Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill now before the House makes provision for expenditure in the amount of R650 million, which will be sufficient for approximately seven months of the financial year 1970-’71. R550 million is required to cover expenditure to be defrayed from revenue funds in respect of the maintenance and operation of all services, and R100 million to enable the Administration to proceed with its programme of capital and betterment works until such time as the budget for the financial year has been approved.

I shall now give the House a brief review of the year’s working in so far as the following revenue services are concerned:

Passengers

Passenger earnings for the first eight months of the financial year reflected an increase on the figure for the corresponding period of 1968-’69.

Goods

As a result of the suspension of maize exports, traffic from the agricultural sector up to the end of November, 1969 showed a decline on the previous year’s figure. Highrated goods, however, more than compensated for the shortfall as a result of a rise in imports. It is anticipated that the current level of high-rated goods traffic will be maintained during the remaining months of the financial year. Regarding low-rated goods, the Maize Control Board has authorized some 23 shipments of yellow maize during the latter part of the year.

Road transport

Road transport earnings have maintained a high level throughout the year with a consistent increase in third class passengers and goods tonnage.

Harbours

At the harbours the tonnage of general merchandise has exceeded the 1968 figures, but the considerable gain on the import figures for the previous year is due largely to crude petroleum.

Airways

Revenue for the first four months of the year did not come up to expectations, but by the end of November the estimate had been exceeded, freight earnings being particularly high.

Pipelines

The earnings from white products reflected an improvement whilst revenue from crude petroleum showed a marked increase due mainly to the introduction into service of the new pipeline between Durban and Ogies in June, 1969.

New Works Programme

Whilst completion of some of the new lines at present under construction has been delayed due to unforeseen circumstances, satisfactory progress was maintained with nearly all new works in hand during the year.

Work on the Empangeni-Richard’s Bay single line is more than three quarters complete, but the target date for completion has unfortunately had to be put forward owing to subsidence problems in swamp areas.

Work on the Metsi-Kaapmuiden new line is about 50 per cent complete whilst work on the Vryheid-Empangeni line is expected to be completed by March, 1975.

The proposed new line from Natalspruit to Midway, the construction of which was authorized by Act No. 49 of 1957, will now no longer be constructed. This line would have joined up with the Midway-Bank-Klerksdorp route and would also have been used to serve the proposed new municipal power station at Liefde en Vrede. This scheme has, however, been abandoned by the Johannesburg City Council, and the occurrence of sinkholes between Bank and Oberholzer also made it necessary to reconsider the matter.

The partial doubling of an installation of Centralized Traffic Control on the Klerksdorp-Fourteen Streams line, at a cost of some R18 million, will commence as soon as the preliminary survey work in connection with the awarding of tenders is completed, whilst the doubling, electrification and installation of C.T.C. on the Hercules-De Wildt line for serving decentralized industry, is expected to be completed in March. 1972. Plans are at present in an advanced stage of preparation for the installation of C.T.C. on the Queenstown-Burgersdorp and Booth-Cato Ridge lines. The doubling of the Cambridge-Blaney line is almost complete, and the deviation of portion of the East London-Springfontein line at Bethulie, due to the construction of the Verwoerd Dam, is already more than 80 per cent complete.

The electrification schemes on the Kamfersdam-Postmasburg line (including the Macfarlane-Fields View connecting line) and the Glencoe-Hlobane section have been completed. Electrification of the Kroonstad-Harrismith section is expected to be completed in December, 1970, and the section Harrismith-Bethlehem is already in use.

Construction of the goods depot at Bayhead, Durban, is progressing well, and with the cooperation of the contractors, work on certain stages of the project is being expedited so as to provide alternate facilities to compensate for the loss of the Cato Creek goods sheds destroyed by fire on 20th October, 1969.

In this connection, I regret to inform hon. members that the fire totally destroyed some 280,0 square feet of shed accommodation, including all the shed equipment, whilst a large quantity of rolling-stock, cartage vehicles and equipment was destroyed and damaged. It is also estimated that some 2,700 tons of general merchandise was destroyed. It was at first anticipated that the loss of this important link would cause considerable disruption in goods services, not only locally but over a wide area. The steps which were taken immediately after the fire were so effective that an embargo that was placed on all but the most urgent consignments could be lifted two days later. The fact that activities returned to normal so soon, speaks volumes for the positive manner in which all the staff concerned faced the challenge of this disaster. I should like to pay a special tribute to those members of the staff and the public who, at great personal risk, assisted with the combating of the fire and the removal of vehicles from the sheds.

The construction of all quay walls for Pier No. 1 and the cross berth at Salisbury Island, Durban, has been completed, and dredging work in connection with the construction of Pier No. 2 has commenced.

Rolling-stock

Rolling-stock on order or authorized comprises 250 electric locomotives, 190 diesel locomotives, 594 main-line passenger coaches, 196 suburban electric motor coaches, 482 trailing coaches, 10,650 goods vehicles as well as 140 narrow-gauge vehicles and 16 narrow-gauge guards’ vans.

Tenders will shortly be invited for the supply, between August and November, 1971, of two train sets for the conveyance of motor cars, at an estimated overall cost of R727,000.

Housing

During the year an amount of R9.6 million was available for housing loan purposes and this enabled the Administration to make some 1,200 loans available to the staff for the acquisition of houses.

An amount of R3 million was allocated for departmental quarters and the latest available figures indicate that almost 450 houses have either been completed or are in the course of erection.

Staff

The overall staff position deteriorated still further during the year. This is attributed to the keen competition in the labour market as a result of the sustained economic growth of the country and the continued state of full employment. In my last budget speech I referred to the solution being sought by introducing schemes and procedures whereby it would be possible to step up production with the available staff, and I am pleased to say that this campaign is bearing fruit.

Concessions granted to specific grades of staff during the period under review totalled some R12 million. This amount included more than R9 million in respect of an increased holiday bonus paid to the staff at the end of November, 1969.

THE PAST TWENTY-ONE YEARS INRETROSPECT

Hon. members are aware of the important role played by the South African Railways in the economic life of the country and that the Department’s working results are in many ways a reflection of the country’s economic growth and achievements.

A comparison between 1948 and 1969 reflects an increase in the total tonnage of goods transported by rail from 52.6 million to 118.5 million, or 125 per cent. Revenue-earning goods ton miles rose from 7,400 million to 24,900 million, or by approximately 237 per cent; passenger rail journeys from 244 million to 493 million, or by 102 per cent, and cargo handled at our harbours by 271 per cent from 10.7 million to 39.7 million tons.

In order to achieve these results it was, of course, necessary to spend large sums of money. The total capital invested in the Railways increased from R473 million in 1948 to R2,477 million at the end of March, 1969. This money was spent on essential development and on commodities without which the Railways would not have been able to fulfil its task. Track mileage, for instance, increased by approximately 20 per cent; truckage by 121 per cent; coaching stock by 55 per cent; and tractive power by 62 per cent. In addition, South African Airways has been modernized to become one of the finest in the world. Cargo-handling capacity at harbours has also been stepped up considerably, whilst the two pipelines provided are operating successfully.

Although it could reasonably be expected that an increase in traffic and expansion of this magnitude would normally entail a corresponding increase in staff, it is significant that the actual increase amounts to a mere 15 per cent.

In considering this transformation of the Railways, hon. members will appreciate that most of the improvements to which I have referred had to be effected amidst the everyday operation of the various services and to meet the demands of the virile growth of our national economy, which, in turn, depends so much on the ability of the Railways to offer efficient transport. Confidence, ingenuity and bold planning were, therefore, required on the part of the Railway Administration to cope with the traffic offering during each stage of the country’s development.

Methods and means were at the same time being devised whereby existing working and operating procedures could be improved and adapted to modern trends, whilst the possible application of modern management techniques and mechanical and other aids to increase efficiency, received special attention in the light of the persistent staff shortage.

I shall now deal in greater detail with the growth of certain branches of the Railway organization since 1948.

CAPITAL WORKS

During the past two decades, an amount of approximately R800 million was incurred on new civil engineering works and improvements to facilities. This amount was allocated to projects such as the provision of new railway lines, electrification, doubling and quadrupling of lines, deviations, new marshalling yards, goods depots, locomotive depots, workshops, administrative buildings, mechanization of shunting yards, and improved facilities for the staff.

SIGNALLING

Train control and signalling, which not only determine line capacity but also form the basis of safe trains working, have been extensively changed and modernized since 1948. This was necessary in view of the faster and more intensive train service that was required. Electrical signalling offered a good solution, and even in the days of the exclusive use of steam traction, electrical equipment was installed to improve line capacity. A further improvement was the introduction of Centralized Traffic Control, whereby the running of trains over sections of up to 120 miles is presently controlled from a single control Office without any operating officials at intermediate station.

Apart from the obvious advantages which Centralized Traffic Control have for the Railways, its introduction has led to the establishment of a new local signalling industry, which manufactures 75 per cent of our requirements of highly sophisticated electronic equipment.

ELECTRIFICATION AND DIESELIZA-TION

Since 1948 the electrification network has been extended by more than 4,000 single track miles. The electrified mileage at present approximates 28 per cent of the total railway network and, compared with 204 electric locomotives in service in 1948 with a tractive force of 4.5 million lb., the Railways now has 1,112 units with a total tractive force of 33.8 million lb.

Whilst in 1948 available diesel traction consisted of only two small diesels used on a limited scale for shunting, the present diesel establishment consists of 367 locomotives with a further 12 still to be delivered.

ROLLING-STOCK

The number of passenger coaches in service has since 1948 been increased by 2,914, and the capital value thereof by R159 million. Goods vehicles in service were increased from 67,0 to 147,000 providing an increased carrying capacity of 2.8 million tons, whilst the capital value increased by R436 million.

Goods vehicles have received particular attention and in recent years various special types of trucks and tank wagons were developed by the Administration’s engineers and the plans presented to local industry for construction.

In the past year, only R8 million of the Railway purchases, which exceeded R212 million, were made overseas as against R19 million out of R67½ million in the year 1948-’49.

PIPELINES

The 12-inch pipeline constructed over a distance of 446 miles, for the conveyance of petroleum products between Durban and Johannesburg via Sasolburg, was commissioned on 1st November, 1965. Traffic conveyed by this pipeline is steadily increasing and, on the average, approximately 500 million gallons are conveyed annually. Teething troubles experienced, particularly in the field of electrolytic corrosion, have been overcome.

Early in 1967, it was decided to build a second pipeline of 18-inch diameter to convey crude oil. This 511 mile long pipeline between Durban and Kendal via Empangeni and Sasolburg will ultimately serve the Natref Refinery which is expected to be commissioned during this year. The section between Sasolburg and Kendal went on stream in mid-March, 1969, whilst that between Durban and Sasolburg was brought into use on 9th June, 1969.

AIRWAYS

Of all the transport services, perhaps the most spectacular expansion during the past two decades has taken place in air services.

Air passengers increased by more than 1,0 per cent whereas the demand for freight carriage by air was practically non-existent in 1948. Some 14,000 tons of freight were conveyed last year.

The fleet, which in 1948 consisted of 41 aircraft comprising Skymasters, Vickers Vikings, Dakotas, Lodestars and Doves, with a seating capacity of only 845, has been modernized, and by the end of 1969 comprised 29 aircraft, viz. eight Boeing 707s, seven 727s, three 737s, seven Viscounts and four Dakotas, with a seating capacity of no less than 2,616.

The present fleet enables South African Airways to convey 23,500 passengers per week on its internal flights whilst 2,224 seats are available per week on the Springbok route to and from London, 1,390 to and from Europe (Athens, Rome and Vienna), 278 to and from the Americas, and 278 on the Wallaby Service. A further three 737s and three 747s are on order.

Although we can be proud of these achievements it is only fitting that reference should again be made to one of the outstanding features in the history of South African Airways, namely the smooth change-over in August, 1963, from the East African route to the one along the West coast.

Hon. members will no doubt be interested to know how it came about that the changeover could take place within 24 hours of receiving notice that overflying rights in North Africa had been refused.

In 1959 I became convinced that, firstly, landing rights and, thereafter, overflying rights would be refused by African states to S.A.A. I knew only too well that these people did not concern themselves with international conventions, which guaranteed overflying rights to all commercial airlines.

As a first step, I decided that the main runway at Jan Smuts must be lengthened by 4,0 ft. to enable a fully loaded Boeing aircraft to take off comfortably. This was completed by my Department with the assistance of the Provincial Administration in the record time of three months instead of the 18 months which it would have taken under ordinary circumstances.

Secondly, I sent officials of the Department of Transport and S.A.A. on an exploratory mission in a Skymaster to find a new route round the bulge of Africa.

On their return they reported that Luanda airport had not been completed, the runway at Sal in the Cape Verde Islands was too short for a fully-loaded Boeing to take off, but that Las Palmas was suitable.

Negotiations were immediately entered into with the Portuguese authorities to obtain landing rights at Luanda, Sal and Lisbon, and for the runway at Sal to be lengthened.

On 21st August, 1963, a message was received that Libya had refused S.A.A. overflying rights. We immediately sent ground equipment to Luanda for the handling of S.A.A. Boeings at that airport. We also obtained permission from the Spanish authorities for S.A.A. to land at Las Palmas for technical purposes only. At present, of course, S.A.A. has full traffic rights at Las Palmas.

Without one flight being delayed we switched over to the new route. It was an effort which inspired world-wide admiration and I cannot refrain from again paying the highest tribute to my flying crews and officials who were primarily responsible for the smooth change-over.

STAFF

A feature of personnel administration in the South African Railways, is the cordial relationship which has, through the years, existed between the Administration and its staff. This relationship is based on mutual respect and confidence and a consequent responsible approach to problems. Hon. members are aware of the fact that I have always been prepared to assist the staff in every possible way, but that I have at the same time consistently refused to consider concessions when railway finances were not favourable.

It is true that differences have arisen from time to time, but I am pleased to say that the understanding between us is such that neither I nor the staff have the slightest hesitation of using the existing conciliatory machinery.

Whilst the volume of traffic has increased more than twofold during the past two decades, only 15 per cent more staff were employed. This indeed represents a significant contribution on the part of the staff, which sometimes was made under rather trying circumstances. I naturally share the country’s appreciation in this connection, and hon. members will be pleased to note that these sustained efforts have not gone unrewarded, but that during the past 20 years an amount of more than R235 million was expended on improved emoluments.

Although the housing of staff is an expensive undertaking, it has always been my considered opinion that favourable housing conditions have an important bearing on productivity and that the Administration should, as far as practicable, assist the staff in this regard. Despite the periodical dearth of capital, a sum of over R118 million has been made available since 1948 to enable railway-men to purchase their own homes, in consequence of which more than 28,000 properties have been acquired.

In addition, the Administration has during the same period, provided almost 13,500 departmental houses at a cost of over R85 million, which brings the total number of departmental houses presently let to railway servants to 23,000. It is worthy of note that these departmental houses are being let to railway servants at a loss of some R10 million per annum. The benefits are, however, considered to be in excess of the actual monetary loss sustained and are accordingly fully justified.

There are, of course, numerous other fringe benefits enjoyed by the staff, but I shall not burden the House with details thereof.

I do, however, also wish to say something about railway pension benefits. Since this Government came into power much has been done to improve the lot of railway pensioners and their dependants. Notwithstanding improved pension benefits resulting from higher salaries and wages in favour of the staff, and the fact that the various allowances payable to pensioners have been increased from time to time, actual pension benefits have also been improved. For instance, a scheme whereby widows of deceased railway servants qualified for the payment of annuities came into effect during July, 1951, whilst the benefits payable to widows and dependants have since been improved.

Hon. members will no doubt recall that I mentioned in my Budget speech last year that an investigation by a committee specially appointed for the purpose had shown conclusively that improvements in the benefits provided by the pension funds were fully justified. Hon. members will also recall that legislation was passed last year in terms of which the annuities of all persons who went on pension before 1st April, 1968, were increased by 10 per cent whilst those who retired on or after that date received an increase of 5 per cent.

Furthermore, in order to offset increases in the cost of living, basic pensions were enhanced by 2 per cent, compounded annually, for each completed year of pension up to a maximum of 20 years. At the same time the terminal period on which pensions are calculated was reduced to three years and the factors used for converting portion of annuities into lump sum payments were also raised.

Mr. Speaker, although the Railways has not failed the country in meeting its transport requirements, the industrial development of the country over the past two decades has steadily intensified the competition between employers for the available manpower. In the main the Railways can, for obvious reasons, not compete on an equal basis with the private sector as far as remuneration is concerned, in consequence of which it has continuously been faced with shortages in its labour force. In a labour market where only a few white men and women are registered as unemployed, this situation will no doubt continue. The Administration has, therefore, considered various means whereby efficiency and productivity could be increased in order to provide the necessary service with a smaller staff. Through the introduction of improved training, working methods and facilities, mechanization and automation of certain procedures, it has largely succeeded in achieving this objective.

Before concluding I wish to refer to the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Co-ordination of Transport in South Africa, which was tabled last year. The findings and recommendations of the Commission are still being studied by my Departments and I am awaiting their comments. However, in regard to those recommendations pertaining to the separation of Railways, Harbours and Airways, I can inform the House that I have rejected these recommendations as I am convinced that it is not in the interests of the country; I have decided to give the reasons for my rejection in the form of a White Paper, which I now lay upon the Table.

In conclusion, the Government can claim without fear of contradiction that it has guided the administration of the South African Railways along positive and economically sound lines, and I have no hesitation in requesting this House to provide the necessary funds for which I have asked, to enable the Railways to meet its commitments until Parliament considers the main Railway Budget later this year.

Mr. Speaker, we are grateful to the hon. the Minister for this interesting interim review of the situation on the South African Railways and Harbours. We look forward to the debate that will ensue from this statement. We were interested that the Minister should refer, very inadequately, I think, in view of the circumstances, to the continuing staff shortage on the South African Railways. I think the whole country, and particularly the railwaymen, would like to know what is being done in order to overcome what has really developed into a very, very serious situation indeed.

The Minister has given us some indication of what is being done by way of mechanization and organization to try and minimize the effects of the staff shortage. But ultimately, Sir, any organization of the magnitude of the South African Railways must depend upon human beings for its work. Computers cannot programme themselves. Machines cannot anticipate emergencies. Machines cannot plan. Ultimately we shall have to find a way of getting the people, the bodies, to do the work on the South African Railways. I do think it was remiss of the Minister to skate around this very important issue in the manner that he did to-day. We shall have to discuss this further when it comes to the debate.

We were looking forward to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the hon. member for Salt River’s request for information about the Marais Commission on the co-ordination of transport in this speech. All we heard was that the Minister and the Administration had not yet made up their minds, except for one negative decision, namely not to accept the policy of the United Party that there should be separation under the Minister of Transport of the Departments of Railways, of Harbours and of Airways. There I sympathize with the Minister. They have taken over so much of the United Party’s policy that they have in this particular instance on the eve of the election to give the impression that they are not taking over more of our policy. But they will, Sir. They will in this matter take over our policy, too. It may take 60 or 40 years, as we have seen in other instances. The logic is so unanswerable that inevitably they will bring about this separation in due course. I have not had a chance to study the White Paper, but I can remember, for example, that the Minister of Water Affairs had reasons as good why they could not construct the Orange River Scheme. I think that the history of the White Paper we shall read quite soon will be similar to the protestations against the Orange River Scheme that we had from another Minister. It is inevitable, Sir. It will happen and we are confident that it will.

It fascinated me to listen to the Minister, this hon. Minister whom we nearly lost. I felt quite sad when I read in the papers that the hon. the Minister of Transport was going to resign because of advancing years. But in view of the new fluidity in the Nationalist Party, and the uncertainty, he has decided to give it another go. I want to say that we welcome it. We can only hope that his continued presence in the Cabinet for another two months will help to bring greater stability in the very weak government that South Africa has to-day. But in the circumstances, as he probably considered the speech when he still thought of retiring, we can forgive him for the theme of his speech, which was: “What a good boy am I!” We can understand this. It was intended as a swan song for the hon. the Minister and we sympathize and understand. But, of course, it will be our task to complete the hon. the Minister’s life’s story. He has written his autobiography and we shall help to complete a balanced biography for the hon. the Minister. We shall also look at the past 20 years and we shall tell a story of excessive overtime, because of a lack of staff, and a story of excessive fatigue because of the tremendous demands being made on the Railway personnel. We shall also tell stories of more derailments and more accidents, of higher fares, of periodic inadequacy; and we shall complete the history of the hon. the Minister which he forgot to tell us. He forgot to tell us how this Government landed the South African Railways in an utter crisis after they came into power in 1948, because they did not accept the judgment of the United Party Government and that of Mr. Sturrock. This Government then tried to curtail our plans for expansion and they brought the Railways to the verge of ruin. It is strange how forgetful this hon. Minister has become. It is, of course, human that when one considers one’s own past, one remembers the favourable and tends to forget the unfavourable. I think we shall have an interesting debate and I am grateful to the hon. the Minister for the manner in which he introduced it—especially for the openings he gave a constructive Opposition to expose the weaknesses of the Administration.

I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Bill before the House makes provision for the appropriation of a total amount of R174 million for the service of the Post Office after the expiry of the current financial year until such time as the Main Estimates for the Post Office for 1970-’71 have been considered and approved later this year. An amount of R116 million is being requested for operating expenses, and an amount of R58 million for the purpose of enabling the Post Office to proceed with its programme of capital works.

I think that on this occasion it would be fitting merely to furnish the House with a brief summary of Post Office activities.

POSTAL SERVICES

The volume of mail handled by the Post Office is increasing all the time, and with a view to the shortage of experienced staff the emphasis is increasingly being placed on the mechanization of the handling processes and the utilization of ways and means of speeding up the conveyance and delivery of mail in all stages and rendering this service more effective.

From observation the letter-sorting machine installed in Pretoria appears to hold many advantages in that more mail matter can be sorted with much less staff than was the case with the ordinary method of sorting by hand. Tests and analyses of the practical results of this machine are being continued. Eleven facer/canceller machines which were ordered for six of the largest sorting Offices—those in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth, and Pietermaritzburg—have arrived in the Republic and are being installed at present. A few of them are already being used.

Experiments with the use of power-driven cycles for the delivery of mail in Johannesburg and Pretoria have been so successful that the Department intends to use this method also in the other major centres where local circumstances permit.

TELECOMMUNICATION

During the part of the new financial year under review, approximately R44 million will be needed for telecommunication capital works. This spending rate is appreciably higher than that of the current financial year, mainly because of an acceleration in the rate at which automatic exchange equipment and cables are being supplied and, to a certain extent, because of rising costs as well.

Telephones

It is being expected that the number of telephones in the Republic and South West Africa will reach a total of nearly 1,500,000 by the end of the current financial year, 1969-’70, as compared to nearly 1,312,000 at the end of the previous financial year. This represents an increase of 188,000 telephones in 1969-’70, but this increase includes 85,861 telephones which were taken over from the Durban Corporation during April last year, as well as 30,813 telephones which had been in commission in South West Africa when, also in April last year, the control of those telephones was taken over by Post Office of the Republic. The anticipated net increase for the financial year 1969-’70 will therefore be approximately 72,000.

It is expected that the number of deferred applications for telephones will amount to approximately 89,000 by the end of March, 1970. It is estimated that the total number of new applications received for telephones during the financial year 1969-’70, will be 246,600, and that the number of telephones provided during the financial year will amount to approximately 219,400. Over the first six months of the financial year—i.e. from April to the end of September, 1969—114,305 telephone services were provided. In spite of this high rate at which telephones are being provided, there has nevertheless been a moderate increase in the number of names on the waiting list because of the sustained increase in the number of new applications received.

Direct long-distance dialling

The system of direct long-distance dialling which enables telephone subscribers in automatic exchange areas throughout the country to dial subscribers in other automatic exchange areas and many manual exchanges directly, has been extended considerably during the financial year 1969-’70. The most significant extensions of this system were those of subscribers in the areas of Johannesburg and the Witwatersrand; East London, Queenstown and King William’s Town; the Vereeniging area; the Klerksdorp area; Pietersburg and other large towns in the Transvaal.

Telephone exchanges

During the financial year 1969-’70 the manually operated telephone exchanges at Bethal, Despatch, Leeudoringstad and the Strand were replaced by automatic exchanges. The manual exchanges at Ermelo and Rustenburg will be replaced by automatic exchanges on 7th March.

A new automatic exchange was put into operation at Montclair on 14th June, 1969, and on 29th November the existing automatic exchange at Paarl was replaced by a new automatic exchange with a larger capacity. During the period 1st April to 30th November, 1969, the capacity of 16 automatic exchanges was enlarged by a total of 7,660 additional lines. A further 4,800 additional lines will have been made available at four other automatic exchanges by the end of March, 1970.

During the financial year 1970-’71 new automatic exchanges with a total of 16,459 lines will be installed at 17 centres, and another 8 temporary automatic exchanges with 388 lines each will be installed so as to relieve congestion where relief is most urgently needed and can be brought about in this manner.

Telex service

For quite some time telex subscribers in the Republic and South West Africa have been enjoying the advantages of a fully automatic domestic telex service. The popularity of this type of service has been proved very clearly by the fact that 830 new services were pro vided during the seven-month period from April to October, 1969.

MAJOR CONSTRUCTION WORKS

The increasing demand by the public for more and better post Office services has required the major construction works programme to be extended considerably. During the financial year 1969-’70 four new post Offices, two combined post Office and automatic telephone exchange buildings were completed. In addition two post Offices and four automatic telephone exchange buildings were enlarged. These works cost R2.2 million.

