Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Chairman, I think I am an incurable optimist when it comes to the Post Office. Even in this morning’s newspaper there appears a report of an interview given by me in which I stated that looking at the statistics and the finances of the Post Office, the hon. the Minister would not and should not increase tariffs. What has come this afternoon has been a shock to every one of us, including the hundreds of thousands of telephone-users throughout South Africa. I would have thought that a sensible Minister, having regard to the effect that this will have on inflation, would have done everything in his power to have prevented this increase. A sensible Minister, seeing that an increase in tariffs would not mean a proportionate increase in income, certainly would not have thought of coming with this drastic increase at this present moment. Sir, I am still holding the hon. the Minister to the promise made by him in 1971 that there would be no tariff increases for five years, despite his very feeble excuses here today. Mr. Speaker, there is one obvious source of finding this R20 million he needs. He need only end the telephone shortage of 100 000. Each telephone account brings in on an average, according to his own figures, R200 per annum. R200 multiplied by 100 000 gives R20 million. That will give him all the money he needs.

What about the cost?

This Budget undoubtedly comes as a cruel shock to the country; it will also be a cruel shock to commerce and industry who are amongst the greatest users of our trunk-line services. Trunk-line hand-operated phone calls are going up from 3c to 4c. Automatic telephone rentals are going up about 50%, while the ordinary telephone user is hit by this terrific increase of 50% annually in the rental, from R24 to R36 per annum. How can the hon. the Minister expect sufficient income from the telephones if he discourages his main customers, the telephone users, from installing telephones?

The hon. the Minister mentioned that there would be a change in some of the switching systems in the different exchanges. He referred to the Strowger system which has been in use for some time in South Africa. Do you know where that system we are using today originated, Sir? I take you back to America, to Kansas City, in the year 1889, and who was Mr. Strowger? Who was this man who originated our system? A funeral parlour director in Kansas City in the year 1889! There have been improvements since then in that system but basically it is still the same and 54% of the equipment of the Post Office today is more than 20 years out of date. Now the hon. the Minister is at last coming with an electronic system which he wants to introduce. I tell him that it will take him at least 30 years before that electronic system can replace the antiquated system we have today. Sir, I shall not continue at great length.

†I wish to conclude by saying that this debate will be continued tomorrow. These were only a few preliminary remarks. I can only say that this Budget is disappointing, it is sad, it is without vision, it is only patchwork, it will lead to greater inflation, it will cut the growth rate and it will be a tragic thing for South Africa during the year ahead.

I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In this Bill additional appropriations of R5 207 500 are requested for operating expenditure and R7 600 000 for capital expenditure. The items on which the additional appropriations are required are given in the Estimates of Additional Expenditure which have been tabled.

On the operating side, the largest appropriation is needed to raise the provision for depreciation from R26 750 000 to R35 700 000. This is in accordance with a recommendation by the Franzsen Committee on Post Office Financing, to the effect that adquate provision should be made for the possible premature replacement of assets owing to technological developments.

The additional appropriation for standard stock capital is needed to cover increased costs of stocks and also to provide for additional material that has to be kept in stock for the large telecommunications expansion programme.

No provision existed in the original Estimates for the cost of raising foreign loans as the department only acquired the legal power to raise such loans after the Estimates had been approved.

On the capital expenditure side, the largest item is an increase in the provision for telecommunication services. The reason for the increase is the effect of currency exchange rate fluctuations and a steep rise in the cost of imported and locally manufactured telecommunications equipment.

I can give the House the assurance that the additional expenditure cannot be postponed without detriment to the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the explanation of the hon. the Minister and there are one or two questions that I should like to ask him. First of all, there is this item of R4 600, namely a gift to the International Telecommunication Union. There are other questions, too, which I should like to ask him, but I do think that it will be better if I ask them in the Committee Stage.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1: Revenue Services, R5 207 500, and Schedule 2: Capital Services, R7 600 000:

Mr. Chairman, there is an interesting little amount here of R4 600 which is being requested, i.e. the gift to the International Telecommunications Union. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what that amount is for. Perhaps he could then just say, in passing, what our present relationship with that international organization is, and if it is possibly a small gift to them so that they will be more friendly disposed towards us than they are at present.

†I see there is an amount which is being made available for depreciation, an amount of R3 362 900. May I ask the hon. the Minister whether the idea is to build up a large depreciation fund which can be a kind of nest-egg for the Post Office, because according to his Estimates of capital expenditure he is going to use—he can do that— R40 million of his depreciation funds for financing capital expenditure this year. He explained the cost of raising foreign loans to us. Is the R840 000 which he is asking simply the real cost or does it include raising costs to agents, etc.? I take it that it will include the agency fees and matters of that nature. After I have heard the hon. the Minister on this, I may have something more to ask.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the first amount of R4 600 is concerned, I want to point out that we discussed and despatched this matter in the House last year during the Additional Appropriation. However, because the amount could not be paid over then, it is now appearing again and must be included here. I shall nevertheless comply with the request to say why it is being included here, so that this may now also be on record. Certain additions and extensions are being done on the headquarters of the International Telecommunications Union building in Geneva. They subsequently made a request to members to contribute to the furnishing and decoration of the headquarters. South Africa, as a good, honourable member of that union, with which we co-operate and get on very well, regarded it as its duty to make a contribution consisting of a table and 16 chairs and a wooden wall panel, all from South African wood. It was donated with the intention that it would be used in one of the committee rooms. As I say, it was provided last year, but owing to circumstances it lapsed.

Yes, now I remember it quite well.

As far as the question of depreciation is concerned, this was, of course, done according to the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee. The previous amount, of course, did not include all the recommended items of the Franzsen Committee. This new amount is structured on the more complete Franzsen Committee’s item list.

Then the hon. member asked a question in connection with the amount of R840 000. This has to do with the negotiating of loans. Hon. members know that we have to pay bank costs. The moment they take up the loan, we must pay certain moneys to them, and that is included.

Mr. Chairman, there is a new item on the Estimates this year, namely “Increase of standard stock capital” and the increase amounts to R1 million. In last year’s Budget under Capital Account we had an increase of standard stock capital shown as non-recurrent of R10 400 000. I wonder if the hon. the Minister could tell us why we have this item now in Revenue whereas we had it on the Capital Account in the original Estimates.

Mr. Chairman, it is of course necessary for supplementing our stock. We need the greater amount of stock, and this would also give us a bigger programme. The reason for the change here is because the Controller and Auditor-General desires it. We are not people who can afford to quarrel with him. It is perhaps necessary for book-keeping reasons, but the actual significance is to further consolidate our stock position in the bigger programme we are tackling here.

Mr. Chairman, I listened to the hon. the Minister’s reasoning, but I would like him to go a little bit further. In terms of the Controller and Auditor-General’s requirements, is the position now that the standard stock account will be treated as a Revenue Account, whereas previously it was treated as a Capital Account? Is that what is going to happen? In last year’s Estimates we had portion of the amount in the Capital Account and now as a result of the additional Estimates we have a portion of it in the Revenue Account.

Mr. Chairman, according to the Controller and Auditor-General’s request it boils down to that. Of course we have no choice in this respect if it is his wish that it be done this way. Here I have a note on this question. The Controller and Auditor-General wants it to be done this way, but it remains the same …

It is indicated against the Revenue item.

Yes, and he desires it that way.

Mr. Chairman, I am not quite satisfied with the reply of the hon. the Minister. The Controller and Auditor-General wants it to be done this way, and I accept that he has good and acceptable reasons for it. However, I want to know from the hon. the Minister why the Controller and Auditor-General wants it to be done this way. Why must it be transferred from the Capital Account to the Revenue Account? In that respect he owes this House an explanation.

The Controller and Auditor-General wants it to be done this way because he basically regards this as operating expenditure. He feels that this belongs here as operating expenditure.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I raised a query with the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate on the interpretation of the amendment which is here proposed. We are completely at one with the hon. the Minister in regard to the objective aimed at; we accept it. I wish to query whether the way in which it is worded does not in fact restrict the hon. the Minister in his intentions. We know that if possible the legal profession uses ten words to say what it could say in one. That makes it easier to argue a case and leads to more litigation. Our object here is to avoid litigation and argument by making this as clear as possible. Therefore I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not consider that this amendment in the form it is worded means that each member of the Defence Force must be individually and specifically designated by the Minister to perform a particular task with regard to the combating of terrorism, and if it does mean that, does that not make it administratively difficult for the Minister to achieve the objects at which he is aiming?

Mr. Chairman, after the hon. member had taken this matter up with me yesterday, I went into it. I have been assured by the law advisers that it has in fact been taken into account that this provision as it now reads will not place an extra burden on the department as compared with the burden which it bears today because provision is in any case being made for groups, whether large or small, to be designated by means of orders. An order has to be issued to every individual in such a group. I am nevertheless prepared to consider it once again, if the hon. member would leave it at this. Then we can make provision for it in the Other Place if it should appear that the hon. member has a point which is in any way not covered by the provisions of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister confirms that I am correct in my interpretation by saying that, in fact, each member of the S.A.D.F. must be individually designated. He has implied that in his reply to me. He said that in any case orders are issued by which each individual person is instructed to perform a task. I tend to query that in practice; an order will be given to a commanding officer to take X men and to perform Y duty. What is then published in the orders, is an order to the unit. The unit then does not always publish an order specifically detailing by name the individuals who must carry out that order. I accept that all tasks are carried out by way of orders which are issued, but those orders can be issued to a unit, or to a detachment commander, or to the commander of an aircraft who would be instructed to take a certain number of people with him and to carry out a certain task. What I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider is the addition to this clause of words along lines I shall propose. As I say, I am not a lawyer; I look for simple explanations. As a simple soul I see this as a more effective clause if one were to add words stating, for instance, “a member of the South African Defence Force engaged in a category of duties or within a specified area expressly designated by the Minister”. That would enable the hon. the Minister to classify types of duties or areas of operation as being designated occupations for the purpose of this clause, instead of having to go through the rigmarole of a detailed designation of every individual member of the Defence Force concerned. If he were, for example, to classify the operation of supplying persons in the Caprivi Strip or in South-West Africa on the northern border with supplies as being a designated duty, then any person engaged in that duty would be covered, not only individual members of the personnel flying in an aircraft and so designated. Not each individual concerned who would be carrying out the task but the task as a whole should be defined. If he were to declare a specific military district as a designated area, then all the persons serving in that district would be covered. What I am concerned about is that individuals performing duties which are envisaged in this clause, could lose the benefit because their names were not specifically—the word is “expressly”— designated by the Minister or by a person acting on the “express” authority of the Minister. So it is not enough that an order be given. The order must be given by a person—if not the Minister, then someone acting on the express authority of the Minister. If the order which is published detailing a person to carry out a certain task is not issued by a person expressly authorized by the Minister, that order would be invalid for the purpose of this clause. This is the problem which I have and which I hope the hon. the Minister will have a look at before this measure goes to the Other Place and that he will consider introducing a category of operation and a specified area of operation rather than designate individual members of the Force.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Mr. Chairman, clause 2 deals with the fact that the Minister may delegate his powers as far as selection boards are concerned. We are not opposed to the idea of delegation in this case. However, it seems to me as if the words “a person” are not adequate. I do not think that that is the intention. It seems to me as if this delegation should be made to certain officers in the Defence Force. It seems to me, for example, as if an officer in charge of a command would be a suitable person to whom the Minister could delegate these powers. It also seems to me as if other senior officers in the Defence Force would be suitable persons to whom these powers could be delegated. The department of the hon. the Minister is in a better position than anyone else to know who these persons are, and I should imagine that they would have to be officers, to whom the Minister should delegate these powers. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister, as my colleague also suggested in respect of clause 1, should reconsider the matter and substitute for the words “a person” a specific reference to an officer occupying a position appropriate in the opinion of the department to exercising these powers.

Mr. Chairman, I do not think we differ with one another. It will be an officer because the Defence Force is militarized. Therefore “iemand” in the Afrikaans version or “a person” in the English version, to which reference is being made here, will in normal circumstances be an officer.

Then why not say so?

Well, an officer is also a person.

But a “person” is not an “officer”.

But it could happen that in terms of section 10 an officer is kept on in the service after he has retired. As the hon. member knows, it happens in the Defence Force that a person ends his period of service and that such a person is brought back in a civilian capacity to occupy a position and that he still continues with the same responsibility and still does that work. I do not think we should restrict ourselves to such an extent that we are not able to use such a person. I do not at present have a specific case in mind, but I can in any event give hon. members the assurance that, since the Defence Force is militarized and there are virtually no civilian sections, I will in fact entrust this to officers. It will probably be a person such as the chief of Defence Force Administration or some other person acting on behalf of the chief of the Defence Force. I shall delegate the power to the chief of the Defence Force, and he will perhaps designate one of his chief staff officers to attend to the matter. I therefore do not think that there is any difference in principle in our views on this matter.

The hon. the Minister said he would probably delegate the power to the Chief of Staff, who in turn may designate some other person, but the Bill makes no mention of further delegation. Mention is only made of “a person expressly designated by the Minister for the purpose”

I said “or to the chief of the Defence Force, or to one of his chief staff officers”.

No, the hon. the Minister said that he would in turn be able to delegate it to some other person.

Or I can delegate it to one of his chief staff officers.

That is not what the Minister said.

Mention is made here of the delegation by the Minister to another person.

Clause agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I submit that this Bill is a hybrid Bill and should not be proceeded with as a public Bill. My contention is that clause 3 of the Bill adversely affects the rights of a particular group of individuals. This clause provides for the payment of a development contribution or betterment charge by the owners of land, the value of whose property is increased because of a town-planning scheme. I do not contend that this Bill is hybrid on the grounds that clause 3 would apply to all landowners because that would mean the community as a whole and it would therefore not be merely of local interest. The point I am making, is that it affects also a special group of landowners. Clause 3 is retrospective to the 1st April, 1925. The Minister in introducing the Bill yesterday, told us that in the Cape there was some doubt as to whether the existing law was regular, and that it therefore has become necessary for him to introduce this measure. He told the House that there are cases pending in the Supreme Court of the Cape by landowners who have taken the provincial authorities to court. In reply to a question in the Provincial Council, the responsible member of the Executive Council gave a list of 13 cases which are now before the Supreme Court. The hon. the Minister referred to them and said that one case which was to be heard first, was regarded as a test case. The amounts involved vary from R1 660 up to R100 000. The Minister also told the House that although there is a similar provision in the Transvaal and that it had been held to be legal in the Transvaal, the provisions of the ordinances of the Transvaal and the Cape are not the same, and that in the Cape it was considered doubtful as to whether the province was acting legally. He said this—

I submit that the rights of these 13 people, who are already in court, are being effected. If this Bill is now passed and made retrospective to legalize what the administration has done, these 13 people will probably lose their cases, and they will be responsible for the costs involved. I submit that this measure should not be continued with until the Supreme Court has decided the issue so that those people will not be prejudiced. I do not hold that it is a hybrid Bill because it affects landowners generally, Sir. I contend that it is a hybrid Bill because it affects these 13 persons who are already before the courts. I ask you, Sir, to hold that it is a hybrid Bill and that it should be proceeded with as such.

The hon. member for Green Point was kind enough to consult me on this point, but not on the issue raised by the hon. member for Transkei now.

Mr. Speaker, I have here a written copy of the point which was, I understand, brought to your attention.

Yes, but the case the hon. member has just put to me is different from the one which was submitted to me in writing.

It is the same, Sir. I have it here. It states—

He was then questioned about these cases and went on to deal with them.

The hon. member was good enough to give me prior notice that he intended raising this point of order.

As regards the question whether the Bill should be treated as a hybrid bill in view of the provisions contained in Clause 3, I must point out that in accordance with Standing Order No. 73 a Bill is only regarded as a hybrid bill if it adversely affects or may adversely affect the private interests of particular persons or bodies as distinct from the private interests of all persons or bodies in the particular category to which those persons or bodies belong.

As Clause 3 is of general application, I therefore have to rule that it does not fall within the scope of the definition of a hybrid bill. I may add that the fact that only certain persons or bodies will in fact be affected by the legislation cannot be taken into account in deciding whether it should be treated as a hybrid measure or not; the issue has to be decided on the basis of the legislation before the House.

I must furthermore point out that the sub judice rule as set out in Standing Order No. 108 is at all times subject to the right of the House to legislate on any matter and that objection therefore cannot be taken to Clause 3 of the Bill on that ground.

Mr. Speaker, may I raise a further point of order arising from your ruling? May I ask you, Sir, whether we will be permitted to discuss the merits of clause 3 in this debate without infringing the sub judice rule which concerns specific cases dealing with this issue?

The hon. member may discuss the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday afternoon I indicated to you and to the House that I believed that this Bill was being dealt with in unseemly haste so far as this legislature is concerned. I say “unseemly haste” because one asks oneself what is the urgency of this legislation, other than the fact that there are certain cases pending before the Supreme Court. But what other urgency is there? If you look a clause 1, Sir, you will find that we are to regularize something that has been going on since 1967, i.e. the granting of bursaries by the Cape Provincial Administration. In these circumstances, is this a matter of such urgency that it must be dealt with within a matter of days after notice of the introduction of this Bill in this House? When we turn to clause 2, which is to permit a provincial council to purchase on Revenue Account wreaths on certain occasions, it will be noted that subclause 2 provides—

I presume that here we are going back to things that have been done since the innovation of public holidays in South Africa. Is there such urgency for this Bill that it has to be rushed through now if this has been going on happily for 60 years in this country?

Then, Sir, in clause 3 we are asked to regularize certain amendments made in 1969 to the Cape Townships Ordinance of 1934. In fact, the Bill provides that this legislation is to have retrospective effect, or that it is to be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st April, 1925. Sir, this has been going on for 48 years, and now suddenly there is this urgency to legislate in this manner. Surely none of these reasons justifies this urgency. Or is this legislation being rushed through because of the pending court cases? If we adopt this legislation, it is going to have the effect of destroying the causes of action on the law as it stood at the time of citizens who are now before the courts. We are going to destroy their causes of action before the courts have had time to adjudicate upon these cases.

The Minister wants to beat the judges to it.

A guilty conscience.

Obviously, Sir, I have to attempt this afternoon to deal with this Bill, but I want to say in fairness to my colleagues on this side of the House and in fairness to the persons that we represent that I am going to do so—and I think I am in good company; I am in the hon. the Minister’s company when I say this—without adequate consultation with the local authorities; that I am going to do so without any of the facts and figures as to what amount of money is involved and what this means to the local authorities. I shall also be doing so this afternoon without an opportunity of consultation with the South African Property Owners’ Association, an influential body that is assisting considerably in the regularization of matters affecting property and property rights in South Africa. I shall also be doing so, Sir, without a clear picture—because the hon. the Minister has not given us one and I doubt whether he has a clear picture—of the differences in the application of this principle as between the different provinces. I shall also be doing so this afternoon without an adequate opportunity of discussing this matter with my colleagues both in this House and in the Provincial Council. Sir, before I say anything further I want to move the following amendment—

1. (1) the need for the imposition of development contributions upon or the payment of depreciation contributions to owners of properties affected by town planning schemes and the method of assessment thereof; and
2. (2) the need for the application mutatis mutandis of the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1965, to any such assessments”.

Having moved this amendment I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he does not feel that this debate ought to be further adjourned for a reasonable period to enable this matter to be discussed. Sir, if I were to move the adjournment of this debate, without the hon. the Minister indicating to me that he would accept it, I would be precluded from addressing the House further on this Bill if that the motion was not accepted. So I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be kind enough to indicate whether he does not think on reflection that these are matters which need consultation, that it is in the interest of local authorities and in the interest of the provincial council and in the interest of private property owners that we do not rush legislation through the House in this way. If the Minister would be prepared to indicate to me that as far as he was concerned the debate could be further adjourned, I would welcome such an indication. But unfortunately he sits like the sphinx. The matter is in the hands of the hon. the Minister but obviously he is not prepared to give us the opportunity for further consideration. May I just say that I am not alone when I say that people are unprepared to deal with this matter because I find—it is just a small point—that the hon. the Minister, in dealing with the question of “feesdae” said this, and I quote from his Hansard—

Where is all this mentioned in the Bill?

There is an amendment on the Order Paper.

But that is not in the Bill as it came before us, the Bill which is on our desks. It is not in the Bill which was presented to the House yesterday. That Bill does not contain that item. The Minister came here unprepared and now finds it necessary to amend the Bill even before the Second Reading has been taken.

But let me then deal with the clauses of the Bill before us. In regard to clause 1, fortunately I happen to have some knowledge of the introduction of this matter in the Cape Provincial Council. It was in 1965, as a member of the Cape Provincial Council, that I had the privilege of introducing a motion suggesting to the Nationalist Administration that it should do something more to assist in making it possible for deserving and meritorious students to continue with their studies. That was in 1965. We were concerned because at that stage there was a considerable drop in the number of students who continued to undertake further studies beyond Std. 10. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance and the hon. member for Vasco were present at that debate, but the Nationalist Administration turned it down because it came from the United Party Opposition. It was most interesting to find that whereas we were trying to deal with this problem, which was a serious one, and were trying to make it possible for more students to be trained, the figures at that stage were that one out of five White children reached Std. 10. We also found that only 10% of the White population of South Africa had qualifications of any sort, technical or academic, above matriculation. The Nationalist-controlled Cape Provincial Council, just like the Nationalist Government in this House, when it gets a good idea, does not accept it straight away. It tries to adopt it in some other manner and at some later stage. This happened also in this matter. The motion was turned down and there was an amendment in which they said that the matter would be investigated. We now have this Bill after the Cape Provincial Administration introduced this bursary system in 1967. I must confess that I did not know about it, except that I noticed in the Press that some odd bursaries had been granted, until this Bill came before us on Friday. When the hon. the Minister explained yesterday what this was about, I realized that the seed which was sown had taken root and it had taken root in even the Nationalist ground as arid as it is and that it had borne fruit.

What I cannot understand is that it had to be done in this way by the Cape Provincial Administration—they even had to try to maintain secrecy—without the statutory authority to do so. They now stand revealed and we on this side of the House are quite happy to say that we welcome the step taken by the Cape Provincial Administration and we are quite happy to give statutory authority to something which we had appealed for on our side of the provincial council.

I regard this as an important matter. It is perhaps a little distressing to find that this action is only being taken in the Cape Province and not by the other provinces. One hopes that, now that this amendment is being introduced in the Financial Relations Act, other provinces, being aware of the fact that these merit bursaries can be given, will see their way clear to give similar bursaries so as to make it possible for as many children who merit it to go on to have university education and to further their studies in a way which is open to them. We all hope that this investment in talent—these rewards are after all given to those who have shown talent, because, as the hon. the Minister will know, they are only given for an 80% pass—will be a principle which will be adopted in other provinces.

In so far as clause 2 is concerned, the hon. the Minister has explained the necessity for this authority. However, I wonder whether this provision goes quite far enough. Here again, if there had been time for adequate consultation with the various authorities, we could, while we are legislating for this small item, have been able to legislate for fruther items. This power could then have been extended to statutory bodies within the provincial administrations. It will be realized that there are various statutory bodies like school boards, hospital boards and bodies of that nature, which administer funds and have certain responsibilities. There are occasions, for instance, when members of such boards are lost through death or other reasons, when it would be a token of respect and appreciation if floral tributes could be purchased and sent. This matter is not dealt with and I know it is a problem which exists with the provincial auditors as to how far these statutory bodies can use their own funds for matters of this sort which are now being regularized in this Bill.

When I come to clause 3 I must say I have considerable difficulty with it. A power is now to be given to the local authorities, and they will be acting under the umbrella surveillance of the provincial administrations, to levy this particular development charge in respect of properties. I cannot find any other way of describing this than by saying that it is the imposition of a capital gain tax on a property owner. This new type of taxation is on gain and not one levelled on all persons for the ownership of property. It is not an ordinary tax on ownership as a contribution towards the running of municipal affairs, but a tax because there is a gain made as a result of the development of a city, a gain of a capital nature in the hands of a particular property owner. I think that it is an important principle that cannot be lost sight of, that that is in effect what this empowering clause will do. There are various examples of this nature that one can think of. I think in haste of some where this gains tax could be argued as being justified and of others where it could be argued that it is not justified. If a property owner were to approach the authorities and say, “I have a piece of ground which is zoned for residential purposes, but will you please rezone it for business purposes?”, and his request is granted to him, there may be some moral reason for saying that he should make some contribution towards the municipality for that gain or that appreciation which he receives in the value of his property—that is if he applies for it himself. Against that point is the following. If rezoning is done, it is not done because of the application of Mr. A, or because a property belongs to Mr. A, but it is done because it is in the interests of ordinary town planning. It is not a favour which is done to a particular person, and if a person has acquired property that falls within that area [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister smiles. I hope that town planning or rezoning is not done as a favour to individuals. I hope that that is not the principle that is applied anywhere in South Africa, because if that was so it would be totally wrong. The rezoning is done because it is in the interests of that local authority area that there should be zoning for certain uses of ground. Just because such a person happens to fall within such a zoning area, is it right that he then becomes penalized? Is it right that this is done because he happens to be in the area that is rezoned? He cannot be penalized if there is a shift in population. In Cape Town one has an example where the city’s nerve centre, the business centre, is moving from this end of the city down to the foreshore. You cannot say to the foreshore people that their properties have become more valuable because there is more demand for property there and therefore they must pay tax, or an appreciation tax or a betterment charge, or whatever you want to call it, just because of the shifting population. It also happens with the shopkeeper or the fruiterer who has a shop near an area in which a school is suddenly built. When the school-children come there and his business trebles, quadruples or increases tenfold, must he be penalized, must he be subjected to a tax? I think that there are matters of that sort that need to be looked into. I want to go further and I want to talk about the person who is passively subjected to rezoning; in other words, the man who owns a house—and this has happened in various areas and the hon. member for Parow knows how it has hit large numbers of people in his constituency—and who has lived there for years and years, but now it is simply decided that this area should now be a business area. These people do not desire to sell their houses but want to stay there. They have been there for generations, but they suddenly now find that their houses …

Name examples.

There are many of them and I will list a few of them in a moment. There are many houses where people would like to stay, but what happens? The area is rezoned for business premises and then the man immediately has to pay an increased rate because his premises are now rated as business premises and not as dwelling premises. He pays additional rates.

No.

The hon. member for Parow shakes his head. He must go look at it. He must just look at some of the instances I will give to him afterwards —because I do not want to detail this House now—where the rates have gone up. Obviously the hon. member does not know what is going on on his own doorstep, because this is what is indeed happening. These people who do not want a rezoning suddenly find themselves involved in these betterment charges.

What is the position in regard to the different provinces? I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows. I did not have the time but we attempted to get the matter clarified. After all, it is basically a provincial matter as to how this law is applied. I believe that in the Transvaal there is a betterment charge or a development charge of 33⅓%. The Transvaal basis of valuation is totally different from that of the Cape. The municipal valuation, as the hon. the Minister knows, is based on site value. In the Cape we have a different basis of valuation for rating purposes. There is a 33⅓% basic charge in the Transvaal; the Cape Provincial Administration has determined a 50% charge, and I believe that in Natal the charge is 33⅓% as well. I am not certain what the position is in the Orange Free State. In none of these instances is there access to the courts, either through the Arbitration Act of 1965 or by the creation of a tribunal by the provincial authorities. It is ultra vires the provincial council to call upon a judge or the judiciary to serve on a tribunal of this sort. That authority for the provincial councils must come through this House before the full implications of the Arbitration Act of 1965 can be applied. We are asked to pass this clause as it reads but with what safeguards for the private owner, the individual? If the provincial councils wish to set up a tribunal, even with the best will in the world they cannot do it because it is ultra vires their powers. It is ultra vires their powers to call on the chief magistrate; it must be done with the authority of this House and only with the authority of this House.

We have this legislation before us and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has considered these matters. Many injustices and hardships have already arisen. I have here the file which was given to me this morning by one of my provincial colleagues. In it there are matters dealing with and problems arising from and representations concerning this very vexed matter, regarding which we must apparently now to decide to “pass it on; pass the buck”. We need apparently not worry about what powers and authority are needed by the provincial councils to safeguard the rights of individuals; we must merely pass it on. Let me give an indication of the problems that are arising. When a valuation is fixed, as would be done in terms of clause 3 in this Bill, it is of course an arbitrary valuation because it expresses an opinion with regard to what the property is worth before rezoning and what it is worth afterwards. What then is the attitude of the Administrations? I have here a letter addressed to a member of the provincial council from the Director of Local Government in the Cape in which his attention is drawn to the fact that certain properties which had been valued at a fairly high figure, had been offered for auction but there were no buyers. He writes back and says—

The fact that there are no buyers does not help the provincial administration in determining whether the values that were fixed were reasonable or not. Unless we put in this Bill the power to provide for arbitration and an access to the courts in terms of the Arbitration Act, there are no remedies for the owner whatsoever. Let me go further and deal with another matter concerning the same particular issue, which will indicate what is going on. There are four properties of identical size lying side by side along a particular main street. All four were residential and had been rezoned for business purposes. Rezoned, they are all valued at the same figure of R24 000. But what are the betterment charges that have been asked for from the four owners, as a result of some arbitrary valuation of what the properties were like before? These four residences have now become business premises. They are only 5 000 sq. ft. and are small shop sites. What are the figures asked for? In one case the development charge was assessed at R6 830, in the case of the plot next door at R1 800. the plot next door to that R8 200 and the fourth plot R5 023. On what basis has this been done and what rights and remedies do these people have …

The same size?

They are all the same size and were all dwelling plots rezoned for business purposes. As I have indicated, these four plots were contiguous and three of them were submitted for sale by public auction. In 1970 there was an offer of R19 000 each for the three of them, R5 000 less than the arbitrarily fixed value. In 1971 there was no bid when they were again put up for sale, but the owners, without the right to any kind of redress to any tribunal, must pay on the valuation that these plots are worth R24 000 whether the plots fetch that price on an auction sale or not and whether they can find a buyer or not. That is the amount they are taxed on.

It is a case for the provincial council …

The hon. member does not get the point. What I am trying to get at is that unless we put into this legislation the power for the provincial councils to apply the Arbitration Act, that is to have access to the Supreme Court, then the provincial councils cannot enact such a provision in their ordinances, because it will be ultra vires their powers. I make this point not because I want to say what the provincial councils must do, but because I think that if we give provincial councils the power, we should at the same time ensure that they have the machinery to protect the rights of the individual property owners concerned.

