surely hon. members opposite will not resent my saying that they are members of a dying party and that they believe that the only way to hold on to what they have is to try to estrange my English-speaking fellow-citizens from me and from the South African institutions. They wrongly believe that if they were to succeed in doing so, they would hold on to what they have. They are totally underestimating the intelligence, integrity and loyalty of my English-speaking fellow-citizens; they ought to know that my English-speaking fellow-citizens will no longer pay any attention to their stories.

In conclusion I want to say this, Sir. The S.A.B.C. has …

… become a champion of the “verkramptes”.

The S.A.B.C. has not received the appreciation it should have received from that member. They have not received that from that ex-general of the Ossewabrandwag who was kicked out of the Ossewabrandwag at that time, because the S.A.B.C. is the champion of things which are peculiar to and good for the mother country.

Business interrupted to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.