At the moment 47 building projects at a total cost of roughly R19.3 million are under construction, and it is expected that 39 major construction projects will be completed during the financial year 1970-’71.

HOUSING

During the period April, 1969, to January, 1970, negotiations were concluded for the purchase or construction of 108 dwellings for allocation to officials as official accommodation. Sixty-eight of these dwellings have already been occupied.

Special steps were taken to provide housing by means of pre-constructed buildings for members of staff left homeless by the earthquakes in the Western Province.

STAFF

Owing to the general manpower shortage as a result of the tremendous development taking place in South Africa, the Post Office, just as is the case with other Departments and organizations, is also experiencing a shortage of trained staff. This applies to the professional and technical groups in particular. However, there are clear indications that the increased starting salaries and numerous improved service benefits effected in the course of 1969, will enable us to obtain a better share of the available resources in this sphere. In the clerical and other sections the shortages are no longer serious and the position is improving.

The Department realizes that the best way to cope with the ever-increasing demand for more and better services, lies in the more effective utilization of available manpower, and we are engaged in several schemes, such as work simplification and incentive bonus schemes, in order to enhance productivity. Success has already been achieved in this sphere, and in certain cases productivity has been pushed up by as much as 30 per cent per worker. We are engaged in extending these methods to every possible sphere of work, and even at this early stage there is evidence of considerable improvement in the provision of service.

In addition, the new salary structure which was introduced for the technical staff on 1st April, 1969, is aimed not only at improving the remuneration of technicians in the employ of the Post Office, but also at drawing back qualified former Post Office technicians. In this respect we have already succeeded in getting back for the Department quite a number of former employees. Attempts have also been made at strengthening the technical staff by means of a recruitment campaign in the United Kingdom in order to obtain the services of trained cable joiners. The results are encouraging and a further recruitment team is on its way to countries abroad for the purpose of recruiting trained technicians and telephone mechanics. We hope that considerable success will be achieved in this field as well.

In conclusion I want to say that under its new dispensation the Post Office has continued to take every possible and reasonable step to make up existing backlogs as soon as possible and to improve its services to the public all the time. I want to give the House the assurance that there will be no slackening in this regard, and to the Postmaster-General and the staff of the Post Office I express my appreciation for the way in which they are meeting the challenge presented by steadily increasing demands for Port Office services.

Mr. Speaker, there are four factors which I think will make this debate of more than usual interest in so far as it refers to the Post Office. The first is—and I think I will have the support of a great section of hon. members of parliament on the other side as well as this side of the House—the dismal and abject failure of this Government to meet the ever growing telephone shortage, a shortage which, we have been shocked to hear this afternoon, has now reached the huge figure of 89,0 in this country. The second point of more than passing interest in this debate are certain allegations which have been made in regard to telephone tapping. I trust that we shall hear more about that from the hon. the Minister and also from his predecessor, or whoever is speaking on behalf of his predecessor’s party this afternoon. The third point is the appointment by the hon. the Minister, both belatedly and in a most unsatisfactory form, of the television commission. Fourthly I want to refer to the hon. Minister’s predecessor, the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs who it is true is only here in the form of Banquo’s ghost at the moment. He is now Leader of a small Opposition party and will have to face up to certain allegations which have been made against him by members on that side of the House.

Before I continue, I want to move the following amendment:

1. (a) to create a satisfied postal staff, sufficient in numbers and with proper working conditions;
2. (b) to give the public efficient postal and telephone services;
3. (c) to provide an unbiased radio service; and
4. (d) to take active steps to introduce a nationwide television service”.

I shall give the hon. the Minister a copy of this amendment. First of all I want to refer to the last point I have made, namely the predecessor of the hon. present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. Hon. members will admit that we on this side of the House have been consistent in our condemnation of Dr. Hertzog, his predecessor, as having been largely responsible through his policies, which represented the whole policy of the other side of the House, for all the evils we have in the Post Office system and for all the shortages we have in the telephone services and in the postal services.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

I am glad that I have the attention of the hon. Minister of Transport because there seems to be some difference of opinion on that side of the House as to whether the hon. member for Ermelo was responsible for what has happened in the Post Office. I wonder whether the hon. Minister of Transport can remember how he went along to Ermelo in 1968, shortly after the hon. member for Ermelo was dismissed from his portfolio, and replied to Dr. Albert Hertzog’s welcoming speech. Does the hon. Minister remember that he has said the following: (I quote from Die Burger)—

Can the hon. Minister of Transport still maintain that that is the case, or has he changed his mind?

Or did he lie?

Order! What did the hon. member for Durban (Point) say?

I said: “Or did he lie”.

The hon. member must withdraw those words. As a frontbencher he should know that he may not use such language.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I point out to you that last week there was a ruling that if reference was made to an incident outside this House, it was acceptable.

The hon. member may proceed.

The words of the hon. Minister of Transport are in strange contrast with the words of the hon. Minister of Planning. The hon. Minister of Transport told us that Dr. Hertzog was an excellent Minister and that there was nothing wrong with his administration. We find, however, that the hon. Minister of Planning, in addressing the district committee of the Johannesburg West constituency, said the following. I quote.

In analysing what went wrong in the Post Office, we should hear from these hon. Ministers why there is this clash in their respective points of view. We, on the other hand, have been consistent in that we have never claimed any virtues for the hon. member for Ermelo. But the hon. the Minister of Transport has, while the hon. Minister of Planning said that Dr. Hertzog was an inefficient Minister, that he was incompetent. What I do find strange is that this admission on the part of the hon. the Minister of Planning came after the hon. member for Ermelo had been in the Cabinet for 10 years. The hon. the Minister himself was, therefore, partly responsible for what the hon. member for Ermelo did, as was the entire Cabinet. Yet now we have an admission from a front bencher, from a member of the Cabinet, that all along the hon. member was inefficient. Why did it take them 10 years to discover this? Why was the country allowed to continue suffering under Dr. Hertzog as Minister? Why was a change for the better not made? How often have I not stood up in this House and moved a reduction in the salary of Dr. Hertzog as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs? And how often was he praised to high heaven by hon. members on that side, by his colleagues in the Cabinet including the hon. Prime Minister himself? I wonder what the attitude of the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is. Does he agree that his predecessor was incompetent? Or does he agree with the hon. the Minister of Transport that there was nothing at all wrong with his predecessor, that in fact he was an excellent Minister? I shall await his reply.

I come to another instance of what I can only call the “credibility gap” in the Cabinet, in the Government. This concerns this vexed question of telephone tapping. I had a reply from the present Minister to a question of mine on this matter the other day. As far as I am concerned, that reply was extremely weak. He said that his department was not listening in to conversations without the permission of the subscriber. However, he added that with modern electronic gadgets available it was technically possible to-day to listen in to telephone conversations without the persons conducting the conversation being aware of it. Against this, he added, it was impossible to take steps. What a weak-kneed reply, Sir! What an admission of failure! Surely a great deal can be done about it? Is he not aware of the special commission in the United States of America working out at the present moment possibilities of avoiding, or at least reducing, the evil of telephone tapping? Does he not realize that adequate legislation can be introduced into this House to make control effective and to make penalties extremely high on any person found guilty of telephone tapping? The hon. the Prime Minister also denied that there was telephone tapping. However, a colleague of mine, the hon. member for Umbilo, will later produce evidence of telephone tapping actually admitted by this Government.

I think we are entitled to demand that steps be taken to ensure that tapping only takes place when it is absolutely necessary for combating serious crime, including terrorism, and that there be a full investigation into the allegations made so far in regard to this question of telephone tapping. Furthermore, legislation should be brought in to make telephone tapping, unauthorized telephone tapping, subject to the most severe penalties.

You see, Sir, there was a categoric statement by the present Minister’s predecessor when he spoke at Nylstroom. I am sorry the hon. member for Ermelo is not present in the Chamber but I trust that he will come forward and state his evidence. Although I will not necessarily accept it I should nevertheless like to hear what his evidence is. I have here a newspaper report of a speech the hon. member made in Nylstroom on the 15th November, 1969. According to this report Dr. Hertzog told a big crowd in the Nylstroom Town Hall that the telephones of very many persons were being tapped, either on order of the Government or with its consent. He told the packed hall that information thus obtained was being used against them. When a previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs makes such a damning admission, then I submit it is of more than passing interest and that it deserves further enquiry. I trust the hon. member for Ermelo will come into this debate some time or other, or another member of his party, to explain what exactly he meant when he made that statement.

You should know; after all, he is your ally.

The hon. member says that I and the hon. member for Ermelo are allies. Well, let me state categorically that if ever there was a person whom I would regard as the last person whom I would ever want as an ally that person is Dr. Albert Hertzog. And I am also sure that I would be the very last person the hon. member for Ermelo would want as an ally. Why, hon. members on the other side, blame me for his being kicked out of the Cabinet! If that is so, how can he be an ally of mine? The truth, Sir, is that the hon. member made a very stupid remark, a remark which one should take no notice of.

I subscribe fully to the words of the hon. the Minister when he praised the staff for the work they were doing. We know that they are working under adverse conditions. The past year has been one of experiment. But still there are signs, growing signs as I see it, of a feeling that expectations derived from the new control of the Post Office have not been fulfilled. There appears to me to be signs of a disillusionment amongst members of the staff. It is for that reason that we stress in our amendment the question of lack of numbers in the postal staff and refer to the fact that working conditions can be further improved.

I think, therefore, the time has come for us to ask the hon. the Minister some questions in regard to the staff. I am not, of course, necessarily making accusations in these respects. Firstly, what is he doing about the extensive overtime the staff have been compelled to work in the past? I am not talking about the payment for overtime because that has been adjusted. I am making reference to the fact that it was admitted about a year ago that about 10 million hours were being worked overtime per year. The second question is, what about the big turnover of staff in the Post Office? What about the large number that is lost? According to the latest report, in one year no less than 12,700 out of a total staff of 50,000 was lost. Of course, one realizes that some have resigned in order to get married, others for special reasons and others due to illness, but even taking into account these factors, a loss of more than 12,000 out of a total of 50,000 is alarmingly high. Thirdly, what has happened to the small chance for promotion for members of the staff to which I have referred to often? The chances for promotion at the present moment are I believe one in six in comparison with one in 2.7 for the rest of the Public Service.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is being done about the long working hours in the Post Office. When he became Minister I got the impression that he did not even realize that large numbers of the staff were working more than 40 hours a week. However, I got the figures out of him later by means of a Question, and it is now revealed that more than half of the staff of 50,000, namely 29,500, worked 44 to 48 hours per week. Sir, even if it is technically not possible to have a 40-hour week throughout the Post Office, then at least recognition through higher pay can be given for any additional hours worked over 40 or 42 hours. Is the hon. the Minister going to do something about this?

Next I would like to know what he is doing about the growing shortage of technical and trained staff. The hon. the Minister did make some reference to it in his speech, but I am not satisfied with his reply. Mr. Louis Rive, who is now chairman of the Post Office Staff Board, when addressing the executive council of the Federated Chamber of Industry, said—

Sir, a shortage of 2,000 in the ranks of the skilled and technical men means either that the Minister is not doing enough to make a career in the Post Office attractive or wages are not high enough or there is something seriously wrong with his administration of the department.

Sir, I was rather concerned about a statement which I read in the Posts and Telegraphs journal of November the other day, and I think I should read this out to the hon. the Minister.

Will you give me the reference?

The Postal and Telegraph Herald of November, 1969, page 139. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain this to us. In a leading article the paper says that after Mr. Rive had given details of salary concessions to representatives of the Staff Association, he went on to say—

That is to say, the details of salary concessions and so forth—

Surely, Sir, this is an entirely new principle; why is this being done? Why should a person in the employ of the Post Office not know what his fellow-worker in the Post Office is getting? Why has it to be hidden? Is there something to be ashamed of in this connection? We as the sovereign Parliament surely have the right to know what is being paid to the different grades and the different groups, if not necessarily what is being paid to particular individuals. If this report is true, I regard this as a highly unsatisfactory state of affairs.

Sir, I want to deal now with the postal and telecommunication service. I have not much to say about the external services. I believe they are being conducted reasonably well. I am glad to see that the Post Office and the hon. the Minister realize the importance of co-operation with the rest of the world and that we shall continue to work as a partner in the International Postal Union. In that regard I wish to assure the Government that as far as the official Opposition is concerned, we shall support the Government wherever it is attacked through the agency of the United Nations or through other agencies at conferences of the International Postal Union, of which our membership is so vital. I would like to express our recognition of the dignity and the restraint in the highest traditions of the Government Service, of the Postmaster-General and of his team who went to Tokyo and who had to suffer humiliation on more than one occasion. We trust that when they do go back their efforts will be more successful and that the rest of the world and particularly those countries who have been attacking us, will realize how essential South Africa’s assistance is in promoting international co-operation.

But when I come to the state of affairs in regard to telecommunications internally, the picture changes and it has to be admitted that it is to-day in an entirely chaotic state. There are two aspects, firstly the aspect of the shortages and, secondly, the aspect of the kind of service rendered. I was going to tell the House that the shortage was the highest since 1951, when there was also a Nationalist Party Government in power, namely 82,297, at the end of December, 1969, but the hon. the Minister’s figures have trumped mine. He said that at the end of March it was expected that there would be a shortage of 89,000, or 7,000 more. I wonder whether he realizes how this telephone shortage is becoming worse and worse. In December, 1967, shortly before the hon. member for Ermelo was asked to resign from the Cabinet, the shortage of telephones was 54,800.

Then he was not doing so badly after all.

Now it is 89,000, an increase in these three years of more than 50 per cent. Will the day come when we will have to ask the hon. the Prime Minister to take the hon. member for Ermelo back into his Cabinet as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, because he did not seem to be doing quite as badly as the hon. the present Minister. The sad thing is that this position can only get worse before it improves, by the hon. the Minister’s own admission at Bloemfontein in September last year, when he said—

Instead of the backlog being reduced, it is becoming steadily greater, by the Minister’s own admission. The last figures we have had about the number of exchanges that have been closed were that 82 were closed last year. We wonder how many are closed at the present moment because they cannot take more lines. We heard this afternoon about the new direct dialling services being instituted. There are ¼ million people in Cape Town who would very much like to dial directly to Johannesburg, but we heard here that they still have to wait for some time. But on the other hand they have the one great compensation that they can dial directly to Du Toit’s Kloof. Anyone who wants to ring the distinguished hon. Minister who has a telephone in Du Toit’s Kloof can do so directly. That is a wonderful compensation for the lack of direct dialling to Johannesburg.

The hon. the Minister cannot complain that we did not vote him sufficient money for this year for telecommunications and for buildings, but as far as I can judge from the figures I have, which go till November last year, and which were published in the Government Gazette, he is spending less than the average that he should or could spend for telecommunication services, and also much less than the average per month for buildings. The hon. the Minister is looking at me suspiciously. I am basing my figures on the first eight months of the year up to November, and I am basing them on the Estimates and on what actually has been spent. But if he has been spending more in fact, and if he has actually been using his allocation for buildings and using his allocation for telecommunication services, I should be happy to hear that from him.

You ought to congratulate me.

I am afraid I cannot congratulate the hon. the Minister on the figures I have up to the end of November. I shall not burden the House with reading them out, but will send them along to the Minister if he wants them. He should know what they are.

The second aspect in regard to telecommunication services is the utterly disastrous state of the service itself. If you are lucky enough to have a telephone in this country, you still have one of the worst services in the world. The chairman of the Federated Chamber of Industries said that it was one of the worst services in any developed country in the world. But, Sir, let me quote other people, who are closely allied with the Government. I have here the report of a statement made by Dr. M. D. Marais. Dr. Marais, as we all know, is a member of the Prime Minister’s own Economic Advisory Council. He is a director of Volkskas, and he is chairman of a number of companies. He sists in the inner circles of this Government. The report on what he said about the telephone shortage reads, inter alia, as follows:

Sir, I see little sign of a desperate effort being made. Then Dr. Marais added:

These are the words of a member of the Prime Minister’s own Economic Advisory Council. Does this not convince the hon. the Minister that the services are bad?

From which paper are you quoting?

I think this is the Sunday Times. No, I cannot see the heading. I have cut it off. I shall show this cutting to the hon. the Minister, and he can have a look at it. However, if the hon. member is not satisfied with that quotation, let me give him another. I suppose he knows a gentleman called Dr. Tom Muller, the chairman of the Chamber of Mines, and a director of Voortrekkerpers and Die Transvaler, their chief organ in the Transvaal. This is what Dr. Muller says:

Now listen to this. This is rich. He said:

Does the hon. member for Sunnyside accept this statement This is a release of a speech made by Dr. Muller to the Afrikaans-Duitse Kultuurvereniging. One can get in touch with someone in Peru more easily than with one’s mother-in-law in Putsonderwater.

It only shows how good our services to Peru are.

Those are the words of the chairman of the Chamber of Mines, the brother of the hon. the Minister of foreign Affairs. One can communicate with Peru, and not with Putsonderwater. One can communicate with Du Toit’s Kloof, but not communicate with Johannesburg.

I believe that the state of affairs on the Witwatersrand is particularly deplorable. I have a list here in this connection, but I do not have the time to read it to the House. I hope that I shall have the time to do so later, and to point out at least 22 different things that can go wrong with a telephone when one tries to make a call. There are six things that can go wrong after you have picked up the telephone and before you dial. For instance, you can get a no-dialling tone, a number engaged tone, a number unobtainable tone, or crossed lines, or you get a variation in the intensity of the dialling tone, or otherwise the dialling tone stops suddenly. Then there are four different faults one finds while one is dialling. Then there are nine different faults after one has dialled a number. The tenth thing that happens, of course, is that you get through the first time!

Sir, as you know, there are several legs to my amendment. There are certain issues I would have liked to discuss further. These issues will be discussed later by other hon. members on this side. There are particularly the issues relating to television and the S.A.B.C. I have taken it upon myself to deal mainly with the Post Office and its inadequacies at the moment, as a result of the policies of the hon. the Minister. I do believe that the country is disappointed with the results that have been achieved, even after what we on this side of the House have done to get legislation through to make the Post Office a business undertaking. But, Sir, you cannot have a business undertaking unless you have a good chairman of the board or a good managing director. I am afraid that the hon. the Minister is not such a person, and that he will have to bear the brunt of what is happening in the Post Office to-day. Sir, by agreement, I only have half an hour, and therefore I should like to move my amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I was fairly pleasantly surprised to see the hon. member for Orange Grove in such a subdued mood at this stage of the discussion of this Bill. I can almost say that he was passive and prudent. In the past we have seen him acting like something flapping in a south-easter here in Cape Town.

Like a windmill.

A windmill would break if it were to copy the hon. member for Orange Grove’s actions. The content of his speech was almost the same as the content of all his previous speeches in this debate, and I want to make it my task to react to two points of his amendment.

Before coming to those few ideas of his. I want to comment upon a statement which the hon. member made in connection with the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. It is unnecessary for me to say that the Opposition made it their aim to discredit that hon. Minister. The peculiar transformation is that he is now being extolled to the skies. So much so that I am reminded of the day of the opening of Parliament when the hon. member for Yeoville left his bench in great haste and embraced the hon. member for Ermelo here in fine fashion. It made me think how typical this was of the Opposition, and how typical it is of the attitude adopted here to-day.

We even greet you.

In answer to the hon. member, I want to say that we have at least remained consistent. The hon. member will apparently not have the chance to take part in this debate. It surprises me that the hon. member for Orange Grove finds it difficult to make a proper summing-up of the present situation in respect of the hon. member for Ermelo. Does he not know from personal experience what the position is, having trodden the right path and having seen certain light beacons for years as editor of the Kruithoring. Then suddenly his lights were extinguished and he stumbled away in the dark. The hon. member for Orange Grove is not the only one to whom this could happen. It seems to me as if there are more members of this hon. House who could very easily experience that extinguishing of their headlights on their road through life. The hon. member should simply think of his own past, and he need not be at all astonished at what happened just opposite us here recently. I leave the matter there.

Now I come back to this Bill. I want to point out that since the independence of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, under the present Minister, there has been a sound level of development and sustained growth. This is remarkable by comparison with previous times. The number of employees has increased, and when one gives attention to the statement made by that hon. member, one must apply certain criteria. One must make comparisons. In the first place, it is just and reasonable to make a comparison between the present number of employees and the number of two or three years ago. I have before me a report in that connection. On 31st March, 1968, there were 40,479 persons on the approved record of service. At that time the actual staff, White and non-White, temporary and permanent, totalled 39,338. The casual workmen numbered 9,124 at that time. But on 31st March, 1969, the number on the approved record of service was no longer, 40,479, but 41,903. The actual staff, White and non-White, temporary and permanent, totalled 40,583. How can that hon. member now claim here that our staff position has deteriorated to such an extent? I believe it to be a provable fact that resignations have not increased. On the contrary, I think that there is a gradual inflow of employees, to such a degree that the hon. the Minister referred to the fact that in certain categories there was not an acute shortage. There are indeed shortage. There are, for example, shortages in respect of the technical staff. But we experience this everywhere, not only as far as the Public Service is concerned but also in the private sector. We recently saw what the Economic Research Bureau said in connection with that. There one also finds reduced employment as a result of a manpower shortage. Therefore the present employee figures do not indicate any decline whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that more and more services are being demanded. On cannot maintain the rate of full employment at the proper level. But that is not the fault of the hon. the Minister, the Department or the Government. It is as a result of the phenomenal development we are experiencing.

Reference was made here to the salary scales. It was claimed that the salaries were inadequate. That was stated as a reason why there was a staff shortage. My question to the hon. member is, why is there then also a staff shortage in the private sector, which is not dependent upon taxation and so on for budgeting purposes, but which can arbitrarily increase the salaries of employers and staff by cutting down on their profits? Why is there then also a staff shortage in that sphere? I now want to put a question to the hon. member, since he already gave evidence of this in a previous debate. He would probably very much like that staff shortage to be supplemented by Coloureds and Bantu, in those advanced categories as well. He would want to do that because he is opposed to job reservation, is he not? That is probably one of the solutions he is suggesting. I should like to have a reply to that question from the hon. member. [Interjections.] I know I shall not get a reply. I am therefore not waiting for one.

In the past year there were two salary increases, from 1st April and again from 1st October. This afforded great satisfaction. We must admit that even if the salaries were to be increased further, the staff would still not be altogether satisfied. This is not humanly possible, because there are always people here and there who are not satisfied for one reason or another, frequently also as a result of their own actions, but definitely not as a result of, the actions of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in respect of this Department. With a view to determining whether there was and is progress, prevailing conditions must be compared with those of the past. This is a just criterion. In the first place I mentioned the mail delivery service and the handling of mail. The position has never been acute. There is still a reasonably good flow. The hon. the Minister also referred to the automation of that service, which will make it even more efficient. There are no extensive complaints about mail delivery services in our country. There is a bottleneck here and there. Even over the Christmas season there were no extensive complaints in connection with mail deliveries. That hon. member must admit that he himself probably has no complaints in connection with that service either. The hon. the Minister has pointed out how the telephone facilities are being extended. It was rightly stated that there was a large shortage of 82,0 contact points. There is a backlog in the telephone service. Since the time of the United Party it was recognized that there was a shortage, and this was stated to be the case. In a previous debate we quoted figures to prove that in other countries, older countries than South Africa, with no such phenomenal growth and development, there are also shortages in respect of telephone services. Hon. members cannot deny this statement. Let us look at the anticipated telephone shortage of 89,0. The Durban telephone service was taken over. This telephone service was not controlled by the hon. the Minister, but by people who are very well-disposed to the United Party and who are perhaps also members of that party, i.e. the Durban City Council. In Durban there were 13,325 names on the telephone waiting list, while to-day there are 82,0 in the entire country. What is now the percentage relationship? In Durban there were 15 per cent of the people on the contact point waiting list, while in the Republic it is 5.4 per cent. I believe that the rate of development in the entire country is much greater than the development in Durban alone. Therefore, even this argument of the hon. member, i.e. that of the fantastic telephone shortage, does not hold water. This backlog is, in fact, acknowledged, and the hon. the Minister has also stated as much here. We are not afraid to acknowledge it. We would like to see a shortage of telephone contact points in South Africa rather than a surplus. When a surplus develops in a service of this kind, it is irrefutable proof of stagnation or decline.

A depression.

Yes, also a depression. How much would hon. members opposite not like to see such a situation developing before the election. However, it is too late for them because the development will continue for much longer than from now until 22nd April. To make up this backlog the provision of telephones and circuits is not all that is needed. Buildings are also necessary, and buildings for our Post Office and telephone services are no longer merely ordinary buildings. Such buildings must comply with the demands set for the accommodation of whatever is necessary for the supplying of those services. Accommodation must also be provided for staff if the necessary staff can be obtained. What plan could the hon. Opposition suggest for immediate compliance with these demands and for the provision of these services? We may really treat such statements for what they are worth. What can be done is being done by this hon. Minister and his department in order to supply these services. A moment ago I said that there were also the same problems in the days of the United Party. One of the criteria I want to apply to see what is being done in connection with all these shortages and bottlenecks is the increase in trunk lines. Over a period of four years there was an increase of 6,261. Is that not progress? Between the important cities the number increased from 236 trunk lines to 1,620. Is that stagnation or is it progress? It is definitely progress. The hon. the Minister referred to a few items, and I should also like to do so to prove my statement that that hon. member’s argument holds no water. The 13 additional automatic telephone exchanges with a total of 33,082 lines are now available, and this will shortly also be available for Cape Town, an aspect about which the hon. member grumbled a moment ago. This will probably be available for Cape Town within a year or so. Other large centres already have it. The 35 manual exchanges with a total of 43,000 lines have been converted to automatic working and 72 have been enlarged so that an additional 53,379 lines have been made available. The five automatic telegraph exchanges were erected at Bloemfontein, Durban, Kimberley, East London and Port Elizabeth. Six automatic telex exchanges were also erected. Prior to 1965 there were only two lines available for the transmission of data. Now, however, there are 208 lines available for this purpose. I now ask that hon. member once more if there is justification for saying that our services are not expanding; that we are not trying to keep pace with development. His utterances were very unreasonable and unjustified. There are no facts in support of their statements. That is why I reject them. I could likewise mention various figures. However, I do not want to engage the House for too long a time with statistics. I am just saying that the aforementioned figures are sufficient proof that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is not deteriorating in respect of the services which should be and which are being provided. Progress is definitely being made and efficient service is being provided.