I want to give an indication of what has happened in this regard as far as we are concerned in the Cape. This section 35ter to which the hon. the Minister referred and which was introduced in the 1934 Ordinance makes provision for the payment of a “development contribution”, but it is in fact a tax which is imposed on the owner of property because his property has appreciated in value. I have mentioned one case, but I want to mention another one just to indicate what happens. The matter I want to mention went to the courts. A property owner in Philippi on the Cape Flats had some property which was valued for agricultural purposes at R6 050. It was then rezoned for industrial purposes and a valuation of R36 310 was fixed on it and the owner was called upon to pay a contribution of R15 130 to the local authority. But what happened when the property was put up for sale? It did not reach the figure of R36 000, but this individual was still taxed on the estimated value that somebody thought he should have got for this property because of the rezoning. One cannot go on with matters of this sort and I am sure the hon. the Minister is perhaps not aware of this …

You are the culprits in Natal.

The hon. member is talking about Natal, but I want to tell him that Natal is the one province that has been able to set up some form of appeal tribunal which can protect the interests of individual property owners. It does not exist anywhere else under Nationalist administrations. I would like to see this practice made compulsory in the Cape, Transvaal and in the Free State. I wonder if the hon. the Minister knows how the Cape Municipal Association has been handled by the authorities in this matter. The Cape Municipal Association is not a political body, but this is the type of letter it received from the provincial authorities. The Cape Municipal Association raised various questions and said: “Look, if you feel these betterment charges should be levied, why not leave it as a permissive matter also for the local authorities?” I quote from a letter written to the Secretary of the Cape Province Municipal Association by the Director of Local Government on the 5th April, 1971—

I think that this is important. We should know what the attitude is. The letter continues—

In other words “you just take it, there can be no local option as far as local authorities are concerned”. The letter concerned continues—

Sir, this raises a further point regarding the justice in the provisions which we are now being asked to enact. If a man owns or purchases a large tract of land in a developing new area and he is fortunate enough to have had the foresight to know that in due course there is going to be a development of some magnitude in this area, he will buy a vast area of land which is not zoned. When that property is zoned for the first time, and he has got in on the ground floor by purchasing within that area, he is not subject to a single cent of betterment charges. I have not been able to examine what is happening in certain areas which are set aside for industrial development. I do not know what has happened, for instance, in the new towns and cities which are springing up. I do not know what has happened in the Saldanha Bay area. I have not had time to investigate. One wonders how many of those people, because of a new zoning scheme that is being applied to what is at present unzoned property for town planning purposes, are going to find their properties ten times as valuable and will not have to pay one cent in betterment levies. But a person who has bought a property, with a house, and is living on 5 000 sq. ft. in the city, is hammered as soon as there is an increase in the value of his property because of rezoning and development. Now, what on earth is the difference between the extended development of a town and the first development?

Let me go on to some of the other matters mentioned in this letter. It reads further—

This was a query raised by the C.P.M.A. What was the reply?—

If a church has a hall in an area which is not rezoned for business purposes, that church hall must now be valued as business premises. When it comes to the selling of that hall at some stage or other, 50% of the increase in value will go to the local authority out of the coffers of that church organization. This is the attitude which is being adopted. The letter goes on—

This is the one fair part of the attitude being adopted, namely that betterment should be paid when the owner of the land gets to the stage of selling the property or utilizing it for a different purpose. I have had to deal with this matter in a somewhat disjointed manner, I am afraid, because of the time factor imposed in this debate. It is unfortunate, seeing that the recent negotiations with the C.P.M.A. are still going on, that we are now going to create a situation in which there is no uniformity between the provinces. It is most unfortunate that we should legislate to perpetuate that stage of affairs. I am sure the hon. the Minister knows—and the hon. the Minister of Community Development would surely know— how desirable it is that in matters dealing with property rights, dealing with home ownership and dealing particularly with urban development schemes, there should be the highest degree of uniformity that can be found by agreement between the various accounting bodies throughout the country. One realizes that there are certain aspects where uniformity cannot be found, but let us at least provide the machinery so that this uniformity can be achieved.

I come now to the final clause of this Bill, which deals with the regularization of certain expropriations. I am sorry the hon. member for Caledon is not in the House this afternoon, because I would like to ask him, as a member of the Executive Committee responsible at the time, how it came about that these expropriations were done in the way in which they were done. I see, however, that the hon. member for Caledon is unfortunately not here this afternoon to tell us what it is all about. I must say, Sir, that I have known the hon. member for a long time, especially during his period of office in the provincial council, and I want to say this afternoon that as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, we are only too pleased that we can now put the stamp of approval on the fact that the Cape Provincial Administration made available, at half its value, this ground which is being used for the South African Medical Research Council in the proximity of the Tiervlei Hospital.

Those are the comments I wish to make on the Bill. As I have said, we have had only a short time to go into it. Having attempted to indicate what is involved, namely that there is no satisfaction in respect of a body as important as the Cape Provincial Municipal Association, that there are still matters which should be regularized and that the possibility should be sought of adopting a similar approach in the different provinces, I do hope that even at this stage the Minister will realize that it is necessary for this further investigation to take place.

Finally, I want to say just this to the hon. the Minister: The fact that betterment charges vary from province to province can have a considerable impact on the development of one province as against another. Let us take the position of a landowner wishing to purchase land for possible development eventually into a township. That land may be agricultural, but he may want to develop an industrial township. If he is going to come to the Cape, he is going to be milked to the extent of 50% when that rezoning goes through. If he can go to another province and get away with 25%, he will go to that other province, to the detriment of the province which is charging 50%. One hopes that the local authorities will realize that it is shortsighted to apply this type of capital tax at an excessive rate, to the detriment of the province or the local authority itself. Local authorities who may be looking for this development are, in the words of the letter which I read to the hon. the Minister this afternoon, precluded from opting out or from finding some other way of enticing, welcoming and encouraging a property developer to come to their particular municipal area. And so, Sir, we cannot support the Bill as it reads now, for the reasons I have indicated in the amendment I have moved.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point referred to clause 1 of the Bill which now legalizes a tradition which, so I have heard, has already existed in the Cape for 45 years, i.e. that bursaries are granted by the Province to scholars who have obtained a first-class pass in the matriculation examination and have obtained an overall average of 80%. I think it is a fine tradition that has been created in the Cape over the years, and I think the hon. member for Green Point should be glad that in this legislation we are now creating the opportunity for other provinces to adopt this good tradition that originated in the Cape. I do not think the hon. member disagrees with me at all about that. It appears that the only objection from the Opposition side involves the question of the appreciation levy for which provision is being made in the Bill.

The hon. member for Green Point has done nothing this afternoon but build up a long drawn-out list of complaints, one after the other, against the Administration of the Cape, as far as the control of local affairs by the provincial administration is concerned. The hon. member must remember that he is no longer a member of the provincial council. We are dealing here with other matters. The particulars with which the hon. member concerned himself, are not relevant to the level of what we are discussing here; they relate to the provincial level. Hon. members opposite have continued to present themselves in this House as the spokesmen and champions of the rights of the provinces. Every time legislation is introduced that creates the mere impression that the rights of the Provinces are in any way being encroached upon, taken away from them, diluted or decreased, hon. members opposite kick up a tremendous racket. They say then that we may not thus curtail the powers of the provinces. They say we should do more to give the provinces autonomous powers. Today, contrary to the entire tradition and course of action of that side, the hon. member for Green Point vehemently objects to this House now giving certain powers to the provinces. It is not even a case of powers being given to the provinces; powers which the provinces thought they have had all these years, and which they actually exercised, are now being sanctioned by this House. This House is now sanctioning the fact that the provinces may in future exercise those powers which they have exercised and which they thought they had. That is as far as this legislation goes, and now hon. members on the opposite side of the House object to our giving the powers to the provinces. The hon. member for Green Point says we can give them certain powers, but we must be careful of the provinces, because they are not competent to implement these powers properly. He says we must keep them in check; we must ensure that securities are included which will protect the rights of the individual. The hon. member says that is so. Since when has the hon. the member for Green Point been singing that ditty? Since when does he no longer trust the provinces in the elementary implementation of matters concerning local authorities? Sir, if we cannot trust the provinces as far as this matter is concerned, then what matters can we entrust to them. If we cannot do this, we must do away with the provincial councils. If they can no longer supervise the functions of the local authorities, what functions would they then have, and what rights do the provincial councils then have to remain in existence? The principle involved here is purely and simply that the provinces must have the right to make laws that will allow local authorities to impose a levy on landowners whose property has increased in value as a result of an amendment of a township development scheme. That is the one side of the matter, and on the other hand they must be able to make laws to authorize local authorities to pay compensation to owners whose land is adversely affected by the amendment of a township development scheme. That is the whole question that is involved in this legislation. Must the provinces have that power, or must they not have it? I am asking the hon. member for Green Point and I am asking the hon. member for Musgrave.

I shall reply to that.

I really think that hon. members opposite also think that the provinces should have that power. If they do not think so, it would surprise me. I think it is a foregone conclusion, and that is all that we want to do in this legislation; we want to give the provinces that power, which they thought they had, to make ordinances that give local authorities these powers; but once we have done this, the matter is in the hands of the provinces; then the extent of the appreciation or depreciation, and the amount of the contribution or the compensation, whatever the circumstances may be, devolve upon the discretion of the Administrator and the provincial council or the executive committee. It has merely been said, for the information of this House, that the levy in Cape Town is no more than 50%. I understand that in Natal it is much more. I think it is about 75%.

Yes, but on what?

I shall tell the hon. member on what. In the Cape and the Transvaal it is not on the valuation of the existing property; it is on the difference between the value of the property before the alteration of the township development scheme and the subsequent valuation, i.e. the levy is only on the appreciation. The same applies in Natal as well, but the only difference is that in Natal it is much more than in the Cape Province.

Tell us what the position in Natal is.

I have just said what the position is there. Sir, the point is that the executive committee has a discretion in this connection. They need not impose a levy of 50%; they may do so up to the maximum of 50%. But I do not want to go into details here now. I am prepared to give the Executive Committee of the Cape, the Executive Committee of Natal and the Executive Committee of any province the discretionary power to implement, in their particulars, the ordinances they may make in terms of these powers. Sir, if the United Party supports the principle that the provinces must have these powers, as they have always done up to the present day, and if they have objections and problems about the implementation of these powers by the provinces, they must not come and fight about that here; the hon. member for Green Point must then tell his provincial councillor that it is a matter that must be settled in Wale Street, not in this House. Sir, the point is that up to now the United Party has always endorsed this principle. This is a principle which, in truth, is as old as the hills. It has been in existence for several years in all the provinces. It is a principle that is applied in all modern countries of the world in respect of urban development. This principle applies in England. In the Cape Province, to which I confine myself because I have more knowledge of the Cape Province than of any other province, the position is such that if a person has a house, and his house is so effected by rezoning that it now has flat rights, that person can continue living in that house without paying the levy. He can live in that house for the rest of his life and his children can also live there without paying the levy. But the day he sells the house, he must pay the levy because it is obvious that he will then no longer sell it at the price of an ordinary residential dwelling. And if he wants to develop that house into a block of flats, he must pay the levy. But otherwise he does not have to pay it. In England the position is such that when a property is benefited by rezoning, the owner must immediately pay the levy when this comes into force. That is the position in England. In South Africa this is not implemented in that way. But I am saying that is a very old principle in both the Cape and South Africa. It is a principle that was introduced into the Cape Provincial Council by none other than the United Party. In 1934 they made an ordinance in the Cape, and in section 50 of that ordinance, No. 33 of 1934, it is written that an appreciation contribution can be claimed, and that under certain circumstances a payment can also be made where there is a loss in value. But the difference was this, that that appreciation contribution could only come into effect if that township was proclaimed. Now the hon. member for Green Point knows that in the Cape, in 1969, when this section 35ter was introduced into the ordinance, there had not yet been, for several good reasons, one proclaimed township in the Cape. Then already, in fact since 1934, the United Party had provided that an appreciation contribution could be claimed under an ordinance. The only reason why it was not implemented, was because no townships were proclaimed in the Cape.

I now come to the principle which came into force in 1969 in the Cape, a principle the hon. member is now opposed to, but which his party were not opposed to in 1969. Was the hon. member, at the time, not still a member of the provincial council?

No.

But there are, in fact, hon. members seated on the other side who were members at the time. But I can tell the hon. member that the person who supported the legislation in the provincial council was the hon. member’s friend there, Mr. Sonnenberg.

He was a member of the city council.

Yes, but he was also the member for Green Point in the provincial council. Does the hon. member want to deny that? Do not be ridiculous then. Mr. Speaker, this is what the hon. member for Green Point said in the provincial council when this matter came up and the United Party supported it in principle and did not move amendments at any stage of the ordinance. This is the attitude which the hon. member for Green Point specifically adopted in the provincial council. He said—

He supports it fully—

If the owner himself applies for it.

Sir, this is concerned with rezoning; it has nothing to do with these private applications that come along from time to time. This is specifically a matter of this particular ordinance.

Read it again. The hon. member says you are wrong.

Must I read it again for the hon. member? I shall read it in English so that he can understand it. This is what the then hon. member for Green Point said in the provincial council—

He seeks to have it rezoned.

The hon. member is using an example here, as the hon. member for Green Point used various examples this afternoon to back up his argument. But what hon. members must not lose sight of is that this member for Green Point was speaking in the provincial council about the principle of an ordinance incorporating this relative principle, i.e. section 35ter. He says he has no objection to that. He says it is right in the case of a person who is benefited. After all, the underlying principle is quite right. We are surely not ashamed of sticking to this principle. The United Party is ashamed, however. The United Party puts me in mind of a person who is quite satisfied to be a party to bring-in a baby into the world. However, when the baby is born and has wind or earaches, and there is a racket, the father is no longer prepared to accept responsibility for the child. The United Party is denying paternity in respect of the principle which the Party introduced in the provincial council and which they wholeheartedly supported, in the person of the hon. member’s provincial councillor, up to as late as 1969. This is typically opportunistic of the United Party. They realize that it is essential that the provinces should have the power, because what would the situation be if the provinces did not have this power and could not implement this legislation?

In many more cases people’s property is beneficially or adversely affected by rezoning. With the present development in our large urban complexes, it is today a daily occurrence that a private owner’s land has to be taken for the widening of a street. His land must be taken for the building of an additional school. His land has to be taken so that open spaces can be created. Each time there is rezoning, and the urban planning is changed, there are, of course, people who are affected. Do hon. members opposite, and the hon. member for Musgrave in person, not want people, who are adversely affected in this connection, to receive proper compensation from the local authority? Is it not only fair and good that a person, whose property is adversely affected by the fact that a street, school or whatever has to be built on his land, should receive proper compensation? I think it is fair, and it is a right the provinces must have so that they can determine that the owner should be properly compensated in such a case. That is what this clause entails, because it is now creating for the provinces the right to be able to make provision for the fact that an owner will not sustain losses because his property is being used for a public purpose to the detriment of the owner himself.

However, this matter does not only have one side. After all, it costs a great deal of money to buy up those properties or to compensate those people. Where must the local authority get the money for the compensation from? On the other hand money surely has to come in. I therefore think it is fair that a person, whose property is beneficially affected through no action on his part, without his having done anything to improve the property or to increase the value of the property so that he would be able to obtain a higher price for it, but whose property appreciates, purely as a result of the fact that that property is situated in an area where flat rights or business rights are being allocated as a result of rezoning, should pay a levy on the additional benefit that results from the rezoning.

I think it is a sound principle. It is a principle which has thus far always been supported by the United Party and that side of the House. I think the United Party ought to be ashamed of itself for running away from this principle now for no other simple reason than that they have found that at a few places there are people who are dissatisfied because they now have to pay the levy. That is the only reason.

In Parow, for example.

I am not running away from that. I am not afraid of a few people who are adversely affected by a just cause. The hon. member for Green Point, who is far away from Parow, is so afraid, however, that he runs away from a sound principle. That is typical of what the United Party is like. They sell themselves to every idea. Whenever they can benefit from a matter, they are there. However, when the public protests about certain things, they are not prepared to accept the criticism. I think it is a sound principle and I think that the hon. the Minister would be foolish if he were to concede to the requests from the opposite side of the House. There is nothing wrong with this; we are really only saying what is right. We are only confirming today what the provincial administrations regarded as a sphere in which they can make ordinances. The hon. member for Green Point has said that we could prejudice the case of the 13 owners, or whatever the number may be, which is at present before the courts. The fact is, however, that similar legislation was taken to the courts in the Transvaal and the Transvaal Supreme Court decided that the Transvaal has the right and that it is within the powers of the province to make such ordinances.

Their ordinances are not the same. The Minister himself said so.

What the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, is that the wording is not exactly the same, but that the principle is. This debate is not, at the moment, concerned with splitting hairs; it is concerned with the principle of the Bill, and the United Party cannot escape from the principle without somewhat tarnishing their honour. They must stick to it if they are men. They are the ones who inscribed it in the Cape Ordinance, they are the ones who supported it in 1969 and they are the ones, now that there is criticism from outside about its implementation —which has absolutely nothing to do with the business of this House—who now do not have the courage of their convictions to stick to that principle any longer.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point addressed himself to the hon. the Minister and he urged the hon. the Minister to agree that the discussion of this matter should be postponed. The hon. the Minister has not given a final indication and I want to ask him again now to agree that this debate be not proceeded with now but that it be proceeded with in due time. In order to advance reasons for that, I would like to move—

In moving the adjournment, I want to give amongst others my reasons as follows. Out of respect for this Parliament, out of respect for its members and out of respect for its workings, I suggest that it is entirely unjustified firstly that the Second Reading of a difficult and controversial Bill like this should be taken on the first working day after it has reached hon. members and, secondly, that it be proceeded with on the second working day after the Bill has reached members. That is my first reason. My second reason is to allow time to get the reaction to this measure of the great public outside. Obviously local authorities are very greatly affected by this measure now that it has emerged into the light of day. It has been shown by the fact that there are 13 court cases pending which are directly affected by this matter, as your ruling has shown, Mr. Speaker. As these persons are directly affected, they too should have an opportunity to make representations. After all, the whole history of Parliament has evolved a procedure which gives time for due deliberation of matters, which gives time so that the subjects of the State can come with their difficulties regarding legislation to Parliament. This is the very reason for having three readings. In this case we are proceeding apace with the Second Reading, doubtless to proceed the day after to the Committee Stage and doubtless to take the Third Reading the day afterwards. Then there is a third reason I would like to advance, and that is that further opportunity for study, discussion and preparation of speeches should be given to all the members in this House who maybe going to participate or who may wish to participate in this matter. There may be many members of this House who are quite unfamiliar with this topic and who represent an area which has a local authority which may be directly affected by this matter. Therefore it is quite likely that persons to whom this matter is completely fresh, may be wishing to speak or may have an obligation to speak in order to do justice to their constituencies. The hon. the Minister showed no urgency in introducing this matter. These are not trifling matters, but matters of considerable importance. So much so, that although we must necessarily, as the Opposition, bow to the superior numbers of the Government with regard to the course of Parliament and were therefore obliged to prepare ourselves to carry on with this debate, you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of Parliament, its procedures and dignity, can intervene and, I submit, should intervene to see that no precedent of this kind is established by means of this proceeding now.

I can readily understand that the hon. Government found themselves in a difficult situation: They have a very thin Order Paper. However, that is their fault. Ample warning has been received by the Government that the Order Paper is too thin. On one of our Wednesday evening sittings, the House did not sit at all because of lack of business. At the time the Opposition cooperated with the Government to secure the early adjournment. On the second occasion when this matter came up, the Opposition said: “No! This House should be sitting on Wednesday nights so that there is not then a mass of business thrown upon us in the later stages of the session.” If that happens, it will mean that the House, the staff, the Press and all associated with the House may have to sit morning, afternoon and evening. Even if the House sits the normal hours, it may well be that a large number of controversial matters are brought forward in that period; that would not be justified either. So, on the second Wednesday evening ample warning was given to the Government that the Order Paper was too thin. We are here referring to something which happened weeks ago; it did not happen yesterday. Then, again, this side of the House was prepared to show its reasonableness to the Government with regard to the question of an early adjournment. On Thursday of last week this side of the House readily fell in with the suggestion of the Leader of the House that we should take the half-hour debate at an earlier stage in the day. We agreed and did not in any way embarrass the Government. What do we get for our kindness now? “Stank vir dank” is, I think, what is said! On Friday morning of last week, two working days ago, we got this piece of legislation. Mr. Speaker, I am sure you know only too well that members must be at their places in the House all day on Fridays. We are then expected to take the Second Reading of this debate on the first working day thereafter, namely yesterday. The hon. Minister opposite and yourself, Mr. Speaker, and also the Leader of the House and everyone on that side well know the workings of Parliament. They know that the Opposition and, I believe, the Government too are divided into groups. When a Bill is received the secretary of the group notifies its members in writing to meet to discuss a certain Bill. These notices go to members of the Senate and to members of the House and a day is fixed for commencing the consideration of the Bill. Those are very important considerations and can shorten the time required by the House. After a full discussion is held by the groups, the decision is reported to the entire caucus or management meeting. This is certainly the case on the Opposition side. Very often new thoughts are added at this stage. This deliberation is not only essential in order to get at the true position in regard to a Bill and the proper attitude to be adopted towards it, but indeed it can shorten the time of the House. It may be that if one is thrown upon a Bill early, one may be compelled to take up an attitude of opposition which one might otherwise not have taken if one had had the opportunity of maturer reflection. I therefore say that the most charitable explanation of this situation with which we have been faced is that there has been inefficiency on the Government side in bringing forward legislation.

What consultations have they had with their municipalities?

This is the most charitable explanation, because the fact that their Order Paper is so thin provides the motivation for their wanting to bring something forward which the machine of Parliament, as it were, can grind away at perhaps for a time in order that the fact of our early adjournment shall not be shown, as also the fact that Bills are not being brought forward. I may remind you, Sir, and it is well known, that at the beginning of each session the Leader of the House, in order to ensure co-operation and the smooth working of the House, brings forward a list of most of the Bills that are going to be introduced during the session. This was at the very beginning of the session, one and a half months ago. One would therefore have expected that hon. Ministers on the other side and the Government would have brought their business forward in a proper and smooth way. But this has not happened. That is why I say that that is the most charitable explanation which one can attach to the situation. Then again—and I hesitate to impute this—if it was not that, was it disrespect to the House that this House should in fact, on the second day after an important matter is introduced, go to work on that matter, a matter of considerable interest to many local authorities around the country and to the country? I cannot believe that that was the case. Are we to believe that we are just to rubber-stamp this Bill of the Minister’s? One asks oneself: How long have the Minister and his department been chewing the cud on this Bill? This is what one wants to know. How long have they had it and how long are we given in order to consider our attitude to measures in contrast with what they have?

And to consult with the people.

Exactly. Let us remember—and I say this again—that the whole object of Parliament and these readings is that it gives an opportunity to the people “daarbuite” to show their reaction to measures. Must we think that the hon. the Minister is trying to steamroller this through before he can get the legitimate reaction of the country? I would be loth to conclude that. I cannot speak for members on the other side—I am sure they are extremely hard-working—but it is also clear that an Opposition only one-third the size of the Government has a much vaster task in its work in Parliament. The Government has a whole Cabinet which can deliberate on these matters months and months beforehand. An Opposition must inevitably deal with a matter only from the moment it gets to them. I regret very much that the hon. the Minister has not so far seen fit to agree to a postponement, but I ask him, after he has heard the additional arguments that we have advanced, to give his consent to the postponement and so relieve you. Sir, of you yourself having to uphold the position. I do ask you, however, Mr. Speaker, in case he is not agreeable, to uphold the dignity of the workings of Parliament and of the members of Parliament and of its procedures. I accordingly move—

Mr. Speaker, I support the hon. member for Pinelands in moving that this debate be now adjourned. The hon. member for Green Point talked about the unseemly haste with which the hon. the Minister has come forward with this legislation. I think that was an understatement. I suggest that what we have seen is this hon. Minister coming forward with legislation in a highly cavalier fashion, a fashion that strkes at the very core of the reason for the existence of this Parliament. Sir, we have heard from the hon. member for Green Point of his personal difficulties when he introduced the Opposition’s case when the Second Reading was moved. But the hon. member for Green Point is in an extremely fortunate position.

Order! The hon. member must confine his remarks …

I am, Sir. I am confining myself …

Order! The hon. member must obey the ruling from the Chair and confine his remarks to the matter under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, I am confining myself to supporting the hon. member for Pinelands, and I am explaining why. The hon. member for Green Point, as I said, was extremely fortunate in being able to say what he was able to say. But what was significant was what he was not able to say. As he pointed out in his Second Reading speech, we as an Opposition had not been able to consult with local authorities as we should have. We have not been able to consult with our colleagues in the provincial council, not only of the Cape, but of all the provinces right throughout the country. We have not been able to consult with bodies such as the South African Property Owners’ Association.

Those points have all been made.

No, Sir, I want to come to this point.

Order ! Those points have all been made!

I want to come to this point, Mr. Speaker, that we received this Bill on Friday morning.

That point has also been made.

Yes. We have had an opportunity even to discuss this in the relevant caucus committee. Sir, it was discussed cursorily in a caucus of ours, but again without this entire background that was needed. This sort of legislation cannot be handled in a matter of two or three days. This is the sort of legislation that takes weeks,—certainly at least a week—to prepare. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister is sitting there, as he does, without even indicating to us whether he is prepared to accede to an adjournment of the debate. I now come to a point that has already been made, but I want to build on it. We realize that the Government have problems about the Order Paper. This has been trasparent for several days.

Order! Yes, but those points have also been made repeatedly.

Yes, Sir, but the point I want to make is that I cannot see why the interests of all these people involved—local authorities, property owners, including private property owners, people who have bought or are buying property— should be prejudiced just because of a technicality in this House, because the Leader of the House has been unable to arrange business satisfactorily. That is the point I wanted to make. The hon. member for Parow gave us the best part of a half-hour speech. I would like to know from him when he received the Bill. His speech, a few moments ago sounded a pretty empty one, but I would like to know whether he himself has had an opportunity to consult the very people who are going to be affected by this Bill. Of course he has not —unless he received the Bill earlier than we.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion for the adjournment of the debate.

Sir, I am dealing with the motion. I am trying to point out to you, Sir, the very difficulties that we on this side of the House are experiencing. The motion of the hon. member for Pinelands introduces a very cogent principle into this House: Whether we sit here and in our wisdom, and without reference to the people outside, make our own little decisions in our ignorance, or whether we test the feelings of the people and find out from the people who are involved what their views are in order to bring those views to this House when the principle of the Bill is discussed in the Second Reading debate—that is the crux of the matter. For this reason I wish to support the hon. member for Pinelands. I suggest that we now adjourn this debate and allow members of this House, including members on the other side of the House, to find out exactly what the Bill is about and test public opinion.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to address you on the motion for the adjournment, i.e. not on the Bill. I want to say at once that we have to do here with a situation which I find amazing as far as the Opposition is concerned. Sir, what is the position as far as this Bill is concerned? The Bill was presented to the House on Friday; it was available to hon. members then. In the meantime a weekend has gone by, a weekend during which they could have done the necessary research. [Interjections.]

I would like to ask the Minister what local authorities he thinks we could have consulted over the weekend?

I am talking specifically about research at the local authorities over the weekend. [Interjections.]

What are you talking about then?

Sir, hon. members opposite have rotten manners to boot.

Order!

The fact of the matter is simply that this matter cropped up on Friday. Yesterday I made my Second Reading speech, and having done so, I had the decency to accept a motion for the adjournment of the debate in order that hon. members might have a chance to prepare themselves further. In terms of the rules of the House we could have insisted yesterday on a continuation of the Second Reading debate; the rules of the House permit that. But there is no question of appreciation being shown on the part of the Opposition for the adjournment of the debate yesterday; on the contrary, today they are launching the same attack here all over again. The trouble with hon. members opposite is that they want to discuss the details of the Bill, which are not relevant here. The details of this measure are discussed in the provincial councils. All we are granting here, is authorization for a certain thing to be done; the details are ironed out in the provincial councils. The granting of this authorization is not a contentious matter at all. All that is being done is to grant the necessary authorization to the provincial councils. I want to say at once that in the light of the circumstances I cannot accept the motion for the adjournment of the debate; I must oppose it, because it is essential for us to proceed with this measure. Secondly, as regards the details which hon. members want to discuss, there is ample time, weeks and months, for them to be ironed out in the provincial councils; they are not subject to any restriction. All that is involved here, is the authorization which we are granting to the provincial councils, and that is a matter of principle which need not be argued in detail.

Question put and the House divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister in dealing with the motion for the adjournment of the debate, and the hon. member for Parow, in dealing with the merits of the Bill, missed completely the point of objection by this side of the House. I should like to make it clear to the hon. the Minister because I believe it is an important one. The hon. the Minister said that this was merely an empowering Bill. It merely gives certain powers to the provincial councils which they may or may not exercise and if they do exercise them, it is up to them to determine the details or the procedure under which the powers may be exercised. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that this is partly correct, but it is also partly incorrect. It is because it is partly incorrect that we do object to clause 3 as it is.

The hon. member for Parow asked me whether contrary to our attitude in the past we now object to powers being given to provincial councils. Of course, we have not changed our attitude in regard to that. We are still very jealous of preserving the position of the provincial councils and the powers which they enjoy. Furthermore, our opposition to clause 3 in no way implies that we consider that the provinces are not capable of exercising the powers which are given to them. The hon. member for Parow went so far as to suggest that when the hon. member for Green Point referred to a number of cases relating to the Cape Provincial Administration, he was criticizing the Cape Provincial Administration on a way which implied no confidence in that administration. Of course that was not the case at all. The hon. member for Green Point referred to these cases as examples of the difficulties which the provincial councils have in properly exercising the power of a betterment contribution or a depreciation allowance unless Parliament gives it the adequate power which they require and which clause 3 does not give them.

What is this adequate power? The adequate power is very simply the power to invoke the provisions of the Arbitration Act to enable aggrieved persons to go to arbitration to determine the proper compensation to which they should be entitled. The position, as explained by the hon. member for Green Point, is that unless Parliament gives to provincial councils the power to bring into operation the Arbitration Act in these cases, the provincial councils are powerless to bring it into operation. The result is therefore that the individual persons within the province who are affected by a decision to claim a betterment contribution or by a decision to depreciate the value of their property do not enjoy proper recourse to the one Act which will enable them to get a fair award of compensation or a fair amount by way of a betterment contribution.