There is also a greater degree of satisfaction among the staff and a great deal of affection for the hon. the Minister and senior officials concerned in that department. Previously the cries of dissatisfaction were very much greater than now. Now one may go along and talk to officials. Apart from a few exceptions there is, in general, a very great degree of satisfaction prevailing among the staff. The officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs have every confidence in the hon. the Minister and his senior officials to look to their interests. Because he is a member of the Cabinet of the National Government they are easy in their minds about their future. They would not have been easy in their minds had the hon. the Minister been sitting on that side of the House. But because they are aware of how their interests were served in the past, and of what the present position is, particularly since the hon. Minister Van Rensburg took over the reins, there is even more confidence and more hope. Hence the fact that our staff numbers, as I indicated, are no longer decreasing, but increasing. It is an untruth and a blunder for any one to claim that the situation has deteriorated. It has definitely improved.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Harrismith has obviously had the benefit of seeing a copy of the hon. the Minister’s speech. Therefore he was able to quote certain figures that were not available to us on this side of the House. I do not know what the hon. member’s occupation is in private life when he is not in Parliament. However, if I were to hazard a guess I would say that he was an artist because his role as deputy to the hon. the Minister in matters of Posts and Telegraphs seems always to be to paint the brightest possible picture. He has performed very creditably as an artist again today. He has asked us what we would do on this side of the House. Before I have finished speaking I shall deal in some detail with how we would approach the problems of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs as a government, as we will do after the 22nd April.

One of the most interesting things that has occurred during the last couple of years has been the apparent anxiety of the present Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and also the member for Harrismith to dissociate himself and the Department from all former activities of the same department and of his predecessor, the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. It is most marked that in every speech the hon. the Minister makes he refers to the “agterstand”, and he refers to difficulties that existed in the past which still have to be overcome. He also refers to “the new start” that will be made in the affairs of the Post Office. It seems to me that he and the hon. member for Harrismith are perpetually running away from the sad history of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in the last 20 years. I should point out to the hon. the Minister that he must accept responsibility. The party to which he belongs must accept responsibility for the shocking state of affairs which existed in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs under the former Minister. He belonged to the same party. He belonged to the same Cabinet and he must accept the same joint responsibility.

I now want to refer to the staff. In spite of “the new start” that has been made, according to this Minister we find—and I quote from one of his speeches made at the end of 1968— that “in most of the postal services the volume of work has increased three or four times, but the staff has only doubled”. It seems to me that the Minister when he goes on to say that this is evidence of a high degree of efficiency among his staff, places a very heavy burden on the shoulders of the staff which is in fact very much overworked. The staff is overworked and yet he claims that if that overworked staff is able to produce treble or four times the amount of work that it would normally have to do, it is performing an excellent service. We on this side of the House would to-day pay tribute to the high standard of efficiency among the very hard-worked staff in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs.

Now there is the question of staff salaries. The improvements that have been given to the staff are welcomed by this side of the House. We have pleaded for better salaries for the staff of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for many, many years. What to me is very surprising is the Minister’s attitude and also the apparent attitude of Mr. Rive in regard to the question of the salaries of the staff. For example I asked the question on Friday last week: How many white employees of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs received a basic salary of less than R200. I believe that that is a fair question and I believe that this side of the House is entitled to the answer. But the Minister’s reply was: The relative statistics are not readily available and compilation thereof will require a large amount of time and labour which cannot unfortunately be justified. I wonder if I put that question to the Minister after the election, if his side of the House were to be successful, whether he would also be unable to provide me with that information. Why the secrecy now? Then there is the question of the commencing salaries of the staff in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I believe the hon. the Minister can tell us how these compare with the commencing salaries in other government departments. I shall be much obliged to him for that information when it comes to the Third Reading of this debate. I should also like to ask him for the number of resignations, the number of dismissals and the number of retirements in the Post Office during the first nine months of this financial year. Lastly, I should like to ask him what the present staff shortage is in the department. For our information I should like him to deal in the Third Reading, if possible, with the home-ownership scheme to which he referred in his first Budget speech last year. He said at that time that there was R2½ million available for a home-ownership scheme. The details of that scheme were still to be worked out. So far I have not seen anywhere in the Press details given of that scheme If he could possibly make them available it will be appreciated. I should like to know how many people have joined that scheme and the terms and conditions attaching to that scheme.

The hon. the Minister referred to-day to 108 houses that were being provided for the department. I take it he refers to departmental housing. The amount that he had available for this purpose to which he referred in his Budget speech last year, was R1,050,000 of which R300,000 was available for use in South West Africa. I should like to ask him how much has been used. From what the hon. the Minister said, I judge that 68 houses have actually been errected of the 108 being built

The hon. the Minister also referred in his Budget speech last year to official residences. He said there were 810 official residences. I should like to ask him what additional official residences, if any, have been provided during the first nine months of this financial year. In this connection I should like to refer him to the question of an official residence for the postmaster at Simonstown. At Simonstown, as the hon. the Minister will know, a new post Office is being built but the postmaster has no accommodation in that building. In view of the importance of that post Office, the size of the post Office, and the obvious importance of the naval base concerned, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could give consideration to the provision of an official residence for the postmaster in Simonstown, either by way of a flat attached to the existing building or perhaps the acquisition of an official residence elsewhere in the town. Now I want to refer to the working conditions in the department. At the end of 1968 Mr. Liebenberg said that a serious situation had been reached in the department. I quote from Die Burger:

Hoe lank kan die Posterye nog bekostig om sy opgeleide en ervare personeel te verloor voordat ’n breekpunt bereik word?

What was the date?

The 25th of August, 1968. I quote further:

Well, that we have got—

The following part of the quotation is very important, and I quote:

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister what improvements have since been made in regard to the facilities referred to by Mr. Liebenberg.

In regard to the provision of tele-communications the hon. Minister said in his speech last year in this House and also at the Free State Congress towards the end of last year that there was a backlog and that every effort was being made to meet the tele-communication shortage. At the end of his speech at the Free State Congress he said that he is very sensitive to public criticism. I quote:

When are we going to get some results in this provision of a better tele-communication service? At the end of 1968 there was a shortage of nearly 60,000 telephones and to-day we have heard that this shortage has increased to 89,000 telephones. Last year Parliament provided R39.5 million for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. That was an increase of R9.5 million over the previous year and yet we still have a telephone shortage of 89,000.

Numbers do not count.

Is this also a case of “Numbers do not matter,” as the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has said? What was the increase in the number of telephone calls during the past nine months? It was pointed out with great acclaim by the hon. the Minister last year that in the previous three years there had been an increase of 4.3 per cent in the number of telephone calls which had been made. Reference has been made to-day to the number of telephones which have been provided during the past nine months and I would like to ask what the increase in telephone calls has been during the same period. My reason for asking that is because so often when we complain on behalf of our constituents about an inadequate or a bad service, we are told it is because of overloading. If overloading is the reason, it means that there must be more telephones than before. It also means that more telephone calls are being made daily than before. I want to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a matter I mentioned before in the first speech that I made in the Posts and Telegraphs debate when I first came to this House. I dealt with the number of wrong numbers which were obtained, the buzzing that took place on telephones, the crossed lines, the overhearing of other people’s conversations and the fact that there are sometimes no dialling tones. One often dials a digit but one has to start all over again because the dialling tone recurs. I remember from that first speech I made on these matters that members on that side of the House got up and said that the Opposition was such a weak Opposition that all it can do is to complain about buzzing on telephones and getting the wrong numbers. Sir, if you read the public press you will see that there are many people besides those sitting on the Opposition side of the House who experience exactly the same difficulties, with mounting anger.

The buzz is probably due to Boss’s tape recorder.

The Minister said last year that the telecommunication system cannot be expanded and improved at short notice. But surely we are entitled on this side of the House, more particularly in the light of the fact that an election is to be held shortly, to ask whether 22 years’ notice is not sufficiently long notice to any government to provide an adequate telecommunication service. We have pleaded on this side of the House for the assistance of private enterprise to be enlisted in the provision of a better service. At the end of 1968 the hon. the Minister was reported to have said—

Could the hon. the Minister please tell us to what extent private enterprise has now been brought into the picture and with what success? Sir, everyone of us on this side of the House and, I am sure, hon. members on that side of the House are besieged weekly by numbers of people wanting a telephone service. I have here in my file letters from several police reservists in my constituency who require telephone services. I have elderly widows and young businessmen in my constituency who required to use the telephone after business hours and who cannot get a telephone. This also applies to young couples who have moved into new housing estates. I can think of two brand new housing estates established either by the Department or by companies with Government subsidies, where there are no telephone services at all, neither of a private nature nor of a public nature. I can think of Coloured communities who have been moved under the Group Areas Act from areas where there were public telephone boxes to areas where there is only one public telephone box or none at all. As far as direct dialling is concerned, Sir, it seems that Cape Town has to wait for direct dialling until the end of this year, and I wonder how long it will be before Durban and Pietermaritzburg get direct dialling.

Sir, I think my time is running out. I said that we on this side of the House should say how we feel the affairs of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs should be handled. First of all, we believe that in general the Post Office should be run on business lines. That does not mean that profit making should be the primary object but implies that the Post Office should be able to balance its own budget, conduct its administration on business lines, and be able to apply any surpluses towards improving services to the public as well as the working conditions of its employees. We believe that the Post Office should control its own funds through a Post Office Fund, which should be subject to the annual scrutiny of the Controller and Auditor-General and the Select Committee on Public Accounts. As to the staff of the Department, we believe that it should be a primary aim of the Department to ensure proper working conditions as well as fair wages, salaries and pensions for all employees. We believe that there should be a Post Office staff board, independent of the Public Service. This board has to a certain extent come into being in the last year as a result of the endeavours and the pleas of so many members on this side of the House. The Post Office should have its own post and salary structure adapted to its own specific needs, and cognizance should be taken of the views of the recognized staff associations. The present manpower shortage in the Post Office we will meet by proper and adequate wage and salary structures, improved recruitment of staff, including the greater use of married women, and particularly by paying special attention to the need for the training of qualified technicians. We believe that there should be a greater and more realistic use of the country’s manpower resources while recognizing (1) the importance of the traditional divisions of labour as it exists in the Public Service and (2) the necessity for consultation with all staff associations that are involved in any such changes. Sir, as regards postal services to the public, our aim is an efficient and a speedy postal service, both urban and rural, using the most modern methods of collection and sorting and delivering. We believe in far greater use of automation.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, my time is limited. We believe that the building programme should be far better planned and speeded up. We believe, in so far as mail is concerned, that the Post Office should not have the right to censor mail on its own initiative. As to tariff changes, we believe that they should only be made as the result of recognized financial measures passed by Parliament. As regards telecommunication services, we believe that the provision of an efficient, modern, speedy and comprehensive telephone, telegraph and telex service should be the primary consideration of the Post Office. High priority should be given to the elimination of the massive shortage, which has accumulated under this Government, by greater enlistment of the services of private enterprise. We believe that more call boxes should be made readily available to the public, and direct dialling and trunk services and overseas services should receive far greater attention from the Minister and his Department than they do at present. As regards the printing of directories, we believe that contracts for the printing of telephone directories should be investigated with a view to ensuring that they are more comprehensive, up to date and free from errors. As regards telephone tapping, we believe that this should be investigated with a view to ensuring the elimination of abuse and the infringement of privacy. Lastly, Sir, we believe that any changes in the telephone tariff should only be made as the result of recognized financial measures also approved by Parliament.

If I must describe the display thus far by the Opposition in cricket terms, I should put it this way: The National Party is going to win this election by an innings, four days and 100 runs.

Sir, I thought that the hon. member for Orange Grove and also the hon. member for Simonstown would tell us this afternoon, on the eve of the election, what their policy is in respect of the Post Office, Radio, etc., but I heard nothing from them in this regard. The poor hon. member for Simonstown put one question after another to the Minister. I wrote down his questions and they took up no less than two pages. When he got up he said: “Today I am going to give you our policy.” I am now still sitting and waiting to hear from that hon. member what the United Party’s policy is. What is the United Party going to do if they should come into power?

I told you exactly.

No, the hon. member stood there quoting from I do not know whose document, but I am still waiting to hear what their policy is.

It is the official policy of the United Party that he was quoting.

No, I have the official policy of the United Party here in front of me in “The Answer: You want it; we have it.” What do they say about the Post Office? Sir, this is very interesting. On page 25, under the heading “Post Office”, they state—

That is a mouthful.

Even if they were to come into power after the election and even if they were to do nothing they would nevertheless be able to say that the United Party used “all the means at its disposal” to provide a speedy service. Even if they were to do nothing they would still be right. They cannot say, and they will not say, what they will do.

But the hon. member has just told you what we are going to do.

He promised the sun, the moon and the stars.

That is right. He merely made a lot of promises; he made no positive suggestion. Sir, the United Party is constantly thinking only about the telephone backlog, and in this connection they state—

Sir, that is what the Opposition is telling the country. They say it is their policy; that is how they are going to administer the Post Office. In a moment I am going to give a résumé of the history of the Post Office in recent years and I am then going to indicate what the National Party Government has done, and under what circumstances it has provided this excellent service to the public of South Africa in collaboration with our competent officials who made their contributions for South Africa under difficult circumstances. At a later stage I shall say something about the United Party’s first point, i.e. the question of capital. I first want to say a few words about the United Party’s statement in connection with unnecessary restrictions on the importing of requisites. They want to imply that unnecessary restrictions are being placed on the importing of components. Sir, it is this Government’s policy, as in the case of the manufacturing of motor vehicles, that Post Office requisites, such as exchanges, etc., should also contain a certain percentage of locally manufactured material. Because it is the Government’s policy to work in local material, there are certain restrictions; there are no unnecessary restrictions. What is more, we import from overseas, but the overseas manufacturers cannot always make deliveries. Orders are placed and those people cannot execute them for several months. But the Opposition does not also tell the House that there is a tremendous telephone shortage overseas, and that those people must first look to their own supplies before they can export to South Africa. Do you want to dispute this?

They install 14,000 telephones per day in America.

The third point was “Making use, while the emergency exists, of private enterprise in co-operation with the Post Office for the installation of telephones”. Rut neither does this hon. member tell this House and the country that this Department does, in fact, make use of outsiders. This is suppressed.

Since when?

This has been done for some time now. Had the hon. member for Green Point been interested he should have known this and not asked such a question. What is more, the hon. member must realize that we cannot bring in private initiative from outside to install exchanges if the persons concerned do not have the technical knowledge with which to do so. Another point is that the Post Office staff must continually maintain this service so that it does not collapse, as it would have collapsed had the United Party been in power.

But it is in a state of collapse now.

No, that is not so. I think South Africa can boast of its telephone service. Half the telephones in Africa are here in the Republic, this small country with only 5 per cent of Africa’s surface area, where we have a mere 3.5 million Whites who must care for the large non-White community, a white nation which carries far more than its quota as a white nation, more than any other nation in the world. You cannot name me any nation in the world that has to carry as much as the Whites in South Africa do. And then the Opposition does not always give the Government its full support in what the Government is doing.

But I want to speak about a few other matters. The Opposition is always thinking only in terms of three things, and now they think that the public does the same. These three points are, firstly, whether I have a telephone, secondly, whether the operator puts me through immediately when I am making a trunk call and, thirdly, whether the postman has delivered my letter. This is all these people think of, and they think the public does the same. But let us give a little thought to the powerful organization, this Post Office with its magnitude and its problems, and let us also think of the good service it renders to the people of South Africa and also to the outside world, something I shall come to at a later stage. On 1st April, 1968, the Post Office became an independent business undertaking which could stand on its own feet, and I find it extremely ironic that the hon. member for Orange Grove said that the Opposition had been struggling for years to achieve this. Surely that is a lie.

Order!

I withdraw it, but the hon. member must read Hansard. When this Bill No. 67 of 1968 was before this House we indicated that, in 1958 in the Senate, the previous hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Hertzog, stated it as future policy that the Post Office should become independent, but this was opposed in the Senate, and I personally quoted all the relevant passages to indicate how the Opposition opposed it to a man. [Interjections.] Do hon. members now honestly want to say that Hansard lies? I have, incidentally, not got the quotations here, but next time I shall quote them for the benefit of the hon. member and he will have to swallow the statement about their people having pleaded for it in the past. The hon. member surely knows that he and his people have always opposed the independence of the Post Office, and that this Government was in favour of it. Even the hon. member for Umlazi, who is now sitting here, was one of those who spoke against it at the time, as did other hon. members who are now no longer in this House. They spoke against it and in the Senate they fought against it. The members of the United Party would not let the Post Office stand on its own feet; they wanted to keep it where it was.

When we think of this Post Office with its great magnitude, there are actually four facets we must bear in mind. The first is the human material, the professional men and the clerks who must do the work. No undertaking can be maintained or expanded if one does not have this, and I shall also say something about that at a later stage. Secondly, there is the capital and, thirdly, the administration, such as the Post Office staff. In addition there is, of course, the Minister at its head, the one who determines policy—in other words, actually the National Party Government.

In concluding just now I shall say something about the services rendered. In bringing the three things together, the human material, the capital and the administration, one must look at the fine services which have resulted from this in the Post Office. Instead of saying thank you to-day to the officials and to the National Party for what they did, the Opposition merely creates a fuss about the shortage of a few telephones. Let us now look at this honestly.

I want to take a quick look at the human material. On 31st December of last year the approved posts totalled 45,831, Whites and non-Whites, 35,050 for Whites and 6,881 for non-Whites being filled, a total of 41,931. There were, therefore, about 3,000 posts that were not filled. But if 3,000 posts out of a possible 50,000 were not filled, is the fact that that staff has maintained the service and extended it further, as they have done, not something to take one’s hat off to? The people outside have themselves cited this, notwithstanding what the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Harrismith said here about what has been done, but this is belittled by you. Those who deserve thanks do not receive it. We do not want to sidestep something we are guilty of; we do not want to run away from our responsibilities. That is why the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs immediately said that by 31st March—that is still far away; that hon. member need not put another question onto the Order Paper about it because the Minister has already given his answer—he expected that there would still be a shortage of 89,000; I shall also say something about that at a later stage.

Let us look at the staff and at what the Government has done in respect of salaries. The National Party does not merely come along now and then to give its people bribes; this Government looks after its officials. And so has the Post Office staff been cared for throughout the years. We know that there were staff requests that they be treated differently to other Public Servants. But unfortunately for the Post Office, while it was not independent the Government could not deviate from what it had done in the past in respect of salaries, because the Post Office formed a part of the Public Service and the staff had to be treated on an equal footing with the other Public Servants. There the Public Service Commission was in charge and not the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. But improvements were brought about in the past year. On 1st April, 1969, a 6 per cent pensionable allowance was granted, and from 1st April, 1970, this will be increased to 10 per cent. In this past year, apart from the normal increases, R12 million was given to these people by way of the allowance of 6 per cent, adjustments, etc., in respect of salary improvements alone. Sir, is this now not a Government that cares for its officials? These salaries, together with all the incentive bonuses, etc., are aimed at getting the best out of the worst clerk. It is this Government’s motto, to see what it can get out of an official. The Government wants to get the best out of the worst man, and not the worst out of the best man, as the Opposition always does.

Sir, what happened in connection with our housing subsidy scheme for white officials? This scheme was approved on 13th June last year by the hon. the Minister. It is now being ensured that these officials pay a lower interest rate on their housing loans. We know that to-day building societies ask for 8J per cent on their mortgages, but according to the subsidy scheme which was instituted, the interest an official will have to pay on his housing loan will not exceed 4 per cent when his salary is less than R3,000. When his salary is between R3,000 and R9,000 the subsidy is such that he will not pay more than 5 per cent interest. Now I ask, Sir: Is this not this present Government’s achievement? Can it still be said that this Government does not do something for its officials to make them happy and to satisfy them, in order to get only the best from them? That is why these officials give only best service to South Africa and to the Government. They do so because they are properly taken care of. We must see to it that those people have a roof over their heads. Without a roof over their heads they cannot be happy. There is now a housing loan scheme even for the man who does not have the deposit, so that he too may obtain a proper loan to enable him to acquire a house.

Unfortunately we do not yet have the full Estimates before us, only the Part Appropriation, but let us look at last year’s Estimates. It is now being said by those hon. members that insufficient capital was made available, and that they would do more. If we look at last year’s figures in connection with postal services, we notice that there was a total expenditure of R53,466,000 as against R42 million the previous year. This is an increase of 27 per cent. Could we now make an increase greater than 27 per cent available for Posts in one year? Apart from the fact that the Government must first find that money, it also has another task, i.e. to ensure that inflation does not set in.

Let us now take into account the position in connection with telecommunications. R1014 million was made available for this, which represents an increase of 39 per cent on the previous year. Then hon. members say that under their party more capital would be made available. No government could do more, because then again other things would be disrupted. That hon. member who is looking so askance at me will probably say again one day that the Government has spent too much, and that the Government did not combat inflation. In order to help the necessary infra-structure along and to supply the basic services, for which the Government is responsible, there must be proper spending. However, one cannot go beyond a certain notch. Last year the average increase in capital expenditure above that of the previous year was 34.5 per cent. If we are making so much more capital available, what are then the complaints and grievances of the Opposition? We also have a certain responsibility to the public to see where the money must come from. On 1st January, 1967, when the costs of telephone calls were increased from 2½ cents to 3½ cents, those hon. members grumbled a great deal about it.

The service deteriorated.

Now you are saying that the service is poor? Where and how can the service be improved if more capital is not spent in doing so? According to the policy of that side they want to make more capital available in order to make up the leeway. Where do they now want to get the capital from?

With the increase in prices the service deteriorated.

Sir, I want to tell you that the service did not deteriorate. Had the Post Office not been so progressive the backlog in telephones would have been 182,0. This Government has kept pace with the expansion of our economy. The fact remains that since 1960 this National Party has rehashed South Africa’s economy and many industries developed. We must bear in mind that our industries to-day furnish almost 30 per cent of our national revenue by comparison with 8 or 9 per cent in earlier years under the United Party administration. These are all people who must have telephones. To-day a telephone is no longer a luxury article. One just has to look at the tremendously large Offices with which any small business to-day begins. There is not only one telephone in that Office, but a whole series of them. To-day a telephone is no longer a luxury article for beginners. The present day university student has his motor car, his radiogram and his telephone. The hon. member spoke of capital. I want to mention a few figures in that connection. In 1946-’47 approximately R20 million was spent, i.e. R8.4 per white person. What is the present-day position? In 1968-’69 R143 million was spent, i.e. R48.1 per white person. Where they spent R8, we are spending R48 per white person. That is what this Government is doing to establish postal services, telecommunications services, etc. I know that hon. members of the Opposition are always saying that we must not only take money all the time. I am surprised that they have not already told me we should finance the undertaking with loans. This Opposition wants to live on loans. To-morrow’s generation must pay, because today they want to live well and to flourish.

Let us look at what this Government has done over the past few years in respect of capital and loans. Since 1958 we have provided about R23 million annually from loans. In 1968-69 this figure shot up to R35 million. As the hon. member knows, the figure for the past financial year is R88 million, R18 million of which was spent on the take-over of the Durban Corporation and on South West Africa which has now been included. It is, of course, unrealistic for the figure to have shot up to such an extent, but I want to say that postal services, telecommunication services, etc., cannot be established in one day. Among other things, buildings must be erected, and the telephone exchange itself cost almost six times as much as a building. It takes time to erect a telephone exchange. In recent years we, as Government, have also had to take certain factors into consideration. One of these factors was the problem of getting the economy going after the 1960 decline. The available capital had to be used to get the economy going at that stage. Good progress has been made in that respect, but then the matter got out of hand once more and the Government had to curtail certain expenditure in order not to encourage inflation. Had the National Party not done something to combat inflation and simply made telephones available, we would to-day have had a surplus, as the hon. member for Harrismith said, but it was not necessary. Through the years we have ensured proper service.

Speaking about service, I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove something. He fortunately made a very fine gesture here, and I want to thank him for it by saying that he is going to support the National Party in every respect in the face of overseas attacks on our post Office officials, whatever the nature of the attacks may be. To-day I want to tell the House that this Government has ensured that our communications system with the outside world is as good as it can be. One of the tasks we undertook was to ensure that our communications system with the outside world was a good one. Rather let some domestic aspect be wrong, but let all overseas aspects of the system be in good order. That is also why R10.790,000 was estimated for the 1969’70 financial year for the overseas service. I am also thinking of the R50 million which was spent on the overseas cable, with its 360 channels, which makes it a simple matter for us to-day to speak to any country within the space of a second. That is why Mr. Tom Muller said that one gets through to Peru more quickly than to Putsonderwater. That is because our overseas service is such a fine one. There are only 18 countries in the world that have more telephones than South Africa, and these include America, England, France and the other great powers.

But who wants to make calls to those places?

Does that hon. member want to say that South Africa must be totally isolated? That hon. member knows that in South Africa we are faced with surpluses. It is this Government’s function and task to ensure the expansion of our overseas exports. It is this Government which must find overseas markets. It is this Government which must ensure that our maize does not lie here and rot, as the Opposition wished it would in 1960 with the referendum. That is why we must be able to make contact with the outside world, so that our business men may negotiate with them. Our overseas service is of the very greatest importance. I say that for me it is of greater importance than this small backlog of telephones which have not been installed.

Unfortunately I cannot talk any more. It appears that there is too little time.

You had a quarter of an hour and you have already been speaking for 25 minutes.

The survey “The World’s Telephones” by the “American Telephone and Telegraph Company of the United States of America” gives the number of telephones in America in 1965-’66. The improvement from 1965 to 1966 was 5.5 per cent. South Africa’s was 5.7 per cent. South Africa beats even America as far as that is concerned. Not only in respect of that one year. The survey also gives the percentage growth in the 10 years from 1956 to 1966. South Africa’s service improved by 68 per cent as against 66.5 per cent for the U.S.A. I could similarly quote an entire table for hon. members. The highest percentage is that in respect of the Netherlands, i.e. 9.3 per cent, but I could quote a whole series of countries that are beaten by South Africa, among others the U.S.A. Sweden and Denmark, all developed countries. In this sphere South Africa is far ahead of them.

I also think that, over the past number of years since 1948, the National Party Government has considerably improved the postal services in South Africa. On 22nd April the electorate will also honestly declare their gratitude by placing their crosses behind the names of all the National Party candidates.

Mr. Speaker, it is very unusual for me to participate in a debate on telephone and telegraph matters. I have no sympathy with the hon. member who has just sat down, who has continually tried to bring a question of staff into this debate. The reason why I do not usually participate in this Vote, is because, being a subscriber in Natal and in a rural area as well to various telephones, I am keenly aware of the difficulties which the staff have to contend with in trying to cope with the situation which has developed in South Africa because of the phenomenal growth which has taken place over the last number of years. What I was waiting for the hon. member to say, was that we had a first class telephone system in South Africa. I wanted him to nail his colours to the mast and to say that this was a first-class telephone system that we have. The reason why I come into the debate in particular to-day, is because I want to deal with the Durban telephone system that was taken over last year by the Minister’s department.

In the past while our telephone system, which was privately owned by the Durban Municipality, was under the immediate control of the City Council, there were complaints which I suppose are inevitable in any telephone system, telephones being what they are. But I want to say that since the telephone system in Durban has been taken over by the Post Office I have never seen a more disgraceful change in any public system of any kind whatsoever, including telephones, railway, roads or posts.

Why disgraceful?

Utterly disgraceful! I hear that on the Rand the telephone system is also very bad indeed. I subscribe to a telephone in Cape Town and I can tell Capetonians that they are only lucky.

Yours must be terrible if ours are good.

If anybody thinks that the Cape Town telephone system is bad, let him come to Durban.

It was bad before we took it over.

The hon. member for Klip River is apparently identifying himself with the take-over because he says: Durban was bad before we took it over. Is he one of those who took it over? Is he one of the people responsible for the take-over? [Interjections.] I want the hon. member for Klip River to answer. You see, Sir, that when I put the question to him point-blank he refuses to answer and does not admit it. He knows perfectly well that he does not dare admit that he is one of those responsible for the Durban telephone exchange take-over and having it in the position it is to-day. The hon. member comes from Natal and knows perfectly what the position of the Durban telephone exchange is. It is an absolute and utter disgrace for the hon. the Minister and for the Government. It has been said by those who carefully keep tabs on their calls that if an instrument in Durban gives you a wrong number after you have dialled the right one and you are cut off and have to dial again, you are charged with that call which has been wasted. Will the hon. the Minister say if that is so? In the absence of a reply to a perfectly simple question I gather that either the hon. the Minister does not know or he is afraid to admit that it is so and that one is charged for the wasted call. If those wasted calls are charged up against the subscriber this is scandalous. It is getting near to sharp practice. Before, when there was a manual exchange and the operator gave you a wrong number, you went back to the operator who gave you the right number without charging for having given you a wrong number.

Do you want to go back to a manual exchange?

I would like to go back to a reasonable interjection, if there is to be one at all from a grown-up man instead of this childish chatter we get from hon. members opposite. They are like a lot of juveniles who cannot control their tongues. They are nearly as bad as the Durban telephone exchange in giving you wrong replies. They are even more wooden-headed about it and do not even appreciate it any more than the Durban telephone exchange appreciates it. The position in so far as those wasted telephone calls are concerned is as follows. One can dial four times in a row without getting the right number. Those calls are then charged against you as a subscriber. What moral right has the Government to collect that revenue? This is not a question of staff, but a question of the breakdown of the machine, of the organization. That is the position to-day. The Government took over the Durban telephone system after all these years and the least one could have expected was that it was going to remain at the level of efficiency at which it was when it was taken over. I lay this entirely at the door of the hon. the Minister. About two years ago, if my memory serves me correctly, the ex-Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the hon. member for Ermelo, sent a circular to us telling us that the charges were being raised so as to accumulate capital for the purpose of extending our telephone services. The basic reason given in the circular was that the charges were being raised to accumulate capital. They were short of capital and charges were being increased so that money would be accumulated to help them to catch up on the backlog. Since then we have heard nothing more about that. But I hope the hon. the Minister will not say anything to us about shortage of capital, because the Minister of finance has already salted away about, if I remember correctly, R360 million, but no doubt when the time comes he will be presenting another budget here showing another tremendous surplus. When this money is collected from the taxpayer of South Africa like this, it should be used for the taxpayers of South Africa, whatever the services may be. This is a new departure to have a separate Budget for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. That is in order. However, when we are so woefully served as we are at the present time, if it is capital that is necessary, the capital should be found from the overflowing coffers of the Government at the present moment. The money is there, if that is what is necessary. However, I submit that it is not the money that is lacking. What is lacking is the know-how and the capacity to plan ahead of the Minister. Because the fault may not only lie with the present Minister. Perhaps he is only a little worse than the previous Minister and not a great deal worse. I do not know. There is a lack of planning, a lack of capacity to look ahead, a lack of faith in South Africa, a failure to have the faith and the trust in our ability to forge ahead in the way that we have been doing over the last three or four decades. That is what is lacking. There is a lack of trust in South Africa, in its development and in its people. The head of the department, the man who is responsible to Parliament, the Minister, has failed hopelessly to keep up with the times and keep abreast of the development that was coming.

I want to come back to this question of the break-down in Durban. This breakdown was technical. The Minister is now talking about trying to get recruits elsewhere. But it is not after everything is sinking and falling to pieces that you start looking for recruits. Why was this not done long ago? Why were there not special training facilities provided if necessary, so that those people could be available? If it was going to take years to train them, the answer is that years ago it was quite obvious what was coming to us in South Africa in regard to the whole telephone system. Two years ago the ex-Minister of Posts and Telegraphs indicated quite clearly that he was aware of what was happening. He wanted the extra money to take the steps to provide for it. However, the people have not been trained and they are not there. When one sees how the electricians, not only on the Durban system, but also out in the rural areas, have to work morning, noon and night, are called out over week-ends, called out in all kinds of weather, called out at any time during the 24 hours to go and assist and to try to give us anything like a reasonable service and one notices how overworked they are, it is no wonder that the machine is breaking down. The human machine is breaking down. Flesh and blood cannot stand the way in which these people have to work at the present time. I lay this all at the door of the hon. the Minister and the Government for lack of foresight and inability to plan and to foresee what they were going to be called upon to deliver in the way of an efficient telephone service to us.

Another point in connection with the telephone system that I should like to refer to in passing is the applications for telephones. Like other members, I suppose, I receive scores and scores of applications for telephones and requests for help. Elderly folk living away from any neighbour want a telephone because they suffer from some or other ailment which requires a doctor perhaps at short call. They need a telephone to help them. We come across numbers of that kind of case. Recently I had a case where eventually the appropriate telephone authority, in reply to my enquiry, told me that there were so many applications and in regard to this particular application I was in error in regard to the date of the application. He told me that it had been received at a date some two years previously but it had been cancelled. So I went back to the man and told him he should not do this to me; when he cancels his application he should let me know. He replied that he never cancelled it. So there was a bit of a barney. I went back to the postal authority and was informed that the man concerned did not cancel the application. They cancelled it because they did not have enough cables. When an application comes in to an Office like theirs and there are not sufficient cables, the application is cancelled. What is this? When therefore I want to know how many applications there are, what the backlog is in regard to some of these post Offices and I am told that the backlog is so many, I do not want to find out that applications have been cancelled because there were not enough cables. I do not think that is good enough. I want to know how many applications there are. Let us see the full picture. In regard to the figure of 89,000 mentioned by the hon. the Minister to-day, I should like to know how many applications they themselves cancelled on account of a shortage of cables.

It may be another 89,000.

It may be another 89,0. I do not know. This kind of consideration casts doubt on the effectiveness of the figures that the hon. the Minister has given us this afternoon and on their reality. It may be that they are continually wiping off a whole bunch of long standing applications on the grounds that they were cancelled as a result of the shortage of cables. Therefore you have to start all over again and make a fresh application. It is only the fresh applications apparently that are to be counted. It would be interesting to know from the hon. the Minister when he replies how many cancellations he has had, say, over the last 12 months. I refer to those cancelled by his department.

There is another point with which I should like to deal. If I may go back for a moment, I hope that when the time comes, the hon. the Minister is going to tell us about these faulty calls that are continually coming through and which build up our telephone accounts. I am not referring to the calls we do not get, but the calls which we get to the wrong number and have to cancel and start all over again. I do not know whether it is possible to calculate the amount of revenue involved in those figures. In so far as the City of Durban is concerned, it must run into a fantastic amount every year. I think a fantastic amount of money is involved in those wasted calls. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to tell us what he is going to do about it because he has no moral right or claim whatsoever to hold onto the money he is getting through a wasted call where the machine itself lets one down like that, no more than if you were to put a penny in the slot of a stamp machine, and, instead of getting the stamp, you find that the machine is empty with no means at all of getting your penny back. In the past they stopped all that because they were continually finding that they could not give you your penny back. The whole thing was closed off. That was a penny in a slot machine. This, however, is a much more expensive pastime than that. I hope the hon. the Minister is going to tell us what he is going to do on moral grounds to see that people are not called upon to pay for these wasted calls because of a breakdown of machines. I have had a case myself only recently. Because of certain domestic matters I had to get calls through to Durban. I put a call through one afternoon from here to people in Durban. After waiting and calling and so forth, I was told eventually that there was no reply. I said that that was absolutely wrong and asked to be put through to the supervisor. I knew there were people there waiting for this call to come through. They did their best and subsequently they said that there was no reply. I said: Look, I am sorry, I am not accepting this. Will you please check again. I said that I had to have the call and that the people were there. I asked whether the line was down and was told no but that there was no reply. They told me a third time that there was no reply. Two days later when I went to Durban I saw this relative and asked what happened. She then said that there was one ring on the telephone, that she picked up the receiver immediately which gave her the engaged signal. Every time she picked the receiver up for several hours after that, she got the engaged signal. She then went to a neighbour and got through to the faults people. After these people checked up they said in reply to her query: We are sorry, a switch was left on by mistake. Well, I know nothing about that, but I do not believe that a switch was left on by mistake. That is the one thing I do not believe about that. This is the kind of thing that is happening under the telephone system that we have at Durban under this Minister at the present time.

Now, Sir, I should like to deal with another matter. I do not wish to talk about Current Affairs and all the rest of this clap-trap that we get over the S.A.B.C. at the present time. I want to speak about the ordinary use of English by the S.A.B.C. in its broadcasts. I doubt whether you get one out of three—you may get one in three—of the ordinary news broadcasts over the S.A.B.C. which does not make some grave mistake in English grammar. This morning. I think it was during the 8 o’clock news, when they were referring to a breakdown or a derailment of trains it was said that the passengers were taken across this gap and they were taken to trains which were waiting on either side of the derailment. Of course, they were not waiting on either side of the derailment. They were not, you know. There were no trains on either side. There were trains on both sides of the derailment.

Are you fighting the election on that one?

No, I am fighting the election partly on telephones and the telephone system. I hope the hon. Minister for Sport and Recreation if he has anything to say about the Durban telephones will stand up and say it now or forever hold his peace. That is one of the points I am going to fight the election on. Let us make no mistake about it. Thousands and tens of thousands of rand are being taken from the pocket of the Durban taxpayer and the telephone subscriber to-day to pay an inefficient Government. That is one of the prices we are paying for this Government in hard cash. Amongst the people who are getting the money is the hon. Minister of Sport and Recreation. He is one of those who are getting their salaries out of the taxpayer’s money.

And so is Douglas Mitchell.

I will not worry about what that hon. Minister is saying. I think it is time the S.A.B.C. should get an English-speaking person to do the proof reading before the news is broadcast. This should be done because other people may be listening to the S.A.B.C.’s broadcast. Just imagine what a person living in Lesotho must think of this shocking misuse of the English language. They would think it is terrible. Imagine a person living at Stegi in Swaziland who is monitoring our broadcasts, having to comment about this misuse of the English language? These are the things which, as far as I am concerned, condemn the S.A.B.C., without such nonsense as “Current Affairs” even being taken into account. They cannot even put across a broadcast in decent English to such an extent that it is becoming scandalous. I wonder whether our Afrikaans-speaking people would permit Afrikaans to be misused in such a way as English is being misused by the S.A.B.C. Perhaps some hon. member on that side of the House can tell us.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast let off steam here at the beginning of his speech, but as a result of this, however, he increased his blood pressure unnecessarily. He let off steam about the Durban telephone system. He raised many complaints in connection with the state of affairs after the take-over of the exchanges of the Durban Corporation by the Department. I tried to listen to what the hon. member had to say, but since I do not know too much about the conditions there, I cannot reply to it. The hon. member will probably discuss the aspects which he mentioned. However I listened to what the hon. member had to say, but I did not hear a specific complaint against the Minister’s Department. All the complaints which he raised in this connection, are in the air.

I should like to refer to something which the hon. member for Simonstown had to say here. The hon. member expressed his thanks in connection with the increase in the salaries of post Office staff. We all agree with it. However, he did not omit to say that they, the Opposition party, had pleaded for it. He is now trying to convince the world that these salary increases and the improvements in the postal structure took place as a result of the pleading of the United Party. That is nonsense, of course.

Throughout this debate we have heard the hon. members on that side of the House talking about the shortage of telephones. Everyone raised it. We have a very honest Minister and he did not deny that there is a shortage of telephones. He mentioned that there would be a waiting list for 89,000 telephones at the end of March. These statistics were not raised at all by the hon. members on that side of the House; on the contrary, these statistics were furnished by the Department who were honest enough to say that there would be a waiting list of approximately 89,000 at the end of March. We know that this shortage presents one of the greatest challenges to the Minister and his Department because we really expect from this planning division of the Department a kind of intuitive vision or an anticipatory feeling for places where development of townships and the establishment of industries is going to take place. Because as soon as that development has taken place, the public immediately expects telephones to be made available, on request. We must accept that the telecommunications system cannot be extended so considerably at short notice. We cannot expect new buildings and new exchanges to be made available at short notice. The necessary planning must take place long before the time. If I remember correctly—and I do not think that my memory will leave me in the lurch in this connection—the hon. the Minister said in 1968 when he accepted the post that he expected the shortage of telephones to increase and that the position would remain the same for the next five years, but that the shortage would decrease after three years, that is by 1971, because the planning would then begin to bear fruit. Sir, I believe this and I want to accept it as such. Therefore we should not criticize in season and out; we should wait until the planning which the Minister and his Department have done ahead, begins to bear fruit.

Sir, there have been many complaints about the provision of telephones, however, I should like to thank the hon. the Minister. In my constituency, which comprises one of the major growth areas on the eastern side of Pretoria, there was also a great demand for telephone services as a result of new township development. I presented these requests for telephones to the Minister and his Department and I want to tell you that the Minister and his Department showed great willingness. Every time I put forward a request for telephone services to the Department, I was satisfied that the matter had been investigated very thoroughly. The result was that many of those people have in fact received telephones. The prospects in my constituency, as a result of the establishment of an automatic exchange on the border of my constituency, are that a great number of the persons whose names still appear on my waiting list, will also be provided with telephones in the near future. Sir, it is as a result of the harmonious co-operation which exists between the Minister and his staff that these requests can be met. In this connection I just want to mention that the hon. the Minister receives thanks and recognition from his staff for what he does. He can therefore rely on their loyal support. In this connection I should like to quote from a newspaper which has often been quoted here. For example, the hon. member for Orange Grove quoted from it last year, and did so again a moment ago. I refer to The Postal and Telegraph Herald, the official magazine of the Posts and Telegraphs Society of South Africa. I quote what the editor wrote in the edition of September 1969 (translation)—

And remember, Sir, that the editor of this magazine knows more about what is going on in the Post Office than the hon. members of the Opposition—

Sir, I should like to underline those few thoughts: We have a happy staff under this Minister and “the Society is right behind him because we know what kind of person he is”. Here we have a fine testimonial for the hon. the Minister from the editor of this newspaper, but we have another testimonial for the Minister from Mr. J. M. Liebenberg, the president of the Posts and Telegraph Society, in his Christmas and New Year message (translation)—

In this message we have another reference to “a happy staff”. This is totally in conflict with what the hon. members of the Opposition tried to make us believe here in the debate. Sir, these people do not merely express thanks to the hon. the Minister; they also express their thanks and acknowledgment to the Government in respect of the salary increases which they received. It is already known, and has been said here repeatedly, that the staff receives a 6 per cent pensionable allowance as from 1st April, 1969, and an added allowance of 4 per cent as from 1st October, 1969, the determined allowance of 10 per cent was consolidated in the basic salary scales as from 1st October, 1969. The staff then expressed their gratitude to the Government for these salary increases, and in the September edition of this same newspaper from which I have just quoted, the following appears in the article “News from Elsewhere”. This news comes from Pretoria, from where we are constantly hearing rumours of strife (translation)—

Our team’s fine performance in the cricket test was of course not known at that time! The president of the Posts and Telegraph Society had the following remarks to make (translation)—

Note: “The greatest number of promotions” in the history of the Post Office. Never before have so many benefits and salary improvements swamped the post Office staff in one year. Sir, these are grateful people; they are loyal people; they deserved it, and we know that they stand loyally behind the Minister, who is, after all, the go-between between them and the Government. The hon. member who spoke first, the hon. member for Orange Grove, asked in his amendment, as was expected, that positive steps be taken to introduce a television service for the whole country. I am sorry the hon. member for Orange Grove did not talk about television. In the past we have often argued about that matter.

He did not have time.

I should just like to express a few thoughts about the matter. The Opposition has always exaggerated the so-called advantages of television. I remember how they said what a good educational aid it would be, etc., and I, amongst others, stated as an ex-teacher, that the teacher could never disappear from the classroom and that television could only be an expedient. In the meanwhile we know that universities and many other places have been provided with closed-circuit television. The question as to whether South Africa should introduce television, will be investigated very thoroughly and be answered by the commission of inquiry which the Government appointed in December, 1969. This commission will be able to examine the pros and cons of the whole matter. The Government gives the commission, which consists of experts, the opportunity to hear evidence and then to report on this means of communication. The purpose of the commission is to investigate and report on the desirability or undesirability of the introduction of a television service, and if desirable, to investigate the nature of the television service in South Africa, taking certain factors properly into account. The factors which must be taken into account with a view to the possible introduction, are very clearly defined in the terms of reference, but I should just like to refer to two which seem important to me. The first is the necessity for taking into account the heterogeneous population of South Africa, and the particular needs which arise from this. There are great differences in the composition of the population of the Republic, and we have, and still are following a policy of differentiation, and we have been and still are particularly wary of the process of equalization. Should television be introduced, it must be done in such a way that we do not expose ourselves to the forces which may destroy or break down our national identity.

A second factor which must be taken into account, is the possible detrimental effect which such a service could have on the morals and the customs of the people, and especially on the youth. For this reason I also emphasized this in the past in speeches here. It is of the utmost importance that it be taken into account. Personally, I would welcome this aspect being mentioned plainly and specifically in the terms of reference of the commission. It is vitally important to me. When the late Dr. Verwoerd spoke in the Assembly about television on 9th March, 1960, he said amongst other things (translation)—

This was in 1960, ten years ago, and it can rightly be said that the moral standards of the world have not improved since then, but other countries have in fact gained more experience of television. We can learn from their experience, and that knowledge will also be available to the commission. But Dr. Verwoerd also stated on 9th March, 1960, Hansard column 3002, that the government adheres to certain principles in regard to television, and he said—

What has happened now, although there is criticism from the side of the Opposition and other persons, about the appointment of this commission of enquiry, and the prescribing of definite factors which must be taken into account, is precisely in accordance with what Dr. Verwoerd had already laid down in 1960.

The implications of the conditions which were entrenched clearly in the terms of reference of the commission, are far-reaching. We must not lose sight of two matters. The first is that the commission will not and need not necessarily recommend the introduction of television, but on the other hand the introduction of such a service would depend on its recommendations. But in addition with the appointment of the commission the government has not bound itself in advance to introduce television, as many people try to deduce. If this does happen, and if we decide to introduce such a service, something special could be created within the framework of the guiding lines which were laid down, to suit the conditions in the country and which can reject the disadvantageous factors which are present in the overseas television services. It could therefore be possible that the Republic will be able to benefit from the advantages of television without being saddled with the disadvantages.

The hon. member for Koedoespoort has behaved quite predictably this afternoon. He has thanked the Minister. That is the routine that we have come to expect from that side of the House. The previous speakers in the debate this afternoon from that side of the House have been trying to justify the indefensible and the unjustifiable, but I want to put just one thought to hon. members opposite. If the question were put to the electorate on the basis of a referendum instead of a general election: “Are you or are you not satisfied with the telephone services in South Africa?”, the result would be an overwhelming

“No”, which even the “Yes” vote from Du Toit’s Kloof exchange would not influence in the slightest degree.

I want to revert to the question of staff. A great deal has been said about the shortage of staff and I am indebted to the hon. the Minister for a complete reply to a question I tabled for answer on Friday. There are certain very disturbing aspects in regard to the figures supplied by the hon. the Minister, because they showed that of an authorized establishment of 45,800, there are over 9,000 temporary members of the staff, which represents 20 per cent, and the actual vacancies represent 3,900, or 8½ of the total. In short, Sir, in the case of 27 per cent of the authorized establishment of the Post Office, we find temporary staff, or else the situations are vacant. Now the Minister has indicated that various echelons of staff are in training, but I submit that even when these positions are filled, they will only influence the backlog which exists at the moment.

Sir, we have to examine the shortage of staff in the light of the efficiency of the actual services provided by the Post Office. Here I want to associate myself with the remarks made on both sides of the House, paying tribute to the staff of the Post Office and the postal services, particularly the senior staff. I believe that they find themselves in a very difficult position. They carry out their duties in a dedicated manner, but they are hamstrung by the ideological and outmoded ideas of this department in regard to the use of labour. One also wonders whether this shortage of labour, particularly skilled technical labour, would have existed to-day had the National Party not discontinued our former immigration policy. If this had not been done, I could visualize that many trained, technical people, so urgently needed in South Africa, would to-day be naturalized citizens of South Africa.

Then one can ask: What are the affects of this shortage of staff? I would say that it affects most of the echelons of postal activity. I would say that it causes the telephone backlog. It results in an inadequate postal delivery service, and it also results in the infrequent clearance of post-office boxes.

As far as the telephone backlog is concerned, figures which have been quoted this afternoon appear to show a disparity with the figures which were given to me in reply to my question on the number of vacancies for technical staff. I believe that one of the log-jams exists because of this shortage of technical staff. I want to refer to the overall figure of outstanding telephone applications, namely 89,000, which was given to the House this afternoon, and compare it with the figure which represents the shortage in the Durban complex alone. The shortage in the Durban complex alone, as given to me by the hon. the Minister, is 14,500. This shows that in that particular area, the shortage in proportion is even greater than in many other parts in South Africa. The complaints from members of the public, which were referred to by the hon. member for South Coast, become more and more difficult to deal with and to understand. I find it absolutely shocking to have to receive a telephone call from a person saying: “I am sorry to worry you as a member of parliament. My telephone has been out of order for a month. I have reported this on numerous occasions. I have finally written officially, but I have received no reply. I have had the same telephone for 30 years. I live alone with my sister. A telephone is necessary.” A telephone call, as a public representative, to a courteous official resulted in that telephone service being restored the same day. But, Mr. Speaker, it should not be necessary for public representatives to have to become involved at that level, because the department is unable to carry out its function. When it comes to the moving of a subscriber’s telephone from one zone to another, this is almost worse than moving from one country to another, because if one moves to America, I believe that one is generally provided with a telephone within 24 hours. Here, after having had a telephone service for many many years, persons who move find that they can be given no certainty as to when a telephone can be supplied to them, even in cases of illness. The hon. member for Simonstown referred to the people in new housing areas. My heart bleeds for these people. Many of them are newlyweds who have saved up and bought a house in a growing suburb. They then want a telephone, but, due to the planning, which seems to have been so badly overlooked for so many years, no hope is held out for these people. When they ask when they can expect a telephone, the answer is usually a vague one. When they advance reasons why they should receive sympathetic consideration, the facilities are just not available. The “stork” telephone for women who have a pregnancy which may involve complications, is almost unobtainable to-day, even with a doctor’s certificate. The shared line facility is also something which is becoming more and more difficult to obtain. I know, because there is a large new residential area in my constituency. I know the frustrations these people have to put up with. I say this with great concern because they feel that there is something wrong in the manner in which telephones are being allocated.