The whole point of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point is to enable this House to give sufficient powers to the provincial councils for the exercise of the power to raise betterment contributions or to permit local authorities to do this. The second aspect of this is equally important. The hon. member for Green Point pointed out that there were very good arguments that could be advanced to prove that it was not every case where betterment had occurred that part of that amount should be handed over. He suggested as an example the case where a town-planning scheme of a local authority was amend not at the request of the owner himself but as a result perhaps of the general planning of an area. In such cases it is felt by many persons that to pay over part of that benefit is unfair as it would be unfair to expect an owner who happens to have property which at one time was on the outskirts of a city and which, because of the growth of the city towards his property, now enjoys an enhanced value and has to pay more. Just as it is unfair to expect that owner to pay over part of the enhanced value, so it is argued, and I believe with considerable merit, that where a town-planning scheme is amended by a local authority and that has the result of benefiting certain owners there should not be a call for a betterment contribution in such cases. The first part of the amendment deals with this and suggests that before the power to permit betterment contributions is exercised, there should be a proper investigation to determine the circumstances under which a betterment contribution should be paid and, conversely, a depreciation contribution should be paid by the local authority. If this is not done, individuals can be prejudiced as a result of perhaps over-hasty action by a local authority. It is not sufficient to say that these are all matters of detail that should properly be discussed by the provincial council when they choose to exercise these powers. It is our submission that it is the duty of the Legislature which in terms of clause 3 of the Bill is granting certain powers to the provincial administrations, to state precisely under what circumstances these powers should be exercised or, conversely, it is their duty to call for a proper investigation before they are exercised. Above all, if these powers are to be handed over, surely they should be handed over in a way which gives proper protection to individuals. That proper protection can only be given if the provincial councils are given the opportunity to bring into effect the Expropriation Act. This will enable the individual who has complaints, who is dissatisfied to go on appeal to an expropriation appeal board. This cannot be done under present circumstances, with the result that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction in many of these cases. The figure which is suggested as to the amount to be contributed, is often in dispute and there is no proper means for those persons who are dissatisfied, to put forward their point of view and to establish the fair value if the Expropriation Act is not made applicable. If the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, that this Bill should stand over until there has been a proper investigation, I hope that he will at least give proper consideration to making it possible for provincial councils to enable local authorities to bring into effect the Expropriation Act by means of an appropriate amendment to clause 3 during the Committee Stage.

I want to refer to another important aspect of this clause, an aspect which has not been dealt with at any great length, namely subsection (2) of clause 3 in terms of which subsection (1)(a) shall be deemed to have come into operation on the 1st April, 1925. Can the hon. the Minister, or any member on that side of the House, tell this House what the effect will be of this provision? I would suggest that it is unheard of to make a provision of this sort, with such far-reaching implications, applicable from as far back as 1st April, 1925. It is, I submit, the height of folly for this House to pass a provision of this sort! For the hon. Minister and hon. members on that side of the House to suggest that this is a simple matter which does not need to be referred to local authorities or to other persons who may be affected because there is nothing in it, is making a farce of Parliament. This could adversely affect persons who for years have regarded their affairs with regard to a particular rezoning as being at an end, as being concluded. They may have reinvested the money which they have had from their property or they may have dealt with the money in some other way. They will now be in a position where the local authority concerned could reopen their case and call for a betterment contribution from them.

You are being silly now. This Bill deals with the Financial Relations Act.

I hope the hon. member for Klip River, who has just interrupted, will come into the debate to give us the opportunity of questioning him on the statement he has just made. If he were to read this amending Bill correctly, he would see that subsection (1)(a) shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1st April, 1925.

It amends the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act.

Of course! This is precisely the section that is being amended by clause 3. How can the hon. member for Klip River then suggest that I am being silly? What it means is that once clause 3(1)(a) is passed by this House, it is automatically deemed to have come into operation on the 1st April, 1925.

Provided the provinces have had ordinances which are now being covered by enabling legislation.

This enables the provinces to pass an ordinacne to enable a local authority to demand a betterment contribution from as far back as the 1st April, 1925. Does the hon. member for Klip River or the hon. member for Parow dispute that?

Of course; it is farfetched.

Right, I now challenge the hon. member for Klip River—the hon. member for Parow has already spoken and cannot speak again— to stand up after me in this debate and to make the point, and I ask the hon. the Minister in his reply to this debate, if I am wrong, to explain this extraordinary provision making the amendment which is now being proposed in clause 3(1)(a) retrospective to the 1st April, 1925. I say again that the effect of that provision is to make it possible for a provincial council to enable local authorities to claim a betterment contribution in respect of a betterment which may have taken place at any time between now and as far back as the 1st April, 1925.

That is sheer nonsense.

Why do you think that date was chosen? There must have been a reason for it.

I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us this. I am interpreting what he has put in his Bill, and if he means something else by it, then this is a further reason why this half-baked measure which is being rushed through the House should be postponed to enable persons who are affected …

That matter has been disposed of.

I abide by your ruling and will not pursue this, but I do say that this provision, namely clause 3(2), makes it imperative that not only local authorities but also persons who could be seriously affected by these provisions should be given adequate opportunity to make representations either to this House through their Members of Parliament or, at any rate, to the hon. the Minister. They have certainly not had the time to do this at this stage. In the short time that has been available in which to prepare ourselves for this debate, this is I am afraid the best that I am able to do. As I see the position, this is a dangerous provision to put through in this hurried form and therefore I too oppose the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to retrace the steps of this hon. member all the way back to 1925. I only want to go back a little way. This is the new fashion now, which we observe among the Opposition members these days, that they come here without having done their homework and then plead for an afternoon to go and do something else. Now it is being voiced abroad that there was allegedly no time for consultation. I now want to ask what the hon. members really wanted to consult about and whom they really wanted to consult?

Harry Schwarz.

It is possible that they wanted to consult Harry, but after all, one could have done that simply by means of a telephone call. After all, one could have done the same with Joel Mervis. Surely any member who is at all worth his salt, knows by this time what is meant by clause 3 of this Bill. Any member who does his work in his constituency, would already have had practical experience of this matter. But the problem with these hon. members is that they come to this House in order to judge any legislation on a theoretical basis instead of also doing some work sometimes in their constituencies and concerning themselves with this matter in practice. Throughout all the years I have been here, the official Opposition have professed themselves to be the guardian angels of the provinces, people who sit here and jealously guard over the powers of the provinces. The other day this was carried even further. The hon. member for South Coast—I do not take it amiss of him—sat and jealously guarded the powers of the Natal Parks Board. He must not look angry at me when I say this now. In the course of time it has been our experience that hon. members opposite are allergic to Pretoria. When certain powers are taken by the Government, the fact that powers are once again being transferred to Pretoria is referred to with derision.

Today we have here a Bill with four clauses, which grants certain powers to the provinces if they do not already have them, or which where there is ambiguity, confirms those powers beyond all doubt, and does so, whether it involves the question of education bursaries or betterment levies, whether it is concerned with the control of pollution, the donation of certain land to the Medical Research Council or the purchase of wreaths. I think that we should consider another amendment during the Committee Stage. There is another body which qualifies for the purchase of wreaths, particularly after today’s performance.

Let us confine ourselves for a moment to clause 3 of this Bill. In 1969 the United Party accepted this principle in the Cape Provincial Council without a division. They did not even force a vote, so unanimous were they with the members of the National Party concerning this matter. You can ask the hon. member for Maitland whether there was a division or a difference of opinion. He was a member of the Cape Provincial Council at that time. In 1970 they were still accepting the principle, when this legislation was already being applied in practice. I remember well that in 1970 this legislation had already been applied in practice by a local authority like Parow. The United Party supporters were still completely satisfied about that. But then an election was held. In this 1970 election a Hertzogite candidate, for the lack of anything better to say, picked up this story with the object of stirring people up. The next thing that happened, was that the United Party realized that there might be some profit in this matter for them.

You are all afraid of the Hertzogites!

Actually, the facts prove the opposite. It was as a result of incitement by the Hertzogites that the U.P. supporters tagged along. In effect the Hertzogites took them in tow concerning this matter. In the process they even picked up a stray Nationalist whose own interests weighed heaviest with him. In fact, they took these in tow completely.

Let us see how this betterment levy is constituted. Fundamentally it should not be necessary for us to argue about the details here today, but since hon. members opposite have seen fit to argue about the details, let us discuss the betterment contribution. The argument is being used here that this is determined in a completely arbitrary way. Sir, let us see how this betterment contribution is levied. When an urban area is replanned and this leads to rezoning, the local authority sets a valuation on the site and the dwelling concerned, which was probably zoned as a single residential area; it sets a valuation on that, taking into account the value of residential plots and houses in that neighbourhood, and in this connection I must say that local authorities go out of their way to place a reasonably high valuation on those sites in order to reduce the betterment contribution in this way. If a site is rezoned from a residential to a business site, then the next step is to set a valuation on it, taking into account the value of business sites in the neighbourhood, and the betterment contribution is then applicable to 50% of the difference between those two amounts. But, Sir, as has already been stated repeatedly, that betterment contribution is only payable when the owner begins to develop or when he alienates that property. In other words, this does not put the screws on helpless pensioners, as the hon. member for Green Point attempted to indicate here with much gesticulation. The position is of course that one has similar legislation in Britain, with this difference that as soon as a rezoning takes place and a betterment levy is determined, that betterment levy is payable immediately, which is quite different to the position here, possibly for good reasons, but in any event our legislation in this connection is far more lenient than that in Britain.

Sir, where does this money go which local authorities receive in the form of these betterment contributions? It is paid into the Consolidated Loan Fund, but it is not used over the entire spectrum of the expenditure of a local authority; it is utilized specifically for the execution of the town-planning scheme, which may entail certain properties being detrimentally affected in the process and the local authority having to pay a depreciation contribution. Naturally, the creation of new business areas also places a tremendous burden on the shoulders of local authorities. Sir, when one creates a business centre, the local authorities must necessarily make provision for parking facilities; in other words, it must purchase land at the highest prices in order to establish parking space; in many instances it must construct new roads. Services are far more intensive for a business complex of this kind than for a residential area only. In other words, rezoning involves tremendous expense for the local authorities. As against this, the owner of the premises concerned has the benefit of the more advantageous zoning. If we have to accept the argument of the official Opposition, the owner of these premises has a tremendous increase in the market value of his property overnight without having raised a finger in this connection. If we follow the logic of the official Opposition, it would mean that we are in favour of a few people enjoying a total benefit from this rezoning but that the costs of the provision of these services in terms of the town-planning scheme, must be spread over all the voters in the area of the local authority which have not had the benefit of rezoning and which have quite possibly also suffered the disadvantage of a disadvantageous zoning. In other words, Sir, our view is that where there is—I shall not call it an excessive profit—an excessive increase in the market value, without any effort on the part of the owner, the local authority would be quite justified in levying that betterment contribution. Now the hon. member for Green Point says that a few helpless old pensioners are sitting in their little house which they have just paid off and without having anything to do with it, the local authority catches them unawares with an advantageous rezoning; that owner only wanted the zoning to be single residential, but now he receives business rights and he is now so hard hit by rates that he is no longer able to live there. I do not know where the hon. member came by that argument. At this stage no rates have yet been levied on such premises according to the new valuation after rezoning. Naturally it is the intention that an adjustment of the rates should be made—I concede that— but that will apply for the most part to the site and not to the buildings; and the buildings usually carry a fairly heavy assessment. Because if the building, as a single residential building, is not suitable for business purposes, it will not be rated for business purposes.

Then the hon. member told us about four little plots at a certain place on which the local authorities placed a value and that the four plots were offered for sale at an auction and there were no offers. Sir, I know that case particularly well. I know about this particular auctioneering firm which offered these four adjoining properties for sale, but that was an exceptional bit of timing, because those particular people had to handle that Mr. Harmse’s case, and had to build up a case for him by indicating that there was no market at the price of the valuation which had been drawn up by the municipality of Parow. I do not want to use an ugly word for what happened here, but if this system is so extremely unfair, why should it be that people are still coming to the local authorities all the time, notwithstanding this appreciation contribution and this levy, to ask for rezoning of their properties? Now, the hon. member for Green Point also said that this 50% levy which is now different in the Cape Province to those of other provinces will smother all enterprise in our province. Sir, the ordinance provides that a maximum of 50% may be levied. In other words, from place to place, from one local authority area to another, the percentage of value appreciation contributions will, of course, vary. In 1969 the congress of the municipal associations unanimously decided at their congress in Port Elizabeth to recommend that this particular section of the ordinance be applied in order to enable local authorities to execute their town-planning schemes.

I want to come to clause 4, the last clause of this Bill, and I want to tell you that this clause is of great personal importance to me because it has to do with one of the prestige institutions in my constituency, namely the Medical Research Council. As we indicated at the start, this legislation is necessary to establish beyond all doubt the ability of the provinces to donate land which they have expropriated, and land belonging to them, to the Medical Research Council. Sir, as you will note from Schedule 2 of the Bill, it is a portion of Tygerberg Hospital grounds, which are approximately 2,4 hectares in extent, which is concerned in this donation. Then you will see that in Schedule 1 mention is made of a large number of residential properties which are also being expropriated by the province in order to be able to extend this property. The Medical Research Council’s basic problem at this stage is that, because uncertainty exists concerning the situation, they are not in a position to consolidate that property and to develop it as they would like at this stage to develop it and are able to develop it. That is one of the reasons why this legislation is of an urgent nature: In order that the Medical Research Council may also proceed with its work. The development of the Medical Research Council includes, inter alia, the establishment of the research institute for nutritional diseases. It is an institute which will of course have to perform its work nationally over the whole country but which will be centred in the Western Cape in particular. Its research and its lead in the medical sphere in so far as it concerns nutritional diseases, whether malnutrition or undernourishment, will, in other words, be of great importance to us with our very large Coloured population here and particularly on the Cape Flats. For that reason we are particularly grateful that this legislation has been introduced at this early stage to enable the Medical Research Council to consolidate its ground and to continue with the establishment of all its research institutes in order that progress may be made as rapidly as possible with the research projects which are so closely associated with this whole matter.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Tygervallei spent an awful long time dealing with the details of the powers which it is now intended to give to a province in the Republic, but it was not so long ago that his Minister and his colleague, the hon. member for Parow, were taking us to task for dealing with the details. The hon. the Minister, in his reply to the motion for the adjournment, said that he was not interested in the details of this Bill, but here the hon. member has fallen into exactly the same trap.

The hon. member for Tygervallei makes the point that if overnight a man finds that because of a rezoning of his property he suddenly has a property with a greatly enhanced value, surely some of that enhanced value should go to the local authority. I want to put this question pertinently to hon. members on the other side and I am very glad that the hon. the Leader of the House is here as well: Are they in favour of a capital gains tax? Is this now to be an accepted principle on that side of the House? Are they working towards the implementation of such a capital gains tax on all other things as well, because that is, in effect, what the hon. member for Tygervallei is pleading for.

That is nonsense.

What he is pleading for is that when there is a capital appreciation of your property, whether you have worked for it, whether you have taken overt steps to achieve that increase or whether it has happened fortuitously, some of that capital gain should go to the local authority or to the provincial authority concerned.

That has nothing to do with it.

No, the hon. member cannot get past it this way. In the hon. the Minister’s reply we should like to learn whether they are in favour of the introduction of such capital gains taxation, because that is what, in effect, is happening here today.

That is not what is happening.

It is no good the hon. member for Tygervallei saying that it is not what is happening, because, if he had done his homework, he should know that the courts have held that it is, in fact, such a capital gains tax. That is a decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of South Africa. He should have known that if he had done his homework. While I am dealing with the question of homework, what did the hon. the Minister say in reply to the motion that we should adjourn so that we can do our homework?

Order! That matter has been disposed of.

No, I am not dealing with that matter, Sir; I am not dealing with that motion at all. I am merely dealing …

Order! The hon. member may not even deal with the hon. the Minister’s reply to that motion.

Mr. Speaker, may I address you on that point?

No, there is no necessity for that. That matter has been disposed of. The House has come to a decision in that regard.

Mr. Speaker, may I put it this way?

May I put the hon. member a question?

No, I have no time to deal with that hon. member. I was not able to do any homework. I cannot answer the questions of that hon. member.

Quote us the case.

May I put it this way? The hon. the Minister has said that this is merely enabling legislation. He said that in his introductory speech as well. How can he say such a thing before this House? How can he endeavour to mislead us here and the people outside by saying that this is merely enabling legislation? As was so ably pointed out by my hon. friend from Green Point, this is not enabling legislation; it is ratifying legislation as far as the Cape and the Transvaal are concerned. The hon. member for Tygervallei says that we will give powers to the provinces if they do not already have them. How can he say that? Surely he knows the provinces have usurped these powers ultra vires. The hon. the Minister admitted it in his introductory speech. He admitted it in terms of the Bill itself; clause 3(2) states: “Subsection (1)(a) shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1st April, 1925.” By inserting that subsection he admits that something has been done which is ultra vires. This is the crux of the matter when it comes to the 13 cases which are now before the Supreme Court in the Cape Province. The hon. member for Tygervallei and the hon. member for Parow suggested that these were “kleinigheidjies”, that they were trivialities. What is the position with the 13 cases which are now before the Supreme Court? The amount of the contribution which is in dispute in those 13 cases alone totals nearly R250 000 or, to be more exact, R249 690. But it is a “kleinigheidjie” according to the hon. member for Parow. These are trivialitites ! This is why we consider that this legislation should not be pushed through with such unseemly haste. Do hon. members know that by the time we have finished with this legislation it will be exactly five days; it will mean that a matter of this importance has been pushed through five days from the time that we first saw it to the time that we finish the Third Reading of this debate on Thursday. The hon. the Minister says it is merely enabling legislation, but it is ratifying legislation as far as the Cape and the Transvaal are concerned. Clause 2(2) itself reads—

We find the same thing in respect of clause 1. Yes the hon. member for Tygervallei tries to be clever and suggests that there should be another wreath for the official Opposition. I want to agree with him by saying that there should be provision for another wreath, but it will be another wreath for the dignity of Parliament which has been abrogated over the last few days. In dealing with the measure I want to come back to clause 1.

You have not done your homework.

The hon. ex-member for Umhlatuzana says I have not done my homework. I am prepared to admit that I have not done my homework. I want to challenge him as an hon. representative from Natal, and his colleague who sits next to him, the hon. member for Newcastle who unfortunately has left the Chamber now and who had so much to say by way of interjection about what is taken in Natal—he alleged that what was taken in Natal from a landowner was more than what was taken in the Cape—to tell us what is taken from a landowner in Natal. Do they know? Do they know the basis of any contribution that is taken from a land-owner in Natal when the value of his property is enhanced? I do not believe the hon. the Minister knows, let alone anybody on that side of the House.

It is more than it is in the Cape.

The hon. member for Parow repeats it and he says it is more than in the Cape, but when he was challenged to outline the basis on which any contribution, if any, is collected in Natal he was unable to do so.

You tell us, then.

Order!

The hon. member for Tygervallei was also unable to do so.

You are just padding.

Order!

I have issued a challenge to that hon. member, the hon. member for Klip River who continues to interject …

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am proceeding. I have issued a challenge to him to follow me in this debate and to outline to the House what contribution, if any—and I stress “if any”—is made by a landowner in Natal when the value of his property is increased. There is no hard and fast rule laid down in Natal because Natal has never used any such legislation. It has never used any such legislation.

I want to say here and now that, as far as Natal is concerned, I believe they will welcome this power. I believe that the Natal Provincial Council will accept that this power should be given to them, but with one proviso: I believe that it should truly be only enabling legislation; I believe they should be enabled to pass legislation dealing with this matter if they so wish and that there should be no compulsion on any province to pass such legislation. I accept that that is in effect what is here, but I would like from the hon. the Minister an assurance this afternoon, when he replies to this debate, that in no way will any of the provinces be coerced into carrying out any of these provisions. I say this advisedly because what is the position in Natal at the moment? At the moment Natal is considering legislation which it will introduce once this enabling legislation has passed through this House and has become law. However, it is hidebound by what has already taken place in the other provinces. In its consideration of such legislation, such draft legislation—that is all it is at this stage—it is bound by what has already happened ultra vires—and I want to stress that point —in the Cape and in the Transvaal.

In the Transvaal as well?

Yes, in the Transvaal as well. Why then are we enabling the Transvaal to do this? Why are we now saying for the first time that the Transvaal shall be enabled to pass this sort of legislation? The hon. member for Parow must also do some homework. I do not know when he got the Bill. I do not know how long ago he got it, that he was able to do the homework that he did, but I know that mine arrived on my desk on Friday morning. As I say, Natal is being bound by what has happened in the other provinces in the drawing up of whatever legislation it itends to introduce because it has been accepted as a principle that there should be uniformity. In terms of the amendment moved by my friend, the hon. member for Green Point, we want to see uniformity. That is why I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point that we should have more time to consider this matter for that very reason.

I want to come back …

That is enough!

Yes, I shall accept that that is enough for clause 3, but I want to come back to clause 1 which deals with the question of bursaries for school children. I want to say that, as far as the enabling legislation is concerned, this is only in respect of the Cape Province. However, I welcome this provision for Natal and the other provinces. I want to ask the hon. Minister whether this is limited only to children from provincial or Government schools. Do children from private schools qualify? Will he allow the provinces to apply this to children in private schools or is it going to be limited only to children in Government schools?

I must also deal with a provision which has not received very much attention from those who have debated the matter so far —and I do not say that in a spirit of criticism—namely, the new paragraph 25 which is to be added to the Second Schedule to the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act. I am very glad, incidentally, that the hon. member for Klip River was able to discover that that is the Act which we are in fact amending. I do not know which Act he thought we were amending. In terms of paragraph 25 we are now returning to the provinces the power to legislate regarding the control of environmental pollution. Over the years the Nationalist Government has taken away a number of powers from the provinces. In regard to this particular matter I think of the powers they had in terms of the Water Act, the powers they had in terms of the Atmospheric Pollution Act and of course in terms of the Public Health Act. All these powers were taken away by this Nationalist Government from the provinces at one time or another during the last 25 years. I want to agree with the hon. member for Tygervallei when he says that we have been jealous of the powers of the provinces and that we have guarded the powers of the provinces. But having taken them away we find that today we are being asked to give those powers back to the provinces and I want to say that we welcome that and that we are very glad of that, particularly in so far as Natal is concerned. This enables them to legislate and to take action on pollution and I believe the provinces will take action, which is of course in contradistinction to what has happened as long as the question of pollution control has been in the hands of this Government. Up to now this Government has failed to take any action regarding environmental control. It is planning and talking an awful lot, but it is not doing very much. However, I must make one proviso. This side of the House, particularly through my friend the hon. member for South Coast, has made it quite clear that our approach to this whole question of the control of environmental pollution is quite different from that of the Government. The Government is fragmenting this control and is putting the responsibility here, there and everywhere and nobody is co-ordinating it. Every time we have a disaster and something happens nobody knows to whom to refer; nobody knows who is the responsible body. We believe the province has its part to play, but we do believe that there should be one central co-ordinating ministry which will coordinate and direct all the interested bodies and persons in this matter. Unfortunately, like my colleague the hon. member for Musgrave, I also was not allowed much time to consult. I have not consulted with any of the local authorities in my area. I do not know what their attitude in regard to this measure is. I have briefly on the telephone consulted with a member of the provincial executive in Natal.

What about the Hammarsdale Ratepayers’ Association?

The hon. member raises the question of the Hammarsdale Ratepayers’ Association, but unfortunately that body does not yet exist. I believe that from the 1st April we will have a local authority in Hammarsdale thanks to the Natal Provincial Administration and I suppose that such a body will come into being. But the hon. member should know one thing …

Yes, but is that in connection with the Bill?

Yes, it is very pertinent, Sir. He should know, coming from Natal, that the provincial administration in Natal in its wisdom in the period from 1958 to 1963 set aside vast tracts of land in Natal for industrial development. They zoned it for industrial development. Now what is going to happen to those people? What is going to happen to the owners of that agricultural land?

It depends on the local authority. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Parow has put him in his place!

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill now; he has been led astray.

I will not allow myself to be led astray any more and I will follow the example of the hon. member for Green Point and support his amendment.

Mr. Speaker, we have just had a short, heated debate here on a matter which I honestly think is not contentious. I expressed this opinion at the outset of my Second Reading speech because I was convinced and am still convinced of this, although a lot of unnecessary dust was raised here about a matter which is really not contentious. I shall refer to this fully when I come to it. In the first place let me say that we are dealing here with a position where, as a result of the administrative problems and the administrative handling of certain matters in the provinces, problems arise from time to time as a result of which certain conditions develop in regard to which the provinces then want security and the necessary authority to be able to handle them. That certain problems should crop up from time to time is something which will probably always happen. To be able to rectify them, we come to this House with a Bill such as this to rectify this various assortment, this potpourri I would almost say, of problems which the provinces have. Some of these matters have been requiring attention for several years, but we cannot come to Parliament immediately with every little problem they have and straighten it out, for one does not play the fool with this House. The result is that we save up these things and when we have a number of them we come forward with a Bill such as this in which all the little matters are rectified. Here we have for the most part four matters, with a fifth one added, which we want to rectify with this Bill and which I am honestly convinced are not contentious, although there is a history attached to one matter, as a result of which the United Party feels tremendously emotional.

In the first place we are dealing here with an innocent clause in terms of which we want to legalize bursaries awarded to deserving pupils, on a retrospective basis with effect from the date on which they originally came into force, because there is uncertainty as to whether the provinces may do this. There is in reality only one problem. There is no doubt that a province may award a bursary to a student, deserving or otherwise, if that student is going to study with the object of eventually entering the service of the province. That happens in all the provinces. In this way future teachers in the provincial service, as well as male nurses and nurses, are provided with bursaries. There are various ways of helping them in this connection. The Cape, however, went further and awarded bursaries to all deserving scholars who achieved a certain standard in the school-leaving examination, provided they furthered their studies but regardless of where they did so or where they were going to work. It is that aspect, that the person need not enter the service of the province, which is suspect, i.e. whether the province may award bursaries to students who do not enter the service of the provinces after qualifying. This matter is now being rectified here. I thank the Opposition for supporting this clause. That, at least, sounds like the sensible thing to do. This Bill now makes it possible for the other provinces to emulate this fine gesture. The decision will rest with every province whether it wants to adopt this method or not. After the passing of this Bill there will in fact be statutory authorization.

The second clause deals with quite a simple little matter, which does give rise to legal problems however, viz. the normal gesture of purchasing a wreath for a wreath-laying ceremony. If a request were to be made to the Administrator or other representative of a province to lay a wreath on behalf of the province at the statue of Jan van Riebeeck, or on the occasion of a Delville Wood Day celebration—he is perhaps the speaker there—he may, according to the present circumstances, not do so. The expenditure incurred in this connection is unlawful. Anyone who regards the matter objectively would in any case consider that a province ought to be empowered to do this. The entire object of the clause is simply to rectify this matter now and to make the provision with retrospective effect. For the sake of decency the provinces have for a long time been incurring such expenditure, but it was unlawful, according to the present circumstances. I shall move an amendment during the Committee Stage to include Van Riebeeck Day.

We come now, in the third place, to the question which was the cause of this entire outcry here today. Let us now regard the matter, which all the fighting was about, in its true perspective. These powers in regard to town-planning schemes, etc., the provinces have already had since 1st April, 1925.

Lawfully?

Yes. I shall furnish the precise reference in a moment. Recently uncertainty arose in regard to the specific method of application, and by means of clause 3 we simply want to establish this power beyond all doubt. I want to repeat what I mentioned briefly a moment ago. All the arguments which hon. members raised in regard to the details of particular cases, were honestly out of place in this House. These are matters which ought to be settled in the provincial councils concerned when the authorization which we are now establishing beyond all doubt here is applied in the provinces, when the provinces decide precisely how they are going to apply these powers. The colleagues of the hon. members opposite in the provincial council should argue and settle the matter there. All the arguments raised here today really belong in that council chamber, and not here in our House. That is where the measures and details are being applied. We are simply ensuring that the position is clarified in regard to the powers which are already regarded as belonging to the provinces, and in regard to which a uncertainty has now arisen in one province. In the other provinces no uncertainty exists in regard to this matter. The Transvaal won a court case on this matter and was proved to be right. In the Cape court cases are pending. But why should this uncertainty on the part of the provinces now have arisen? We must decide in principle whether we want to empower the provinces, where appreciation occurs as a result of the rezoning of land, to charge a levy on that, on the one hand. One the other hand, if the value of such property depreciates through rezoning, there has to be authorization to pay compensation or offer compensatory property. We want to empower the provinces to take action in regard to both these aspects. That is the principle we are discussing here, and that was what all the shouting was about. The method applied by the provinces in doing this should be argued in the provincial councils, not here.

What about the pending court cases?

In the Transvaal a court case has already been decided in favour of the province. Sir, you can imagine what the position is going to be. Suppose the court case in the Cape is decided against the province; in the Transvaal it is decided in favour of the province. The Minister of the Interior then has the impossible situation on his hands that legislation on the Statute Book has been accepted in one province, that the court gave judgement in favour of the province, and that the judgement given by the court in another province was not in favour of that province. The result will then be that I will have to return next year with legislation which will be with retrospective effect in order to set aside the latter judgement. What else can I do?

Who is going to pay the costs of these cases?

In this Bill we are putting the powers which we think the provinces do in fact have beyond all doubt. The judgement given by the court in the Transvaal is now being put beyond all doubt, and in this way the matter is being rectified. After all, it is an untenable position that a certain provision in one province is acceptable and is rejected in another province. I want to add at once that the hon. members on that side are all arguing as if the court in the Cape has already given judgement against the province, but the judgement has not yet been given; we must be very clear about that.

What will the courts be able to do now if the Bill is placed on the Statute Book?