Now I want to come to the question of the inadequate postal delivery service. Here again I quote a local case. I was speaking to a person in my constituency who resides four miles from the post Office. She had a parliamentary matter she wanted to discuss with me. I said that I would send her a copy of the reply I had received. She said that it would be much quicker for her to collect it personally, as it would take my letter four days to reach her in Mayville, four miles away. That is one mile per day, Sir. Before the war, well over 20 years ago, in the business area of Durban, there were three deliveries a day, and in the suburbs there were two deliveries a day. Now, for many years during this Government’s term of Office, the number of deliveries in the city area has been cut down to two. The suburban areas, which border on Berea, are privileged to have one delivery a day. What is the result of this, Sir? We now have Boeings, speeding between the various cities in the Republic, covering the distance in a matter of hours, and yet a letter can be delayed in delivery to the recipient for a period in excess of 24 hours, simply because there is one delivery a day. If a letter arrives after a postman has gone on his beat, it has to wait until the next day. I believe that this is shocking.

This problem can be overcome so easily in certain areas. It is no use saying that there is a shortage of postmen, because as far as Natal, and particularly Durban, is concerned, there is a ready reservoir of labour. The postal delivery service in Durban is already employing more Indian postmen than white postmen. I have never heard a single complaint against any of these Indian postmen, who carry out their duties with extreme courtesy and with great efficiency. I want to suggest to the Minister that the time has come for these people to be given a greater opportunity to give the public the service to which they are entitled. I know that there is no lack of applicants for postmen jobs amongst the members of the Indian community. In fact, some of the applicants have matric certificates. They are unable to find other positions, and are prepared to work as postmen with matric certificates. I am told that, as soon as it becomes known in the postal department, that these people have matric certificates, they are allocated to other positions, but the fact remains that there is a ready reservoir which could be used to give the public the services they deserve.

In so far as infrequent clearances of letterboxes are concerned, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can give some indication as to whether any standard pattern exists in the various heavily built-up areas. I have before me a copy of a letter addressed to an irate citizen, who complained that the discs which are normally put on the post boxes and which indicate the time of the next collection did not appear to be changed in the area in which he lived. He mentioned several post boxes in his vicinity. The postal authorities in Durban were quick to apologize and to indicate that in future, instructions would be given that the discs should indicate the time of the next collection. My query is this: The letter reveals that as far as some letter-boxes are concerned, they are cleared from Mondays to Fridays once a day at 12.30 p.m., but they are cleared twice on Saturdays, and once a day, at 6.00 a.m. on Sundays and public holidays.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could indicate whether there is some standard arrangement in this regard because I doubt whether members of the public are aware that when they post a letter at a post box it may not be cleared for another 12 hours, if it is only cleared once in every 24 hours. I believe that the public are misled because they are under the impression that their letters are being cleared fairly regularly. I do know that the post boxes outside actual post Offices are cleared more regularly, but people who do not have ready access to those post Offices are left with a post box which offers one collection service in 24 hours. I believe we have advanced beyond the stage where that is adequate for the public of South Africa. Then I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this low frequency of collection from post boxes is due to the labour shortage and, if so, what steps have been taken and what steps he intends to take to overcome the labour shortage. If it is a question of drivers for postal vehicles, I also believe that a ready reservoir of drivers exists who could work efficiently in that capacity.

Then I want to reiterate an appeal which I made to the hon. the Minister in a debate last year. When I said that I had a constructive suggestion to make I noticed that the hon. the Minister who was sitting opposite me at the time perked up considerably. I thought that he might take this into consideration but apparently he does not feel that it is worthwhile. We have heard this afternoon of the congestion that exists in our telephone service and of the frustration that is experienced by people who have to go on dialling numbers that are engaged or who are unable to get the number required because of a busy exchange. I want to ask the hon. the Minister seriously whether he will not give consideration to my repeated suggestion. I notice in the Government Gazette that advertising space is taken to suggest to readers that they should do certain things to ensure a satisfactory telephone service. It says that you should read about the special services offered, avoid long conversations, be sure of the number you want before making a call, answer your telephone promptly and speak distinctly. May I ask the hon. the Minister to make one addition to those four remarks, that is to suggest to subscribers that they give instructions to their young children and their servants not to answer the telephone unless they are capable of giving or taking messages efficiently. I think it is a most frustrating, time-consuming and unnecessarily expensive experience, to ring numbers time after time only to be told by a servant or a young child: “Mummy is not here” or “madam is out”, when the telephone is answered by a person who is unable to give the information which is sought. I believe that this is something which could be put across to the public. I think that their co-operation would help to make an inefficient telephone service a little more efficient.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Berea) really came out with a few ridiculous ideas here. If he thinks the hon. the Minister and his Department must prevent children and servants from answering telephones, then I really do not know what he will ask for next. If the hon. member wants to hold a referendum on telephones I am afraid he will lose by a big margin. The people who have telephones will all vote for the Government and the few who still do not have telephones will be greatly in the minority. South Africa can boast of a very good communications system, both as far as postal and telephone services are concerned, if one takes into consideration the tremendous development which has taken place in this country over the past decade. We can boast of a very good telephone system and postal service and yet hon. members on the opposite side make use of this opportunity year after year to turn this venerable place into a wailing wall as far as this subject is concerned. The lamentations one has to listen to here are simply heart-rending; to listen to those hon. members one would think our entire communications system was in a deplorable condition. The hon. member complained that temporary staff and vacancies comprised approximately 27 per cent of the staff complement of the Department. This is nothing unusual in our country with its tremendous manpower shortage.

The hon. member stated; “It is hamstrung by ideological ideas in connection with labour.” I do not know what he means by that. It is absolute nonsense. I should also like to refer to the rapid progress and the efficient service which has been rendered by this Department since the Department of Posts and Telegraphs became independent. The staff is happy and satisfied, and progress is being made in every sphere. If one takes into consideration the fact that a major part of the work of the Post Office is in fact of a highly technical nature, and one also takes into consideration the fact that technicians are extremely scarce, not only in our country but throughout the world and that it takes years to train a technician, then I find it astonishing that it has been possible to make this progress over the past few years. In the Estimates for 1968-’69 R35.5 million was requested, and in spite of the shortage of manpower it was possible to utilize that amount in full. In the ensuing year a far greater amount of R52 million was requested, and as far as I can ascertain that mount will also be spent in full during the course of this year. This is a great achievement; it indicates that these essential services are keeping pace as far as it is humanly possible, with the extremely rapid development of our country in various fields. If it was possible during the past two years to spend the vast amount of R88 million when the work which had to be done was to a large extent of a technical nature then one must really congratulate the Minister and his officials very sincerely on what has been achieved.

I should also like to refer to the last part of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove, i.e. the question of television. I should also like to refer to the political capital which both the official Opposition and the Hertzog group are trying to make out of the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to investigate television. The Hertzog group is now proclaiming that the Government has allegedly accepted United Party policy and that the people will now be overburdened with liberalistic television programmes. That is of course absolute nonsense. It has always been envisaged that television could not be kept out of this country. As the hon. member for Koedoespoort remarked, this was stated very clearly in this House as long ago as 1960 by the then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd. Dr. Verwoerd stated (Hansard of 9th March, 1960, Col. 3002)—

The hon. the Minister also stated last year in the Senate that technical and scientific development might make it essential for the Government to decide to introduce television. Now it would be very short-sighted of a Government and a Minister to say suddenly, which is what the hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members on the opposite side want, “we are now going to get television, and we are now going to enjoy ourselves”. That would be irresponsible. It has not yet been decided that television will be introduced, but as in the case of any important matter, if it must come, one must at least be very well prepared for it. This is an extremely important matter.

I should like to indicate briefly why I think that such a commission of inquiry is essential. When the stage is reached when the Government has to introduce television one expects the Government to be conversant with the various aspects and be prepared for them. Being prepared would, in my opinion, inter alia, presuppose that the Government would in the first place be conversant with the financial implications for the State of the introduction of television. In his speech on 9th March, 1960, Dr. Verwoerd, inter alia, stated that it was estimated that a nation-wide television service would cost approximately R20 million and that the current annual maintenance cost would be approximately R9 million. This was perhaps a very modest estimate, because the cost of living has increased since, salaries have increased since, and materials are probably much more expensive to-day. In 1960 it was estimated that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation required R42 million per annum for their television system. It will therefore make a big dent, whatever the amount is. If it is to be a colour television service then anything up to R300 million would be required. There is also the question of the campaign against inflation. Television is a luxury article and could possibly be conducive to further inflation. All these factors must be studied very thoroughly. The Government cannot introduce a television service in an irresponsible way. The hon. members who are now bandying this about in order to catch a few political flies, regardless of in what direction, are, I think being highly irresponsible.

Not only must the financial implications for the State be taken into consideration, but also those for the general public. Hon. members on the opposite side are concerned about the general public. Here, without a thorough investigation having been made, they want to burden the general public with what will probably add quite a few hundred additional rand per year to their account. The cost of a television set is probably quite a few hundred rand. These are articles which become obsolete from time to time and which have to be replaced. There is also the question of licence fees which will be considerably higher than our present radio licences.

It is R120 in Britain.

Yes. As far as the effect of television advertisements and the price of advertised goods is concerned, it is calculated that on some articles, because the advertisements on television are very expensive, the price has increased by 25 per cent in America as a result of this kind of advertising. All these factors entail serious implications for the ordinary citizen and delve deeply into his pocket. When those hon. members want to come along and fight an election with the promise of introducing television without further ado and try to win the votes of the voters in this way, they do not always realize what implications this implies for those voters. That is why this Government, a responsible Government, first wants to determine precisely what the implications are before taking such a decision.

But the concept “preparedness” also implies that we should know what the effect of television on our social and educational life would be. Television has a tremendous influence on the social and the educational life of every nation. In a book “Radio and Television Broadcasting on the European Continent” by Burton Paulu the writer says—

I am pointing out that television broadcasts have trmendous implications for the ordinary citizen. It is said that in the first five years husband, wife and child become so addicted to television that homework, schoolwork and family relations are all prejudicially influenced. These are matters which have to be studied and in regard to which a thorough knowledge has to be gained. In addition it is said that the average American spends 20 hours per week in front of his television set. It will therefore make tremendous inroads on our sporting and cultural life if this addiction were to occur in this country as well. Here we have German philosopher, Dr. C. F. Weiszäker who states: “The atom bomb kills the body, but television destroys the soul”.

Are you opposed to television?

I am in favour of a thorough investigation. That is why a commission has been appointed.

In the sphere of education it could make a very important and positive contribution to schools and universities. Television can, in the same way as other scientific aids to-day, be applied very positively and can be a major contributory factor to the development of knowledge and the facilitation of the learning process.

But is also true, and this cannot be argued away, that it can also have an extremely negative influence on the educational process. It has been proved that it can promote juvenile delinquency. For example, a South African writer, Stuart Cloete, has said—

Dr. Himmelweit, a German scientist, has found that television slowly but surely changes a child’s sense of values and his outlook on life. Children read less, spend less time listening to the radio, and remain awake late at night. In addition he also found that children who have grown up with television are less ambitious and leave school at an earlier age. These are all problems which will have to be studied thoroughly in our country, taking into consideration our manpower shortage.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? If the hon. member has such an insight into the disadvantages of television, is he going to report accordingly to this commission?

This speech will in any case be at the disposal of the commission of inquiry. Then, too, children for the most part watch programmes intended for adults. The result of this is that children are forced into a premature adulthood. This is characterized by spiritual confusion and a lack of confidence in adulthood, as well as a superficial approach to the problems of adults and even an unwillingness to become an adult. There is indisputable proof that it promotes juvenile delinquency. This all indicates that an effort to investigate this matter is necessary as far as our social life and educational requirements are concerned. One cannot rashly introduce a new commodity which might cause dangerous tendencies; nor without first having investigated the way in which this commodity can be applied in order to have the most positive effect on the lives of our people and the education of our children. I also want to say something in regard to the nature and control of programmes. In 1960 it was clearly indicated by Dr. Verwoerd that it would not be possible to present these programmes without control. I am quoting what he said at the time (Hansard, volume 104, column 3008)—

Hon. members on the opposite side will realize that the number of subjects which they will be able to discuss in future will become fewer. I am referring in particular to the hon. member for Orange Grove, for within the next few years the telephone shortage will have been eliminated. The postal delivery service will also in due course have been improved, if there is any room for improvement. Then hon. members will not know what to talk about, particularly if television has also been introduced. Perhaps the fact that television will not have been unleashed in an uncontrolled manner on the people, but will be properly controlled will at least be a subject of discussion for the hon. member. Apart from the knowledge which we need to introduce television, to which I have already referred, there are also the technical problems. In recent years many experiments have been conducted in various countries in regard to television. At present there are four black and white systems in use in Europe. In America there are also four systems, as well as two colour systems. Science and technology develop very rapidly and we need not, when the Government should decide to introduce television, make the same mistakes other countries have made. The spending of millions of rands can be eliminated for the ordinary tax payer and for the State by drawing from the knowledge and experience of countries which already have this commodity. If those hon. members were in power one would have expected them, in their irresponsibility, to have introduced television quite a number of years ago. We would then, together with the other countries, have had to bear the tremendous losses which pay for these experiments. At present, however, we can derive benefit from all the various developments. We must also establish what would be best for our country and its circumstances, i.e. whether it should be a black and white or a colour system, or whether it should be only for certain areas or for the entire country, and many other considerations. Careful and well thought out steps will therefore have to be taken.

Must it be introduced or must it not be introduced?

Taking into consideration the report of that commission this Government and the Cabinet will decide. This side of the House is not irresponsible, for it would not otherwise have been Government for 22 years. It is precisely as a result of the irresponsibility and the short-sightedness and the political bankruptcy of those hon. members that they are still sitting there and their numbers are dwindling.

Do you think motor cars are a good thing?

Order! Thé hon. member must not turn this debate into a farce. The hon. member for Algoa may proceed.

I think the hon. member for Durban (Point) would make a better contribution to this debate if he went and played with his clay oxen outside. I want to make no predictions here, but I want to thank the hon. the Minister for the thoughtfulness and the far-sightedness he has displayed, in conjunction with the rest of the Cabinet, in appointing this commission of inquiry into television, so that in case that commission’s recommendations are such that we are able to introduce television into this country we will be properly prepared for it when we do.

Mr. Speaker, on previous occasions the hon. member for Algoa has made speeches violently attacking television and to-day when he stood up to address the House one anticipated that he would adopt the same attitude. His attitude has only altered very slightly by virtue of the fact that a commission has been appointed and one’s difficulty is to ascertain whether the hon. member intends giving evidence before this commission to put forward his views which he claims to be authoritative views. If the hon. member does intend to give evidence will he still be consistent with the attitude he adopted in the past when he condemned television? The hon. member also believed that it was necessary to appoint a commission of inquiry although television has been in existence for something like 40 years. We on this side of the House believe that television can and should be introduced.

This afternoon I intend to address certain remarks to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in regard to telephone tapping. Last week we again heard denials from various hon. Ministers concerning telephone tapping. I refer to the hon. the Prime Minister’s remarks last week when he categorically denied that telephone tapping was taking place. The former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the hon. member for Ermelo, has denied in this House in reply to questions that telephone tapping was taking place. Yet only recently he made a statement that telephone tapping was indeed taking place. We have also heard from the hon. the Minister of Justice that telephone tapping has not taken place. In spite of these denials I submit that telephone tapping has taken place under the Government of the Nationalist Party. I believe there is sufficient evidence to prove that it has taken place. We do not necessarily mean that the tapping of telephones might not be required in times of extreme urgency and emergency should the security of the State be at stake. However, it is a matter which I believe the hon. Ministers responsible should state quite clearly in this House and give a guarantee that it is not abused. I refer particularly to the conditions pertaining in Durban at the beginning of 1960 and in 1961. We know that the telephone service in Durban was administered and belonged to the Durban Municipality. We also know that since then the Government has taken over this telephone service. Whilst this telephone system was still the property of the Durban Corporation it was necessary for the Police in tapping telephones to obtain permission from the Durban telephone authorities. This they did. It was during 1960 that the Police approached the Durban Municipality for the tapping of certain telephones and this permission was granted. It was granted on two conditions, the one being that only the telephones of non-Europeans organizations believed to be subversive and persons connected with those organizations would be tapped and, secondly, that the tapping of such telephones would not be continued longer than was absolutely necessary. I am Quoting from a minute of the Town Clerk of Durban, namely No. 34, which was circulated to all councillors and which has since been made public. Here the evidence shows that a meeting took place and it is clearly stated in this minute that an approach was made by the Special Branch of the South African Police to tap certain telephones in the municipal system of Durban. The Town Clerk thereupon arranged a meeting with the Chairman of the Trading Undertakings Committee and the Deputy Mavor, the Mayor being overseas at that time. That meeting took place in the Mavor’s Office during the afternoon of 22nd February, 1960. The Officer-in-charge of the Special Branch of the S.A. Police and another Government official were also present.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he remembers that at that time there was a state of emergency and there were Saracens in the streets of Durban.

I have mentioned earlier that there might be cases where telephone tapping might be necessary, for instance in cases of emergency. I am not denying that fact. The point is that hon. Ministers on that side of the House categorically deny it every time a question in this regard is put to them. Surely we can expect the hon. the Minister to be frank and state the position clearly. We on this side of the House are only asking a guarantee that this method of obtaining information is not being abused. That is what we ask for. However, instead of that, we receive categorical denials from the Prime Minister downwards saying that no telephone tapping is taking place under the Nationalist Government. My point is that there is proof that telephone tapping has taken place under the Nationalist Party Government. I am quoting these figures and this information for the information of this House to show that in fact this has existed. The position is of course that a state of emergency did exist. For that reason the Deputy Mayor gave permission to the Special Branch of the Police to tap certain telephones. I have mentioned the two undertakings which were also given to the Municipality. Now comes another important point which perhaps the hon. member for Umhlatuzana would be interested in, namely that after the state of emergency no longer existed, the South African Police in the meantime had moved to new premises. They had moved from Wentworth to premises in the centre of the town. So what happened? They then approached the Durban Municipality for facilities to be made available for the tapping of telephones. The state of emergency no longer existed.

When was that?

This was in November, 1960. I want to quote from the minute of the Town Clerk of Durban which states the following—

The point is that the police after having moved to new premises asked that these premises be specially connected so that they could continue with telephone tapping. The only reason why this came to light is due to the fact that this is a telephone service that at the time belonged to the Durban Municipality. Surely any reasonable person can only assume that telephone tapping certainly must have taken place with the telephones that were under the control of the government. One must also remember the following point for the information of the hon. member for Harrismith who referred earlier to backlogs and telephones and so on, which were inherited by the government from the Durban Municipality. There are large areas of Durban where government phones are available, and not Durban municipal phones. It does not cover the whole area of Durban. So consequently, if it was necessary for them to obtain this permission from the Durban Municipality, it can only be assumed that the tapping of telephones was also undertaken in Durban as well where telephones were under the Government service at that time. Indeed, it is in those areas where the biggest shortage of telephones exists, incidentally. However, to continue with this point in regard to the tapping of telephones, as far as this important aspect is concerned, I believe that the people of South Africa should call upon the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to give a frank statement in regard to this very important infringement of the individual’s rights. This is not a matter which can just be brushed aside casually, and denied. This is not a parochial matter. It is a matter affecting every single person in South Africa when it comes to the use of these means of obtaining information. It must be done with the greatest degree of circumspection and we must have the assurance that it is not being abused in any way whatsoever.

The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs replied to a question last week by the hon. member for Orange Grove referring to the possibility that conversations might be listened into by other means. I should like to refer to a position also existing in Durban in February. 1961 where the Manager of the Telephone Department was asked to comment in regard to the possibility of tapping of telephones. The assurance was given to the Town Clerk by the Telephone Manager as follows:

In order to observe or “tap” subscribers’ telephone lines, special wiring and cabling has to be provided between the subscribers’ cables circuit, the exchange equipment and an observation suite. Again I give my categorical assurance that no such special wiring, cabling or equipment is operating in any of the Durban corporation telephone exchanges. Further, it would be impossible for this to be done without my knowledge.

Now my question to the hon. the Minister is whether the hon. the Minister can give an assurance that tapping of telephones cannot be done without it being brought to the knowledge of his technicians? His reply last week seemed to indicate that telephone tapping could be done by unauthorized persons perhaps who had some other latest means or device of listening in to telephone conversations. According to the information which was provided by the Manager of the Telephone Department in Durban, it would be impossible for this to be done without his knowledge because it required special wiring and equipment and an observation suite. According to the hon. Minister’s recent reply it would appear that there is now a new device whereby the listening in of conversations can be undertaken. We on this side of the House believe that this is of vital importance. We believe that it is time that the House was fully informed as to whether this method of obtaining information has been used or is being used and to what degree one can be assured that there are guarantees that it is not being abused.

There are two other matters which I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister which are not in connection with telephone tapping. However, they are certainly in connection with the shortage of telephones. Since the hon. the Minister spoke this afternoon and informed the House that there are some 89,000 names on the waiting-list for telephones, it becomes increasingly obvious that those people who do not have telephones must rely on public telephone booths. There are certain new residential areas in various cities in the metropolitan areas of the country where there has evidently been no planning. The cable work is a long way behind. These people have been informed that they must wait two to three years for a telephone. It therefore becomes important that these people should have at least a public telephone booth within reasonable access of their residence or where they might live. I know that there are areas where a person has to travel sometimes two miles to get to a public telephone booth. I know of cases where an extreme emergency existed. The person went to the first public telephone booth which was some distance from his home. He found it out of order. He then had to travel another mile and a half to another telephone booth. He found that telephone out of order too. In exasperation he went and knocked on the door of a private home at one o’clock in the morning. Fortunately these people allowed him to use their phone where this phone call was required as a matter of urgency for medical reasons. I believe that the hon. the Minister must take steps to ensure that there are a greater number of public telephone booths available. These telephone booths should be constructed in such a manner that they will be able to withstand to a degree vandalism which undoubtedly does exist. This is a problem the hon. the Minister has to contend with. Perhaps there could be co-operation with the police and greater fines imposed where people are found to have damaged or destroyed in some cases the telephone equipment in a telephone booth. We hope that the hon. the Minister can give an indication if there is to be an increase in the number of telephone booths that will be made available in the various areas or in fairly close proximity to areas where there is a particularly long waiting-list for telephones. It is also important that provision be made for regular inspections of these telephone booths so as to ensure that when they are out of order as a result of vandalism, they be repaired as expeditiously as possible. It is known that there are some telephone booths which have remained out of order for a considerable period of time. They were only repaired after the matter had been reported. But surely this should be one of the tasks of the hon. the Minister’s department to make regular inspections of these telephone booths to see that they are kept in working order. We believe that the question of the provision of telephones is a vital one. We know that South Africa is growing and developing rapidly. It is a country with vast potential and great resources. Obviously it must develop. It is a great pity that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs has not been able to plan ahead so as to meet this demand. We have heard of a lot of planning by this Government but surely this is an indictment of them that at the present time, instead of reducing the back-log of the number of telephones that are required, the back-log seems to be growing and the list seems to be increasing all along the line. We hone that the hon. the Minister will give this House some assurance that this matter is receiving his attention particularly in regard to future planning, particularly in residential and industrial areas where telephones are an absolute necessity. We hope that the hon. the Minister can give this assurance to this House, because the people who are on the waiting-list are certainly looking for some encouragement as to whether or not they will be getting a telephone within the next three or four years.

The hon. member for Umbilo to-day took up where the hon. member for Innesdal left off last week, i.e. sowing suspicion and mistrust against this Government which is allegedly making large-scale inroads into the freedom and the rights of the individual by tapping telephones. The hon. member knows as well as I do that this is a technique in operation throughout the entire Western world, as well as in the Communistic world, to acquire of information in regard to saboteurs, people who undermine the State and so on, by tapping telephones. I am not saying that this takes place on a large scale in South Africa. The hon. member must not adopt a holier-than-thou pose here and pretend that this has never happened in South Africa. It is general knowledge that when they were in power during the war years, telephone tapping took place regularly every week. Information obtained in that way was codified and sent to the chief secretary of the United Party, Mr. Louis Esselen. The latter in turn supplied his provincial secretary with all these conversations each week. Inter alia, the telephone conversations of Ossewabrandwag members were tapped. The telephone conversations of the Greyshirt movement also listened-in to. That hon. member must not come and pretend here now that when there are people in this country who want to undermine the security of the State, saboteurs and communists, they should be allowed to plot their intrigues freely over the telephone while this Government does nothing about it. The reason why that hon. member, in alliance with the Hertzog Party, is making these accusations against the Government is once again to send a poor image of this Government, i.e. that we are developing into a police and a Nazi state, abroad. What other reason can there be for doing so? One would have expected that the Opposition would at least display the patriotism and common sense and would have realized that if telephone tapping does in fact take place in this country, it is only done because there is a threat to the security of the State. One would not expect them to ask the hon. the Minister across the floor of this House to disclose his secrets and techniques which are applied throughout the Western world to ferret out saboteurs and communists. I accuse them of unpatriotic conduct by trying to create this impression that the Government is a police state and is making use of Nazi methods.