This Bill will now rectify the matter so that there will not be an untenable position between two provinces. That is what is being envisaged with this Bill. It is the duty of the Government to put the position beyond all doubt. Sir, that is the end of the story and I could stop here, but for the sake of clarity I want to furnish hon. members with a few more particulars. Paragraph 14 of the Second Schedule of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, Act No. 38 of 1945, which was passed here when the Opposition was in power, has since 1945 already conferred the following powers upon the provinces in regard to the lay-out and rezoning of land, etc. I am quoting, and I am deliberately going to quote in full—

In other words, powers in regard to the entire question of the zoning of land were conferred upon the provinces as long ago as 1945.

Only as far as compensation is concerned.

The entire principle was accepted there. Sir, I quote further. There are eight provisions; I am quoting paragraph (f)—

Sir, so you have the one provision after the other. In terms of section 35ter which was inserted in the Cape in 1969, they have the right to pay compensation for betterment, and uncertainty now existed in regard to that provision. I want to remind hon. members of what I said in my Second Reading speech. I in no way misled them. For the information of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, who said that I tried to mislead hon. members, I am quoting what I said in my Second Reading speech—

I did not mislead anyone; I indicated where the authorization came from—

This is not stated in the Act—

That was where the authorization came from. The Transvaal has a similar provision. This power is now being questioned; the Cape is not certain what the position is. We cannot tolerate the untenable position that a matter is accepted in one province and not in another. That is why I have now come to this House with this legislation. I want to ask the Opposition specifically now whether they are opposed to the principle contained in this clause. When a person, as a result of the replanning of a certain area, suddenly finds himself, overnight, in the position where his land is far more valuable then than it was a week ago, as a result of that replanning, is the United Party in favour of it being possible to force such a person, in such a case, to pay a certain levy as a result of that appreciation of his land, or are they not? Now there is not a sound from the opposite side. But the same applies for the reverse position. If a person should suddenly, as a result of rezoning, find that he is suffering a loss and being prejudiced on a large scale, are they in favour of such a person being compensated? Once again I have asked the question and once again there is no reply. That is all hon. members have to approve. That is all I am asking them to approve, to establish beyond all doubt that this may be the case.

May I put a question? Would the Minister agree that if an individual is dissatisfied either with the betterment contribution he has to pay or with his depreciation allowance he is offered, there should be proper opportunity for him to appeal against the award? And if the Minister agrees with that, would he not concede that the provincial councils, in terms of the powers which they now have, do not have the power to make it possible for individuals to appeal in terms of, for example, the Expropriation Act?

But they have that power.

In the first place I agree with the hon. member that the person ought to have that right and that the powers ought to be there, so that it is possible to do so. I shall still go into details in this regard, but at the moment I am convinced that there are such powers. I think the powers are there for him to be able to do so in the normal manner, but as I have told the hon. member, I shall go into this in detail. I shall have it investigated in full, and during the Committee Stage I shall look at this again, and I shall try to satisfy the hon. member. I shall then furnish him with a complete reply. That is the only principle which is at issue here. Now, I have been asked whether we know what is happening in Natal, what the position in Natal is. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has said that no one on this side of the House knows what is happening in Natal. He said no one, the Minister included, knew, but I have here a letter from the Provincial Administration of Natal. I can immediately give all the hon. members the assurance that this legislation was requested by the Cape Provincial Administration and that it was referred to all three of the other provincial administrations, and all three concurred in it. I intentionally want to quote what the position in Natal is. Because hon. members mentioned Natal specifically, I want to quote the following (translation)—

This is in the Cape Province—

Now the hon. member may go and examine these—

That is the point.

Yes—

In other words, Natal is completely aware of the situation. They are using the same power. They are applying it, in their discretion, in another way, something which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District reproached me with, but they would also like to have the full cover, just as all the other provinces do, so that they may apply it in their own way at their own discretion, and they welcome this legislation just as the other provinces do. That is the position in Natal. I want to be honest now and inform the hon. members that I cannot accept their amendment. I cannot argue about this matter any further because I think it is as clear as daylight. It is crystal-clear. In regard to consultation, I have addressed a request to all the provinces and I have the consent of them all to this Bill. This is a matter which has been standing over for a considerable length of time, and which I have been dealing with for a long time. I have compiled this Bill taking into consideration all the different aspects, and for that reason I cannot accept the amendment. In conclusion I want to say a few words about the last two provisions of the Bill.

What about the 1925 provision?

I apologise. I almost forgot the hon. member and his argument in regard to the 1925 provision. The year 1925 is apparently the year in which the hon. member was born; that is why he is so concerned about it. The position is that section 14 of the principal Act, which I quoted a moment ago, has been contained in the Act since 1945. These provisions were also in previous legislation, a consolidation and synopsis of legislation which became law on 1st April, 1925. For that reason we have to make the Bill applicable with retrospective effect to 1st April, 1925. The hon. member should be assured at once that although the provisions are with retrospective effect, any action which has already been taken cannot be changed. No action can therefore be taken in respect of areas which were rezoned years ago, as the hon. member held out in prospect here. All that this provision means is that legal proceedings cannot be instituted against the provinces on the basis of what has already been done by the provinces between 1st April, 1925 and the present, as a result of the fact that there was perhaps uncertainty in regard to the powers which they had. The powers which they have are being clearly stated in the Bill now, so that the provinces know precisely what powers they have and proceedings cannot now be instituted against them on the basis of any action taken by them since 1st April, 1925. That is the crux of the matter. There is no question of cases suddenly being reopened again now, of it being possible to say now that an area was rezoned in 1928 and because there was resultant appreciation an additional payment should now be made. Anything along those lines would be farfetched; that is not at all what is being provided in the Bill. What is at issue here is establishing the validity in law beyond all doubt, and the law advisers have informed me that this provision should be made with retrospective effect as from 1st April, 1925, so that is has been established beyond all doubt that it will not be possible to institute any claims against the provinces in regard to any events in the past.

I have said that I wanted to say a few words about the last two provisions of the Bill. The provinces are now being empowered to pass legislation in regard to the matter of pollution. Actually I expected this entire debate to deal with the question of pollution. When I made my introductory speech I was convinced that this entire debate would deal with pollution, a matter which is receiving attention throughout the world. This is a matter which is causing concern throughout the world; everyone is concerned about pollution and the Uttering of the countryside and atmospheric and water pollution. This was a wonderful opportunity to conduct a debate on a high level on what may be done in this regard, but oh well, politics being what it is, I accept like this. I also accept that the Opposition welcomes the authorization which is being granted as such.

The last provision deals with the Medical Research Council. I want to make it very clear that the Cabinet has decided that the Medical Research Council should be moved from Pretoria to the Cape and should be established in the vicinity of the Tygerberg Hospital. Certain problems resulted from this, which are now being rectified by means of this legislation.

I should like to conclude with one last idea. I still find it strange that the Opposition has in the past implied that this Government is constantly whittling away the power of the provinces. We were allegedly stripping the provinces of their powers, we were allegedly turning them into a group of people with no authority because we were depriving them day by day of their powers. Here four distinct powers are being transferred to the provinces, powers which they already have, but which we want to reconfirm, and ensure that no further problems arise. We want to help them, at their own request, to administer and implement the powers which they have. As surely as I am standing here, the Opposition has come along and opposed this for opportunistic reasons. I want to say in all sincerity that we will in future doubt the sincerity of the Opposition when they again advocate the autonomy of the provinces.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, G.P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I think the public outside and most observers will agree when I say that this Budget has been one of disappointment and of shock. I do not think there was a greater shock in this whole Budget than the unexpected increase in tariffs, hitting at the people and the economy of South Africa. I regard these tariff increases, with which I wish to deal first of all, as illogical, as punitive, as harmful to the economy, as a spur to creeping inflation and as hurtful to the poorer and the less well-to-do members of the public. It is speeding the cost spiral without any corresponding increase in the efficiency of the telecommunication and postal services in our country. Therefore I wish to move the following amendment—

Sir, there is no doubt that this Budget is going to disrupt a great part of the economy of South Africa. Hundreds, nay thousands of businesses and industrial enterprises will have to review their budgets as a result of these new increases. Private users will be compelled to cut down on the use of the telephone. It may even be that many of the marginal users of the telephone service will simply have to give up their telephones in despair because many of the middle class and the marginal users are people who are living on a strained budget. It is inevitable that with these increases the thought will arise with hundreds, nay thousands of them, that they will simply have to do without this service.

Pensioners.

Yes, I am coming to them. Let us see what has happened, Sir. Let us look at some of these increases. First of all, the hand-operated service trunk rates are up by 25% to 33%, from 3c to 4c. Sir, this is a big increase, affecting those businesses which daily use the trunk services; it is a big increase, affecting the ordinary public who wish to get in touch with people who are only more than 15 miles away, because these increased charges come into effect in the case of calls spanning 15 miles, or 25 km, and more. Incidentally, there is one curious fact in this respect, namely that owing to the limitation of the 15 miles or the 25 km, the areas which are struck nearest to Cape Town and to Johannesburg include the constituencies of almost all the members on the other side of the House. It does appear that the constituencies of the United Party members are not affected to the same exent.

At the same time automatic telephone calls tariffs have gone up by 55%. The seconds allowed per unit count have been decreasing overall in the case of certain distances. I can see the time coming when the time allowed in seconds per unit will be so short that all you will be able to do, if you phone, will be to pick up the receiver and say: “Hello, mom. Happy birthday. The kids are all right. Regards to dad. Goodbye.” That is all you will be able to say.

Sir, the costs of the teleprinter services have gone up by up to 76%. Think of the effect of that on the users of this vitally important service in our country. I think 76% is the biggest single increase in this particular tariff that has ever been announced. Sir, I might be forgiven a nostalgic glance back to the good old times of the United Party Government, when a letter cost 1½pence, when a postcard cost one penny, when you could send a telegram for a shilling, when your local calls cost 1½d. and your annual rental was only £3 12s.

Mention of the annual rental naturally brings me to this new disastrous increase in the annual rental from R24 per year to R36 per year, with other corresponding increases. I regard this increase as the most iniquitous and unjustified of all the increases in this Budget. It makes economic nonsense. I believe it is a deliberate attempt on the part of the Post Office and of the Government to try to cut down the users of telephones, to improve their figures in respect of the waiting list of people who cannot get telephones.

Sir, have we thought of the fact that a person who wants to have a telephone nowadays, has to pay an installation fee of R20 plus R36 per year for renting that telephone—R56 in the first year as a sort of telephone licence, twice as much as your car licence and six times as much as your wireless licence, and this is for what is an essential service today. Sir, this is an indication of the evil to which a monopoly can lead when it is in the hands of a Government without conscience and without feeling for the needs of the public. It is a cynical increase, a heartless increase, unworthy of any government.

Most important is not the money, but the effect on the individual, the effect on the ordinary poor man, the middle-class person of the increased rental. I had a graphic illustration of that last night. At nine o’clock my telephone rang and somebody in a cultured English voice asked whether I was at home. I spoke to him. I have the person’s name but I shall not give it. He told me that he had retired; that he was 74 years of age; that he had originally lived in the Free State, but had now retired and was living in the Rondebosch area. He phoned me of his own volition and I took down his words as he spoke to me. Sir, these were his eloquent words:

“I live in a flat on my own, Mr. Malan, like many old people. My health is such that I must be able to phone my doctor in an emergency. All my life I have saved to have a little bit of comfort in my old age. My income as a result does not quite qualify me for a social pension. I well remember how in the old days I bought Union Loan certificates from the Post Office, and then the slogan was, ‘don’t drift, cultivate thrift’. We saved, and we’ve seen our savings go down and down.” Then he went on to say: “Mr. Malan, we don’t want hand-outs, but we want to feel that we are still members of the community. These new rentals will make it well-nigh impossible for me to keep my phone. Won’t you please ask the Minister whether some concession could not be granted to low-income and aged people? I am very sorry to have troubled you, Mr. Malan.”

Mr. Chairman, I ask that of the hon. the Minister. If he persists in this increase of the rental, I ask him: “Have you no heart, Mr. Minister?” [Interjection.] Sir, I am asked where the money is to come from. It the Post Office was run by the hon. the Minister as a good business should be run, the necessary income would be there. There is a shortage of 100 000 telephones—100 000 new accounts that could be paid every year. The average income from an account is R200 a year; that sounds high, but it must be remembered that some of these accounts are for businesses. If you get in R200 per account from 100 000 accounts, you will collect R20 million, on a plate, Sir, without having to raise tariffs, and in addition, as I shall show later on, if you had a better technical system, a better system in your exchanges, you would be able to save at least that other R8 million that the hon. the Minister is now going to try to get through increased tariffs.

Mr. Speaker, I am holding the hon. the Minister, despite what he said yesterday, to his promise of 1971, to his exact words, when he said in this House before us all:

Those were the words of the hon. the Minister and I hold him to them. The Minister has mentioned a few excuses for changing his view. He mentioned that there had been increases in prices. Surely he knew in 1971, when he promised that there would be no further increases in tariffs for five years, that prices would ordinarily increase. They have been increasing under this Government for the past two decades.

And he is a member of the Government.

He made the excuse for changing his mind that the Post Office would have to finance a large part of expenditure from revenue. But, Sir, he knew that in 1971. He knew that the main Budget and the Railway Budget were already using revenue funds for capital expenditure. He knew that when he made this promise, so I do not accept that excuse. He mentioned as an excuse that there had been great expenditure on increased salaries but he must have known, and he should have known in 1971, when he made this promise that it is normal that every three or four years there is an increase in salaries and wages on account of the rise in the cost of living. So these excuses do not wash. The hon. the Minister must not tell me that he did not know that prices would increase, that he did not know of these other factors. But we shall hear one such excuse for raising tariffs this afternoon.

Hon. members opposite will say that our tariffs are among the lowest in the world and it will be pointed out to us, I am quite sure, by hon. members opposite which those countries are where the tariffs are, allegedly lower than in South Africa. I can see them clutching in their hot little hands masses and masses of figures with which they will regale us for the rest of the afternoon. But why go and look at Austria or the Argetine or the U.S.A. or Uganda when you have a good comparative example much nearer you, a country with the same problems as we have, with the same open spaces, with the same limited White population, but with problems which relatively are much greater than ours? I refer to Rhodesia. Here I have the pages from the telephone directory of Rhodesia for 1972. Let us use Rhodesia as a basis for comparison with South Africa, little Rhodesia facing the terrorists on her borders, being boycotted— but with television. We have to pay 4c for a surface letter. In Rhodesia it is 2½c. We have to pay 5c on our internal airmail; in Rhodesia it is 2½c. In Rhodesia letters to the blind are carried free, which is proof that you can give special concessions to special groups in a country. Postage for parcels of 1 kg in South Africa are 35c. In Rhodesia it is only 25c. Agricultural parcels in Rhodesia are 3½c per half-kilogram. The agricultural post has been done away with in South Africa; that special concession no longer exists. In Rhodesia they have to pay 3½c for a half-kilogram or 7c per kilogram but here in South Africa we have to pay 35c. Local calls are 4c here. They are 3⅓c in Rhodesia. Installation charges are R20 here and R14 in Rhodesia. The annual rental is now R36 here whereas it is R18 in Rhodesia. There you have the proof. What better example can you have of a comparison between two countries, each with the same problems and the same area and the same telecommunication problems. No, these excuses will not hold water. These excuses for increasing the tariffs are as unsubstantial and as hollow as the Minister’s empty braggadocio in 1971.

Sir, I wish now to deal with the telephone shortage. The telephone shortage of 100 000 or over is one of the main problems facing the country. It is the cause of the disruption of our economy and it is the cause of misery. It has been the cause, yes, of sick people dying because they could not get to a telephone in order to get urgent treatment.

Shame!

In this regard the hon. Minister’s record has not been impressive at all. It has been estimated by one of his chief officials that by the year 2000 we will need five million telephones in South Africa. We are running at a figure of 1,75 million now. How on earth is the Minister ever going to succeed in achieving that aim, Sir?

I want to speak on two aspects in regard to our telephone exchanges and the transmission system. I shall start by saying that the transmission system in regard to trunk-lines is indeed, I believe, in a good order. We have the transmission by open wire and we have transmission by coaxial cable and we have transmission by micro-waves with the new developments, such as the pulse-code modulation. I believe that in that respect—in other words, getting your message through after it has been through the exchange—we are well advanced. I was one of a group of members of Parliament who visited Derdepoort near Pretoria during the recess. I must say that we were impressed by the outside transmission systems which were being developed at Derdepoort. We were equally impressed by another fact. I just want to say, as a compliment to the hon. the Minister, that as Minister of Posts and Telegraphs he is an excellent game warden. I say this because this huge Derdepoort area has been transformed into a small game reserve with lots of buck and birds, our flora and fauna are being extremely well looked after. As Minister of Post and Telegraphs he is a good game warden. [Interjections.]

I now come to the other aspect. I come to the place where the bottleneck is, where the real cause is of this telephone shortage, a shortage stretching years and years ahead of this country. I refer to the switching equipment in the telephone exchanges themselves.

That is where they keep the dodo. [Interjection.]

Here I want to accuse the hon. the Minister of using at the present moment an antiquated and outdated system to which he has committed us for at least the next 20 years. Let us go into our telephone exchanges and have a look at the equipment. The hon. the Minister mentioned it. It is called the Strowger step-by-step equipment. As I mentioned yesterday, Mr. Allen B. Strowger was an American living in Kansas City and in March, 1889, some 80 years ago, he took out a patent on this. He was a man of genius in those days. His system was further developed over the years and therefore it is now not the same as it was originally —it has been developed. I say he was a man of genius because Mr. Strowger was not a technician. He was, in fact, an undertaker, a funeral parlour director. I suppose that is the term in Kansas City in the United States of America. He introduced this system. I should like to call that the “coffin system” or I may make it two words and call it the “coffin box system”. We have had this coffin box system developed in South Africa over the years and if one goes into any major exchange in South Africa, one will find the coffin box system still in operation today. Although we are using the latest sophisticated version of it, the motor unit selector version, it is still the old system of the little bars moving up and down and of the circular discs turning around to make a connection.

One could ask whether there has not been an alternative system in existence. Of course, there has been and the hon. the Minister mentioned it in passing. There is the crossbar system which is today being used in more than 70 countries in the world. This crossbar system is much more modern than the ancient coffin box system we have today. It needs 50% less maintenance. It takes up less than half the space of this ancient coffin box system and it can be manufactured with up to 70% of local contents in South Africa. Thirdly, after the coffin box system and the crossbar system, you have the electronic system of the future which the hon. the Minister is investigating now. He knows and I know that that electronic system will not be working properly and fully in the whole of this country before the end of this very century, if not later, that is, not within the next 35 years.

Let us look at this. The normal development of telephone systems in most countries is from the Strowger coffin box system to the crossbar system to the electronic system. We skipped this middle one entirely. Let me use an analogy. In transport we started with the ox wagon. After the ox wagon we had railway transport, we had motor transport and then finally we had aircraft. What the hon. the Minister is doing to our telephone system now, is that he is trying to jump from the ox wagon stage right to the Concorde, from the Cape cart to the Concorde. He is failing miserably and he will fail miserably in this regard. We should have introduced this crossbar system 20 years ago. It took America about 20 years before half of its telephones were crossbarred. The whole of New York city has the crossbar system today. The crossbar system has this advantage that you can convert it to an electronic system, while the coffin box system cannot be converted to it. There you have one of the most disastrous effects of this system. Do hon. members know that we will have to scrap every single item of this coffin box system which we have at the moment in order to get the electronic system working? It is a crazy state of affairs— that we shall not have this electronic system before 30 years have elapsed and at the same time that we shall be saddled largely with the Strowger coffin box step-by-step system for all these years.

Do we realize that of this Strowger coffin box system they have in our exchanges today 55% is 20 years and older while its effective life is only between six and ten years? 55% of our equipment is more than 20 years old. I was told that by the hon. Minister himself in reply to a question in this House. No wonder our telephones are not working, and no wonder that we get these strange noises when we pick up the receiver. No wonder one cannot get through. That is the big bottleneck in our telephone system today. Do hon. members know that we have stuck to this coffin box system and that we are saddled with it to such an extent that R48 million worth of new equipment based on this same old system is being bought this year? Another amount of R43 million will be voted next year and another R43 million in 1975-’76. All in all, R133 million worth of out-of-date equipment is being bought for the next three years! Heaven knows how many hundreds of million of rands worth will have to be bought before the end of the century comes, when it will be scrapped. It will have been wasted and then we will have had this huge cost of this new system simply because there was not planning from 1952 onwards to get this central crossbar system in South Africa. It is again the case of jumping from the Cape cart to the Concorde without using the railways and the motor-car in between.

Hon. members might think that I am prejudiced in favour of the crossbar system. If so, I am not alone. I call to witness the hon. the Minister of Transport. As hon. members know, the South African Railways have their own exchange system throughout the country. What system are they using today? The Railways are not using the coffin box system, but installed the crossbar system and it is working perfectly with less maintenance, and with less need for personnel today. I do not think any one of us will accuse the hon. the Minister of Transport of being a reckless innovator of untested systems. He is using the crossbar system. The crossbar system it being used extensively by our Armaments Board. They will be able to tell the hon. Minister about that. Why do the Post Office not have this system? Where did things go wrong? What wrong decision was taken 15 or 20 years ago by this Government which has landed us in this terrific mess today?

I was told that somewhere there is a file in the Post Office gathering dust. It is an old file and in that file many years ago the Post Office itself and its engineers recommended the crossbar system. Why did the Government not listen to them at that stage? It is no good passing everything on to the age of Albert; this happened before he became Minister and since Dr. Hertzog there have been two other Ministers; that old excuse therefore won’t wash today. I again appeal to the hon. the Minister; it is one of the most important things he has to consider, namely, how to bring our switching systems in our post offices up to date so as later to be able to change over easily to this new electronic system at the end of the century.

Speaking of the electronic system and the different systems they have in the Railways, and so on, brings me to something else, and that is a constructive suggestion I want to make. I believe the time has come to have an electronics commission in South Africa similar to the Federal Communications Commission in the United States of America. The Post Office is by far the largest user of electronic equipment in South Africa and as such I should like to see it take the lead. The other big users are the SABC, especially when television comes, the Armaments Board, the South African Railways and, to a lesser extent, Escom and other organizations. These are big users of electronic equipment. In this country we have big electronic industrial undertakings geared to build this electronic equipment for South Africa, geared to build it for the Post Office, for the Railways, for the Defence Force. But there is no standardization at all in regard to the requirements. There is no standardization as to the type of transistor, or as to circuits even while many of these circuits can be used equally well in the television and also in the telephone system of South Africa, It is necessary that we have this co-ordinating body and I hope it will make more sensible decisions than the hon. the Minister did about the present equipment in our exchanges today.

The position is going to worsen unless something is done about this matter, unless this confusion is taken away. There are huge firms waiting to start building new electronic equipment, waiting to start work on television, on all the necessary things that we will need in the next quarter of a century, but they cannot do a thing. They are not told what to make; they do not know what they have to do.

I have mentioned television and that is another growing problem that I want to deal with with the hon. the Minister. I know that television and the policy in regard to it now largely falls under the Minister of National Education, while certain aspects of it fall under the Minister of Economic Affairs, when it comes to handing out licences for electronic geniuses like Perskor and allied firms. I think the hon. the Minister owes it to the country to tell us whether the Post Office at the moment is properly geared to meet the introduction date of television. Will the micro-wave system be ready in time? Is he trying to supplement it also by the coaxial cables? The Post Office will be responsible for the transmission one day and we have seen the difficulty they have had in trying to lay their own cables. Laying coaxial cables will present a big problem if they are to be used in future. Can the Post Office meet the target date? The problem is great—this problem of confusion amongst the different industrial groups. I have heard it said—I do not often listen to rumours, but I have heard this rumour from more than one source—that the SABC is talking about having its own micro-wave system supplementary to that of the Post Office. The SABC even envisaged its own satellite ground station. Would it not be a fantastic state of affairs if we had two duplicating systems in our country? I am particularly concerned about what I hear is a measure of lack of communication, shall we call it, between the SABC and the Post Office. I believe that on many occasions these two bodies do not, or hardly do, speak to one another. It is an impossible state of affairs when there is this jealousy with regard to building empires between the SABC and the Post Office.

They cannot get through on the telephone.

Naturally; how can there be any communication between them if the telephones are not working?

I want to say a few necessary words— and I am glad to be able to do so—about the hard-working staff of the Post Office. We have the announcement of the 15% increase in wages and salaries which, naturally, we welcome, and more than welcome. If that 15% had not been granted, it would have been an everlasting disgrace smelling to high heaven. However, it was granted.

*How much of that 15% has already been swallowed by the high cost of living? How much of it is merely part compensation for what the Post Office men and women should have received more than a year ago? At the moment this is merely a small deferred payment. Now we see that in the future they will have to wait again for years, years in which the cost of living will spiral and prices will rise. In the years lying ahead our Post Office men will therefore have an increasingly harder time of it. However we are not only criticizing, we should like to come forward with a concrete proposition in this connection, and that is the suggestion made by my hon. colleague, the member for Yeoville, when he said that, as far as the Railways are concerned, it is our policy that wages and salaries should, in future, be adjusted according to the increase in the cost-of-living index.

You are a real old copy-cat !

Shall I tell you whom we are copying? We are copying the United Party government by whom this was introduced originally. If this can be done for the South African Railways, I say to you that this can and that this must be done for the Post Office too. They deserve as much as the South African Railways also to benefit from this concession we propose. I submit this to the hon. the Minister as a concrete proposal for the future. I praise those men; I have nothing but praise for the men in the Post Office service—the top men with vision from the Postmaster-General …

They do not vote for you in any case.

the Deputy Postmaster-Generals and the other top men, the chief engineers, the men in the technical, the administrative, the clerical, the general A and the general B sections and also the tens of thousands of temporary workers in the Post Office. Do we realize what those people have to do by way of overtime and by way of hard work …

Yes.

There, a worker opposite agrees with me! Do they realize what is being done there and how much work is done when storms and lightning strike our Post Office system—whether in East London, Johannesburg or Port Elizabeth? These men deserve the praise and the gratitude of South Africa. Although the hon. the Minister did not say so in his Budget Speech, I am saying it here and I hope that I may also speak on his behalf in this connection. I want to say that the staff deserves something better from this Minister of the monopolistic system we have in our country today.

There are many other matters I can raise but those will be raised by my colleagues who will speak after me. My time has expired, and I wish to conclude now.

†I now want to summarize by pointing out the concrete suggestions that have come from this side of the House in this debate: Firstly, we have had a concrete suggestion to solve the crisis of the hundred thousand people waiting for telephones, namely that the telephone exchange system be completely overhauled, that better use be made of all our manpower resources in this country and that still more use be made of private enterprise in building exchanges and laying cables; secondly, to plan for the future we have come with the concrete suggestion, i.e. to have an electronic commission like the Federal Communications Commission in the United States to coordinate the needs of the Post Office, of television, of the SABC, of the Railways and of the Armaments Board; thirdly, to assist the ordinary telephone user, we have come with a concrete suggestion, i.e. that an expansionist policy should be followed to increase the income rather than raise the tariffs, an expansionist policy through better and modern capital equipment which will take care of the income needed; and, fourthly, to ensure an adequately paid staff, we come with the concrete suggestion of the regular adjustment of a cost-of-living allowance increase in this country.

Now, Sir, having said this, it is sad to think that so much of what we believe to be concrete suggestions will fall on the deaf and unsympathetic ear of this stubborn Government. What a sorry state this country is in when economic laws and business methods have to give way to half-baked measures and the beating of racial drums and the Herrenvolk tomtoms. I hold this Government responsible for the present calamitous state of affairs. It alone has the power to bring about the needed drastic changes. If it fails to do that it will have to face the wrath of an awakened electorate and meet its own long-awaited collapse.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove has launched his customary attack against the Post Office Budget, the hon. the Minister and the officials. It is very clear that the Minister is not the only one who can be held responsible for the progress or problems of any department. Before I point out a few aspects which will give the lie to the statements made by my hon. friend, you should permit me, Sir, to come back to what was said by the hon. member yesterday before he moved the adjournment of the debate. He said inter alia—

If we look up the debates of 1971 in Hansard, we will find in them what the hon. the Minister said in regard to the increase in tariffs at the time. According to the Hansard, whoever, no promise was made by the Minister at the time, nor since then, to the effect that tariff increases would not be introduced within the next five years. Today the hon. member repeated his statement of yesterday and charged the Minister with having made a promise in that regard. I want to quote from the Hansard of 1972 (column 3963), which the hon. member also quoted to prove that the hon. the Minister had in fact made a promise. At the time the hon. the Minister said—

I emphasize the words “should be no need for”. Then he went on quoting the Minister—

I stress the word “hope”—

In expressing a hope, one has not, according to the English language, as I know it, gone to the extent of making a promise. This hon. member has now repeatedly quoted certain words and insists that the hon. the Minister did make a promise and subsequently broke that promise. I think, Sir, that if one interprets this word correctly, as it was meant, and as it was recorded in Hansard …

Which I read.

You spoke for 30 minutes and I would be pleased if you would now give me a chance to make my speech too, for I had the decency not to interrupt you, and if you interrupt me I shall deal harshly with you.

Order!

Sir, I think that instead of making interjections, the hon. member should apologize to the hon. the Minister for having imputed to the Minister words he had not used. In the second place, I want to point out that the hon. the Minister repeatedly made a statement on this matter. He said that he had made no promise, and rightly too, for he did not make any promise. But yesterday and today again that hon. member interpreted those words that way in this House.

I regard it as a promise …

Order!

I think that as a member of this House he ought to apologize to the hon. the Minister. I say it is not true that the Minister made such a promise. The hon. member made a further statement, which is actually a very ridiculous one. This is what he said yesterday—

Here he was referring to the Minister’s figures, and this was followed by the big joke—

What is so funny about that?

I shall tell you now, if you would just give me a chance to do so. It is childish to argue on those lines, for these 100 000 telephones, for which there is a waiting list, are still to be installed. It will cost the department R1 000 to install each of those telephones. That is the calculated cost made available by the department. If one takes that into account, those 100 000 telephones will not, as the hon. member claims, bring in R20 million; they will, in the first place, cost R100 million to install before the first telephone can bring in R200 per annum. What a droll— I am almost tempted to say childish—line of reasoning that is! He cannot deny that it will cost less than R100 million. That is the cost of making the telephones available. I shall come back to this later on. I want to agree with the report in this morning’s Burger under the heading “On U.P. sums and homework” (Oor V.P.-somme en-huiswerk). I just want to read a brief extract from that report (translation)—

Then the writer went on to refer to that calculation of the hon. member, i.e. that one installs 100 000 telephones and then immediately receives one’s R200 per telephone per annum. That is droll, but it is actually ridiculous, Sir.

When the hon. member introduced his amendment, he referred, inter alia, to a matter which I just want to mention in passing before proceeding with my own argument. He said that the tariff increases being effected in respect of telephone services would have the effect that people would have to give up their telephones, and then he referred to the businessmen and other telephone users. I want to ask the hon. member this: When an increase was effected in respect of the price of cigarettes and tobacco, did the people stop smoking? When fuel prices were increased, did the people stop using fuel? Sir, the consumption in both of these cases still showed an increase.

But they did at least get value for their money.

Yes, to that hon. member I can say that when liquor prices were increased, people did not drink less; I do not think they added more water, Sir. Therefore I say that it was an absolutely droll argument which was advanced by the hon. member, namely that if one effects tariff increases in order to finance a business, one will by doing so discourage the public from making use of those services. It is quite absurd to suggest something of that nature. The hon. member went on to say that the increase in tariffs was also meant “to cut down the users of telephones”. If that is the case, if that is the motive behind it, as the hon. member is suggesting, then I want to put a question to the Opposition. It is estimated that the increases in the number of telephones in use comes to 90 000 for this financial year, an increase which will bring the total up to 1 750 000. This is therefore an increase of well over 25%. If that is supposedly the motive, as the hon. member is erroneously suggesting, then the Department of Posts and Telegraphs would not have made as much progress under this Minister as it has done. I recall that during the course of the debate last year we were told that there was a waiting list of just over 100 000. During the past financial year 90 000 were made available, in addition to 83 000 lines at telephone exchanges. That represents a growth of approximately 8,3%. Sir, as it is this figure of 90 000 represents 25% of the total new services provided by the department. How can the hon. member justifiably claim in this House that the motive behind the increase in tariffs is to discourage people from having telephones installed and using them? Surely this is sheer nonsense. Sir, I shall go further. These tariff increases were not introduced for the reasons mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove. These services must be rendered from sheer necessity, and there is today a much greater demand for services, and on top of that there were repeated price increases which were necessary. Sir, neither the Minister nor any other member on this side of the House likes tariff increases, but it was absolutely essential for tariffs to be increased, for the public does after all require a good, effective service, and surely those whose names appear on the waiting list are keen to have telephones installed. As the hon. the Minister said in his Budget Speech, the department budgeed for a deficit of R6,3 million, but it was subsequently found that the deficit was closer to R10 million. From what funds is one to meet one’s commitments during the next financial year if one does not have the necessary capital? Not only was there during the past year a deficit for which the department had not budgeted, but since 1968-’69 postal service alone have virtually shown a deficit every year on the anticipated revenue for the current year concerned. Sir, I have here an extract from the Estimates of Operating Expenditure, and from these the following becomes apparent. In addition to the capital needs which are growing all the time, expenditure amounting to R165 842 000 was budgeted for in respect of 1973-’74. The revised estimates for 1972-’73 came to R139 million. That means an increase of R26 795 000 for the current year. Sir, the Opposition stated that they were satisfied with the salary increases granted recently. But the United Party is in effect not quite satisfied with the increase of 15%; it wanted the increase to have been even bigger. The hon. member for Yeoville made it very clear here in a previous debate that an increase of 15% was not enough; they wanted even more. Sir, would the next speaker on the Opposition side be so kind as to tell this House from what source of revenue they wanted to finance a bigger salary increase. I know the Opposition said they had no objection to the salary increase, except that it was not big enough. I now want to repeat my question pointedly to them: Since you have been hitting out to such an extent at this tariff increase, from what source of revenue do you want to finance the bigger salary increases? Surely you cannot finance them from loans, for loan capital is applied for another purpose; surely one uses one’s operating revenue for financing one’s salaries and current expenditure. When the Post Office became autonomous in 1968, there was already a burden of debt of R199 million, which this department owed the Treasury. At that time this department could only get its loans from the Treasury. It is only since last year that the Post Office has been in a position to raise loan capital outside South Africa, or even inside South Africa, from sources other than the Treasury. According to the 1971-’72 return for the year ended 31st March, 1972, it appears that the outstanding risk capital was R345 million at that date. That is the burden that rests on the Post Office. A net increase of R52 988 000 is being budgeted for in respect of the present financial year. The estimates of capital services alone require R163 million. That also represents a net increase of R155,58 million. As a result of this increase, as a result of a further loan of R46,5 million with the Treasury and other loans of R48 750 000—and there are further provisions as well, but I do not want to take them into account here—the total burden at the end of this financial year, without making allowance for a small repayment, comes to the colossal amount of R440 250 000, on which interest and redemption have to be paid. Sir, the Opposition fully agreed that the policy for the financing of Posts and Telegraphs had to be in accordance with the recommendation made by the Franzsen Commission, namely more or less 50% from loan capital and 50% from revenue sources. In the light of this picture which I have just outlined—and I am taking it from the reports here in front of me—it is clear that if effect is to be given to the proposals made by the hon. member for Orange Grove, one would be faced with a burden of R540 million, and what colossal interest and redemptions would this department not have to pay then, and that money would have to come from one’s operating revenue. That would leave one without any reserves. It actually makes me jealous to hear how the Railways are debated here, and I grant them every cent they have in the Rates Equalization Fund. The Department of Posts and Telegraphs does not have any reserve fund as it is still too young to operate independently, but it is saddled with this colossal burden because of the necessity to create facilities by means of which the users of telecommunication services and postal services in South Africa may be provided with services. The hon. member for Orange Grove presented us here with such a fantastically slanted picture that South Africa can be pleased that the Opposition is not the Government of this country today. Up to this stage we can say that the Ministers of this department, the previous ones as well as the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, have over the years followed the policy of rendering the best possible services by means of the least possible capital. But this country of ours has grown under the National Party Government. One can cross it from one side to the other and see nothing but development and growth. All one sees is confidence in South Africa’s future; hence the fact that we have such phenomenal development here, and as a result of our high standard of living most people in South Africa want to have a telephone at their disposal.

I want to refer to another matter. A great deal was said here about the increase in tariffs, and if you compare them with tariffs in countries abroad, you will see, Sir, that for manually operated trunk calls lasting three minutes, the tariffs are as follows. In South Africa there was the existing tariff of three cents for three minutees. Now it is four cents, and certain distances have also been included here, such as the 25 and the 50 and the 100 and more kilometre limits. But when one comes to the 100 km, one sees that the new tariff, which causes the Opposition to get such cold shudders, is 18 cents. It used to be 12 cents. In the United Kingdom it is 18 cents and in Australia it is 20 cents. Take the distance of 400 km for those three minutes, and then you will see that the new tariff in South Africa, which will now be applicable as from 1st May, is 48 cents. The existing one is 48 cents, and in the United Kingdom it is 45 cents, i.e. slightly less, but in Australia it is 161 cents.

What about Rhodesia?

You can draw comparisons with various countries and you will see that these new tariffs which will be applicable in South Africa as from 1st May are not excessive. I just want to refer briefly to letters. On letters weighing 20 grams, the new tariff is 4 cents in South Africa, i.e. it was left unchanged, but in the United Kingdom it is 5,6 cents, in Holland it is 6,2 cents and in West Germany 7,5 cents. In that respect South Africa is still on the credit side. As regards the 50 grams, South Africa’s present tariff is 6 cents and it remains 6 cents; in Holland it is 6,2 cents and in West Germany it is 7,5 cents. In this way one can compare various countries with South Africa. But I do not wish to cover this whole field. Speakers after me will also cover this field.

I want to conclude by saying that the hon. member for Orange Grove made a statement to the effect that the hon. the Minister had omitted to thank the staff. I shall read from the printed version of the hon. the Minister’s speech—

If this is not thanks, I do not know what thanks is. However, I know what the Post Office workers, from the lowest to the highest ranks, are also very grateful for, and this is that that Opposition is not governing South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Harrismith accused the hon. member for Orange Grove of having used all kinds of comic arguments, but if I have ever heard comical arguments, they have come from that hon. member, and to crown it all they were presented in a comical fashion. In the first place, the hon. member distorted a matter terribly and did not bring its presentation into line with the truth.

Order! Did the hon. member say that another hon. member distorted a matter?

Mr. Speaker, I apologize and withdraw it. He said something that is not true and does not keep abreast of the truth, i.e. he claimed that the hon. member for Orange Grove had attacked the officials of the Post Office. I want to state that that allegation is, just so many words, just so much tripe, because he never did so. The hon. member for Orange Grove gave them all the necessary thanks, and I shall come back to that later.

In addition the hon. member, by all kinds of subtle interpretations of the speech the hon. the Minister made in 1971, tried to pretend that the hon. the Minister had not made a promise at the time. The hon. member may argue about subtle words and everything that is contained in that speech, but as far as the people of South Africa at large are concerned, it was a promise that there would be no tariff increases for five years. That is what the people expect from the hon. the Minister at this stage. If the hon. member for Harrismith is correct in saying that it was not a promise, the hon. the Minister nevertheless said at the time— it was only about two years ago—that the aim of those tariff increases was that the tariffs would not again be increased for at least five years. This still means that this planning, his insight and his knowledge were so poor that after two years he nevertheless had to increase those tariffs again. Even if he has then not broken his promise, he has still proved that they know absolutely nothing of what goes on in this country and that they are not in a position to plan properly and to act accordingly for the benefit of the people of South Africa.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I do not want to answer a question. [Interjections.] That hon. member also dwelt on what the hon. member for Orange Grove had to say about the telephone shortage, the backlog of more than 100 000 telephones that exists. He said that the capital expenditure to eliminate that shortage would be tremendous. From the nature of the case, before one can obtain any revenue from a business, there must be a capital investment. The Post Office will, of course, also have to make a capital investment from which to obtain their revenue.

What would the capital investment be?

I want to tell the hon. member that the manner in which he calculates the revenue is completely wrong. He speaks about that as if the extra revenue that these 100 000 telephones would give rise to is solely the revenue from the telephone calls that would in fact come from those telephones. However, that is not true. A much greater revenue is obtained from that by the Post Office, because a person must also bring into the calculation the number of extra calls that are made to those telephones from the existing 1,5 million telephones. It therefore has a multiplying effect.

What is the post?

The hon. member speaks about comic arguments, but I want to tell him that that is a simply foolish argument.

What is the cost?

The hon. member with the big mouth apparently knows nothing about the Post Office, and I doubt whether he knows anything about anything else, because I have never heard him talk sense about anything. [Interjections.] I want to say, in addition, that in the first place we want …

Yes, Cow and Gate.

I wish that hon. member would shut his “Gate”. In the first place I want to say that on behalf of members on this side of the House I want to express our particular thanks and appreciation to the officials of the Post Office. From the nature of the case, because the telephone situation is so critical, we get letters and complaints every day from people that have to be helped out, and this forces us, all the members, to continually go to the officials and to approach them about putting these matters right. In all sincerity and in all seriousness I want to say that it is the one department where one feels that it is a pleasure for the officials to help one, that they are indeed always eager to help one. Most of the time good results crown their efforts. Where good results are not forthcoming, it is not as a result of laxity or indolence on the part of the officials, it is as a result of the hopelessness of this Government and the Minister because they do not administer this matter properly. These are, in other words, matters that are completely beyond their control. All our thanks and appreciation go to these officials for the good work they are doing and for the friendly way in which they are always prepared to help one.

The hon. member for Harrismith may now talk as much as he wants to, but the people in general are all very upset about the increase of tariffs. It is tremendously difficult for the man in the street, who needs a telephone, to obtain one. It is fatal for this Government and for the hon. members on that side of the House to speak about a telephone as a privilege. Having a telephone is today a right. Nor is it a luxury, it is a necessity; it is necessary for the growth of our economy. Even those of us who are privileged to have a telephone, are not getting value for our money today, in my opinion. That is the big reason why it hurts even more to pay the extra money for a still poorer service. If the hon. the Minister could assure us that we were going to get a better service, one would perhaps still pay the extra amount with something of a surly smile on one’s face, but there is no guarantee of that. To tell the truth, it appears to me as if the chances are increasing that the quality of our service will decrease. I want to say that it is a scandalous state of affairs that exists at present in that respect. One is continually getting complaints from people who have telephones that are out of order.

What, then, about the officials who are giving that good service?

It is not the officials; they cannot work with these coffins. It is the Minister who should have done the planning and could have put the necessary material at their disposal to furnish a satisfactory service. That is the whole point. Let us take a person who complains about a telephone that is not working. The instrument is out of order, and now they bring him another instrument, but that other instrument is not a new one, because there is a tremendous shortage of new instruments. They put in another chap’s broken instrument for one. It only works for five minutes before it breaks down. It is just like these Japanese toys I got when I was small. [Interjections.] Such a toy lasts only as long as it takes to carry it home; when one gets home, it does not work any longer [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to make his speech.

I again want to speak about the urgent problem being caused by the telephone shortage. I do not believe we shall ever be able to say enough about that, because in our present day economy communication is one of the most important means whereby we can bring economic growth and prosperity to all the people of South Africa. I think this is what we really envisage, or ought to envisage in everything we are doing in this country, i.e. ensuring the economic prosperity of our people in general. In this connection I want to mention, in the first place, that the number of telephones in the country total 1 659 387, according to page 5 of the report which the hon. the Minister and his department so kindly provided for us. The increase since 1967-’68 was 33,9%, i.e., almost 34%. Over a period of five years this consequently works out to a little more than 6%. I think it is good that there was, in fact, that progress, and I immediately want to concede as much to the hon. the Minister. I think, however, that we can do quite a bit better, in fact, we must do quite a bit better than that, because according to the economic development programme our economy must grow by at least 5½%. Even this growth rate is low; we would like to see a greater growth rate. But at present the telephone system must grow more rapidly than the economy, because it has a backlog to catch up on. It must therefore grow quite a bit more rapidly, and I want to say that 6% is good at this stage, but not good enough, because we must take the backlog into consideration. But during this same period, in which there was a 33,9% increase in telephones, there was a mere 23,1% growth in allocatable lines, i.e. connections to exchanges, and this means an annual growth of about 4%. This is tremendously low and means that the number of telephones are increasing more rapidly than the number of connections in the telephone exchanges. I think this can possibly result in a tremendous overloading of our telephone system taking place. At the moment the hon. the Minister and his department are apparently not able to carry out the necessary basic expansion to give the people a proper telephone service, over and above the points the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned, i.e. that more modern equipment should be obtained, there is also the question of extending the whole basis of the operation so that our present telephone exchanges are not over-loaded to such an extent. Fewer than 100 000 telephones are installed per year. As the hon. member for Harrismith mentioned, in the coming year the intention is to install about 90 000 telephones. This means that since the total backlog of telephones amounts to 104 842 at the moment, there are people who in reality wait longer than one year after they have applied for telephones. I can say, from experience of people in my constituency, that there are some of them who have already been waiting for three or four years for a telephone and have not been able to obtain one yet. I think that is also the experience of many hon. members in this House. I think it is a shocking situation that a person has to wait so long to get a telephone. Therefore drastic action must be taken. It is no use trying to go further step by step, taking small steps. We shall have to take drastic action. If, every year, we are going to install fewer telephones than go to make up the backlog, that list is simply going to get longer, and can surely not be shortened to any extent. Therefore I want to remind the hon. the Minister of the proposal I made last year. I feel that the hon. the Minister did not listen to my speech last year; this is very apparent from the answer he gave me. In Hansard, column 4029 of 23rd March, 1972, the hon. the Minister says the following: “The hon. member for Florida did nothing but ask questions and express misgivings.” I think the hon. the Minister must just read my speech well; he would then very quickly see that I asked very few questions and had no “misgivings”. In actual fact, I made a proposal, and I now want to tell him that if he had accepted that proposal last year, he would have been able to come back this year and say: “There is no longer a telephone backlog,” or at least that it will be eliminated shortly. I should like to remind him again please to consider this matter in all seriousness. The hon. the Minister himself mentioned the lease-back question last year. I believe this should be done on a large scale. The Post Office does not have the capital—the hon. member for Harrismith also mentioned this—to spend the necessary money on this expansion, in the first place to make up the backlog and in the second place to bring about the modernization of the present" installations. We all realize that the Post Office cannot go and borrow that capital overseas at a moment’s notice. But I want to put it this way: There are tremendously big telecommunication companies in the world; the hon. the Minister knows of them as well as anyone else does. These people not only have the capital and the necessary material available; they even have the workers available to carry out these installations in order to catch up on the backlog in a very short space of time if they could do so with their own resources. I believe that the one alternative the hon. the Minister ought to investigate, as far as they are concerned, is that they should undertake the construction and modernization of the new installations on the basis of leasing these back to the Post Office, while the Post Office still furnishes the service. I am not asking that they should furnish the service; the Post Office alone furnishes the service. When the new installations again generate their own revenue, it would not be as tremendous a burden to the Post Office as an ordinary capital loan would be or as expenditure from revenue would be, which is in any case impossible. The new installation generates its own revenue; in actual fact it is paying for itself. It therefore becomes part of the hon. the Minister’s operating expenditure when he allows these people to undertake the erection of not only the installation itself, but of the entire building and everything involved. He has the right at any time, of course, when the Post Office is able to do so, to take it over from them again. I think that this is something that is being done to a very large extent in the economy today by all kinds of companies which do not themselves have the capital for that. By means of the lease-back system they then obtain the necessary sources of capital. I believe that the Post Office could profitably do this. It would perhaps make less profit than it would have made if it could do so with its own capital, but I do not believe that this is an argument, that this is something that ought to give rise to problems. The big thing the Post Office should really be doing, is to furnish a service to the people of South Africa. I believe that in that way it will be able to give the necessary service to South Africa without incurring losses. The Post Office can only profit from that. I most strongly want to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should go into this matter, because I believe that these companies would be prepared to do this and that they have the necessary sources of material and manpower with which to do it. I also want to say that if they have the installations erected on that basis, it would also give us a tremendous push in respect of foreign exchange entering the country.

There is one other matter I should like to mention to the hon. the Minister, i.e the question of cable television. That is a technical aspect which one reads a great deal about. One reads a great deal about the development taking place in America and in Europe, where this is universally considered to be the television system of the future. It apparently makes the television receiving set in a person’s private possession cheaper, because it is being fed by a cable, than the aerial reception set. And apparently the person concerned can get much better reception in his home than he would obtain from another type of television set. A much greater variety of programmes can also be presented on cable television than could otherwise be presented with aerial reception. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether they have investigated this matter. Does the hon. the Minister have any idea what the possibilities of such a system in South Africa are, particularly because we in South Africa have so many mountains and natural obstructions that complicate television transmission? In that case it might be easier to construct one central television antenna and then to feed the programmes from there by cables to the subscribers instead of each person having to have his own antenna on his roof. This would, of course, also prevent our having the television antenna jungles here that one so frequently encounters overseas and that actually pollute the entire skyline and makes it look terrible because each person’s small television antenna is sticking out all over the place. I believe that this is a matter which the hon. the Minister must investigate. I would like to know whether the department has already carried out such an investigation, and if so, what the result was and what possibilities this holds for South Africa. If it is so that this gives a much better service, let us then put the latest and the best into operation.

Mr. Speaker, to me it is a doubtful privilege to follow the hon. member for Florida in this debate. I shall tell you at once why that is so. It is very clear to me that the hon. member does not know a great deal about the inside operations of the Post Office. Now I want to give him the assurance that if he should not make the grade in the next election in Florida we have a very suitable job in the Post Office which he could easily do.

Postman.

No, we have a better job for him. For someone who is so presumptuous, who pretends to be so omniscient, we have a very suitable job in the Post Office, namely that of a pickpocket. Now, the pickpocket is not a pickpocket in the usual sense of the word. It is someone who cuts open the mailbags and shakes the letters out of them, just as he has shaken out his wisdom here today. I leave the hon. member at that, and I hope he becomes a good pickpocket one day.

I should like to reply to a few of the matters raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member kicked, up a tremendous fuss about the increase in tariffs and had high praise for the increase in salaries for the staff of the Post Office. I also have high praise for the fact that the salaries of the staff of the Post Office have been increased. However, he cannot have his cake and eat it. In order to finance those salary increases of many millions of rand, revenue must be derived from some source. The hon. member’s recipe for obtaining that revenue has already been dealt with by the hon. member for Harrismith. The hon. member for Orange Grove wants to supply in a flash the hundreds of thousands of telephones for which there is a waiting list. Now I want to ask the hon. member: Where is he going to buy those telephones? At the O.K. Bazaars? And if it is at the O.K. Bazaars, at which branch? Surely it is a ridiculous suggestion that one can install those 100 000 telephones just like that. It is a far more complicated task than that. I take it that the hon. member for Orange Grove accepts the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission. The Franzsen Commission recommended that the Post Office should, finance 50% of its capital requirements from revenue. If the hon. member concedes that that is correct, why does he not agree to the increase in tariffs in order to render something of this sort possible? As I have said, the Opposition, and the hon. member for Orange Grove in particular, cannot have their cake and eat it.

The hon. member also had much to say on the shortage of telephones. Now I want to say at once that the hon. member for Orange Grove as well as the hon. member for Florida had high praise for the staff of the Post Office. I wonder whether they really meant that from the heart, because in the same breath they complained about the poor service being rendered. After all, it goes without saying that the hon. the Minister does not install the telephones. The hon. member who is leaving the Chamber at the moment, said they brought him “some one else’s broken telephone”. After all, it is not the hon. the Minister who has brought him the broken telephone. So they are indirectly blaming the staff. When it comes to the telephone shortage, Sir, I want to tell you that I have the highest regard for the staff of the Post Office. I do not say this without reason; these are not just hollow words. I express my appreciation because I base it on facts. There is a shortage of approximately 100 000 telephones in the country, or rather, there is a waiting list, a deferred list, for 100 000 telephones. But then one must look at this statistical annual report by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I want to congratulate them on it and thank them for all this information which they have made available to us, information of which hon. members opposite have made no use up to now.

Yes, and we appreciate it.

I am glad you do. Sir, I shall mention to you the shortages in the various sections, and then I shall indicate to you what the department has done to meet those shortages. In the Western Cape region the waiting list for telephones contains the names of 18 869 people, plus a small number in respect of party lines. Let us now look at the planning undertaken by the Post Office. On page 31 of this statistical report we find that in respect of the Western Cape provision is being made for 46 100 telephones by way of new exchanges and the extension of exchanges. On the one hand the shortage is only 18 000 and on the other provision is being made, in the coming financial year and the subsequent year, for more than 46 000 telephones. This bears testimony to absolutely good planning. And you know, Sir, a telephone exchange is not supplied by the O.K. Bazaars. It is a question of planning. An order has to be placed, and it takes three, four or five years before an exchange may be added to the system. Are hon. members opposite really unaware of that?

Why did you not start doing this five years ago?

But we started with this a long time ago. That is why it is possible to do this now. Let us take the Northern Cape region. The shortage there is 70 party lines only. These are for people in the Kimberley region where the diamonds come from. In the Eastern Cape region there is a shortage of 3 864 telephones. If we look at the provision being made for the Eastern Cape region we find that 8 600 lines are to be added to the system by way of new exchanges and the extension of exchanges. Let us take the Witwatersrand region, which is an absolute bottleneck in the whole of our Post Office system in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

Yes, I am still going to say something about that. There are 40 900—call it 41 000—applicants for telephones who are waiting for telephones. Then I turn to page 32 of this statistical report, and there I find that provision is being made for 62 700 new telephones, costing hundreds of millions of rand. Surely this bears testimony to absolutely good planning, and I can find no fault with it.

Sir, I said I would come back to the Witwatersrand region. I would like to clear up one matter, and that is that it is said that the Witwatersrand is a region to which people do no like to go to work. Because it is the fastest growing area in South Africa, the largest shortages of staff are experienced on the Witwatersrand, particularly in the technical sphere and also in respect of other spheres. I know from years of experience from the time when I still worked in the Post Office, that people who work in the Post Office, particularly those who come from other regions such as the Cape and the Free State, regard the Witwatersrand as a punishment area. Now, I want to say at once that I have worked on the Witwatersrand, in Pretoria, in the Free State and in Natal. I have even driven as far as De Aar in the mobile Post Office. I now want to tell the Post Office staff that the Witwatersrand is the most pleasant region to work in. There is no better region than the Witwatersrand. There you have the most pleasant climate in the whole world; there one does not have the extremes one has elsewhere.

You are a bad old Free Stater.

I am by no means a bad Free Stater. Sir, the Post Office officials are paid an allowance for that but what is more, the Witwatersrand is the very region where they gain all the experience one can gain in the Post Office, because it is the centre of economic activity in South Africa, and there Post Office officials can gain the most valuable experience. I hope that Post office officials, particularly those who are on the point of promotion and transfer, will take transfer to the Witwatersrand.

The hon. member for Orange Grove pleaded here in his speech for an “electronics commission”, as he called it, to be appointed. If he says that, then I must deduce that he has no confidence in the management of the Post Office, because that is why he wants a commission of this kind in order to remedy matters. I do not mind if he expresses a lack of confidence in the Minister, because that is his right as a member of the Opposition, but when it comes to the officials, then one must step in. Sir, the Post office officials on the managerial level have for a long time been engaged in investigating the provision of electronic exchanges. I have the report in my possession, and the hon. member also has it, and if he does not have it, then he can obtain it very easily. This is a short but very thorough résumé of the advantages of an electronic exchange, and I want to mention a few to you, Sir. Its inherent features are that automatic testing can take place and automatic traffic measurement; there is a very high degree of reliability attached to this system and it saves much labour. It is immune to its environment; it saves air-conditioning apparatus; its updatability is far more effective because one can develop it; one can expand it. This prevents obsolescence. There is centralized charge registration; there is automatic centralized fault reporting; there is remote control of exchange control data; this is fairly expensive but essential owing to the deteriorating manpower situation, particularly in South Africa; there is identification of malicious callers, which will facilitate the task of the Police. That identification apparatus which can be built in, is fairly cheap. Then there is the push-button calling. Then there is abbreviated dialling; there is automatic answering, although that is very expensive; there are hot-line facilities; there is call forwarding; there is call repetition; there is the do-not-disturb service. Sir, one should really not disturb hon. members of the Opposition too much; they may sleep on. Then there is the telephone conference facility; one can hold a conference, backwards and forwards, by telephone. Then there is a very important system—and I think this will interest the hon. member for Orange Grove and particularly the hon. member for Florida— namely an automatic wake-up service, but that is a very expensive alarm. Sir, the replacement of the present system, which cost hundreds of millions of rand and which still works very effectively, if one takes the circumstances into account, cannot occur overnight. The hon. member for Orange Grove, in his very verbose speech, wanted to imply that it could just happen overnight. All that was registered was for the Postmaster-General or the hon. the Minister to go overseas and place the order and the next day or the day after it would be installed.

I said it would take you 30 years.

Yes, but in the same breath the hon. member made an accusation against us. Sir, it will take 30 years, but we must start somewhere. Surely the hon. member knows that we already have a testing apparatus on order and that it will be tested and adapted to South African conditions. After all, South Africa is not the same as overseas countries. The hon. member very rightly made mention of the Post Office installations at the place we visited near Pretoria last year and also at the training-centre at Olifantsfontein. I really expected him to say much more about Olifantsfontein. Sir, if there is a praiseworthy institution in the Post Office then it is that training-centre of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs near Olifantsfontein. It is absolutely a model institution. Sir, you know the cost of university training. When we visited that installation last year together with the hon. member, where we also ate well, we were pleasantly surprised to find that for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs to train one technician—a training course which takes three years—the cost is R8 000. That is to train just one technician. That is more than a B.A. degree at a university costs. Is that not proof that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs takes full account of the requirements of the department? It was truly a pleasant experience to walk through that workshop and to see the apparatus which our own South Africans, our own Boers had designed from scratch. There is one particular apparatus which is the only one of its kind in the world. One is unable to express enough praise for what is being done in that sphere. There are more than 600 young South Africans, young men, the best we have, being trained there. Some of them have completed their studies, and with them at the forefront of our technical development in the Department of Posts of Telegraphs and particularly in the telecommunication section, I have no fear that we in South Africa shall keep abreast of all the requirements of a modern telecommunication system, in a modern country like South Africa and with its modern economy, in spite of our small numbers. Sir, I had expected the Opposition to have been more appreciative of the positive things being done in South Africa in this Department, to have placed less stress on the negative things, and to have made less political capital out of the fact that tariff adjustments had of necessity to be made, adjustments which are in the interests of South Africa and of the Department.

The hon. member for Germiston District started his speech by referring to the hon. member for Florida and said he was concerned about what would happen to the hon. member if he were to lose his seat at the next election. All I want to say to the hon. member for Germiston District, is that I believe we shall not see him again after the next election.

The hon. member wants to know where we would get the money from for effecting those improvements, inter alia, for bringing about a better deal for the staff. Sir, what is the basic problem with which the Post Office has to contend today? The basic problem is that it takes too long for capital extensions to be completed before the Post Office can convert those capital extentions into a source of revenue. And what are the factors giving rise to that? It is the wrong policy of financing. That is inadequate for financing from its own sources to such a large extent. Last year it was 43,7% from its own sources and this year it is 41,1% and then there are still other factors which we should also take into account here. These are that we have an unsolved manpower problem in South Africa and that this Government and this hon. Minister have been making no progress in that sphere. At the end of last year we were saddled with a shortage of 1 500 technicians and electricians. Recruitment abroad has not been successful. Last year fewer people were recruited abroad than was the case during the previous two years. In addition to that we shall do as was done in the past, as was said by the hon. the Minister, i.e. wipe out losses through moderate tariff increases. That was the recipe for success of the past to which reference was made by the hon. the Minister himself, but what do we find now? We now find excessive tariff increases, i.e. not moderate tariff increases; and it is the excessive tariff increases which kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

I want to come back to the matter of the staff. Apart from the fact that the Minister extended a formal vote of thanks to the staff, I want to say that the 15% increase offered to the staff sounds high and sufficient, but we should place it in the light, to use the hon. the Minister’s own words, of the unprecedented escalation of prices that has taken place in South Africa. If we place it in that light, we find that it is absolutely insufficient and unrealistic. With this 15% increase it will take the average Post Office worker at least 12 months to make up for the loss sustained by him over the last 2½ years. I have here the Postal Journal, the official organ of the South African Postal Association, and in an article under the heading “Dragon of inflation is threat to future”, I find the following (translation)—

I take it that when we speak of 0,65 points per cent, it does not really mean anything to the man in the street, but in this article the writer depicted to us in a practical manner what the loss was. If one works it out on the basis of this system, one finds that the loss to a person who earned R100 per month, his accumulated loss over the 22 months under discussion, was R150-80. That is to say, to a person who earned R200 per month, it was R301-60. And so one could go on up to the person who earned R700 per month. To him it was a loss of R1 055. What is now going to happen in practice? Let us take the person who earns R300 per month. As a result of the 15% increase he is going to earn less than approximately R45 more, for one still has to make deductions for pension and for income tax. According to this table that person had already sustained a loss of R452 up to October of last year. In other words, it will take him at least 10 months before he will be able to wipe out that backlog. Furthermore we should still consider that this only concerns the loss sustained over a period of 22 months, from December, 1970 to October, 1972, and where are we now? Right now we are in March, 1973. Therefore one should actually calculate it over 27 months. For that reason I want to say that it will take them at least a year. I find it strange that we have here the hon. the Minister and hon. members on the other side who say that they have the interests of the workers at heart but are doing nothing about this matter.