I should briefly like to say something about that part of the motion of the hon. member for Orange Grove that deals with the introduction of television. I make no secret of this, and it is known that I am an advocate of the principle that television should be introduced into this country. However, I have always said it should be State controlled. I want to add at once now that this Government has acted correctly and precisely as I felt it should act, which is that this matter should first be given some thought by a commission of inquiry before television is introduced into this country. For that reason I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs for having made the terms of reference of this commission of inquiry so comprehensive. One cannot introduce a serious commodity like television without first having all the particulars. As long ago as I960—as quoted by previous speakers—Dr. Verwoerd raised quite a number of matters which would first have to be investigated properly, inter alia, what progress the question of colour television had made in the world. It must be established whether it is possible to introduce television into South Africa with its vast expanses. I also want to point out at once that this Opposition comes forward with a half-baked proposal in their booklet “You want it—we have it”, from which we have already quoted such a great deal. They say they will introduce a “nation-wide television service”, but they do not say how they will do it. The hon. member for Orange Grove would do much better if he told us how it was possible to introduce a nationwide television service in a mountainous and expansive country such as South Africa. It is this kind of technical information which the commission of inquiry must assemble, apart from the fact that they must determine whether or not television will in fact have a prejudicial moral effect on the youth and the people which is what is being alleged will happen.

I have been a member of this House for four years, and I can safely say that this is easily the tamest debate on Posts I have ever heard. I do not know whether it is because the hon. member for Orange Grove is cooing to the electorate that he has behaved himself to such an extent to-day that he did not even, as he usually does, become emotional or excited. I think it is more likely to be because the Opposition have no grounds for an attack on this hon. Minister. Since he took over the management of Posts in this country, during the past few years, he has administered his Department so efficiently that the attacks from the Opposition side have been steadily dwindling. What hon. members forget in regard to the point they want to make about telephone shortages, is that the Post Office until two years ago had always fallen under the Treasury as far as its finances were concerned. But since the Department was removed, the hon. the Minister immediately showed that he was even prepared to double the expenditure on the communications system of our country. This shows what thorough work he has been doing since the Post Office Department became independent. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that South Africa had one of the finest telephone services in the world and that, on a pro rata basis, we also have one of the greatest shortages in the world. But does he not know that in France, for example, there are almost a half a million Frenchmen on the waiting-list for telephones and that those half a million Frenchmen will, according to calculations only receive their telephones in ten years’ time! The dissatisfaction of the French is so drastic that they have even appointed a pressure group in the French Parliament to exert pressure on the counterpart of the hon. the Minister here to solve the problem of the telephone shortage more rapidly there.

That is an excellent idea. Let us do it here as well.

It is not necessary in South Africa, because this hon. Minister is doing everything humanly possible to eliminate the telephone shortage. I believe that, as he predicted, the telephone shortage in South Africa will have been eliminated entirely within five years. There was also a complaint to the effect that the telephone services in South Africa were allegedly very poor. My personal opinion is that one of the reasons why the telephone service is so poor is because so many housewives monopolize the telephone during the day and overload the lines. In addition there are the young fellows and their girl friends who are continually courting over the telephone. The United Party would do better to make an appeal to the housewives of South Africa to have less to say over the telephone and to be less garrulous than to try to level this kind of accusation against the hon. the Minister. The latest gossip is related over the telephone, the new baby is discussed and recipes are even read out aloud over the telephone. If the telephone were actually used for the purpose for which it was introduced, i.e. to communicate rapidly and in a businesslike way with one’s fellow-man, then the telephone services in South Africa will not be overloaded to such an extent. I want to make an appeal to-day to the housewives of South Africa to make fewer telephone calls, of shorter duration.

A further aspect which I should like to bring to the attention of this House is the question of township developers who commence the development of townships before they have been assured of the fact that there will be adequate telephone services for that township. I have a case in my constituency where a new township was proclaimed and building operations commenced, but where it will only be possible to supply telephone services in two years’ time. I feel that developers should not be allowed to develop townships before they have received assurance to the effect that it will be possible to supply telephone services.

I want to say that I think the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in South Africa is on the verge of an unprecedented period of expansion and growth in the future under this hon. Minister. His Budget speech here this afternoon was only a short one. but it radiated optimism. What I found particularly striking is this fact: What the hon. the Minister mentioned, i.e. that the Post Office was going to become more and more modernized and mechanized. What I find a great comfort is the fact that the sorting machines which the Department installed in Pretoria as an experiment have yielded such good results. Since it has yielded such good results. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider installing a similar sorting machine in Johannesburg. In Johannesburg the question of letter sorting is beginning to become simply impossible as a result of the population explosion. I do not know whether hon. members have seen this machine yet. but I went to have a look at the machine in Pretoria, and I can inform the hon. members who have not seen it yet, that it is simply a miracle. I foresee the day arriving in this country when “postal factories” will arise outside the cities as a result of these sorting machines. At such “postal factories” the post will simply be offloaded outside the town or city where it will be sorted much more rapidly by means of sorting machines and by means of codification, without being touched by hand, I have been told that this can be done at a tremendous rate. It has been proved abroad that such a sorting machine is capable of sorting up to 107,000 postal articles per hour. That is about 40 per cent faster than existing methods. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider this, and as soon as it is financially possible to build all the requested post Offices, introduce a system of self-service post Offices in South Africa.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned. I was asking the Minister about the possibility of investigating the introduction of self-service post Offices in South Africa. I did so particularly with a view to the fact that people cannot find urgent postal facilities when the post Offices are closed. What I have in mind now is not the type of vending machine where one buys postage stamps, but hon. members know that we are living in the days of self-service. I think that such self-service post Offices, situated at strategic places, could contribute a great deal towards serving the public, particularly if we take into consideration the great manpower shortage we are experiencing in South Africa to-day. This type of _ self-service post Office could for example weigh packets itself, determine the amount of postage to be paid on a package and also sell postal and money orders to the public at night. I am leaving this idea with the hon. the Minister and his Department for consideration.

In the short time at my disposal I just want to say that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made accusations here this afternoon to the effect that dissatisfaction still existed among the various branches of the post Office staff. I cannot speak on behalf of all the branches, but I can mention that the secretary of the South African Postal Union, the Union which deals with postmen, lives in my constituency. I have learned that the concessions made by the hon. the Minister to postmen in his previous budget, such as making motorized scooters available, and the incentive bonuses, has contributed greatly to attracting more white postmen to the profession. One of our major concerns was that more and more non-Whites were being appointed on a temporary bas’s as postmen owing to the shortage of white postmen. It is therefore a great comfort to me to hear that the situation has in fact improved. Arising out of the improved conditions of service. I am looking forward to the day when we will again eventually be able to make use of the services of white postmen only.

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether a five-day delivery week could not in due course be introduced. In the major cities of South Africa most businesss undertakings are closed on Saturdays. As a result of this most mail is posted on Friday afternoons. The result is that the postmen have to deliver a tremendous amount of post on Saturdays, while the business undertakings are not open in any case. I am submitting this to the hon. the Minister so that he can consider the matter.

In conclusion I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to make further concessions in regard to radio licences with a view to the sound position of the post Office finances. These concessions can be made to social pensioners, the aged, invalids, students and so on, to mention only certain categories. The hon. the Minister must consider whether the time has not come for these concessions to be made. We do not yet have television in our country, and for many of those people the only source of entertainment is listening to the radio. However, they often find it difficult to get together the money necessary for a radio licence.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Turffontein, who has just sat down, will have some explaining to do when he leaves this House.

Why “leaves”?

He is leaving it permanently at the end of this session. What he will have to explain is how, in his mind, the problem with the telephone department is that women are gasbags and spend all their time on the telephone instead of getting on with their housework. I hope that the women of South Africa will note that the view of a member of the governing party is that there is a telephone shortage because women talk too much on the telephone.

That is at Durban (Point).

Is that the bad telephone service he talks about? But, Sir, there is a far more serious aspect to the remarks of the hon. member for Turffontein. He first of all misstated what my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, had said in the course of his speech this afternoon. The hon. member for Umbilo stated clearly and specifically that the United Party recognized that in the interests of the security of the State, at a time of emergency and in order to combat serious crime or threats to South Africa, telephone tapping was necessary and acceptable. But he made the point specifically that what we were concerned about in the United Party was that such tapping should be properly controlled, should not be abused and should only be resorted to when it was absolutely essential to combat serious crime or in the interests of the safety of South Africa. The hon. member over there then got up and accused this side of the House of being prepared to allow terrorism and other threats to South Africa without resorting to tapping, if necessary.

You are deaf.

I want to make it quite clear that we have not said at any time that the State should not have this power when it is necessary. What we have said is that it should be controlled and that there should be no abuse of that power.

Has it ever been abused? Where has it been abused?

Sir, I want to deal with two aspects of this immediately. The first is that on 19th June, 1962, in this House the hon. member for Umbilo put certain questions to the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. The first question was: “Whether the tapping of telephone lines is prohibited by legislation; if so, what legislation and, if not, whether the Government has considered introducing legislation?” The answer was specific: “Yes, the Post Office Act, 1958 and the common law.” In other words, telephone tapping is illegal in South Africa. That is the first point. But the second point is that last week in this House my hon. Leader challenged the hon. the Prime Minister to state whether telephone tapping took place in South Africa. He challenged him four times in all and the hon. the Prime Minister was evasive.

Nonsense.

Sir, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs says he was not evasive. The hon. the Prime Minister first said: “You have had that answer before;” then he said: “But you have been told that.” He would not give a specific answer on the first three occasions: he said: “You have had the answer before.” Eventually the Leader of the Opposition—I quote from Hansard—said this—

The Prime Minister: No.

But that was not evasive.

This was the fourth time. The hon. member for Maitland will wake up on 23rd April too. Sir, here we had the Prime Minister of South Africa saying last week in this House that there was no telephone tapping in South Africa. We expect to be able to believe and accept the word of an hon. Minister and the word of the hon. the Prime Minister. That is one of the standards of democratic government; one of the standards of civilized society is that you can accept a categorical assurance at its face value. The hon. member for Umbilo this afternoon quoted chapter and verse to show that this Government, when it did not control the Durban telephone exchange, applied for and received permission to tap telephone lines.

When?

In 1960, at a time of emergency. After the emergency had passed they again applied for permission to tap telephone lines in South Africa. Last week we had the hon. the Prime Minister saying that no telephone tapping takes place. Here we have incontrovertible evidence, evidence from the minutes of meetings of the Durban City Council. showing that the Government, through the Police, had in fact applied for and received permission to tap telephones and had in fact done so. [Interjections.] Does the truth no longer remain the truth after ten years? Is something which is true to-day become untrue in ten years’ time or is the truth something which is permanent and which you can count on whether the event took place ten years ago or to-day? Sir, here is another example of the credibility gap which the people of South Africa should note.

An enormous gap.

May I ask the hon. member when the Rivonia trial was held?

I do not know the exact date of the Rivonia trial. The Rivonia trial was not held in Durban, as that hon. member should know, and whether it was held there or not. that does not alter the truth; the truth remains the truth. We have said that where it is necessary for the security of the State we will accept controlled tapping.

What are you flapping about?

I am flapping about the fact that we are told in unequivocal words that something does not happen, and by his questions and interjections that hon. member accepts that it does happen and we have proved that it happens. In other words, he supports a Government which says one thing when he in fact, by his interjections, indicates that he accepts that the opposite has been happening. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has indicated that he accepts and agrees, as we agree, that telephone tapping can and should take place during a period of crisis or at a time of threat. Yet now b is denied by the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I say that South Africa is entitled to take note of the value which can be placed on assurances given to the country by our leaders.

Your Government allowed it,

Of course we did. When Post Offices were being blown up, when rail way lines were being blown up and the lives of South Africans were being threatened we used it against the then supporters of the policy for which that hon. member stood then. We used this power and we did not deny it. We did not say that it was not happening. We said that the security of South Africa demanded strong action and we took that action. We were not afraid to take action against traitors to South Africa; we were not afraid to take action against the fifth column; we were not afraid to take action against sabotage, and when we sit on the Government benches we will act again.

Sir, I want to move on to other aspects of this debate. We expected that when the Government granted autonomy to the Post Office something would happen; that things would start to move; that they would have the money. They had already raised telephone charges so as to raise the necessary capital, and we were entitled to expect a radical change in the situation. But what happened? Just a “happening”, and the “happening” was to the telephone services of South Africa. I am not going to repeat what the hon. member for South Coast and other members on this side of the House have said, but I do want to confirm and substantiate that the effect of the Government’s taking over the telephone system in Durban has been to turn an efficient system into a shambles. Sir, it is a fact that if you applied to the Durban Corporation for a telephone for business or private purposes and you stated the date on which you wanted it, you got it on that day.

Nonsense.

I have moved my Office twice in Durban, as the result of rebuilding, from one building to another, and I can quote hundreds of cases to support my statement that where a business moved or applied for a telephone, they got it on the day they asked for it. The average waiting period was anything from two to six weeks at most.

What about the 4,000 on the waiting list when this Department took over the telephone system in Durban?

Sir, I am talking about the administration of the telephone system in Durban.

Answer the question.

I will answer it. What happened was that during the year of negotiations with the Government over the takeover, no exchanges were built except the Stamford Hill exchange, but in the vast bulk of the Durban areas, you could get a telephone immediately for business purposes, for medical purposes or for any authorized reason. The provision of an ordinary household telephone without special reason, could take time. Sir, the hon. member talks about a waiting list of 4,000 against a waiting list of 89,000 under this Government. To-day, Sir, if you apply for a telephone in Durban you are told that it will take six weeks to investigate and it will take anything up to two months before you can expect to get that telephone, and then when you do get it, it is only half a service. Sir, when you pick up your telephone, on one out of three occasions, you will have to wait anything up to half a minute or a minute before you get a dialling tone. When you have dialled your first three numbers you get the engaged sign. Not the number you are ringing but the whole system is engaged, and the hon. member for Turffontein says that that is because the women talk too much. Tests and checks have been made to confirm that up to 33 per cent of the numbers dialled are wrong numbers. I myself on one occasion dialled Pietermaritzburg and after the first wrong number I called a witness. I dialled Pietermaritzburg seven times and I got five wrong numbers, and I had two witnesses watching to see that I was dialling correctly. When I reported it to Complaints they checked and accepted that it had happened. I gave them the numbers I had got and they cancelled those five calls. Sir, I am not like the Nationalist Party who cannot even dial. They are so used to nails looking like corkscrews that when they dial anything a number looking like a corkscrew comes out. Sir, I want this evening in the name of the Opposition to demand of the hon. the Minister of Post and Telegraphs that he grant a 25 per cent reduction on telephone accounts in the Durban, the Rand and other over-overloaded areas to compensate for the wrong numbers which people get when they dial.

In Cape Town too.

Sir, I am being conservative; I could ask for more, but I say that there is at least a 25 per cent wastage, and I say that in the name of fair play and honest business dealing the Post Office should grant a 25 per cent discount on every telephone account for dialled calls until they are able to provide a service which works. Mr. Speaker, that is the right of the telephone subscriber of South Africa. I am not talking of the privileged user. I want to place it on record that I have received nothing but courtesy from the officials of the Department to whom I have gone from time to time with problems. But courtesy does not give you service. They do their best but they have to say to you, “the systems are overloaded; we can do nothing about it”. I demand that the Government announce in this debate that they are prepared to compensate for this shocking service from automatic telephones, particularly when you are dialling trunk calls, by 25 per cent discount on every account until the overload is removed.

Now I want to move on to another aspect of the hon. the Minister’s Department, and that is the question of the S.A. Broadcasting Corporation, which is a wing of the information service of the Nationalist Party. {Interjections.] I say it is a wing of the information service of the Nationalist Party. On 20th November last year the General Secretary of the United Party wrote, by authority of the Central Executive of the party, to the Director of Programs of the S.A.B.C., asking for radio time for political parties to broadcast during the election. He received a reply on 5th December stating that it was not the policy of the Board, but if political parties could agree between them on time then they would reconsider granting to the parties time for political broadcasts during the election campaign. It is a two-page letter and I do not want to quote it in full, but the last paragraph, signed by Mr. Douglas Fuchs, says—

The United Party then wrote on 19th December acknowledging the letter, and wrote on the same day to the chief information Officer of the Nationalist Party, the hon. member for Stellenbosch. It stated the view of the S.A.B.C. and asked him to liaise with us with a view to reaching agreement on time for the political parties. On 9th January we had still not received a reply and the General Secretary, Senator Horak, wrote again and reminded him of the letter and asked for an answer. It was not until last week, Sir, that the hon. member for Stellenbosch, as information Officer, advised that the Nationalist Party was not prepared to co-operate. I say here to the people of South Africa that that Government is afraid of the truth. [Interjections.] They are afraid to put their case against ours. They will force the S.A.B.C. to put over slanted Government views while they refuse to the Opposition, who represent 42 per cent of the voters, the opportunity to put our case across. They hide behind the news services which they put across. Now, anyone who listens to those news services knows how much time we get on them. We have tried to buy time in the commercial radio, but that has been forbidden us. We cannot even get our message across on the commercial service, and I say to the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and the Government that they are scared to face us on the air before the people of South Africa. They are afraid that our message will reach too many people, and I challenge the hon. the Minister and the whole Cabinet, man for man, to debate against the United Party. If they refuse that challenge, there can be only one conclusion reached by the people of South Africa, i.e. that they are not prepared to face us openly, man to man, policy against policy and party against party, through the medium of the monopoly which they have over the air of South Africa. I was going to suggest that we should have the broadcasts in both languages. The hon. the Minister of Sports and Recreation could broadcast in neither. That could give us a good start. He could tell us about sport and Maoris; they could tell us about the Stock Exchange and about pensions. Just think of the things the Government could tell the people of South Africa. But we could answer them. That is the difference. We could tell them—we could tell the people of South Africa—about the purchase tax, the consumer tax, the tax on soap, the tax on women’s cosmetics, the tax on all the things that form part of normal living. They cannot afford to tell the people that and they are hoping vainly that we will not get our message across. I say again that a Government which has a monopoly over the air of South Africa and refuses to grant the same facilities to the Opposition to state their case is a frightened Government, and how much more frightened would they be if we had television! Then they would not have taken two months to answer our request. We could have got it by telegram; that would only have taken three days, or by letter, which would have taken two or three weeks. No, they would not even be prepared to test their postal services on the radio. The Minister knows that the service is overloaded and that they are overworked.

But I want to deal with this issue of television. You, Sir, took exception this afternoon to a comment I made to the hon. member for Algoa, but I was absolutely serious. When an hon. member stands up in the 20th century, in the year 1970, and he talks as that hon. member talked about television, then you truly wonder whether he believes that the motor-car is an evil, and that there should be a man with a red flag walking in front of it. He is that much out of date with the 20th century, and that is why I asked him whether he believed that motor-cars were an evil, because his approach apparently should be the approach of a forked stick and a tom-tom, as the communications system of South Africa, Sir, if you are going to regard television in the light in which that hon. member referred to it this afternoon, it shows that the Government is not able to keep pace with the century in which we live and with the challenge of that century. But even that hon. member could have watched the moon-landing, the most historic scientific event of the age, one of the most fantastic events in the history of man. Little tinpot republics were all able to watch it, but not us. And if the Transkei had its independence you would have been able to watch it in the Transkei, but not in South Africa. The Government is not prepared to keep pace with the challenge of the century in which we live, so what do they do? They appoint a commission under the chairmanship of Dr. P. J. Meyer, Chairman of the Broederbond and Chairman of the Board of Governors of the S.A.B.C., the very S.A.B.C. which refuses to allow us to broadcast to the voters of South Africa in an election, and he is going to give an impartial decision, an impartial judgment. On what? On whether the modern amenity of television, which the whole world accepts as an everyday thing, is an evil for South Africa. But he is going to do other things. He and his team are going to decide whether the Nationalist Press will be harmed by the advertising they will lose to television. That is the crux of the matter. It is one of the terms of reference of the commission, to gauge the effect of television on advertising. Dagbreek is already squealing.

Read out the terms of reference.

I will draw a picture for the hon. member for Maitland which he might be able to understand. I say that this television commission is nothing but an election bluff. It is an attempt to walk the tightrope between the verkramptes like the hon. member for Algoa and the hon. member for Sunnyside who have spoken against television time and again and those who, like the hon. member for Turffontein, are trying to move into the 20th century. They are taking slow, wobbling steps, but even so they are trying to get into the 20th century; and the government, in order to hold the balance between the 18th century; views of many of its members and the 20th century views of one or two who have broken away from the shackles of yesterday, has appointed a commission to stall this issue over the election, until the 22nd April. I want to say that if the government has any courage, it will say that it will decide, and not a commission which is being asked to find out all this nonsense that they are being asked to sift out. Let it decide as a government and commit itself to a policy. Then they can talk of a “kragdadige” government, but as long as they go on as they are, they are not a “kragdadige” government. A government prepared to monopolize the air and to withhold from the people of South Africa free debate over the air, is a government not prepared to use its power to face reality and facts. I say that this hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has failed to meet the challenge which was set to him when he took over this portfolio. He was given it on a silver plate, with a new Act and new powers and unlimited capital, and what has he done with that wonderful opportunity? He has appointed a commission to investigate these matters. The shortage of telephones has increased, and I conclude by repeating two challenges to the Minister: Reduce the telephone accounts of automatic subscribers by 25 per cent to compensate for their wasted calls, and face us over the air on the S.A.B.C.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) who has just sat down after making a very eloquent and pompous speech, will see, if he looks at me, that I am the smallest member on this side of the House, while he is the biggest on that side, and then he will realize how much power we have on this side if we use the smallest against the biggest on his side.

Just reply to my arguments.

He was so carried away into the air by his eloquence that they do not really need the radio to put their case to the electorate, to such an extent did he take to the air. [Interjection.] The hon. member will surely not begrudge me a few introductory remarks. The hon. member spoke very broadly about opportunities for the Opposition to put their case to the electorate over the radio, and he spoke about tapping and listening-in and monitoring. I shall come to that later. The hon. member for Durban (Point) must just exercise his patience. He also spoke about the information service of the National Party, but before dealing with the hon. member for Durban (Point) any further, I should like to revert to the hon. member for Umbilo. He made a very serious allegation before dinner. He said that the government was abusing its powers and that it affected every citizen of the country who possesses a telephone.

I never said that. [Interjection.]

He said: “It affects every citizen”. [Interjection.] I understood this to mean that every subscriber is now in great danger because his personal conversations are being tapped; he is actually on the brink of a precipice. I want to tell the hon. member for Umbilo that I had experience of tapping under the United Party. Can that hon. member mention to me one single case, since the Nationalist Party came into power in 1948, where evidence gained as a result of tapping was used in any court against any member of the public? He can mention no case to me. But I can mention cases to him where, under the regime of his party, people were put into camps without a hearing or without any recourse to the court as a result of tapping. This Government has never even charged one single citizen of this country in court as a result of tapping. Their party concedes that tapping may be resorted to in an emergency.

Where are your facts?

I have the facts, Sir. I worked in the Post Office, where they tapped conversations. I can mention a specific case. A former member of their party, who is now in the Senate, Dr. Jack Loock, regularly received the transcripts of tapped conversations from Mr. Louis Esselen during the war years. I have his permission to use his name here. He was a member of that party at the time, and they regularly listened here. I saw them.

A war was being waged at the time.

A war is being waged to-day as well. Those hon. members want to represent themselves as people who never contravene any rules, but we saw them contravening the rules. Innocent people were landed in trouble and they were never afforded an opportunity to put their case. This Government has never jeopardized the existence of any citizen of this country as a result of this. It may happen that two lines become crossed. Then one hears another voice, and then you imagine that someone is listening in. We have heard about monitoring, etc. The hon. the Prime Minister has already replied to this at length. That party, with all its eloquence, cannot point a finger at this side of the House. We saw enough of their regime. The hon. member for Durban (Point) complained about the fact that they cannot have a turn to put their case to the electorate over the radio, but can they remember what happened in 1960? Just before the referendum in that year, the leaders of all the parties had turns to speak over the radio. Those hon. members will remember that their leader addressed the people over the radio. Our late hon. leader also addressed the people over the radio. They know what the result of the referendum was. Sir, they can be thankful that our information Officer is not prepared to co-operate with them, because the more the public finds out about them, and the more the public knows about them, the fewer of them will be left after 22nd April.

Sir, I want to leave them and their negative attitude at that. They spoke very extensively about the staff and the conditions under which they work. In my time, I stood on cement floors in the Post Office and sorted letters.

And to-day?