Crocodile tears.

Let us go further. Here we find a plea, and if hon. members say that these are ridiculous arguments, Sir, they should bear in mind that these are arguments taken from the official organ of the S.A. Postal Association. Here we find the following—

What is the attitude of the hon. the Minister in that regard? It is no use throwing up his hands and saying that as a result of this unprecedented escalation of prices in South Africa he cannot do anything about the matter. That is not the solution. It is a problem for which he owes not only us in this House a solution, but also and particularly his dedicated staff.

And then there is this matter as well. What about the consideration of gradual adjustment between the consumer index and salaries? Let me tell the hon. the Minister that this, too, is a matter which is already receiving the attention of some of his staff associations. However, I want to come back to the postal service. The hon. the Minister elaborated at length on the postal service and the problems of the postal service and then arrived at the conclusion that if things went on the way they did at present, there would be certain facilities of the postal service which we would not be able to afford much longer. I do not want to be pessimistic, but if all the reasons advanced by the hon. the Minister for the increasing losses incurred by the postal service are sound ones, I can say that before long we in South Africa will no longer be able to afford any of these facilities. Then practically every facet of the Post Office will be classified under what the hon. the Minister calls “uneconomic services”, which are either to be discouraged or to be converted through tariff increases into economic services.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister frankly that I do not accept the explanation that the increased use of the telephone and telex gave rise to the loss incurred by the postal service. In making an analysis of the various categories of mail matter posted in South Africa for inland delivery, we find that out of every ten, seven of the categories showed a downward trend for the second consecutive year. Some of those categories are not affected by the telephone and telex. For instance, there was a downward trend in first-class mail matter, i.e. letters and postcards, and then there was also a downward trend of 47 million in respect of printed matter, commercial papers, samples, small parcels, household circulars and reading matter for the blind.

What is the figure?

From the one year to the next the decrease is 47 million.

That is fantastic!

No matter what argument the hon. the Minister may want to advance, this category is not affected by the telephone or telex. The only thing that gave rise to this downward trend, was those excessive tariff increases of two years ago which built up a consumer resistance. We had a downward trend in respect of express articles, registered articles, parcels —I do not know how one can forward a parcel over the telephone, if that should be advanced as a reason—first and second-class airmail. We only had an upward trend in respect of air postal parcels, certified matter and newspapers. As I have said, there is only one reason for this and that is the excessive tariff increase introduced in 1971. However, what do we find now? This is the very thing which is so important. This hon. Minister does not learn from the lessons of the past, for he has once again proposed excessive tariff increases in, no less, two of those categories which have shown progress. In the case of newspapers he has proposed a tariff increase of 100% and in the case of airmail articles a tariff increase of 25%. No, the hon. the Minister does not learn from the lessons of the past. Does he want to convert these services into uneconomic services, too? Let us take a look at commercial papers. With great ostentation we were told that commercial papers would remain unchanged. The hon. the Minister said, amongst other things, that commercial papers were locally orientated and that the cost of distribution was not so high; accordingly it was easier to show a profit on it.

Do hon. members realize why he is adopting this attitude? Do hon. members realize that in respect of commercial papers, household circulars, etc., there was from 1969-’70 up to the past financial year, a decrease of 300 million in the number of articles handled in South Africa? Has he not learnt the lesson of excessive tariff increases. In addition we find that a new phenomenon has emerged in South Africa, i.e. that private undertakings are taking care of distribution. Whilst the hon. the Minister thinks that he has the monopoly in respect of the distribution of commercial papers, he will find that he no longer has a monopoly in this field. This is a thorny problem, and it is a problem which the hon. the Minister’s officials themselves have already discussed in their departmental staff committees. They made it clear that this was a loss to the Post Office and that matters could not go on that way. I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that he will never regain that market which he had unless he is prepared to announce a tariff reduction in respect of these papers.

Finally, I just want to refer very briefly to one or two staff matters. The Post Office endeavours to be a big business undertaking, and any staff member working for a big business concern has a right to fringe benefits. This is something which is common practice. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the staff of the Post Office are entitled to such fringe benefits. I just want to mention a few to him. There are, for instance, the cost of installing telephones and the renting of telephones. He could at least make these available to officials on a discount basis or exempt them altogether from these charges. Then I want to raise a question which is concerned with transfers. Do hon. members know what a member of staff gets, when he is transferred, for covering his incidental expenses? He gets an allowance of R100 for his incidental expenses. Now, the hon. the Minister will tell me that I should not cry, because four to five years ago the amount was only R50. However, I want to come back to him and say as was said by his own members of staff: “And what about this unprecedented escalation of prices?” That amount of R100 is granted for incidental expenses. Let me tell hon. members about some of the things included under incidental expenses. There are the transfer fees on a house which one has to sell or there is commission which has to be paid. In nine out of ten cases one needs new curtains in a new house. The other important matter about which the staff are not happy is the fact that they are transferred in the middle of the year, in the middle of a term, and consequently cannot take their children with them. They have to stay behind in hostels. Does that hon. member think that that amount of R100 is sufficient? I shall tell hon. members that it is absolutely insufficient, that this is one of the matters in respect of which the hon. the Minister can prove that he really has honest and sincere intentions towards his members of staff and is not merely extending here a formal vote of thanks. If he wants to prove that, he will have to give his immediate attention to this matter.

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly grateful that the hon. member for Yeoville, the hon. member for Durban Point and in particular the hon. member for South Coast are in the House since today, in the course of my speech, I want to deal with a few important policy matters and should like to obtain clarity from the United Party about these matters. I am referring here to the speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in the Part Appropriation Debate. I particularly want to refer to the part of his speech which makes a reference to minor apartheid, as he calls it.

Yesterday and today the hon. member for Orange Grove stood up here in the House as if he were a general and called his soldiers from the backlines into battle. I want to give the hon. member for Orange Grove good advice. I want to tell him that if we are still alive in the Budget Debate next year he would do well to consider giving those hon. gentlemen, who have thus far taken part in the discussion, a tot of rum like a Napoleon of old. Hon. members, on that side of the House have already been killed in action. The hon. member knows that if the general out front in time of war is no great shakes, one can expect that the soldiers following him would not be either. If in this debate one closed one’s eyes and just listened to what was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Durban Central and other hon. members on that side of the House, who have thus far taken part in the debate, one would really not believe that one was in South Africa. If one were to close one’s eyes and listen to them, one would come to the conclusion that one is in one of the most undeveloped countries in the world. To listen thus to them one would think one was actually in Central Africa near the equator. To go with his argument the hon. member for Orange Grove needed only a drum to beat as the Indians of old did when sending up smoke signals in order to communicate. Yesterday the hon. member for Orange Grove said with great emphasis in his introductory speech: “I can only say that this Budget is disappointing. It is sad, without vision, it is only patchwork, it will lead to greater inflation, it will cut the growth rate and it will be a tragic thing for South Africa during the next 12 months.” The hon. member then came along with a fine solution to the problems the Post Office is struggling with in South Africa today. I do not know whether he was serious, but this is indeed what he said: “Mr. Speaker, there is one obvious source of finding this R20 million. He need only end the telephone shortage of 100 000. Each telephone brings in on an average, according to his own figures, R200 per annum. R200 multiplied by 100 000 is R20 million which will give him all the money he needs.” That is the solution of the hon. member for Orange Grove. Heaven forbid that it should ever happen in South Africa that such an hon. member can become Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in this country.

A great deal was said here about tariffs that have been increased, tariffs which the hon. the Minister was compelled by necessity to increase. The tariff increases were selectively done. However, the most important tariffs that affect everyone, i.e. postage on letters, post cards and the cost of an automatic telephone call, as well as the costs of a local telephone call, are being left unchanged. In the light of the fact that the rental of telephones has been increased from R24 to R36, I should, for the record, like to indicate in the House that, in spite of that, the rental which South Africa’s subscribers pay for a telephone is still, comparatively speaking, one of the lowest rentals in the world. I want to furnish interesting figures in this connection. In South Africa the rental is R36, in Sweden it is indeed lower, i.e. R18 per year; in the U.S.A. it is R53 per year, in England R44 per year, in France R55 per year, in West Germany as much as R76 per year, in Australia R42 and in Japan R39 per year. It is also interesting to note that in South Africa, in spite of the fact that the United Party is now trying to make out a case for the fact that everything in South Africa is now in a chaotic state as far as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is concerned, we find that the Whites constitute 68% of the subscribers. In Belgium 33% of the people have telephones, in France it is as low as 19%, in Great Britain 34%, in Italy 27%, in the Netherlands 43% and West Germany 31%. In 1968 I said in this very House, when the Post Office Readjustment Bill was passed here, that I foresaw wider horizons for this department and that, because this department was disengaged from the Treasury, it would develop a great deal in the years ahead and continue to give South Africa a great service. I can therefore, on this occasion, do nothing but express our thanks and appreciation to the Postmaster General and the officials, from the highest paid in the department to the lowest paid. In this connection I am thinking also of our own post office here in Parliament and our own exchange, which furnishes an excellent service. This symbolizes, as far as I am concerned, the fact that one can walk into any post office in South Africa and get only the pleasantest and best service possible. This symbolizes, as far as I am concerned, the fact that the officials of this department are imbued with one great ideal, i.e. that of furnishing a service. I have seen in that that they are faithful and loyal officials of the department.

The hon. members opposite tried to make out a case for their allegation that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had virtually come to a standstill, that if finds itself in a chaotic state. They tried to make out a case for the fact that our telephone service in South Africa is the poorest in the world. As an introduction I just very briefly want to point out to hon. members a few highlights before I come to the matter that I actually want to discuss with the hon. members for Durban Point and Yeoville —I see they have left the Council Chamber. According to estimates, the increase in the number of telephones in use for this financial year will amount to 90 000, which brings the total available telephones to 1 750 000. That is an increase of more than 25%; indeed a great achievement! The total line capacity of telephone exchanges was increased this year by about 83 000, a growth of about 8,3%. In the financial year there were also extensions to 64 automatic exchanges, and 14 new ones were put into operation. That in itself is a wonderful achievement for the department. The capacity of manual exchanges was also extended by 6 000 lines. During 1973-’74 it is intended to extend 69 automatic exchanges and to establish 26 new ones. Thus I could go on and give you one important milestone after another, Sir, in the achievements of this department in recent years. An important milestone was reached last year in Windhoek with the opening of the national dialing exchange. Please note, 80% of all the telephones in the country have already been linked up to the direct trunk dialing system between subscribers and from subscribers to manual exchanges. This in itself is a noteworthy achievement.

Now I should like to come to the matter which I mentioned at the very beginning. If I look at the estimate of capital expenditure of this department, I see that one post office after another is being erected in South Africa; an amount of more than R160 million is being budgeted for that. To mention just a few, in the Durban city area a new post office is being erected— that is the area of the hon. member for Durban Point. A post office is also being erected at Durban (Tollgate)—I do not know in whose area that falls—at Johannesburg (Auckland Park), and also, inter alia, in Jeppes. One would at least have expected the hon. members to have thanked the Minister for these post offices.

We shall still get to the Committee Stage. That is a matter for the Committee Stage.

A person would have expected hon. members at least to have thanked the hon. the Minister for what they are getting, they themselves not even having had a share in it. Since those post offices are being erected in Jeppes, in Durban and also in the hon. member for Durban South Coast’s constituency I want to refer here to a speech made by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in the Part Appropriation Debate.

Where?

I am referring hon. members to that, because South Africa wants clarity about what the United Party’s standpoint is.

Whereabouts?

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said—and in all fairness I want to read this to the House—that our post offices …

Why is he talking such nonsense? He is talking so fast that he cannot hear himself.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said that if post offices are erected in South Africa, there should not have separate entrances. I think that I should quote, for the record, what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said. Then we will obtain greater clarity in this connection—and here I also want to address the hon. member for Durban South Coast. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said, with reference to the hon. the Prime Minister—and I quote from Hansard of 21st February, 1973, col. 1136—

Then the hon. member for Bezuidenhout continues and says—

I want hon. members of the Opposition to listen now—

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout says that the post offices, which are being erected in South Africa, should have only one entrance. The Government’s standpoint is very clear. We believe that there should be separate entrances for the respective population groups because we believe that we shall eliminate friction in that way. We foresee, in addition, that in the foreseeable future—and that is the ideal we are striving for—the respective population groups will be served in the post offices by their own people. Now I have a question which I want to put to the hon. member for Jeppes. I see that there is a fine post office springing up in the Jeppes constituency. It is not the hon. member who exerted himself in that connection. The former member for Jeppes did so. I take it that the hon. member for Jeppes has seen that there is a post office on the capital programme for his constituency.

Yes.

Now the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is saying that the post offices in South Africa should have only one entrance, i.e. the respective population groups must be mixed when it comes to the use of the post office facilities. I now want to ask the hon. member for Jeppes if there should be only one entrance in the post office that is now being built in Jeppes. Now the hon. member is laughing. I have already said that the United Party is continually blowing hot and cold in this House. I am asking the hon. member for Jeppes again whether he agrees with the standpoint of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. The hon. member only needs to shake his head. In Durban there are also quite a few post offices springing up, thanks to this good Minister and his department. Does the hon. member for Durban Central agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? In the Part Appropriation Debate the hon. member for Bezuidenhout said …

May I ask you a question?

No. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout said there should be only one entrance for post offices in South Africa. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Central whether he is prepared to stand up and tell the Minister that he should instruct his architects to ensure that the post offices, which are springing up in Durban, should have only one entrance for all population groups. I want to put the question to the hon. member for South Coast, but I do not think he understands Afrikaans. I have already said this before, and I am saying it again today, that those hon. members are blowing hot and cold. Who is the hon. member for Bezuidenhout really? The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is indeed a political opportunist. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is the type of person who would embarrass any party. The fact is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout is a frontbencher of that party. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout is boosted by the United Party Press as the so-called future leader of the United Party. In other words, what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout says must be taken notice of. Because those hon. members were not prepared to reply to my question, I am now telling South Africa that it will not be necessary to have separate entrances in our post offices for the respective population groups, according to the United Party’s policy as stated by a front-bencher of the party, as stated by the hon. member for Durban Central, the hon. member for Jeppes and every other United Party member sitting there.

[Inaudible.]

But let us come back to the point. I want to ask the hon. member for Durban Central, who is having such a very nice discussion, whether he does not agree with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I am asking the hon. member whether he agrees with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout? I want South Africa to take note of that. If these hon. members are honest, as far as their politics is concerned, they ought to tell this Minister: “Mr. Minister, those post offices in Jeppes, in Durban and throughout South Africa must have only one entrance”. I want to ask the hon. member for South Coast, while he is having such a nice discussion—and I hope he can understand Afrikaans …

Speak up; we cannot hear you.

I want to put this question to the hon. member: Must the post offices in his constituency have separate entrances, yes or no?

Which one?

All the post offices in your constituency. Must they have separate entrances or not?

Which one?

All the post offices in South Coast. Let me then mention the post office in Margate. Must it have separate entrances, yes or no? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, this is clear proof that the United Party is in a fix. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout made a wild statement, and I get the impression that hon. members opposite support the hon. member for Bezuidenhout’s trend of thought. If that is not so, I again want to endorse the statement that the United Party, as has been proved in the past, is the party that still continuously blows hot and cold. This afternoon several hon. members on that side of the House referred to the telephone shortages that exist in South Africa, and to the so-called poor telephone service. There were some of the hon. members who referred to it as being of the poorest in the world. In a country like South Africa, which has developed phenomenally over the past decade as a result of a good National Government, I believe that there will always be a shortage of telephones, because it goes without saying that if development takes place, as is indeed the case in South Africa, a heavy burden is placed on the shoulders of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. If we just think for a single moment of the fact that the Witwatersrand has developed phenomenally in the past decade, and if we think of all our growth points in South Africa, for example Newcastle, Richards Bay, Saldanha Bay and even here locally in Cape Town, it goes without saying that services must be furnished under difficult circumstances. I believe that in future there will always be a shortage of telephones in South Africa as a result of its rapid development. That is why I am glad that this department’s emphasis falls particularly on service. I believe that the quality of our telephones—this is how I see it—is more important than the quantity of telephones. But having said this, I want to add that in spite of the fact that we in South Africa have a telephone shortage, and in spite of the fact that the service in certain areas is not as could be desired, this communications problem is not unique to South Africa. It is an international phenomenon. I want to tell hon. members opposite who have travelled a great deal, and also hon. members on this side of the House who have travelled, that it is an actual fact that in other countries of the world they are also struggling with telecommunications problems. For the sake of interest I just want to quote a few passages. I am quoting, for example, from an issue of the Financial Mail of last year, where the following is stated, inter alia—

So I could continue and quote to you from the Evening Gazette of 23rd September last year. There it is stated—

In one of last year’s issues of the Winchester Business Journal something is also written about this—

Then I can take you to England, Sir. I quote from the Sunday News of a year or so ago—

Let us look at what the position is in France. In France it is interesting to note that only 15 persons out of every 100 own a telephone. I have been told and I also have personal experience as far as that is concerned, that the service there is much poorer than the service here in South Africa.

This department is now standing on its own feet, and with its staff and this very competent Minister, I foresee that those problems we have today in this department will be solved within the next few years. I can give hon. members opposite this assurance: For many years ahead it will be the task of this side of the House to solve those problems, because those hon. members will never be given the opportunity to do so.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Welkom that the best part of his speech was the part where he quoted from the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. I just want to give the hon. member, across the floor of the House this afternoon, a direct reply to a question of his.

Do you want separate entrances or not?

The hon. member should just exercise a little patience. He stood shouting here for a long time. We on this side of the House will raise no objection if a post office should have more than one entrance. Sir, we may just as well have one entrance; why should we have two entrances in a post office?

A mixing of the races.

Sir, I want to put a few questions to that hon. member if he really wants to apply this principle in the post office. The policy of the Government is multi-nationalism or separate freedoms. Why do they not have separate entrances in the post office for the Coloureds, the Bantu and the Indians? I want to ask the hon. member for Welkom whether he has ever travelled on a municipal bus here in Cape Town?

There are no municipal buses here.

This type of politics are used as a smokescreen in order to divert our attention from the problems of the Post Office. We on this side of the House will not allow ourselves to be caught by that, and that hon. member must understand that very clearly. We are not interested in this type of thing. Sir, the hon. member said that we should thank the Minister for the post offices he was building for us. Mr. Speaker, surely these are not gifts which we received from the hon. the Minister. The people of South Africa pay for those post offices.

Sir, I would rather concentrate on my speech. I want to tell you that I would very much like to share in the optimism of the hon. the Minister and the optimism of the Postmaster-General when they speak of “beating the telephone backlog”. The hon. the Minister told us—

Sir, this is a very interesting sentiment which is expressed here. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I live in Mondeor on the southern side of Johannesburg, and if the service in my constituency is indicative of the quality propagated by the hon. the Minister, it leaves much to be desired. Quality, as opposed to quantity, is ostensibly the policy now. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he may just as well install the other 100 000 telephones in South Africa too, for when one gets them they do not work in any case.

Rubbish!

The automatic telephone service in South Africa is after all supposed to be private, but crossed lines are the order of the day when one tries to use one’s telephone. In effect the idea of a dialogue does not exist at all. Every time I pick up my telephone, I make propaganda against the Nationalist Party, and I do not allow such opportunities to pass by, for what do I find when I pick up the telephone and want to use it? Instead of taking part in a dialogue, I am usually addressing an audience on the telephone. If one does not get a crossed line, one gets a wrong number, and if one does not get a wrong number, one gets nothing at all. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I make propaganda against the Nationalist Party whenever I get a wrong number or a crossed line. I tell the people on the telephone: “For this you may thank a Nationalist Party Government.” Sir, there is nothing more irritating than trying to get a line; there is nothing more irritating than getting a wrong number or getting a crossed line when one dials. It is absolutely irritating, not only to the private user of the telephone, but also to the businessman in South Africa today. The hon. the Minister does not realise what the problems are, for he has a secretary who puts through his calls for him. I think that hon. members in this House, if they want to be honest with themselves, will admit that we have an absolutely shocking telephone system in South Africa.

It seems to me you made bad propaganda in Johannesburg West.

I was absolutely shocked when the Minister announced the 50% increase in rentals here yesterday. I believe the hon. member for Orange Grove has every right to say that the people outside are disappointed and shocked by this Budget which was introduced by the Minister. Sir, where have you ever in your life heard of an increase of 50% with regard to telephone rentals, from R24 to R36 per annum? If hon. members in this House want to buy a new car and the garage owner says he has decided to increase the price of cars by 50% as from today, who will then shout the loudest? I believe that hon. members on that side of the House will then shout along with us, but this Government and this Minister are apparently quite entitled to do that sort of thing. Where are we headed with this Nationalist Government? My intention was to plead this afternoon with the hon. the Minister, on behalf of thousands of pensioners and on behalf of people who made representations to me, for consideration to be given by him to the possibility of making concessions to pensioners with regard to the tariffs for telephone services. Let me say at once, Sir, that I was not so shocked by the Minister’s Budget that I am not going to proceed with this plea, but I shall tell you what my problem is now: It was my intention to ask the hon. the Minister for a 50% concession, but after this tariff increase I shall have to ask for a 75% concession with regard to our aged. Sir, R20 for the installation of a telephone is exactly half the pension received by a pensioner in South Africa. Telephone rental —previously R24 and now R36 per annum —comes to an enormous amount as compared to the income on which many of our aged in South Africa must live, and 4 cents per call means half a loaf of bread to many people in South Africa.

These are the tariffs which we have to pay under this Nationalist Government. But when one considers that communication is probably one of the most important commodities for any aged person in South Africa, and that communication bridges over for every old aged person the problem of contact with his relatives, of contact with his friends or contact with his doctor or with the Police or with any other person beyond his or her immediate reach, then one understands and realizes what reasons the pensioner has for making these representations to one. The principle of concessions with regard to tariffs is not a new principle which I am pleading for with this Government. Pensioners are already exempted from paying the full radio licence fee in South Africa. In cases where they live alone, they pay only R1 for a radio licence and, in other cases, they pay R2 of the usual R5-50. Therefore, here we already have, on the part of the Government, a concession of more than 50% in such a case. Sir, I want to read to you an extract from a letter which I received from a pensioner recently—

Therefore a telephone is regarded by the aged as a security measure, as a protective measure, and I believe that the use of a telephone will be limited by many of the aged to an emergency, when they really need the telephone. For that very reason an installation fee of R20 and an annual rental of R36 are very high. It is almost half the pension of an aged person and is out of proportion with the actual use which the aged will really have out of telephones. The hon. member for Umbilo has already raised this matter of telephones with the hon. the Minister in writing, but without success, and to me the hon. the Minister’s excuse is, to be frank, absolutely unacceptable. The Minister wrote back—

Surely that is ridiculous.

That just proves how much they are paying him now.

Homes and institutions for the aged in South Africa already have telephones, and those telephones do not serve unattached pensioners; they already serve groups of elderly people, and there is at least somebody whom they can contact if they are ill or in need. I am thinking specifically of the mass, the vast majority, of our aged who are living in a small house of their own or in a flat or even in a room. Consideration of and possible concurrence in my plea will give thousands of elderly people a feeling of security and of protection. We are living in this “every-man-for-himself” modern world; we could at least make a concession to them in this respect. Should my plea be summarily rejected, I would then at least plead with the hon. the Minister not to make these tariff increases applicable to all pensioners in South Africa.

All pensioners?

Yes, all of them. It seems to me the hon. member wants to retire one of these days. As it is he looks so old.

Then I would like to deal briefly with the shortage of telephones in South Africa. Can one believe that in this year, 1973, it is possible to speak in terms of a backlog of 100 000 telephones in South Africa? Surely it is absolutely shocking that in a modern world, in this world where people are landing on the moon and where the whole world has television, we should speak of a shortage of 100 000 telephones in South Africa. This “beating the telephone backlog” is a new rotten carrot which is being held out to the public of South Africa. My optimism with this N.P. Government is very limited. One only has to look at the Witwatersrand area to see what the position of outstanding telephones is like. I want to ask what the hon. N.P. members opposite are doing. Instead of their pleading on behalf of the voters of South Africa for telephones in this House this afternoon, one finds the hon. member for Welkom taking it amiss of us because we do not thank the hon. the Minister for our having a shortage of 100 000 telephones. [Interjections.] I am thinking of the hon. member for Westdene, who has a United Party M.P.C. One of the reasons why he has a United Party M.P.C., is that in the Aasvoëlkop-Linden area there is a shortage of approximately 2 000 telephones.

Are you fond of that United Party M.P.C.?

Over there we have the hon. member for Randburg. He also has a United Party M.P.C., and in Randburg he has a United Party city council. In his area there is a shortage of approximately 3 000 telephones.

Is Van Rensburg still a U.P. supporter?

In the constituency of the hon. member for Brakpan, who is making so much noise, there is a shortage of more than 1 000 telephones. During this debate he did not ask the hon. the Minister why he did not provide his voters with telephones. The hon. member for Boksburg also has a United Party M.P.C. In Boksburg even fate has turned against the Nationalist Party, for when they drew lots the other day, the United Party managed to get a U.P. member elected as mayor by way of drawing lots. Therefore in Boksburg, too, we now have a United Party mayor. In the hon. member’s constituency there is a shortage of 2 000 telephones. In the constituency of the hon. the Minister of Sport there is a shortage of 2 000 telephones in the Edenvale-Primrose area. The hon. member for Kempton Park should take cognizance of the fact that there is a shortage of approximately 2 000 telephones in his constituency. Now I come to the hon. member for Germiston. In Wadeville there is a shortage of approximately 1 500 telephones.

Wadeville is not my constituency. Leave my constituency alone!

In the constituency of the hon. the Minister there is a shortage of approximately 2 000 telephones. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister now asks us to pay more for this half-baked service which we have in South Africa. I say South Africa deserves something better than this Nationalist Party Government. The hon. the Minister and hon. members opposite are making out a case to the effect that it is a privilege to be able to have a telephone in South Africa. We are not living in the year 1873; we are living in the year 1973, and in these days a telephone has certainly become a right to which South Africa’s people can lay claim.

They are talking about the staff in the Post Office. I am very sorry for the Post Office staff. They probably find it very, very difficult to work under this Nationalist Government.

I want to conclude by referring to my own constituency, and not only to my own constituency, but also to the whole southern area of the Witwatersrand, the southern area of Johannesburg which includes the hon. the Minister’s constituency, Alberton. Since the area known as the New South was incorporated in Johannesburg—by the way, this is an area as big as the rest of the Johannesburg municipal area—tremendous expansion has been taking place, and in the course of the next five, ten to fifteen years expansion will take place on a phenomenal scale. At this early stage already I want to warn the hon. the Minister that unless he and his department undertake planning now, we in the Johannesburg South area will face the same problem we are experiencing at present in the Johannesburg North area, on the East Rand and the West Rand.

The reply he furnished yesterday to a question in regard to telephones and telephone shortages in the South, is something which I do not wish to deal with now, but I must say that it does not satisfy me, for if the development has in this early stage only started in the southern part of Johannesburg and is, according to his reply yesterday, only the forerunner of what we can expect, I want to say that I foresee absolute chaos in the southern part of Johannesburg. If this is the forerunner, I know that we are going to experience problems in the southern parts of Johannesburg. I can only stress that immediate attention and urgent action will be the only solution in that area of Johannesuburg. Let me say that the residents of the New South of Johannesburg are for the most part people who hold executive posts, and to them a telephone service is becoming a necessity, for their business affairs are often not restricted to business hours and have to be attended to even when they are at home. In many cases, especially in the newly developed areas, in areas where there are no street lights as yet, a telephone is a means of security and a protective measure. Just recently, in one of the prominent residential areas in the southern part of Johannesburg, we had a case of an elderly lady being murdered in cold blood in broad daylight. In that house there was no telephone. There have been attacks on young girls in those areas, and I am telling hon. members that under such circumstances people appreciate the value of a telephone.

To sum up, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I am pleading for concessions to all pensioners with regard to telephone tariffs. My plea is also that the hon. the Minister should realize that we are not living in the 19th Century, but that we are living in the 20th Century and that telephones are a necessity in South Africa. Finally, I want to plead for immediate action to be taken by him with regard to telephones in the southern area of Johannesburg and also in the Alberton area, of which he is the representative in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, it is of course politically essential for the hon. member for Turffontein to obtain a telephone in order that he may consult his Transvaal leader. When the hon. member for Welkom had the hon. member for Jeppes in a corner, he quickly left this debating chamber, but I see that he has now returned. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Jeppes whether he is prepared to have separate entrances to the new Post Office in Jeppes. I should like to know. Has he not just approached his hon. leader in the Transvaal and ascertained what his policy is? It will not help the hon. member for Jeppes to hide behind the hon. member for Mooi River, because I can see through the hon. member for Mooi River as if he were made of glass. I want to say in all sincerity to the hon. member for Turffontein today that he has recently developed into a good debater, but the opportunism he employs will totally undermine the good debating ability he possesses. He said something here about social pensioners. The underprivileged people in the Republic of South Africa must never be politically exploited. If improved compensation can be granted to pensioners or to the elderly, this cannot be done on a discriminatory basis. If an increase is granted to welfare pensioners, it must be seen in its entirety and not only as a favour to the pensioner who has a telephone. That would be unfair, and the hon. member for Turffontein knows it. The hon. member thinks that his is a popular request. If he had asked for an increase in welfare pensions under the right vote, I would have had nothing against that, but now he comes along and asks in a subtle way for a reduction in telephone tariffs for one section of the people only. The hon. member went on to say that a shortage of 100 000 telephones is shocking, but in the time of the United Party in 1948, the telephone shortage in South Africa was more than 20%. When that party was in power and when there were only a handful of telephones in South Africa, the shortage was 20%. Today the shortage is …

[Inaudible.]

I shall tackle the hon. member for Orange Grove in a moment. At present I am still dealing with this little hon. member. The hon. member for Turffontein made the statement that we supposedly have such a tremendous backlog. The shortage only comprises 5% of the total number of telephones in South Africa, namely 1,75 million. In the time when the hon. member’s party was still in power, when he was still swinging on a gate, the shortage was 20%.

And you?

I have never swung on a gate, because I had more intelligence than that. I accept that the hon. member for Orange Grove is the person who should keep his colleagues informed, so that they can also make a contribution to this debate. But what was the impression which the hon. member created yesterday and this afternoon with his statements, which were followed up by the few political lackeys who echoed his sentiments? This is what was said, and this impression was very clearly created for outside consumption, i.e. that this department is static. I think they are trying to take it further and are trying to imply that this department is a stagnant one. The hon. member for North Rand is looking at me very askance, but I want to say that their opportunism in trying to imply that this department is a static department, is irresponsible and unrealistic. Let us consider the capital expenditure. After the Post Office Readjustment Bill had been piloted through this House, the capital expenditure of this department rose tremendously. We must look at statistics and the information which is available. It was also available to the hon. member for Orange Grove, but he refuses to study these things, check up on them and realize what is going on. Let us look at capital expenditure on telecommunication services. In the Republic of South Africa in 1968-’69. R38 million was spent on telecommunication services alone. Every year the amount spent increased substantially. We now come to 1973-’74 when the expenditure will be R138 million, R100 million more than what we spent in 1968-’69. These are vast amounts, not small change. That is what is so unfair about the hon. member for Orange Grove, because he does not want to concede that this department is spending this money on a responsible basis. I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that he is aware that the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission have been accepted by this House. The recommendations of the Franzsen Commission were scientifically based. They came up with a formula of 50% on revenue and 50% expenditure from loan funds. We are at a stage where we are obtaining almost 56% from loan funds and 43% from income. For the information of the hon. member for Orange Grove I want to say that this is being done for very good reasons, namely that South Africa has a tremendous potential and therefore these are loans well spent because they are loans for productive systems in the communications set-up. A greater degree of flexibility in the Post Office finances has been effected in this way. This year, for the first time in the history of the Post Office, we were in a position to negotiate a foreign loan. This is an achievement, but why has not one of the hon. members opposite said that this was admirable? It is a stimulus for the Post Office that we are now in a position to negotiate our own foreign loans. We have only had silence concerning this from the other side.

Greater flexibility has been effected in the department and greater flexibility is essential in order to render these services. The recommendations of the Franzsen Commission have great advantages for the department, but let us examine this story of hon. members opposite that this department is static and is not growing. Let us examine the position over the past 25 years. In 1948 the capital expenditure was R10 million and in 1972 it was R104 million. The number of telephones in the days of the United Party was 318 581; today there are 1 750 million telephones. This enables one to see the contrast and the growth in this sphere in South Africa over the past 25 years. As far as the number of telephone calls is concerned, there were 500 000 in days of the United Party; today the figure is almost 3 million. A very important aspect and an unfair accusation by the hon. member for Orange Grove and other members, is that these tariff increases were deliberately introduced with the object of encouraging inflation in South Africa. I want to state that the increase in tariffs of 8,4%, an additional income of R26 million, was done in the most judicious financial manner that I know of, in order to effect an increase. The ordinary telephone subscriber is not affected by it. As far as long-distance calls are concerned, you can still get your message across if you talk in a brief and business-like way. The only aspect which could possibly be used to support the claim that this has encouraged inflation, is the annual rentals, but then we must also be fair. The annual rentals have been increased from R24 to R36, but these still compare favourably with the rest of the world. In England it is R44; in the U.S.A. R53; in West Germany R76; in Australia R42; in Japan R39; and in Holland R60. In South Africa, on the other hand, the rental is R36. Let us see what local calls cost: In South Africa 4c; in West Germany 5c; in Australia 5c; and in Holland 4c. Where is the exploitation and the encouragement of inflation? If we should finance our Postal Services wholly by means of loans—and apparently the hon. member for Orange Grove is requesting that we should raise bigger loans—I want to say that this will unintentionally lead to tremendous tariff increases. Should tariff increases not occur, the department, would, as a result of too extensive redemption and interest on capital, find itself in a chaotic condition. One of the most dangerous courses of action is to over-capitalize when the money has to be borrowed. At the present rate of interest this is very unfair. What has the State done? What is the State’s attitude towards this department The State has accepted that the burden of debt of R199 million be dealt with not as a burden of debt, but as an asset of the department at a 6% dividend rate. That incates the absolute sense of responsibility of the Government towards this department.

Let us consider the so-called poor service which is being rendered in the Republic of South Africa. In that connection we must consider the percentage of householders in South Africa who have telephones in their possession, in comparison with other countries in the world. I am referring now to Whites. Sixty-eight per cent of our householders in South Africa are in possession of a telephone. That is an achievement. In Belgium it is only 33%; in France, 19%; in Great Britain, 34%—how that thrills the hon. member for Turffontein! When one talks about Great Britain, he wishes he were there!—in Italy 27%; in the Netherlands 43%; in West Germany 31%. No country in the Western world is more telephone-conscious than the Republic of South Africa. That is truly an achievement for so young a country.

Then there is another matter which I should also like to touch on and which I should like to make very clear. It was remarkable that in the Railway debate the hon. member for Yeoville never referred to the tariff increases. He concentrated on the salary increases of the officials. He said that he feels that it should be an annual institution. They want to return to their old “cost-of-living” story of the war years. That is their whole idea.

What is your home language?

My home language is not your home language; your home language is not a language which I like to speak. The hon. member for Yeoville, as I have said, concentrated on salary increases, only. He had nothing at all to say about the tariff increases on the Railways. The tariffs increases of the Railways were far higher than those of the Post Office. But not a word was said about the tariffs of the Railways. Only the staff position was discussed. I want to make it very clear that the Post Office and the Railway staff know what we are doing. They are fully aware that the salary increases were much higher than the cost of living increases, according to the index. In other words, the cost of living is not being paid on a supplementary basis only. Provision is also being made for greater savings and more facilities for our people.

The hon. Opposition is engaged in an attempt to develop an attitude among civil servants, that they are not being looked after by this side of the House. That is unfair and a subtle attempt to undermine productivity. We in South Africa will have to give productivity pride of place if we want to accept the challenge of the future. For that reason this department is a model of efficiency and of good productivity. Let us take cognizance of the staff position, i.e. the number of staff members in service, the growth of the staff and services and the index for 1961-’62 with 100 as a basis. If we take the index figure for 1961-’62 as 100, we find that after 10 years the figure has risen to 134,2. But let us also consider what these people have achieved and the work which they have done. Again we work on the basis of 100 for 1961-’62. Postal articles handled in 1971-’72 rose to 135,7; telephones in use rose in 1971-72 to 182,2. Can hon. members see what a volume of work has been done with a minimal increase in staff? Metered calls rose from 100 in 1961-’62 to 240,5. Do you realize the work which is done by the telecommunications people in South Africa in the interests of greater efficiency? Teleprinters in use rose to 280,1. What I want to bring home to hon. members is that a slight increase in staff has brought about greater efficiency and productivity. We must get away from the concept which the hon. Opposition would like to have take root, namely that our people are not being dealt with fairly. There are deficiencies in our postal service. No one will deny that. I refuse to become politically dishonest. I am afraid that if I should become politically dishonest, I would become as thin as a rake so that people will not be able to tell whether I was coming or going, as is the case with the hon. member for Turffontein. Why do I say that? I say that we must not become politically dishonest. Where deficiencies do exist, we say so. There are places in South Africa where the services are not what they should be. But the growth in certain growth points in the Republic must also be noted. Last year there was no problems involving telephones in my constituency, but then tremendous growth occurred and at the moment there is a telephone shortage. I will not disguise this fact. There is a telephone shortage. But at the beginning of the period of growth this department was already constructing supplementary buildings and establishing supplementary telecommunication systems in order to solve the problem. It is obvious that there will be shortages when one has to do with periods of such tremendous growth, but that is still no reason to run amuck. That is no reason to incite people against the National Party. I can only say to the hon. member for Turffontein that he will never impress people in that way. In life it is principles that count. That is also the case when the economic future of South Africa is being discussed. When one attempts to act opportunistically against a department like this, the fact is quite evident. I tell you that you can try to prevent this as much as you like, but the officials of the Post Office will not be satisfied with this. I know these people and I know how they work. They will not be satisfied with this subtle sowing of suspicion against this department. According to hon. members opposite, everything in the department is rotten; there is nothing good in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. When they realize that they must be honest, when they realize that opportunism will never succeed, then they will be able to make a contribution to this debate. The hon. member for Orange Grove will concede that I am right when I say that after the Post Office Readjustment Act came into operation and the decision of the Franzsen Committee was accepted by the Government, a tremendous improvement in the postal services took place. The hon. member states that he concedes it.

Yes, for that reason we supported the Act.

I am very pleased that the hon. member concedes that I am right on that score. We must be grateful that this inherent potential of the Republic is making it possible for us to find capital from overseas countries. There is confidence in the Republic and when the Post Office went looking for loans, they never experienced a problem; they got the loans they were asking for. However it is no solution simply to accept loans. There must be a balance between the Loan Fund and the Revenue Fund. If we did not do this, we would be leaving the workers of the Post Office in the lurch. When a department collapses, it could lead to chaos and unemployment. A department must be financed in a responsible manner, and this hon. Minister, together with his staff, is engaged, with great circumspection and responsibility, in building up a service department in this Republic which will be of great value for the development of our country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to deal at any length with the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, because I found that he was rambling from one point to another, and in between times, when he was a little short of ideas, he merely quoted from the reports which have been laid before us. One thing, however, which did interest me, was that he gave the figures in respect of private telephones, and he went on to various countries in the world. He made one particular point and that was to give us the number of telephones in South Africa for White people. Sir, this is our problem in this House. We, and certainly I, believe that all people who live south of the Limpopo are South Africans. This is how I see them. The hon. member sees them as White people, and if the White people are doing well, then everything is fine. He draws comparisons between the telephones in use in South Africa for White people as against those in use in other parts of the world, and he particularly and specifically ignores the fact that the Whites of South Africa form only one-fifth of the population. So, therefore, I feel that if anybody trots out figures of this sort, they should be discounted. This does, however, tend to prove just how the Minister and the Government think. The hon. member for Welkom was also thinking along these archaic lines. He brought up the question of the number of entrances at post offices, as though this is of any significance in the year 1973. Mr. Speaker, we have only one entrance to this House of Parliament, and people of all race groups come into this building from time to time. Yet the hon. member asks us whether we are or are not in favour of separate entrances at post offices. Sir, I would make just this one very salient point. To my mind the greatest service one renders a country is service rendered in the uniform of that country. I know of no separate entrances or separate passages to the borders on which our troops are fighting terrorists, and the troops fighting those terrorists are of all colours. So I think that sort of argument in this day and age just shows the paucity of the ideas coming from the Government benches. But the hon. the Minister is far from blameless in this respect himself. Last year in the Post Office debate he dealt at great length with a similar subject, and I want to quote just one or two lines of what he said on that occasion; he said—

In other words, Sir, we do not seem to have progressed one iota since last year when the hon. the Minister referred to White and non-White ladies working together behind the same counter. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how many non-White servants he has working in his own kitchen. How many non-Whites and Whites work together in South Africa in every field, right throughout South Africa? I know of few White people in South Africa who work in isolation, without being in close contact with non-Whites, and where Whites and non-Whites do work together, they work together in harmony. The only time this point is raised is when hon. members opposite think it will be to their political advantage to use it at political meetings or in this House. It is about time that we got away from this sort of thing.

I am a verkrampte.

Mr. Speaker, it would be very difficult to decide which members on the other side are verkramptes and which of them are not. But I would like to come back to the hon. the Minister himself. The hon. the Minister is also the Minister of Labour, and as Minister of Labour he has a wonderful opportunity to put into operation his philosophy in regard to labour in the Post Office of which he is in charge. If his labour policies are going to work, they are going to work in the Post Office or they are not going to work at all. Sir, in September, 1971, the hon. the Minister made a speech to the Coordinating Council of Trade Unions, and he had this to say—

Of course it is inevitable; we have said for years and years that this is inevitable, but the Minister said that this was “unfortunately” inevitable. I would like to ask him whether he considered the significance of these words that unfortunately it was in evitable to give the non-Whites some of these jobs previously done by Whites. What effect did this have on race relations in South Africa? Surely all non-Whites, as I have said before, are also South Africans and are therefore entitled to enjoy the fruits of South Africa as well, and I would say that it was certainly not unfortunate that they were given this work. The only unfortunate thing is that the hon. the Minister did not realize this inevitable fact many, many years ago, because if he had realized it many years ago, we would not be in the position in which we are today as far as the Post Office is concerned.

Sir, it is such attitudes on the part of hon. members opposite, and in particular on the part of the Minister, that bedevil any solution of our problems here. According to my experience, we have in South Africa almost the worst telephone service in the world. We have heard complaints from hon. members on this side that you cannot get telephone numbers when you dial them and that when you do get through, you find that you are on the wrong number. You find that very often telephones are out of order for months on end. If one does manage to find a private telephone call-box to use, then inevitably one finds that that is out of order as well. I have been trying to dial a particular call-box in Port Elizabeth now for a month and it has been out of order throughout the whole of that month, and yet that call-box serves numbers of people living in flats who cannot get telephones. It would be easier probably to send a pigeon with a message than to get through to some of these numbers.

Sir, I want to deal, too, with the hon. member for Germiston District, who said in this House last year that he looks upon the Minister as being the chairman of a business; that the Minister produces all these statistics for us and that after studying these statistics we realize how well he is running his business. Mr. Speaker, we can look at these statistics and hon. members opposite can try to explain them as often as often as they like, but what the ordinary man in the street would say is that if the Minister is chairman of this business, then it was time he was fired as chairman. We are given statistics to explain all sorts of things to us, but no amount of statistics, Sir, would explain to the ordinary housewife who has a bad telephone service that in future she is going to have to pay an additional 50% on her rental. I personally have always found the Post Office staff to be willing and helpful and courteous, and my criticism of the Post Office is confined to the Minister himself and to the Government because these Post Office servants have to work under the Minister and his political philosophy. If we are going to improve the service, then I can see no alternative but to get a new Minister, because what chairman of a company, as the hon. member for Germiston District called the Minister last year, would deliberately cut down on his most lucrative business? The most lucrative business of the Post Office surely is the telephone service which, I understand, will produce revenue amounting to something like R251 million in the forthcoming year. This is the best business that the Minister has, and yet he is deliberately going to cut it down. Sir, I say “deliberately” because he is going to increase telephone rentals by 50%. Surely if this is something that he wants to propagate, if this is something that he wants to sell in greater quantities, then he would not make telephones harder to get but easier to get; he would in fact try to reduce telephone rentals and not increase them, and in addition to that he would turn his attention to the non-White market because the non-White market in South Africa probably offers him the solution to his problems; in some of our big towns in South Africa there are very, very few telephones, and yet here we have a group of people, numbering 16 million, who would very much like to have a telephone if the rental was within their means. Through this budget of his the Minister has not only put a telephone out of the range of the vast non-White market, but he has put it out of the range of a very large section of the White market as well.

Sir, the effect that this increase in rental will have on pensioners has been mentioned by hon. members on this side. When the pensions of pensioners are increased in the Budget, the increase usually amounts to R2 per month. Sir, the full increase of R2 will be swallowed up this year by the increase in the telephone rental, and these are the people who cannot do without a telephone. That is why I say that if the chairman of this company was doing his job properly, he would see into it that more people had telephones, as the hon. member for Orange Grove has said; he would see that more people had telephones, and with more telephones he would increase his revenue.

Sir, in the remaining time at my disposal, I would like to turn to a matter which is a little dearer to my heart, and that is the question of staff. In the Post Office we find that numbers of non-Whites formerly employed on a temporary basis have now been placed on the permanent staff. This is something for which we on this side pleaded for many years, because it must be borne in mind that staff employed on a temporary basis do not enjoy the privileges enjoyed by members of the permanent staff. We have therefore asked over the years that fewer and fewer staff members should be employed on a temporary basis. But what do we find now? Only 12% of the total non-White staff in the Post Office is on a permanent basis. That is 12% of the total, whereas as far as the White staff is concerned the permanent staff number 77%, as far as I can make out. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister why it should be necessary that such a large percentage, 88% of his non-White employees, are kept on a temporary basis? Because if you read through the reports, Sir, you will see, from some of the promotions they are given, that many of these temporary workers have worked for the Post Office for very many years and therefore they have been deprived for many years of the rights which would have accrued to them as permanent members of the staff. Just recently, with regard to staff, I asked the hon. the Minister about the hours worked by sections of the Post Office. My question was how many hours were worked by each race group in the telephone department before overtime was earned. The hon. the Minister replied that Whites worked 42 hours and in the larger exchanges 40 hours, but Bantu, Coloureds, Basters and Indians worked 48 hours.

Sir, I should like you to note the difference between 42 hours and 48 hours on an average in respect of the various groups. The Minister qualified his answer by saying that these non-Whites worked in smaller exchanges but I would draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that a few years ago in this House I asked a similar question in regard to technical personnel in the Post Office. The Minister then informed me that these non-White technical people worked with Whites, but the non-Whites worked a 48 hour week and the Whites worked then a 42 hour week, as is the case in his recent reply, although the recent reply dealt with telephone exchange staff, and when I raised the matter before I was dealing with people outside this field. I told the hon. the Minister that I thought it was scandalous, because these people work together, and despite what the hon. member for Welkom said, they do work together all over South Africa. When these two groups, the Whites and the non-Whites, work together as technicians—and anyone can see when telephones are being installed that Whites and non-Whites work together—it is surprising to see how well the telephone works after they have worked together. So these people work together but what happens is that the non-White works 48 hours to complete his week and the White worker works 42 hours to complete his week, and then they get overtime. When I asked the hon. the Minister two or three years ago why this should be, he said it was because of the Public Service Commission’s regulations. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister a direct question. Knowing what the labour position is in South Africa, and the disquiet that exists. I want to ask him whether this position still persists in his own department, because he is the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs as well being the Minister of Labour. I want to know from him whether this still persists in his own department, and if it does, I would like to know why.

While on the subject, I should also like his confirmation that something like 4 000 of his own employees in the Post Office earn a salary of less than R40 a month, well below the poverty datum line; and this is a Minister who has made all sorts of pronouncements in recent weeks over wage scales, etc. Sir, the time allocated to me is running out. Before concluding I would like to say one final thing, and I say this in all seriousness. It is a personal matter, one which has affected me from time to time, and it is this. The number of times I have had to use my telephone, my own personal telephone, and it has been cut off for one reason or another … [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, it certainly came as no surprise to us that the Opposition made such a fuss about the tariff increases. It is understandable that an Opposition has to make use of something like this, otherwise they are really not worth their salt. However, the type of arguments they advanced and the kind of exaggerations they were guilty of in that process were quite remarkable. I shall refer to this in the course of my reply.

As far as the tariff increases are concerned, I want to say that there is probably no one who likes them, for who likes tariff increases? However, since tariff increases proved to be unavoidable owing to the financial position which was elucidated here, I think it is of importance to note that instead of imposing tariff increases to an amount of R40 million, as the financial position indicated I should have done, I limited the increases to only R28,5 million, which certainly indicates that the action taken was with the greatest measure of accommodation. As far as the tariff increases are concerned, it is also of importance to note what the National Consultative Committee had to say. This is the Committee on which commerce and industry is represented, which met yesterday afternoon to discuss this matter and issued a statement in which they said the following, after they had deplored the inevitable tariff increases—

They then proceed to say the following in the same statement—

With such a positive approach one can make progress, but if it is purely negative, as we found a good deal of the Opposition criticism today to be, it is difficult to display the same appreciation for such an approach.

To begin with, I should like to express my appreciation of the positive contributions to this matter which were made by my side of the House. Those contributions testified to a special knowledge of the matter and a real understanding of the difficult situation in which one finds oneself when one has a big backlog which one has to make up, and when one has to provide people with a very high standard of living with services in a rapidly developing country. For that reason I want to convey my appreciation to hon. members on this side who expressed their opinions in this way. They made contributions which drew attention to the tremendous task awaiting us. In the year 1968-’69 we spent an amount of only R44 million in capital —I am only mentioning round figures—on the development of our telecommunication system, but in the year which is now ending, we have already spent more than R100 million more on this than in 1968-’69, viz. the tremendous amount of R147 million, and in the ensuing year we will put R163 million into this. If we take stock of these amounts, surely they are an indication that a great deal is being done on the part of the Post Office. I concede that there is a backlog of 100 000 telephones, but at least we are not the only country in the world with such a backlog. Germany has a backlog of 600 000 telephones, Holland a backlog of 100 000 and France an effective backlog of approximately two million telephones, to mention only three countries. If one takes stock of these figures, this backlog of 100 000 which we have in a country which is developing at a tremendous rate, is probably remarkable and what was achieved by the administration with the funds which were made available to it during the past few years is probably remarkable as well if one measures these achievements against the fact that in 1971 we installed 74 000 telephones, in 1972 71 000 and in 1973 90 000. Surely this is a sign that there is an upward trend in the total amount of service rendered. Surely it is not a question of one’s falling behind in this great task one has to perform. For that reason I say that we have a great task from which we are not flinching and which we do not want to argue away. I do not think it can be said of this Administration and Government that it is not facing up properly to this duty which it has.

But what kind of solutions have we now been offered from the Opposition side, what kind of ill-considered solutions did we get from the hon. shadow Minister? We should immediately install the 100 000 telephones on the waiting list and we will then receive the revenue with which to wipe out this deficit, as if we were able to buy these at a supermarket and as if our funds were unlimited. Surely we cannot solve this problem with such imaginary rubbish. This problem can be solved with funds which we have only now been able to obtain during the past few years owing to our borrowing powers. We were able to achieve this with the help of our technicians, our professional staff, whom we are training and I shall refer in a moment to the non-Whites whom we are training as well. This is the only way in which it can be done; you cannot achieve this by means of ill-considered measures. For that reason I think that as far as this matter is concerned, there is a great deal to be done. To reproach us now with having the wrong system, a system which was designed by a person who in his day was an undertaker, instead of using the system which that hon. gentleman now has in mind, is surely a vast absurdity.

This system which is in use at the moment, is the so-called Strowger system, which has gradually undergone tremendous development since those undertaker days in which the hon. member got bogged down. This system has undergone tremendous development since then. It has constantly been adapted to present-day techniques. This system is the system which is at present being most generally used throughout the world. It is not only South Africa which is so “backward”, so “dense” as to use it. This is the system which is at present still being used the most. To advocate now that we should immediately change this system, knowing that we will in the course of a few years have to change over to these semi-electronic exchanges to which I referred yesterday, which is going to entail tremendous expenditure, is surely absolute foolishness. Can one now introduce a new system in these few years, while one is aware that one has to prepare oneself for a changeover to such an expensive semi-electronic system? Apart from the costs, and supposing we succeeded in obtaining this vast amount of money from Father Christmas or from someone …

From Etienne.

… or from the hon. member for Orange Grove, how are these four major suppliers of ours in South Africa who are geared to the manufacture of this telecommunication equipment, effect an overnight change-over to supply us with the new apparatus, only to be told a few years later by us that they have to effect a further chang-over? Surely it is not possible to do this by merely pressing a button. For that reason I really find proposals of this kind, suggestions of this kind for the solution of our problems, ill-considered and insubstantial. In exactly the same way I find the proposal that we should establish an electronic committee just as unnecessary. Perhaps the hon. member is not aware that the Government has for a very long time had the services of a special Cabinet committee, with special technical committees which are in fact geared to this electronic research with a view to the introduction of television. Something like this was established with a view to the utilization by the Post Office and Defence of electronic equipment, and it is therefore not necessary for us to establish further bodies of this nature. The Government is fully engaged in this. There one has …

Why do you not tell the manufacturers? They have been waiting for a whole year to hear about this.

This is another matter in regard to which it is not possible for one merely to press a button, and the matter is solved. It is a matter which requires proper consideration; it must not, like the hon. member’s motion, be ill-considered, and possibly cost us millions of rands.

Questions were also asked in connection with cable television and our television system. This is of course another matter to which our technical committee gave attention and its consideration. The Broadcasting Corporation, the Post Office and the South African Bureau of Standards, all have representation on that committee. The introduction of a cable television system is of course no easy process. Three years ago, when I was on holiday overseas, I went to look at the cable television system in Hong Kong. This was the only place that had had this system for quite a number of years. Even Hong Kong is now changing over to the other system. The Netherlands has cable television, but they also have their misgivings about it. The United States has it to a certain extent, and they, too, have their misgivings. The practical solution is the one with which we have come forward, which is that the conventional, over-the-air television is the most suitable for us. It may happen that we are, in a few years’ time, able to introduce cable television in our major centres, such as Johannesburg, but it is not something which we need put in place of the conventional, over-the-air television at this juncture.

The hon. member mentioned making use of contractors. Surely we have been doing this for years now. We have for years now been maxing use of contractors in various capacities. For example, we gave out work to the value of R15 million this year in regard to exchanges, cable work and so on to contractors. What was being advocated here was therefore nothing new.

Then, the hon. member also advocated cost-of-living adjustments. The hon. member for Durban Central as well as the hon. member for Orange Grove advocated this. These cost of living allowances are of course something we had during the war years and, as hon. members will be well aware, we subsequently abolished them and replaced them with regular wage adjustments by the industrial councils, wage boards, etc. Because these cost of living allowances, which were really a war measure, contained a great inflationary element, and they are really one of those systems which aggravate rather than facilitate the struggle against inflation, they were abolished. We are constantly being reproached here with allegedly not being able to counteract inflation effectively, but surely hon. members cannot then request in the same breath that we should reintroduce a measure such as cost-of-living allowances, which are in fact one of the greatest contributory factors to a state of inflation. The abolition of cost-of-living allowances has already contributed to the better control of inflation. After all, this rise in the cost of living is in fact being taken thoroughly into consideration. Surely this latest increase of 15% for the Post Office, public servants, and others, was based on this rise in the cost of living during the past few years. This Government has never yet turned a deaf ear to the requests of our people in this connection.

The hon. member for Florida discussed lease-backs and the question of making use of major overseas organizations. They should come and undertake construction work for us, and then we should enter into a lease-back arrangement with them. This is a system which works in certain respects, but not when one is dealing with a homogeneous system such as a telephone system. We cannot have a variety of telephone systems in this country. We have only one homogeneous system in this country, and the furthest one can go, from a practical point of view, is to use contractors such as those to whom I referred a moment ago, and this we are consequently doing on a considerable scale. However, one cannot, over and above that, make use of something like this as well in a homogeneous system. The hon. member for Florida also discussed the expansions which were effected. As far as this is concerned, it is a fact that we have expanded the exchange capacities of our entire system by 8,3% in the current financial year. I regard this as being not inconsiderable; it is in fact something for which the hon. member himself may be grateful.

Then, too, the hon. member for Durban Central presented a plea in regard to the fringe benefits of officials in the case of transfers. It is true that we have since January, 1973, been giving our officials R100 for miscellaneous expenditure. Now, one may argue that this is insufficient, and I should also like to see this amount being increased, but as with pensions, one has to draw the line somewhere. That is as far as we can go at present. It was less in the past. Over and above that we are also giving allowances now in respect of school-going children so that when they are transferred, the children may remain behind in those schools. I think that this is certainly another token of our goodwill in this regard.

The hon. member for Durban Central also discussed the question of manpower and levelled the reproach that we are not doing enough in this connection, implying as well that we are making insufficient use of non-White labour. In this respect it is important to take cognizance of what we have in fact done, and what we are in fact doing. Let me take the case of the electricians. A year or two ago we started to train non-White telephone mechanics. The technical people now prefer them to be called telephone electricians. I may inform hon. members that the total number of Coloureds, Indians and Bantu that have already been trained and are at present being trained is already 173. They have been trained to do cable-jointing work and other telephone mechanics’ work in the non-White areas, in the homelands, or wherever. These people are now able to do that work and this eases our White manpower position. However, it is not only in that sphere that we are making use of them. We are also making use of non-Whites for clerical work behind the counters. Only the day before yesterday I visited the non-Whites, the Bantu—there are quite a number of them—who are working behind the counter of the Johannesburg Post Office, to see under what circumstances they are working there. Here in Cape Town there are, inter alia, five Coloureds working behind the counter to serve Coloureds. Now, it is a good thing to know what the overall position is. For that reason I am stating it here for the information of those who may sometimes think that we are doing nothing in this direction. The position is that at present we have 105 non-White counter staff, who consist of 16 Coloureds, 20 Indians and 69 Bantu. This is non-White staff working at post offices in White areas, not in non-White areas. They are working in White areas such as Cape Town, Johannesburg and at the post office in Tzaneen, to which I paid a visit the other day. They are working in the White areas to serve the non-White customers there.

Petty apartheid once again.

This is what is being done at the moment, but we are not leaving it at that.

Which door do they go through to go to work?

Hon. members would do well to pay the Cape Town Post Office a visit—when they are in Johannesburg again they should do the same there—to see what special, satisfactory, separate working arrangements there are, working arrangements which entail that the staff there, wherever you may find yourself, evince the utmost satisfaction. What is also of importance is that the White workers feel satisfied about that situation, and that this pattern is not causing any friction. This is an achievement of which any administration could be proud. We are therefore continuing with this arrangement of making use of non-Whites behind counters. I just wanted to mention to hon. members that we will in this way employ non-Whites at a further nine post offices this year, in accordance with this proper pattern of separate provision of service to provide their own people with those services at post offices in White areas.