Some of my former colleagues are sitting in those benches to your left, Mr. Speaker. From the way they carried on this afternoon, one gets the impression that the hon. the Minister is the man who must put through every telephone call for them; he is the man who must sort every letter for them. They do not understand the connection between the hon. the Minister and his department. When they criticize him, they are indirectly criticizing the department, the departmental heads, every staff member and every postman, because he does not do their work. He is at the head of the organization. They are the people who back him up. They are the people who backed up his hon. predecessor. And then hon. members blame the Minister. Surely that is wrong. I know that the Post Office staff and the hon. the Minister have a tremendous problem which they must overcome. We cannot argue away the shortage of telephones, but steps are being taken to face those problems and overcome them. Not one of those hon. members produced any positive ideas in this connection. They did not have a single word of appreciation for what has been done in the field of telecommunications under very difficult circumstances in this country. Two decades ago the growth rate in South Africa was approximately 4 per cent. To-day it is 6 per cent. Therefore, the growth rate is 50 per cent faster than what it was at that time. Tremendous growth has taken place in South Africa. The Post Office has to compete with many other undertakings to obtain staff, but in spite of that competition it has seen to it that there are communication services in South Africa of which we in South Africa, as well as the whole of Africa and the world, can be proud. About a year ago the hon. the Deputy Minister of Agriculture telephoned his farm in Groblersdal from my house. There were 14 farm-line subscribers, his foremen, to whom he spoke. He spoke to them one after the other without experiencing any delay. Talking about farms, Sir, I can tell you that, since April, 1966, the number of farm-line telephone services increased by 12,465, to bring the total to 104,404 on 30th September, 1969. I am only a layman where farming is concerned, but I think the Opposition said that there were 110,000 farmers when they were in power, while we now have only 90,000. This means that there is more than one telephone per farmer. I am referring only to farm lines now. They have no appreciation for that. They only use negative arguments all the time.

Modern trunk call services and microwave radio communications have expanded considerably. To-day all the main cities in the Republic are connected with one another by means of this system. In their time nothing like that existed. They did not know about it. This Government provided it. We are using the most modem techniques and aids available in the field of telecommunications. Sir, if you dial Cape Town from Johannesburg to-day, you are connected within a second.

And the other way round?

Sir, when I talk to my wife, it seems to me that she is here with me. I feel like putting my arm around her. [Interjections.] It is an excellent service, but we have not heard one word of appreciation for it. In the 20 years since 1949 the total number of postal articles handled rose from 665 million to 1,285 million. It has doubled. The Minister and his department have bought modern, highly complicated sorting machines. You can regard me as a human sorting machine which can sort 2,000 letters in half an hour, but those machines sort ten times as fast. These are all modern aids for which we get no appreciation.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member how long America and other countries have been using automatic sorting machines?

Sir, to compare us with America is the same as comparing me with the hon. member for Durban (Point). [Interjections.] We have motorized mail delivery. In the old days we walked on foot, but to-day it is done by means of a mechanical vehicle. I can continue refuting every negative argument of the Opposition so that it will fall down flat in the dust like a drop of rain, but I shall let this suffice. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to tell the hon. the Minister and his staff, all his officials, including the humblest and the least important in that department, that we have the fullest confidence in him and his department, in spite of problems being experienced by the department, which we shall overcome and master.

But you said that about Albert as well.

I want to conclude with this thought, and this is the difference between them and us: They concentrate on personalities; we concentrate on the cause. We believe in the cause, we stand by the cause and we will see the matter through.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech just made by the hon. member for Germiston District. It surprises me that the hon. member should support his Ministers when they deny that there is tapping of telephone lines. They are missing the point. The argument is this. We maintain that the lines are being tapped while the Ministers whom he supports deny this. We maintain that in a time of emergency, or even when a country finds itself at war, the Government is quite entitled to tap telephone lines but to-day we are supposed to be at peace, perfect peace. Here we are now being humiliated by the tapping of telephone lines. What worries us is that hon. members on that side of the House deny this accusation. Quite frankly, I would be surprised if the hon. member who has just sat down finds that he is again nominated for the constituency of Germiston District because his stories fluctuate. He is not consistent in his appraisement of the Ministers. Here is a credibility gap. When one sees what he said in a similar debate on Posts and Telegraphs on the 1st May, 1967 (Hansard column 5182) when another Minister held this portfolio, Dr. Albert Hertzog, from Ermelo, one finds that he had this to say about the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs:

He then goes further:

Now on the eve of an election, he comes here to say “dankie” to another Minister! Basically the problem facing this department is a shortage of staff. There is undeniably a crisis in the country as far as the supply of skilled technicians to the Post Office is concerned. There is a grave shortage of technicians and this is the main reason why this department and the Minister are in trouble to-day. The present shortage is due mainly to the service not being made attractive to the people. There is the housing problem. Very little is being done about the housing problem relating to these civil servants. There are furthermore inadequate wages and salaries and last but not least there is the objection to the way in which promotions are taking place. This objection comes from many people who supposedly supported that side of the House. These people are very dissatisfied; there is a large measure of discontent in this regard. We know that young and even inefficient officials are being promoted over the heads of older, experienced and very efficient men, and there is great dissatisfaction in this regard. To-day the hon. the Minister asked us to support him in his request for a vote of R172 million. While we are discussing this part appropriation, let me remind hon. members of what the hon. the Minister said last year when he asked us for an additional R13 million. I want to quote from a report which appeared in the Cape Argus in this regard:

Last year an additional R13 million was voted and we find to-day that the position has deteriorated. To-day we are being asked to vote another R172 million while the position is getting worse and worse. The number of telephones outstanding is no longer the same as that of the year before. Now no less than 89,000 telephones are outstanding according to the hon. the Minister. There is a backlog of no less than 89,000 telephones. When I asked for telephones for people in my own area, I was told that the shortage of telephones is not due to a shortage of instruments, the telephones, but more often than not there are not enough leads in the new blocks of flats being erected. The reason given for the lack of telephones is always that there are not enough leads. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, why, when these new blocks of flats and other buildings are being erected, his department cannot see to it that sufficient leads are provided within the structure of the building so that they need not have to wait until the building has been completed and then tell us that there are not sufficient leads? I say this because it is very difficult and expensive to install leads once a building has been erected.

I now come to the tapping of telephones. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana admitted this afternoon that telephones were being tapped in Durban. I regret that he is not in his seat at the moment but will hon. members deny that telephones are being tapped in East London and the border areas of the Eastern Cane? Will they deny this? I have reason to believe that my telephone is being tapped all the time. Heaven alone knows why. My phones are tapped when I am on my farms in Molteno and my telephone is tapped when I am on my farm in East London, and when I am in my flat in East London my telephone again is tapped, and this is how it is being done. Every time a new telephone directory is published, I find my number duplicated, with somebody else’s number. Here I have the directory for hon. members to see, and this has happened more than once. Here is the new telephone directory. My number is 24513. In the last directory my number was 4096. Then it was duplicated with someone else, too. What happens, Sir. is that when people want me on the telephone, they dial my number, but they do not get me direct. The exchange answers and asks, “Who do you want to sneak to?” When people reply “I want to speak to Mr. Wainwright”. they say, “Well, hold on. we will nut you through.” Then the call is put through to me. There is nothing secret about this, and then I hear radios playing, I hear fowls crowing, and heaven alone knows what I do not hear going on while I am speaking to the voter. I might mention in passing that I have complained about this. I am assured that something will be done when a new directory is published and that this will not happen again. But believe me. it does happen again.

Now we come to the S.A.B.C. and the disgraceful programme, “Current Affairs”, which people have to bear with whenever they switch the radio on. There are three essentials in all countries, particularly South Africa, with our large lines of communications, and where people very often are not privileged to enjoy watching a good game of sport or other entertainment. Number one is a good telephone service. The second essential is a good broadcasting corporation service. The third is a good television service. All three can be switched off if we do not want to listen to them. We all support the radio. No one on this side of the House condemns the S.A.B.C., the fact that it is there. Very often when I do not want to listen to the tripe they dish up, I switch it off. This can happen with television as well. Surely, hon. members need not be burdened if they are not interested in the programme on our future television. It is easy enough to switch it off. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has done anything about the assurance he gave us last year when we debated his Budget, the assurance that he would deal with any biased political talks on the radio. Here I have a cutting from Die Beeld of 23rd March, 1969. The caption reads:

The hon. the Minister said, according to Die Beeld:

Then he went on. [Interjections.] This is the hon. Minister’s newspaper. I quote again:

This “Current Affairs” broadcast is being made through the medium which belongs to every subscriber in South Africa. It does not belong to the Minister or the department, much less to those high officials who seem to have been appointed merely because they happen to be good Nationalists or good “broeders”. These broadcasts are becoming absolutely nauseating to us who have to bear with it every night or second night. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, what has he done in this regard—Did he act accordingly and so strictly—We should like to have the answer from the hon. the Minister, because when he was appointed Minister last year, we were expecting possibly too much, but he gave us the assurance that he would not tolerate any biased political addresses on current affairs programmes or any other programmes. I am not sorry for this Government for what is taking place. This is merely damaging their own image, i.e.: if there is anything left to be damaged. But I feel sorry for all the subscribers who have to put up with this unadulterated tripe. These actions are the acts of cowards. Where else does one find people attacking others, when they know that those who are being attacked, cannot defend themselves? This is nauseating, and annoying the public. But let them carry on! They are damaging their own image. I can assure them that the public are sick of it. During this coming election we will see what the public think about these broadcasts. We are looking forward to the election. I know for a fact that some Nationalists do not listen to the broadcasts either because they no more believe in what is being said, than I do.

If a Minister happens to say something, then he gets all the publicity. What he said, where he said it and when, is published and broadcast and is possibly corrected. But if anyone dare criticize this Government, then it is not news. It is not good for public consumption at all. This is how biased the whole programme is at the moment. I have no hesitation in saying now, that this is one of the reasons why this Government is going to suffer some heavy defeats on the 22nd April.

The instincts of the hon member for East London North, even if he does not have a sound judgment, are extremely blunted as far as the 22nd April is concerned. What will remain of that Opposition will be very little. This debate ought to be an important one. This Part Appropriation has been very clearly and succinctly elucidated by the hon. the Minister. I find it striking, and tragic as well, that the Opposition—this we all know—always opposed the idea to detach the Post Office from the Public Service. Despite the fact that this legislation was piloted through the House of Assembly, debated and discussed fully, they know absolutely nothing about this legislation. The hon. member for Orange Grove who is supposed to be an authority in this field, knows nothing whatsoever about it.

This shortage of telephones is not a serious one if seen in relation to the overall set-up of the postal services. I said this last year and I am going to reiterate that in 1948, in the days of the United Party, the shortage was 25 per cent. Now it is between 4 and 5 per cent, in spite of this tremendous growth in South Africa. But what is the actual position in regard to this new identity which the Post Office now has, with its Postmaster-General, three deputy postmasters-general and seven regional heads? It is a pity that the hon. member for Durban (Point) is leaving the House. I am eager to get to grips with him! They talk about the terrible shortage of telephones. Why do they not make a study of the various documents which are put at their disposal? They will then find that we are expanding the microwave and cable systems in order to increase the capacity for supplying telephone services. The work is making excellent progress, as is also indicated by the figures. Last year R35 million was spent on capital works. This is the highest figure since 1910. This year R52 million has been spent. Do hon. members on the opposite side not use the little sense they ought to have to ponder about what is happening to this R52 million? The trivialities they have come forward with tonight are shocking. What I found striking was what the hon. member for South Coast said. That hon. member knows very little about telephones, and I simply could not believe that the leader of that party in Natal would try to make political capital out of the take-over of the Durban Corporation Service by the Central Government. The hon. member for South Coast knows that the service they received before the take-over caused great problems. The hon. member for Berea as well as the hon. member for Durban (Point) came forward here with diatribes against the poor service which is now being rendered. They complained about the number of public telephone booths and confinement problems. The hon. member for Berea is a pharmacist and I doubt whether he knows much about confinements. I find it tragic that hon. members on the opposite side should come forward here in this House with trivialities, and that they do not do their homework. I have never found it necessary to approach the Minister to complain about a person who wants a telephone. I want to make it very clear that my constituency is one of the growth points of the Republic and that there is a very great shortage of telephones. However, I made use of the correct channels, i.e. the Department, the Postmaster-General and the Parliamentary Officers. I did not wail here in the House like a scalded cat. It is tragic that hon. members on the opposite side think that they are going to persuade the voting public prior to an election and convince them with this argument in regard to a shortage of telephones. What is unfair towards the present hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is that he took this House into his confidence and stated that the position would become aggravated up to and including 1971 in order to get the large capacity structure into operation first so that the shortage could then disappear. Now this matter is, however, being exploited for political reasons. I have the yellow booklet of the United Party in front of me. They are also a yellow party. They say it is orange, but the booklet is not the colour of an orange at all; it is yellow. Because my time is limited I just want to confine myself to item 2 in this booklet. If one were to glance at the Sunday Times of the past three years, one will see that the hon. member for Orange Grove has been given a great deal of publicity, on the front page, the back page, with minis and without minis. And what is dished up in this propaganda organ by the United Party? Virtually nothing is said, except in item 2 which reads as follows—

Do you know what they are doing here, Mr. Speaker? In South Africa we are developing a telephone equipment industry which will supply the needs of our country, and which I predict will become an export industry in the years which lie ahead. Just as in the case of Iscor, however, hon. members opposite are opposing it. They are again using the same modus operandi, i.e. that nothing which is done and manufactured in South Africa is good enough. They are trying in their pamphlets to bring this wonderful industry which we are developing to a standstill. By the way, I just want to mention for the sake of the record that the Sunday Times is kicking up a row about listening-in. The United Party now has another ally as far as kicking up a row about listening-in is concerned, namely this new newspaper, Die Afrikaner. If hon. members do not have anything on their conscience and if they have not done anything which they should not have done, what difference does it make who or what is listening in? I find this debating back and forth on listening-in ridiculous. I do not care who listens in to my telephone conversations. It does not worry me at all. What do I have to hide from the world, or what clandestine or underhand deeds am I committing that this should worry me? This is a ridiculous approach and I am convinced of this and have the confidence in this Government to believe that if there should be any listening-in it will be in the interests of public security and only then and not on any other basis. The hon. member for East London (North) came forward here with a ridiculous complaint to the effect that his name and that of another person appears under the same number in the telephone directory and that he hears a noise when he makes a call. I do not think the hon. member for East London (North) is so important that the ladies on the manual exchange, who work hard, will waste their time listening to his conversations.

The hon. member for Simonstown professes to be conservative, but when he appears in the rural areas, however, he is worse than any verkrampte. When I asked that member in a courteous manner this afternoon whether I could put a question to him, he told me he did not have the time. Where I have ten minutes at my disposal, that hon. member had half an hour, but he did not have the time to reply to me. However, I now want to put a question to the hon. member. The hon. member said that a new classification of post Office employees should be introduced. I want to ask the hon. member whether it is his idea that as far as exchanges are concerned, the persons who have to work there, whether on the automatic or the manual exchanges, should not be subject to the colour bar? Is that the idea the hon. member wants to leave in our midst, arising out of the request by certain commercial organizations? I want to know from the hon. member for Simonstown whether he would defend the hon. the Minister if he should decide to make use of non-Whites in exchanges. Why does the hon. member not say anything? This is also the argument of the Leader of his party in the Transvaal, i.e. the hon. member for Hillbrow, who will probably become the leader of the few members of that party who will remain. I want to inform hon. members on the opposite side that it will never happen under this hon. Minister that the colour bar is relinquished. The hon. members on the opposite side complain about the telephone shortage, but in 1966, when I came to this House for the first time, they complained about overspending in regard to Government Departments. Each time the hon. member for Durban (Point) as well as the hon. member for Hillbrow rose, there were complaints about overspending. Now, however, those hon. members are saying that an insufficient amount is being spent. In politics one must be able to use one’s judgment, and one must be able to act with political honesty.

This money is being taken, but what is being done with it?

Money is being taken and it is being scientifically utilized to make the entire posts system in South Africa an excellent one. If the hon. member for Durban (Point) is insinuating that the money is being taken for other purposes, it is deplorable. It is merely a further reflection on the employees in the Post Office. The hon. member for Durban (Point) must not make statements in this House against officials who cannot defend themselves. Hon. members on the opposite side also came forward with stories to the effect that the workers were unhappy. [Interjections.] I am prepared to take this matter up with the hon member for Durban (Point). He says: “You are taking the money, but what are you doing with it”. That was a reflection on every official in the Department of Posts. That is the tragedy of those people. They have no contact any more with the ordinary citizen. They have no feeling for the general public. Now they are coming forward here with a political courtship shortly prior to an election. But after the election they will return like an old widower who did not make the grade. The hon. member for South Coast is so concerned about Natal that he deemed it necessary to-day, while participating in the debate, to make political capital out of the question of the shortage of telephones. It was an extremely poor show. By way of repetition I just want to say—and I want to let that suffice—that the 22nd April will show that the shortage of telephones has nothing to do with this matter. It is a struggle between one principle and another and the National Party will be victorious.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) tried to create the impression here this evening that the Government was not prepared to face them in a debate on the radio. He accused me of informing them only last week that we were not prepared to do it. This aspect has two sides. I first want to deal with the hon. Point in regard to the statement which he made in this connection. After that I will discuss the merits of the case.

The hon. Point?

Yes, the hon. Point? The hon. member gave an account here in connection with a letter which had been addressed to me by the general secretary of the United Party. That is correct. Two letters arrived at my Office simultaneously. They were dated 19th December and 9th January, respectively. It is, however, an acknowledged custom in South Africa that we have a political truce over Christmas and New Year. When I arrived back at my Office and there found these two letters which they had written to me during the Christmas holidays to negotiate about matters of this kind, I immediately telephoned Senator Horak. At the third attempt I managed to get in touch with him. I then told him that I would submit the matter when the relevant party body met at the end of January. I did that. After that I informed Senator Horak that the decision was in the negative.

When, last week?

Yes, but surely last week was the week after the end of the month. That hon. member’s general secretary did not even take the trouble to make any suggestion as to the basis on which he wanted a broadcast of this nature to take place. I took the trouble to tell my party body to which I submitted the proposal that if one envisaged something like that it should be done on this or that basis. With reference to what the hon. member said in the House to-night, I now want to ask him to tell his general secretary that if this is the way in which they want to set about matters, they must not come to me with such requests again, because I will not be prepared to negotiate with them.

There is, however, another aspect which I want to mention in this connection. Why does that hon. member, who, together with his colleagues, maintains that the radio broadcasts are loaded with politics, want to use the radio at election time? As one who years ago pleaded in this House that we should use the radio for this purpose as well, I want to say that it is now becoming clear to me that those hon. members are seeking platforms by means of the radio which they are unable to obtain under their own steam. We now see what the motive of the hon. member for Point is. He realizes his complete inability to attract people, to inspire them with enthusiasm, to impress them and to make any headway, and now he wants to use the radio to present his case. I want to make the prediction this evening that after 22nd April, when the radio starts announcing the results, when we hear that peep-peep-peep sound, that hon. member for Point will again come to this House with a big grudge in his heart against the hon. the Minister and the radio. He will say that the radio did his party an injustice. I also want to predict that, no matter what the radio does, it will be obliged to tell the story of the downfall of that hon. member and his party. Suffice it to say that the attempt which the hon. member made here this evening, is clear proof to me that he and his party do not have a case.

I think we are in fact protecting him. If I call to mind the hon. member for Yeoville, who on occasion appeared on television, and the embarrassment he caused his party by his performance on television, I can visualize what embarrassment the hon. member for Durban (Point) would cause his party if he should speak over the radio at this election. Therefore I think that the hon. member must be grateful to me, my party and the hon. the Minister that at this election, as before, he will have to plead his case at his own miserable meetings.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs must be saying “Save me from my friends”. If the last two speeches to which we had to listen here are the climax of the debate from the Government side, I wonder what the hon. the Minister will be telling us.

The hon. member for Rustenburg, talking about listening in, says what difference does it make who listens in: if there is tapping, it will be done in the interests of South Africa. Naturally, we expect tapping to be done in the interests of South Africa. However, what we do not expect is for the Prime Minister of all men to deny that there is any listening in, when his own members are admitting that there is listening in and justify listening in.

Nonsense.

Is the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs going to get up and deny that there is any listening in?

I shall reply to you in my speech.

I only want the hon. the Minister to admit or deny. If he admits he will be contradicting the hon. the Prime Minister. I should like to see whether he has the courage to get up and tell the truth and deny what his Prime Minister has said. The hon. member for Rustenburg, talking about the hon. member for East London North’s difficulty in getting a line to himself and his complaints about all sorts of interjections that he can hear, says what does it matter who is listening to the conversations that the hon. member for East London (North) is having. I tried to telephone the hon. member for East London (North). He has a shared line. On three occasions just before coming down for this Parliamentary session I had to give up trying to contact him because the Post Office kept on putting me through on the wrong line. I want to know why the hon. member for East London (North) should have to battle like this to get a line when the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs can have an exchange to himself?

I should now like to come back to the hon. member for Stellenbosch. He said that he received a letter from the Secretary of the United Party during the holidays. And on the 9th of January, 20 days later, a reminder was sent to him. He said he then phoned Senator Horak, that they could not agree to it, because we did not make any suggestions as to how the broadcast should be arranged. A copy of the letter to the Broadcasting Corporation was sent to the hon. member

That is not so. You are talking through your hat.

The relevant portion dealing with the arrangements with other parties to have these broadcasts was sent to that hon. member. They turned it down. Why did they turn it down? They turned it down because of their experience in 1953. These members want to know why we should want to get on the air? We want to get on the air so that we can also have an opportunity of putting our case over the air and not only have the prejudiced biased broadcasts that we get over the air. That is why we want to get on the air. That is why the hon. member, the propaganda secretary, would not agree to it. That is why the Government would not agree to give the United Party an opportunity of putting their case across the air because they are afraid.

This hon. Minister, in common with the general attitude of the Government, is neglecting his civil servants in the same way as the Government is neglecting the rest of South Africa.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I only have another two minutes.

I lay at the door of this hon. Minister that he is as bad as any other Minister in neglecting his servants. I want to refer particularly to his servants in the Transkei. In the Transkei his servants are discriminated against. Other civil servants who are seconded receive special allowances. They receive housing allowances and territorial allowances. This applies to married and single civil servants. There is great exception taken to this fact. The Post Office officials feel aggrieved and rightly so. These people are not only in the big towns. They are also in the villages. That is where they have to carry out their duties. They find that the White people are moving out of the Transkei, moving out of the villages, moving out of the trading stations. His servants are being left alone in those tiny villages without social contact, without amenities and without educational facilities for their children. I lay it at their door that they are not looking after these servants. They should encourage these servants; they should repay them for the service they are rendering to South Africa in carrying out those duties in the villages and country districts of the Transkei. They are fulfilling a very serious need of the Transkei and those areas.

Oh no!

The hon. member says “Ag nee”—they are doing nothing. I would like him to go and sit in some little village where there are no other Whites. I would like him to go and sit in a village where everybody else is leaving and sit there alone with his wife and children for whom he will have to find schooling, without getting any compensation. The other civil servants are getting allowances. Why must they get allowances and not those of this Minister? He does not care for them. He does not worry about them. I am glad to see that at last he is going to build some houses for them in Umtata. It is taking him quite a long time to get those houses going. Unless he builds those houses quickly he will not have any servants. The hon. the Minister cannot deny that he is experiencing difficulties in finding servants to go to the Transkei for his postal services. He is finding difficulty in staffing the Umtata Office. He will not get the staff. He will have to do what the Cape Province is doing in regard to their teachers. They are giving them houses. They are giving them allowances because they realize it is difficult to get people to go there. This hon. Minister, I suggest, should do the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin at once with the hon. member for Turffontein who raised an important matter here in regard to the social pensioners. In this regard I briefly want to make the following statement.

When the amendments to the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act were dealt with during the previous session last year, I said in this House and in the Other Place as well that in regard to radio licence fees attention would be given to making concessions to the aged and other groups where justified by circumstances. In addition I undertook to give attention to cases where parents had children at boarding school or university. Concessions in this regard were held in prospect in view of the anticipated higher revenue which could be obtained from a more effective system of control over licences which could be rendered possible by amendments to the Radio Act and the Broadcasting Act. In accordance with this undertaking these matters were thoroughly investigated, and I can now inform the House that it has been decided to make, after the end of the current listener’s licence year on 30th September, 1970, the following general concessions: (a) from 1st October, 1970, listeners’ licences at R2 each will be issued to all recipients, White as well as non-White, of old-age pensions, war veteran’s pensions, disability grants and family allowances.

Our policy.

At the moment there is a relatively small number of social pensioners who, because of their particular neediness and other circumstances, are receiving licences at R1 each. The old tariff remains applicable even to those people receiving licences at this tariff at present; (b) children in school hostels, and full-time students who have enrolled at higher educational institutions and who are dependent upon their parents, will no longer have to take out separate licences after 1st October, 1970, but will be covered by those of the heads of the families of which they are members.

I want to emphasize that all existing licences expiring before 30th September, must be renewed for the remaining part of the current listener’s licence year. The fees payable upon the renewal of such licences, are calculated on a pro rata basis.

Mr. Speaker, the reaction we obtained from the three Opposition parties in this country when the television commission of enquiry was announced, is an interesting one. Each of the three parties attached its own interpretation to the object the Government had in view in taking this step. The Progressive Party wanted to suggest that the Government had yielded to the pressure which was being brought to bear upon it to introduce a television service. Of course, it suits the Progressives to attach this interpretation to it, because they would like to create the impression in South Africa and in the outside world that we have a government which is yielding to the pressure they are bringing to bear upon it. The United Party in turn describe it as a transparent attempt by the Government to remove from the election contest television as a controversial political issue. It also suits the United Party to attach this interpretation to the investigations of the commission. The United Party would very much like the electorate to believe that the Government will never introduce a television service in South Africa and that the United Party alone will introduce that television service. The reaction of the Herstigte Party was quite contradictory to that of the United Party. Admittedly, they also said that the appointment of a commission was merely eyewash, but they believe that the Government has already decided to introduce a television service, and that the appointment of a commission of enquiry was merely an excuse seized upon by the Government. It also suits them to attach such an interpretation to the appointment of this commission. The Herstigte Party would like the electorate to believe that the Government is going to introduce a television service in order that they may use it as a further bogey to make the electorate afraid of the Government.

And you are right in the middle.

Both of these views, that of the United Party and that of the Herstigte Party, cannot be true. Both of these views are wrong. The Government referred the matter to a commission of enquiry because in regard to this matter the Government sincerely wanted an exhaustive enquiry into the desirability or otherwise of such a service. The only decision the Government has therefore taken, is that the time has arrived, that it has become essential to have an enquiry into the desirability or undesirability of such a service. I notice that the hon. member for Yeoville is about to leave the House. Of course, the hon. member cannot bear this decision. I want to tell him that this decision has nothing to do with the election a* all. [Laughter.] Hon. members may laugh just as much as they please. In fact, this matter was under consideration long before the Government decided to advance the date of the election. Why would the Government attempt to keep this matter out of the election? Why would the Government be afraid of this matter being made a controversial issue in the election contest? They have been making this a controversial issue ever since 1958, and at every election since that date they were rejected television and all. Did they perhaps think that the establishment of the Herstigte Party, which we know to be the arch-enemies of a television service, would deter us from doing what is to be done in the true interests of South Africa? That little party will not deter us from doing the right thing in the interests of South Africa at the right time.

The accusation has been levelled against the Government that it is trying to shift its responsibility on to a commission of enquiry. This accusation has been levelled by both sides, by the Herstigte Party as well as the United Party. Of course, the fact that both of them have done so, does not make the accusation true. But I do not find this strange either, because they will to an increasing extent find themselves in fraternization in each other’s company. Although the Government has referred this matter to a commission of enquiry, it definitely does not mean that the commission will now give the ruling in regard to the introduction of a television service in South Africa. In the final analysis it still remains the Government’s responsibility to decide about it, and this Government has never tried to evade or shirk that responsibility. I said that I found the reaction of the Opposition parties very interesting. In some respects it is also very amusing. In his fervour to tell the electorate that the Government is not at all serious about the introduction of a television service, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition went out of his way to explain how long it would take the Government to introduce a television service in South Africa. He said that this commission of enquiry which we had now appointed, would take 2½ years before it would complete its report.

Or 13.

Order! Would the hon. member for East London (City) be so kind as to give the hon. the Minister a chance to make his reply?

He said that this would give the Government a breather to decide on this matter by the next elections in 1975, and should they take a decision before the elections, it would take another five to six years before television would be introduced. I am quoting the words he concluded with—

What did the hon. the Leader of the Opposition try to suggest by that and what did he try to tell the country? He never even gave it any thought. Here we have a Leader of an Opposition who does not take the 22nd April into account and does not even have a hope of winning an election in 1975; he does not even have a hope of winning an election in 1980. What a Leader of an Opposition do we have in this country!

This question can now quite rightly be asked —and I shall not take it amiss of anybody— why did the Government decide to appoint a commission of enquiry into this matter at this stage? In 1960 Dr. Verwoerd very clearly stated the National Party standpoint in regard to television in this House.

[Inaudible.]

Is the hon. member for Green Point, who is mumbling so in his seat, afraid to listen to our standpoint? The hon. member should speak up if he wishes to say something.

The hon. the Minister has been waiting for nine years to react.

Why does the hon. member judge before he has listened to what I have to say in regard to this matter? The least the hon. member can do, is to have the courtesy of showing respect to me while I am replying to him. In 1960 the late Dr. Verwoerd said the following, and I quote—

This quotation is taken from column 3008 of the Hansard of 1960. Hon. members should note that the then Prime Minister placed the emphasis on the fact that the State could not decide in favour of television at that stage. Secondly, he emphasized that the time was not ripe for the introduction of television, neither in the scientific, the economic or the socio-educational sphere.

That was 10 years ago. Much time has passed since then. Both in the scientific sphere and the economic sphere the picture as regards television is no longer the same as it was then. The development of scientific techniques over the past 10 years has been tremendous. A possible television service which can be introduced now, is a service of much higher quality with much better technical possibilities than the type of service which could be introduced 10 years ago. A factor which could also have entered the picture since 1960, is the fact that the possibility of inter-state television broadcasts by means of satellites has arisen. This is an important technological development to which we cannot keep our eyes closed. We still have to take expert advice on the effects it may have, but we cannot ignore it.

It goes without saying that economically a possible television service to-day is quite a different proposition from what it was in 1960. Dr. Verwoerd also referred to this in 1960, when he said (translation)—

Because of the development that has taken place since then, it may be accepted that a TV service for South Africa would be a very much cheaper service to-day than would have been the case in 1960. I do not want to discuss a television service in the general economic set-up of the country. This is a matter which will be investigated by the commission of enquiry. I want to refrain from interfering in their investigations or anticipating their findings.

However, I want to call attention to another development which has since taken place in the economic sphere and in respect of which a change has occurred. This is the existence and the cost of television channels required for a country-wide television service. These television channels am expensive and specialized. One such channel must have a capacity equivalent to a channel capable of carrying approximately a thousand telephone conversations at the same time. This has to be provided by the communications department of the country, i.e. the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. The possibility that in view of the great distances in South Africa the possibility that a television organization can be expected to lay on such channels of communication itself so as to be able to provide an extensive service, is economically and in practice quite out of the question. In the course of years the Post Office has built up a micro-wave system of communications by means of which television channels can be provided. This has been done to meet the growing demand for trunk-like telephone communications. Even five years ago this system was still too limited in extent for us to provide on it channels through which it would have been possible to make available a television service covering a reasonably large part of the country. If a service had to be introduced at that time, it could only have been a limited service on a regional basis. Such a service could only have had one programme and everybody would consequently have had to view it. At present the position is such that it is at least possible to give consideration to the cost of providing television communication channels on the existing micro-wave system. It will still be expensive, but it no longer means that a separate system will have to be built up.

Scientifically and economically the picture has therefore changed to such an extent that it fully justifies an investigation. I do not know how the picture has changed in the socio educational sphere, but what I do know is that viewed from a socio-educational point of view a poor and unsound television service still holds great dangers to-day. This is an aspect which, according to their terms of reference, the commission has to investigate. Who can adopt an attitude of indifference to the possible harmful effects which such a service may have on the morale and morals of the nation, and especially the youth? With the attitude they are adopting, the United Party apparently wants to suggest that this is a matter of absolute indifference to them. This is the question which is of primary importance to us. The commission of enquiry will have to investigate this matter thoroughly. There can be no doubt about the fact that we are still adhering to our view that an open television service is not something pernicious. If anybody had therefore tried to suggest that it was something pernicious, he was not pursuing National Party policy when he made that suggestion.

What about Connie Mulder?

Connie Mulder definitely did not do it. The attitude we adopted was that the time was not yet ripe for it, since it would cost a great deal and high priorities did not justify it. This is something which may hold dangers and should be approached cautiously. This has always been our standpoint. In the light of these circumstances it is logical, once circumstances have changed to such an extent that it would be realistic to give consideration to a possible television service, first of all to go into this whole matter fully and to subject every aspect of it to a thorough, expert study.

The Government is definitely not prepared, as the United Party wants to do, to proceed precipitately all of a sudden and to announce the introduction of a television service without having taken the best advice as to what is involved. If the United Party thinks that such a commission of enquiry, which has now been appointed, is unnecessary, I want to say in all seriousness to-night that in that case the United Party is adopting an extremely indifferent attitude to the interests of this nation. Can anybody consider the introduction of this powerful means of communication for the masses, for our population, one of the most heterogeneous populations in the world, without experts having reflected on its individual and joint effects on the various sections of our population, and without knowing what the needs are of every section of the population? I have already referred to the possible harmful effects which such a service may have on the morale and the morals of the nation and our youth. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Durban (Point) should rather keep quiet. He thinks very little of morale and morals. The cost of such a service on a national basis, how it is to be financed as well as its effect on our national economy, are matters about which we cannot afford to decide without taking expert advice. The United Party always has a great deal to say about our manpower position, but where television is concerned the United Party simply does not care two hoots about what happens to that manpower position, for then they want a television service for the sake of amusement. The United Party has also been suggesting throughout this whole debate that they are very concerned about the provision of telephones and the provision of a telephone service of a better standard, but when it comes to a television service for the sake of amusement, they forget about a telephone service, the technicians and the professional manpower needed for building up that telephone service and making that telephone system possible in South Africa.

Then we have the Afrikaans language and culture about which—and this one can understand very well—the United Party has never in its entire history cared two hoots. This is another matter which this commission of enquiry has to investigate.

You have had 22 years to do all of this.

The hon. member for Yeoville is merely trying to divert my attention. He knows what he is trying to do. He realizes that he has been cornered, and now he would like to get out of it. After all, that is the way we know him, Sir. Unlike the extremely irresponsible attitude adopted by the United Party in regard to this matter, I want to state with great emphasis to-day that up to now the action taken by the Government in this matter has never been anything but extremely responsible towards the people of South Africa. No responsible government may, as far as the interests of its people are concerned, take any action other than having a thorough investigation made into all the many important aspects which I mentioned and which are included in the terms of reference of the commission, before taking any further decisions whatsoever in regard to this matter.

When do you expect the report?

Do you see, Sir? They are trying to divert my attention because they are so afraid of what I still have to say about this matter. As Government we have a duty towards the country, and this duty we per formed by appointing a commission, consisting throughout of people of note. They are persons who are recognized experts on the matters mentioned in the terms of reference. We must bear in mind that in the Western world no two television systems are designed, controlled and organized in the same manner. There is no such thing as a general recipe for a general television service, a recipe which we may take over and introduce into our country just as it stands. Therefore, it would not bring us any further to give on television as such an opinion based on the harmful effects of other systems which cannot meet our own needs and cannot satisfy our particular requirements and, in any case, cannot be considered for our country. I say that it is extremely irresponsible of the United Party to adopt such an attitude. That is why this investigation is necessary. It will enable the Government to assess the extent to which present-day technological developments may have the effect that South Africa may shortly be placed in a position where we ourselves will not be able to exercise full control over our own atmosphere as far as communications are concerned. That is why this investigation is being instituted. In conclusion I want to emphasize once again that the Government is definitely not acting under the pressure of any interest group seeking only their own gain, nor under the pressure of the official Opposition, which seeks to derive superficial political advantage from this matter.

Now I come to the question of the tapping of telephone conversations. I find myself in an unenviable position to-night, because a small party has now been formed, a party which in public, in the country outside, is launching attacks on me in regard to this commission of enquiry into television which has been appointed recently, in regard to the alleged tapping of telephone conversations in the Post Office, and because I did not re-appoint Dr. Weiss to the board of control of the South African Broadcasting Corporation. Sir, all afternoon I have been sitting here waiting for one of those members to rise and have the courage of his convictions to attack me here across the floor of the House and to repeat their allegations, the allegations they are flinging at me outside this House, in public. They have had a lot of time to do so. All that happened in respect of the tapping of telephone conversations, was that Albert Hertzog said “Catch him!” outside, and now the U.P. mastiffs are charging at me here. That is all that happened. The people of South Africa will not fail to notice that such wonderful fraternization has already taken place between the United Party and the Herstigte Party. The United Party has been making attacks in regard to telephone tapping all these years. The hon. member for Ermelo sat here and denied it. But hardly had he left the National Party than he launced the same attacks. Where is he now? He was here this afternoon. I heard that he would perhaps take part in the debate to-night. Sir, he is absent. This is the courage we find in this little party, the Herstigte Party.

The hon. member for Wonderboom is laughing about it.

One usually laughs when one does not have courage. What else can one do? In regard to this accusation I want to say that in reply to a question I have already made the position very clear to the hon. member for Orange Grove. I left him in no uncertainty about what is happening in the Post Office. In reply to a question by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. the Prime Minister also stated very explicitly that no authorized tapping of telephone conversations took place or existed. I want to add that as far as my own Department is concerned, the position is as follows: In terms of instructions Post Office staff have been forbidden to plug in to telephone conversations, except when it is necessary to ascertain whether a conversation is in progress or to exercise control over the quality of the telephone service. Nor may they remain plugged in to a conversation for a longer period than is strictly necessary for these purposes. Besides, all telephone operators, technicians and other staff are bound by an oath of secrecy forbidding them to disclose any information they may happen to hear through plugging in to a telephone conversation. As far as the Post Office staff is concerned, this position has applied for as long as the Post Office telephone service has been in existence, and the position is the same as it was under all former Ministers of Posts and Telegraphs. I want to add most emphatically that I was appointed as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs two years ago, and that I have not in one single case authorized anybody to tap telephone conversations.

Who is doing the tapping then?

The position is, as I have already informed the hon. member for Orange Grove, that there are to-day electronic and other apparatus by means of which conversations may be tapped without connecting this apparatus to the telephone system. In fact, this type of apparatus can not only be used to tap telephone conversations, but also to tap ordinary conversations between persons in their homes or Offices or at a distance, without using the telephone system for that purpose at all. The hon. member for Orange Grove wanted to know what was being done about this matter. He said that something had to be done about it and that America was making investigations in this regard. This is a world-wide problem for which no solution has been found as yet. That is why America is making investigations in this regard. The hon. member for Umbilo came forward here with wonderful evidence, as he intimated. He mentioned two cases in support of his statement. He said that this had happened in regard to the telephone system of the Durban Corporation in 1960. In what way did the telephone system of the Durban Corporation concern the Post Office in 1960? [Interjections.] This is not a matter which should be raised with me. The hon. member should raise the matter on the Prime Minister’s Vote.

One of your officials was present.

The hon. member went further by saying that the telephone manager of the Durban Corporation had given him the assurance that if tapping took place, officials had to be aware of it. In point of fact, tapping can take place without an apparatus having to be connected to the telephone system first. How can the Post Office staff ever be aware of that? I want to tell the hon. member that that telephone manager was, what is more, telephone manager of a very limited system only. He had never been in the service of the Post Office anywhere else. Under these circumstances, and once again I find myself in the difficult position to which I referred, I found it interesting to hear the other day how the hon. member for Innesdal had demanded my dismissal. He said that if it were not because of ignorance, it was because I was incompetent. He was digging a pit for me. He had already started burying me in that pit, Sir, when he found out that he himself was in a very sorry plight. Did the hon. member for Innesdal not consult his leader, the hon. member for Ermelo, to find out what listening-in means? If he had consulted him, and he was unable to tell him, then either the hon. member for Ermelo’s memory failed him, or he did not do his homework properly when he was a Minister. If that is not the case, this was simply a blatant attempt to reveal a military secret of this country.

I shall now deal with the telephone services. I am very sorry that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition is not here to-night. In the Sunday Tribune dated 25th January, 1970, he said he believed that the backlog in telephone services could be made up by doing the following: Firstly, by making more capital available; secondly, by lifting the unnecessary restriction or the importation of cables and telephone equipment from countries abroad; and, thirdly, by making use of private enterprise until such time as enough telephones would be available. This also happens to be stated here, in the yellow booklet of theirs, as the policy of the United Party. Sir, he says more capital should be made available. Really, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must be a stranger in this country to say that more capital should be made available. Does the hon. the Leader now know that during the financial year 1968-’69 an amount of R39 million was spent on the improvement of our telecommunication services, and that this is a record amount in the history of the South African Post Office?

Has the backlog been made up yet?

Does the hon. the Leader know that in respect of the current financial year provision has been made for R52 million for improving our telecommunication services, which amounts to an increase of 33 per cent on the expenditure during the previous year? Can it be the case that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and also the hon. member for Yeoville, who sits there making such absurd interjections, are unaware of the fact that one cannot merely make unlimited capital available without taking into account one’s ability to utilize it productively? What the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party are suggesting, is already being done. So much capital is being made available that the Minister of finance is actually complaining about it. The availability of material, equipment as well as technicians will simply render it impossible to spend more capital productively. But this is one of their solutions—make more capital available.

Let us see what their other solution is, i.e. to lift unnecessary restrictions on the import of cables and telephone equipment from countries abroad. When the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says this, I must unfortunately tell him that he does not know what he is talking about, for neither I, nor my Department, and what is more, nor the manufacturers of telephone equipment are aware of these restrictions the hon. the Leader is referring to. Where did the hon. the Leader hear this? Did the hon. member for Orange Grove tell him about it? Surely, by this time the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party ought to know that they cannot believe the hon. member for Orange Grove. The fact of the matter is simply that the manufacturers of telephone equipment have increased their production capacity tremendously in order to keep pace with the increased demand. What could not be manufactured in South Africa, was simply imported. No complaints or excuses to the effect that their activities have in any way been curbed by import restrictions have ever been received from the suppliers. I may just add that in certain cases overseas manufacturers have asked their South African factories to assist with the production. Problems in finding sufficient technical and professional workers are also being experienced in countries abroad. I have already said that two of the United Party’s solutions are no good. What they are suggesting, is already being done, and there are no restrictions. In any case, the solutions suggested by that side of the House, do not help me out of these difficulties at all. The hon. the Leader goes on to say that, in the third place, we should make use of private undertakings until such time as sufficient telephones are available. Does the hon. the Leader not know what is going on in South Africa? Does the hon. the Leader not know that as far back as 1968, just a few months after I had become Minister, I announced that contracts for the installation of automatic exchanges would be given to suppliers of equipment?

How many have been installed?

Fourteen. Negotiations for further contracts of that nature are already in progress. In addition, the laying of underground cables has already been allocated to private organizations on a contract basis. Apparently the hon. member for Orange Grove, because apparently he told all these stories to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, knows nothing about this.

The hon. member for East London (North) came forward with a brand new solution. He wanted to know from me why I did not ask the people who are constructing large buildings, to lay these cables at the same time. I am sure that if the hon. member for Orange Grove had heard this a few months ago, it would also have been printed in this yellow booklet. I am indebted to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the United Party for these suggestions they have made. In point of fact, this is nothing less than an admission that the official Opposition is incapable of doing more about the matter than is already being done. All the criticism they have been levelling at the telephone service, simply does not go down.

Two years ago, when I became Minister and when the Post Office became independent from the Treasury, I gave the assurance, with certain reservations, that within the next five years the Post Office would for the most part make up the backlog in telecommunication services. The reservations I made, were the recruitment of staff as well as the retention of trained and experienced manpower. At that time I also said that the backlog and the waiting list for telephone services would keep on growing until 1971, after which it was expected to show a downward trend. I have repeated this matter on three different occasions, and to-night I want to say that I still abide squarely by this assurance which I gave at the time. In 1968, and last year as well, I furnished in this House a detailed explanation of the reasons for the backlog, and I do not want to do so again. Hon. members opposite are welcome to read what I had to say about this matter in 1968 and in 1969. Having read that, they would not say the absurd things which they said in this debate to-day and to which we had to listen. Having read that, they would at least be able to discuss this matter intelligently, and would at least have been able to express intelligent criticism on what I am doing and on what I ought to do according to them. I want to repeat that this backlog in respect of our telephone services has nothing to do with weak administration at all. It also has nothing to do with planning or with the inefficiency of staff. It has nothing to do with a weak Minister or a weak Government. On the contrary, it has everything to do with a good Government which governs the country in such an excellent manner and which has stimulated and unleashed such tremendous economic growth through its sensible financial policy that bottlenecks have developed in our economy. One of those bottlenecks is the shortage of telephones. I should like to say something to those giggling and laughing hon. members on that side of the House. I should like to furnish proof for my statement that we have a rapidly growing economy. On 30th September, 1968, there were 24,750 names on the waiting list for telephones on the Witwatersrand. Subsequently 38,969 telephones were provided over a period of one year. Normally this would have wiped out the backlog. But what was the number of telephones outstanding on 31st December, 1969? At that stage the number of names on the waiting list amounted to 29,229. This is not an old waiting list which we are struggling and battling with; it is a growing waiting list which, as a result of the economic growth, we have to contend with in these times. On 30th September, 1968, there were 3,071 names on the waiting list for Pretoria. We subsequently provided 16,457 telephones during the period I mentioned before, i.e. during that year. At the time I really thought that Pretoria would no longer have a waiting list. But on 31st December. 1969, there was another waiting list of 4,388.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, unfortunately I do not have sufficient time at my disposal, for I have to finish within an hour. My old friend, you are going to ask a very absurd question in any case. I know it because, after all, I do know you.

Look at the position in the Cape Peninsula and in Durban. A great deal was said about Durban because in Durban there was a waiting list of 8,638 telephones. At that stage we had not yet added the 4,000 names on the waiting list of the Durban Telephone Corporation. At the time 8,768 telephones were provided, but on 31st December, 1969, there was a waiting list in Durban, no longer of 8,600, but of 13,887.

But how many of them were on the original waiting list?

That hon. member for Durban (Point) has not been listening, surely. Hon. members on that side of the House do not understand that basically the capital extension programme of the Post Office in respect of telephone services consists of two parts. In the first place, there is the extension of the capacity of the service. In the second place, there is the utilization of that capacity, i.e. the provision of telephones. When those hon. members speak about telephone services and the provision of telephones, they simply think that it is an easy matter and that the telephone merely has to be installed. They think one can simply go on providing telephones, and accuse us of not being able to keep ahead in doing this. If this were all we did, we could have caught up with this waiting list a year ago. But then we would have been saddled with a telephone service which would simply have broken down. If that had been the case, our telecommunication buildings would not have been big enough to accommodate our telephonists. We would simply no longer have been able to maintain the telephone service by means of the manually operated telephone exchanges any more. This is not merely a question of the extension of the telephone service in South Africa. We are also dealing with a question of the modernization and the automation of this service. In my Budget speech to-day I pointed out that good progress had been made in regard to the extension of the capacity, and that good progress was being made in regard to the utilization of the capacity of our telephone system. This is where Opposition members are making a mistake, i.e. they want to measure the extension of our telephone system against the increase in the number of names on the waiting list. Then they say that we are doing nothing and that the service which is being rendered, is a rotten one. This is a totally wrong criterion to use. This is not a good barometer.

What other criterion is there?

This is, of course, far too complicated for the hon. member for Yeoville to grasp. The achievements of the Post Office as regards the extension of our telecommunication and telephone services, should be measured against the provision of telephone services in this country—that is the criterion. During the financial year 1967-’68 176,300 telephone services were provided. During the next year, i.e. 1968-’69, 209.563 telephone services were provided. This points to an increase, in one year’s time, of 19 per cent on the tremendous number of telephone services already provided.

How many were transfers?

But, surely, transfers also involve work, not so?

But they are not new services.

I was not referring to new services. After all, I told you in my Budget speech what the new services are. I am referring to the provision of telephone services. The provision of services within the same central area is not included in this figure. Only the provision of transfers from one central area to another is included in this figure. Therefore it is obvious what our problems are.

The hon. member for Orange Grove said to-day that note was taken of the people by whom the Post Office was being criticized. He said that even an economist of note, i.e. Dr. M. D. Marais, had expressed criticism. In this regard he quoted from an article taken from the Sunday Times. As far as this was concerned, the hon. member’s information was very much out of date. Dr. Marais denied that report which appeared in the Sunday Times. In Die Transvaler of 15th December Dr. Marais said, inter alia, the following (translation)—

And this is at the same time a reply to all the rubbish we had to hear from the hon. member for Durban (Point).

I should like to treat the hon. member for South Coast with respect, and I really do not know what made him so terribly angry this afternoon. I do have respect for him. I do not think I have ever given the hon. member for South Coast cause to be so terribly offended. The hon. member for South Coast complained about the telephone services subsequent to our taking over the telephone corporation in Durban. He said the service had deteriorated. There are many other parts of the country where complaints are also being heard about the service, and I do not mind admitting it. I am being sincere in regard to this matter, because why should I be insincere about these matters?

In my Department nothing is being done which need be hidden under the counter. We took over that Durban Corporation service on 1st April, 1969, as the hon. member himself knows. We took over that telephone corporation with nearly all its employees. That is why this cannot possibly be the case, and I do not hope the hon. member for South Coast now wants to level against the employees the accusation that they have deteriorated because they are now working for the State. What is more, we also provided extra staff to improve the position there. After all, hon. members should also bear in mind that the system we took over there, was a fairly outdated one. We should therefore have expected to encounter problems there at some time or other. The hon. member for South Coast should, after all, not be unfair, unjust and unreasonable towards me or the Post Office. It is impossible for us to extend that telephone system of the Durban Corporation the way it ought to be in the short time it has been in our possession. The hon. member ought to know that one needs time to plan. The hon. member ought to know that it takes a factory two to three years to execute the orders placed with it. Furthermore, the hon. member ought to know that it takes 18 months to instal that apparatus. In spite of that the hon. member for South Coast became furious with me here this afternoon because I had been unable to straighten out the Durban Corporation service within 10 months. I think this is unfair.

What about the wasted calls?

No, the hon. member must refrain from making interjections, because he will just become angry again. I want to tell the hon. member calmly and quietly that he should not work himself up like that. The hon. member is no longer a spring chicken and he really ought not to work himself up about such trivialities. Let us discuss this matter in a calm, quiet and sensible manner. The hon. member might as well give me a chance to finish. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that if he is unable to dial a number, because of drinking too much water and being unable to see the digits properly, he should not accuse the Post Office.

That is about as cheap as you are.

I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that if it can be proved that something is the matter with a person’s automatic telephone system, it will be tested and he will be refunded for all the calls that were put through to wrong numbers.