I shall proceed, and shall now refer to pensioners. A plea was presented here by various members on the Opposition side to the effect that we should give pensioners a rebate on telephone rentals, and so on. This is a plea which is presented from time to time, a plea for which one really has sympathy. One really wishes that one could comply with that plea to give our pensioners and our physically disabled persons, such as deaf persons, blind persons and others, a rebate. Apart from the fact that we are prohibited from doing so by legislation which has been placed on our Statute Book—one can change legislation —the question is: Where must one draw the line if one begins to apply this? If one gives a rebate to deaf persons, blind persons, physically disabled persons, those people who are struggling to make a subsistence, to the impoverished who are unable to subsist properly, where does one draw the line? What is more, surely one would not be able to do this for the Whites only. One would really have to extend this to others. The hon. member for Port Natal pointed out dramatically here that we only want to do things for the “all Whites”. If we wanted to ensure that justice is done, surely we would have to do this for everyone in the country. Can you imagine, Sir, one being able to make a system like this work? Even if this is a matter in regard to which one is sympathetically inclined, it is really an impracticable system, and I am afraid that we will certainly not be able to apply it with success in this case.

The hon. member for Port Natal also put questions to me in regard to the overtime which was being worked by Whites at the post offices. The position in this regard is that there are various hours of service which are being worked by Whites in post offices. The White postmen, for example, work 48 hours per week. They work longer hours than other Whites in the postal service. There is no fixed period of service per week for all workers in the Post Office. For that reason one has different hours of service depending upon the nature of the work. When we consider the question affecting non-White telephonists, which the hon. member was so concerned about, it must be borne in mind that one is also dealing with the position that many of them are working at small post offices. Here there is no pressure of work. These are small exchanges where there is not really any great degree of tension. In such cases where the pressure and tension is slight, this is taken into account in determining the duration of the period of service which they have to perform. It is therefore true that non-White telephonists at small exchanges work for 48 hours and White women at telephone exchanges in major cities 42 hours. It is true that there is a difference. This is, however, determined by the nature of the work, and the amount of tension involved.

Do the different race groups on the technical side of the Post Office work the same hours?

You were referring to telephonists. What I said applied to telephonists.

I mentioned technicians.

Technicians have the same hours.

Do the technicians of the different race groups work the same hours before they earn overtime?

That I will ascertain. As far as I am concerned it ought to be the same. If the intensity of the work is the same the hours ought to be the same. That I shall certainly ascertain and we can discuss it again during the Committee Stage tomorrow.

*I now want to refer to the numerous complaints which were made. A feature of the United Party’s contribution today was in fact the worst spate of complaints imaginable. The telephone service is quite simply so poor, according to them, that things just cannot get any worse. The hon. member for Turffontein recounted how he had in fact won or detained his seat as a result of all the complaints about telephones. He said that while he was speaking on the telephone he could, as it were, address a meeting of Nationalists with all the other calls coming through on his connection. He was gratuitously presented with an opportunity of informing these people of how bad the National Party Government was. I accept that one may receive many complaints about something like a telephone. One will have many reasons to complain, particularly if one is a member of the United Party. Mention was made of people who wrote letters and aired their grievances in this way. The hon. member read out one such letter, which has forced me to read out a letter in this connection as well. I have here a letter which was received from no less a source than Star Line. Hon. members will know that The Star has a feature in which letters appear from people with all kinds of complaints. I have here a letter written by Star Line to the Postmaster-General. Since we have been listening to complaints and letters in this regard, we may as well listen to this letter too. The letter reads—

I shall not disclose the name. If anyone wants to know the name, he may come and ask me for it—

Then the letter proceeds to deal with the behaviour of our officials who are today being praised the one minute and abused the next. The letter addressed to Star Line reads as follows—

I must say that I am grateful that Star Line wrote this letter to the Postmaster-General so that we could contrast it with the other complaints we received here today.

In conclusion, I want to say that I have just received a note from the Postmaster-General, and I shall now read it out for the sake of that hon. member—

I hope that satisfies the hon. member. If it does not satisfy him, we can raise this matter tomorrow during the Committee Stage.

I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we have a major task to perform. It is a difficult task to make up a backlog and to provide this service in a rapidly developing country. But I think that, with the loyalty of our officials—in regard to which I cannot express sufficient appreciation, for I am in very close contact with them—we shall be able to do so. The day before yesterday I again met the four staff associations in Johannesburg, and I saw with what dedication those people are inspired. That is something for which everyone. Government and Opposition, may be grateful, for those people can help give us a telephone service and a postal service of which both the National Party and the United Party may be proud.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the motion, upon which the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G.P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Sir, we oppose this motion on the ground that there is work on the Order Paper for us to do. The other day when we allowed the motion for the adjournment of the House, the Order Paper had collapsed and there was no work left for the House to do. Today we have ample work to keep us going until half past ten o’clock tonight, in terms of the rules, and for that reason I oppose the adjournment. I might add, Sir, that the first intimation that I had that the Leader of the House was going to move the adjournment of the House, was at a quarter past two this afternoon, but I understand that Government members knew about it yesterday.

Scandalous!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for 25 years. I came here when the Leader of the House first became a Minister, and throughout the whole of these 25 years I honestly cannot remember any session where we have had to adjourn early as frequently as is being done this session. I admit that we used to experience difficulties at the beginning of the session when the Leader of the House was unable to produce sufficient Bills from his Cabinet colleagues; the excuse then was that the law advisers had not been able to cope with all the work and that the printing could not be done in time. Sir, I think in 1968—if I am not correct the Leader of the House can correct me—we decided that Parliament would meet at the end of January instead of approximately in the middle of January in order to give the staff sufficient time to prepare legislation, so that once Parliament met it could proceed with its work at regular hours and not waste time in the beginning of the session and be compelled to rush through work at the end of the session sitting morning, noon and night. Now we started off very well in 1968 and 1969 and we had sufficient work in the beginning of the sessions, and so Parliament continued to meet at the end of January instead of in the middle of January. Now we came here this year and had work in the beginning of the session, largely due to the efforts of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. They were able to keep us busy for two weeks. And then we also had agriculture. I do not know what is happening now. The Leader of the House fears that the Order Paper will collapse again as it did the other day. I submit that the Leader of the House should tell us what the trouble is, why is the Order Paper continually threatening to collapse? Is it the fault of the departments or of the other Ministers? Are they not producing legislation, or is it because of a shortage of officials, sufficient law advisers and draftsmen to prepare the necessary Bills? I think Parliament is entitled to know why we are faced with this early adjournment now.

Mr. Speaker, what a funny thing we are seeing here today! Sir, you will remember that about 30 years ago you and I were in the Opposition on the opposite side, and we know it is exactly the same old traditional, usual, political, parliamentary little mock-battle that is now taking place in this House. [Interjections.] Hon. members had better sit where they are. They are far safer here, because outside they will be pelted with tomatoes. I want to make this very clear. When we were sitting on that side of the House, we did exactly as the hon. members are doing now, only we did it one hundred per cent better. But objecting in this way, as they are doing today, serves no good purpose. Why are the hon. members saying that the Order Paper has suddenly become so bare? Surely this has always been the case. As regards Parliament, you know that it is a delicate piece of machinery. It is not a sausage-machine. One cannot overload it. It is a delicate mechanism and it all depends on what type of legislation we have here. But what are hon. members trying to do now? They are trying to boost their morale by trying to prove to the people outside that they are a keen and aggressive Opposition. But, Sir, do not trust their aggressiveness. They are fighting among themselves. [Interjection.]

Order!

Yes, Sir, you call for “order” but they want disorder. Let me put it to you immediately, Sir, that in the past we adjourned early three to four times in succession, and then they were on the Government side. Sir, you yourself were a witness to that. I can still remember those years. How often did this side of the House not move an adjournment when those hon. members were still sitting on this side, but in those days we were allowed to speak for 40 minutes and if a man spoke well he could even get an extension of time. But when we changed from the monarchical to the republican system we modernized the rules of this House with a view to effective debating and better utilization of precious time. Since we now have far less time at our disposal for that reason, it is obvious that we may adjourn early even more frequently now as the Order Paper will be less bulky. And now hon. members are objecting to this. No, Sir, I cannot agree with hon. members on the opposite side.

Mr. Speaker, we want to know what has gone wrong with the Government’s plans. [Interjections.] When the Cabinet got together and decided when Parliament should be called together it knew full well what the hours of sitting of Parliament were; it knew full well that it owed the House and the country a proper legislative programme; it knew those requirements full well then and in the light of that decided that we should commence on the 2nd February.

We have in fact on many occasions—this is not the first occasion—had this type of occurrence. There was the first evening sitting on a Wednesday which was cancelled altogether. The Opposition then co-operated to the full. There was the second one when it was being threatened that the House would not sit. The Opposition then registered its protest. There was the further occasion when the Order Paper did not have enough business for a day and this side of the House co-operated to take certain matters earlier. All this has already happened and now again, and one wonders what has gone wrong with the plans. [Interjections.] We have had no explanation. The hon. member for Brits got up and blustered, but he was not able to enlighten the House; presumably only the Cabinet can enlighten the House as to what has happened, why what they planned to keep the House busy with has not occurred.

Let me say lest anybody attempts to suggest that the Opposition has not been dealing very fully with the measures that have come before the House, that the Opposition has, as every hon. member opposite knows full well, dealt very fully with matters which we have supported and with matters which we have opposed. There just is not work to do and the hon. the Prime Minister and his Cabinet owe the House and the country an explanation as to why this is so and as to why their plans, so recently made, have been shown to have been falsely made.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Post Office debate was in progress, I have a special interest in ensuring that this House should not now adjourn, and I take the strongest exception to the remarks made by the hon. Chief Whip that this is a mock-battle we are fighting here [Interjections.] It is the interests of Parliament and of legislation for South Africa that are at stake. It is not a mock-battle on the part of this side, however much it may be a mock-battle on the part of the opposite side. The hon. the Chief Whip said that under the new rules we are now able to utilize our time better. What time? The time is until 6.30 this afternoon, and then again tonight until 10.30. We want to utilize that time better.

We have now had the Second Reading of the Post Office Appropriation Bill. I am prepared, and this side is parepared to take the Committee Stage immediately. [Interjections.] We are prepared to work and we are now able to work if we take the Committee Stage immediately. Let us take it now. That is my challenge to the hon. the Chief Whip on the opposite side and to the hon. the Leader of the House.

†Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Order Paper collapsed like a punctured tyre, because there was not enough work. Today the Order Paper is collapsing because the hon. the Minister of Transport is puncturing that tyre deliberately. There is work and we wish to continue with it. We are anxious to continue with the debate. We are anxious to point out the iniquities in the Post Office system. It is part of parliamentary democracy …

Order! Those points have been made repeatedly.

Not the point of parliamentary democracy; at least, I do not think so. Parliament is not the plaything of hon. Ministers; they cannot come here and condescend to bring Bills to us in their own time and at their own convenience. I want to ask the hon. the Leader of the House whether he is satisfied with this position. If he is not satisfied, what has he done? Will he get up and tell us what he has done or get up and tell us what he is going to do? Is he satisfied with the state of affairs that his colleagues do not have their Bills prepared? Let us hear from him; let us hear his answer. I say this is an iniquitous state of affairs and we cannot agree to it.

Mr. Speaker, we have a motion from the hon. the Leader of the House to adjourn the House. We have heard a few words from him and we had a very short and light-hearted speech from the hon. the Chief Whip on the other side of the House.

Do you call it a speech?

Yes, that is to say if you can call it a speech. I want to say here and now that we have not yet heard a single reason why this House should adjourn. Are we going to be given a reason? Why does the hon. the Leader of the House come with a motion like this when he knows perfectly well that there is business that we can do this evening? He knows as well as I do that we are prepared to go ahead with the Committee Stage of the Post Office Appropriation Bill. He knows as well as I do that it is a perfectly normal procedure in this House. Let me also state that we have already protracted things in the discussion of the Post Office Appropriation Bill, but we are not complaining. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs made his Budget speech on the one day; we started the Second Reading debate the next day. Surely, with this sort of time to play with, why are the hon. members of the Government side not prepared to carry on with the normal business of the House?

I want to reply briefly to the hon. the Chief Whip on the Government side. As I have said, his approach was essentially a light-hearted approach. He said banteringly that Parliament was a delicate machine and not a sausage factory. That hon. Chief Whip was in this House two weeks ago when the proceedings of this House were debated and he knows exactly what the hon. the Leader of the House had to say on that occasion. Let me read what the hon. the Leader of the House had to say then, and this has a very direct bearing on what we are debating now. What did he say? He was jeering at the idea of Parliament having a better-ordered existence, a better-ordered year, and he said (Hansard, col. 2075)—

This is what he said—

Hon. members will remember how he treated a proposal that came from this side of the House with utter contempt, a proposal that this House should spread its …

Order! That is not under consideration now.

Sir, this is.

No, it is not!

From one point of view. [Interjections.] I want to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the attitude taken by the hon. the Leader of the House only two weeks ago. Here he is adopting another attitude. When we objected yesterday to the unseemly haste, the almost indecent haste, with which the Government was trying to put through legislation, we heard what was said from that side too. Now we are in the position to carry on; we are in a position to debate. We have not had a single reason from that side of the House and not a single hon. member has stood up on that side of the House to justify the adjournment of the House. This is an accepted practice. I want to say that I have not been in the House for 25 years as the hon. member for Transkei has, but I have been in the precincts of this House for a good number of years, only three years as a member but certainly a good number of years in the Press Gallery upstairs.

You should have stayed there.

Be that as it may; the hon. gentleman might have preferred me to stay there, but I feel that I am doing a better job here.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I want to record at the start that I believe we are dealing with a matter that is of grave importance to this House and I want to record my impression that on the Government side—and I hesitate to say this—there was almost a spirit of levity when we opposed the motion of the hon. the Leader of the House. [Interjections.] We are seeing it now from the hon. member for Vryheid. I want to place it on record that I—and I am sure also all my colleagues on this side of the House—deplore this attitude. We believe that hon. members on that side of the House are doing the institution of Parliament a grave disservice.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

Dealing with the hon. the Leader’s motion we all know what the position is. We know, and he dare not gainsay us, that Ministers on that side of the House have not done their work as they should have done. We know that they have not brought the legislation to this House that they should have brought. We know that legislation is due. We know there is legislation pending for this session. I can sympathize with the hon. the Leader of the House; I appreciate his difficult position. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to say that what we have seen in the very fact that he moved the adjournment of the House, is the proof that he has amongst his colleagues nothing more than a group of third-rate parliamentarians.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that remark at once.

I withdraw it, Sir, but let me say “highly indifferent Ministers”.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, what is unparliamentary about referring to a member as a “third-rate parliamentarian”?

I have ruled that it is unparliamentary. The hon. member for Kensington may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is there anything unparliamentary in the expression “third-rate politician”?

Order! Yes, in my opinion there is.

With respect, Sir, …

Sit down, you Boer-hater !

In what way is there any disrespect to this House in the use of that expression? Is there a precedent for saying it is unparliamentary?

Order! I have ruled that it is unparliamentary. The hon. member for Kensington may proceed.

But Mr. Speaker, I am seeking enlightenment on the very point. You have ruled that; that is perfectly true, but I am seeking enlightenment. What is the cause for it?

Order! All that is required is my ruling. The hon. member must kindly resume his seat.

Do you rule that this phrase “third-rate parliamentarian” in its normal meaning is unparliamentary? What is wrong with that?

Yes. The hon. member must kindly resume his seat. The hon. member for Kensington may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order …

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member speak from a bench which is not his own? [Interjections.]

Order!

I abide by your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but is an hon. member over there—I am not sure which one it is—allowed to say: “Sit down, you Boer-hater? ”

I did not hear it.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it necessary that you should hear the remarks?

Yes !

Mr. Speaker, on a further point of order, may I put it this way, I also heard the remark. Are you ruling that that remark is parliamentary?

Order! Did an hon. member say that the hon. member for South Coast was a Boer-hater?

Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Yes, he hates the Boers, but I withdraw it.

Order!

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. member for Kensington may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I feel that this is an even sadder commentary on what is happening in this Parliament. I feel it is a sad commentary that we should have this sort of combat.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion.

As I said a moment ago—and I want to develop this slightly because this has a direct bearing on the motion of the Leader of the House —it is quite clear that the Ministers of State have not done their work.

Order! That point has been made over and over again.

Sir, there are exceptions. I will say this in all conscience and I believe the hon. the Leader of the House is one.

The only one!

I want to say, too, that, if Ministers of State are not able to bring their legislation forward as they should—and I shall deal with this in a moment—I believe it is incumbent on the Leader of the House to see that they do it. We have our own ideas about it; we believe they should be sacked.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the motion or he must resume his seat.

Sir, I am dealing with the motion. I want to suggest to you, Sir, what the real problem is, why the hon. Leader of the House has come with this motion. He knows very well that this evening we should go on with the normal course of our work and the normal course of our work dictates that we take the Committee Stage of the Post Office Appropriation now. We are prepared to do it.

Order! That point has been made.

I want to go on to another point and that is that he knows very well—and this has a very direct bearing on, perhaps, the dignity of this House—that if we carry on with this work tonight, we shall not have work to do tomorrow. In other words, with this motion to adjourn the debate, the hon. Leader of the House wants to spread the legislation as thinly as possible day by day, as we have seen in the past few days. He wants to spread it thinly as lard used to be spread on brown bread during the days of the depression, which is how the Government is spreading its meagre talents now. Let him be honest with this House. I suggest that, in the interest of our business here, in the interests of this House, and in the interests of the public at large, the electorate of this country, he should tell us exactly what the position is and why he should come with the motion as he did just before the dinner adjournment. Let me stress that we have not yet heard from a single member on that side of the House why the motion is being moved. Let him tell us—let him be frank with us—that his colleagues in the Cabinet have not done their work. Let him tell us …

On a point of order, Sir, I am not surprised that you cannot hear remarks coming from that side of the House with all the talking that is going on. [Interjections.]

Order! If hon. members make further interjections I shall ask them to leave the Chamber. That applies to hon. members on both sides.

Let the hon. Leader of the House tell us that his Cabinet colleagues have let him down badly and that they have made him look silly in the eyes of this Parliament.

Order! That point has been made over and over again. If the hon. member does not have new points, I shall have to ask him to resume his seat.

Sir, this is a new point. I am developing it. Sir, I ask you …

Order ! The hon. member must resume his seat.

Mr. Speaker, there are four points which have not been fully dealt with in regard to this debate. The first is a matter which we on this side of the House regard with extreme unhappiness and resentment, namely that members on the Government side of the House knew yesterday that this House would not be sitting tonight. I challenge the hon. the Leader of the House [Interjections.] … to deny that he informed Government members yesterday that the House would not be sitting tonight. It was common knowledge amongst a section of this Parliament. A section of this Parliament was enabled to make arrangements and to plan their movements and activities according to information given to them and purporting to have come from the Leader of the House. We on the Opposition benches did not have that information until this afternoon. We were not given the same opportunity—on an equal footing to members on the Government side. We want to make it clear that this Parliament is not a sub-department of Government. It is not a sub-department of the hon. the Minister of Transport. This is Parliament and is directly under the leadership of the Leader of the House. When the hon. the Leader of House deals with parliamentary issues, he deals, with them on behalf of Parliament and not on behalf of a political party. The reason which prompted us to make the strong protest which we have made this evening, i.e. to oppose the adjournment and to bring this House back after the supper adjournment to continue the debate on the adjournment, is that we are not prepared to be treated differently from other members of Parliament because they happen to support the Government. As members of Parliament we have the same rights as any member of the Government benches. We are not prepared to be messed around as though we don’t belong here. We belong here as much as any Minister and as any other member elected on that side of the House. Each of us was elected by a constituency. We are here under the Constitution of South Africa to represent our electors. Each of us in this House under your paternal and fair guidance, Mr. Speaker, has total equality and equal rights. And you, Mr. Speaker, as the guardian of the rights of the minority in this House will ensure that we enjoy that protection and that we share equally in the privileges and the rights of members. It is not for any Government Minister, whatever office he may hold, to denigrate or to reduce those rights which we hold under your protection. That is why in the first place we oppose the motion for the adjournment of this House.

I go further and I ask for an assurance from the hon. the Leader of the House on two matters. We have had in this week examples of legislation introduced and brought up for debate before there has been an adequate opportunity to study and to consider that legislation. I ask the hon. the Leader of the House to give us the assurance in support of his request for this House to adjourn tonight that he will not force upon this House debates on legislation which his own members and this side of the House have not had sufficient opportunity and time to study. I ask for a second assurance, Sir, namely that the legislation which we have been informed is due to come before this House, will be so introduced as to avoid a mass of Bills being introduced towards the end of the session, which will make it impossible to give proper and adequate study and attention to those Bills. Our concern is that this Parliament, under your leadership and guidance, Sir, should operate with the maximum efficiency. It cannot operate if either of those two circumstances arise, that is to say if legislation is introduced without proper opportunity to study it or if pressure is brought to bear to legislate by exhaustion towards the end of the session.

We have had the announcements, Mr. Speaker; I am not going to quote them now. The State President gave an indication of part of the legislative programme. A list of anticipated legislation was handed to us, and we know that there is legislation which will involve this House in deep and serious study and in long debates. We should have that legislation before us now, so that we could be studying it in the periods when this House is not under pressure. We should not be rushed into this at the end of the session when the House is unable to give its proper attention to these measures.

We have legislation which will deal with censorship, with the Publications Act. We have the Companies Act. We have the Electoral Act, which must go to a select committee and which affects every member in this House. Every member and every minister will be affected by that Electoral Act. This is legislation which we should now have before us. It is not legislation produced casually at the beginning of the session. In the case of the Electoral Act, it was announced in May last year,—towards the end of last session—by the predecessor of this hon. Minister, that a Bill would be introduced this session to change the whole system of elections. Provincial and parliamentary elections would, for instance, be held on the same day. It was also announced that it would be sent to a select committee. The Government knew over a year ago that this was to be done, and we are still waiting for the Bill. Mr. Speaker, this is not the way that we believe Parliament should operate. I believe that it indicates a collapse of discipline and control in the Cabinet not only by the hon. the Leader of the House, but by the hon. the Prime Minister. The Cabinet is responsible for its legislation. They have a rule that any Bill to be introduced must be placed before the Cabinet by, I think, October of the previous year, and the Cabinet determines then what legislation will come before this House.

Think of the Rents Act, a matter of vital concern to the people of South Africa. We do not have that Bill before us. So one could go on and quote them all. I could take almost every minister on that side and ask him: “Where is your Bill?” I ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development where is his Bill on the Rents Act? He smiles, Mr. Speaker.

So I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying this: We seek the assurance that we will not be faced with rushed legislation and that we will not be faced at the end of the session with legislation by exhaustion. We have made our protest tonight and we have indicated that we regard ourselves, even if the Government does not, as part of the democratic parliamentary machinery of government in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I am not at all impressed by this mock fight by the Opposition. This is just the usual thing I expect an opposition to do. They have been doing it all these years. They simply have to try to rehabilitate themselves to some extent. In recent times particularly they have had such a bad Press that they have to do something now to get headlines in the Press again, and now they suddenly want to create the impression that they have such a zest for work; they simply must do some work now; they do not want the House of Assembly to adjourn two hours before the usual time. But, Sir, this is nothing new; it has been happening for years. If hon. members are so anxious to work I shall keep them here till October if need be. [Interjections.]

The Big Brag!

No, it is not a big brag at all; it is the truth. If the hon. member wants to stay here he can stay; I am not in a hurry; I shall stay here till the end, and if there is legislation, it will be dealt with. But now a dust is raised here all of a sudden because the House of Assembly has to adjourn two hours earlier than usual tonight. I have never seen such a thing.

It was not two hours; it was four and a half hours.

Sir, the hon. member for Kensington came here only the other day, but he is under the impression that he can tell the members how Parliament should function. He is much too big for his boots; that is his problem.

†I think he must be cut down to size, and that will happen.

You had better put somebody else on to do it.

No, I can do it; there is no doubt about that.

What is the reason for the adjournment?

Give us one good reason.

The reason for the adjournment is that it is absolutely necessary to adjourn tonight; there is not sufficient legislation on the Order Paper.

Why not?

I am not prepared to reply to that hon. member. I will reply to anybody who puts a sensible question and who knows something about the functions of Parliament.

I put a sensible question.

Order!

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Why is there not sufficient legislation …

Order! The hon. member for Transkei may put his question now. He must first wait for permission.

Thank you, Sir. Why is there not sufficient legislation for us to go on?

Sir, the answer is very simple; it is because the legislation is not ready yet.

Why not?

Let me just say this …

We are prepared to go on.

I have always met the Opposition half-way. When the Whips come to me and tell me, “We are not ready yet for this or that particular Bill; could it stand over?” then I agree to their request. They must not come and ask me that again.

Hear, hear!

When the Whips on the other side come and tell me that they are not ready yet for this or that Bill, even if they have had a week to study it, I have always been quite prepared to let that Bill stand over to oblige them; I have always done this. Sir, they have often wasted time deliberately because they did not want a particular Order to come up for discussion; this has happened several times; so much so that I have objected to the fact that they waste time deliberately in a debate so that one particular Order of the Day …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, is it not a reflection on the Chair to suggest that we deliberately waste time?

No, it is a reflection on those hon. members, not on the Chair, for the Chair cannot always discover when they are wasting time, but I can.

That is a reflection on the Chair.

But, Sir, hon. members on that side know that it is true; why do they now want to protest and say that it is not true? They know that it is true. I have also been in the Opposition and I know what we did in those years. I know how we wasted time in those years when we did not want a certain Order of the Day to come up for discussion.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Yes, the hon. member may.

Is it not correct that this is not the first but the fourth or fifth time that there has not been work to be done?

No, Sir, the hon. member is quite wrong. The first time we adjourned early this session was last Monday, and this was the reason why we adjourned early on that day. On other occasions there was an agreement with the Whips on the other side that we would adjourn a little earlier.

But you asked for it.

You are talking nonsense.

Who says I am talking nonsense?

I said so.

What does that hon. member know about it? [Interjections.]

*Sir, I listened here this evening to the greatest nonsense from that side of the House. Having seen what happened here tonight, I think it is a good thing that we wanted to adjourn the House this afternoon, for there are many of these hon. members, particularly on Wednesday night, who do not think of the dignity of Parliament at all.

†Yet they talk about the dignity of Parliament. [Interjections.]

What is your insinuation?

It has already been suggested that we should not sit on Wednesday nights because of that.

Because of what? [Interjections.]

I know what happens on Wednesday nights, because hon. members do not know how to behave themselves …

That is a reflection on hon. members.

It is a reflection on the hon. members concerned.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister?

Yes.

May I ask the Leader of the House if he would care to elaborate on what exactly he inferred regarding members of the Opposition and sittings on Wednesday nights?

The hon. the member should know to what I refer. I refer to their behaviour very often on a Wednesday night. Their behaviour is such that we should really adjourn the House every Wednesday night. [Interjections.]

On a point of order. Sir, I think the hon. the Minister should withdraw that remark.

Order!

I refer to the behaviour of hon. members. Everyone knows it and they know it as well as I do.

Of whom?

Sir, I have always tried to oblige hon. member? of the Opposition. When they come to me and tell me that they are not prepared for some particular Bill, that they have not studied it properly, I have agreed to let it stand over, and then they had often had a week already in which to study that Bill. It happened again recently during the debate on the motion of no confidence. After they had had a week to study a certain Bill, the Whips came to me and said that they were not prepared for that Bill and I agreed to let it stand over.

Which one?

The hon. member can ask his Whip; he will tell him to which Bill I am referring. What happened here yesterday afternoon? There was a Bill here containing only four clauses, and hon. members came to me and said that there were three Bills for which they were not ready—they had had the whole weekend— namely two agricultural Bills and the Provincial Affairs Bill. I obliged them again and said: “Very well, I shall just let the Ministers make their Second Reading speeches, and then you can move the adjournment.” They were quite satisfied with that. But when one of those Bills came up for discussion yesterday afternoon, they moved the adjournment; they were still not ready for that Bill, and then they talk about wasting time! Sir, hon. members must realize that I am under no obligation to give them any time to study a Bill. It can be introduced today and the Second Reading can be taken tomorrow or the day after.

What a shocking thing to say!

I allow the discussion to stand over just because I want to oblige them and to give them an opportunity to study the Bill properly.

Do you want intelligent, informed legislation, or don’t you?

I want intelligent legislation, but the trouble is that the contribution of hon. members on the other side is not always intelligent; that is my trouble.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, I do not want to reply to any more questions.

Order! The Minister is not prepared to reply to any questions.

Are your afraid?

Afraid of that hon. member? Good Lord, just imagine being afraid of that hon. member! Look at him.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, if that hon. member cannot behave himself, he will be insulted, and in a very personal way, too. He is under the impression that because he can write under a pseudonym in a newspaper and attack his opponents there, he …

Order! The hon. the Minister must return to the motion.

The hon. member for Durban Point says that I told one section of this House that the House would not sit tonight. Would it have made any difference whether I told hon. members on the other side or not?

But you are the Leader of the House.

I am under no obligation to do it. Why should I do it?

You are the Leader of the House.

I am not under any obligation to the Opposition to tell them whether we are going to adjourn early or not. I can decide to adjourn within half an hour if I want to do so. [Interjections.]

Order!

Order! If that hon. member shouts “Order!” again, I will ask him to leave the Chamber, without any further warning.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the Minister the Leader of the House or the boss of the House?

Hear, hear!

I am the Leader of the House and I expect the co-operation of the Opposition …

If you deserve it.

…. because I am always prepared to give them my co-operation, and if there is one man who knows that, it is the chief Whip of the United Party. He knows that he has always got the fullest co-operation from me as Leader of the House. Does the hon. member agree with that?

Yes.

Well, that is the position. I would have told hon. members opposite, but I did not have an opportunity to do so this morning. I went to a Cabinet meeting, and the first time I had the opportunity of telling the Chief Whip that we were going to adjourn early tonight was when the House met this afternoon.

But what about yesterday?

Sir, whether hon. members are dissatisfied or not, the fact remains that if there is not sufficient work on the Order Paper I will adjourn the House.

Why not take the Committee Stage of the Post Office Appropriation Bill?

That will be dealt with tomorrow.

Why?

Because I say it will be dealt with tomorrow. [Interjections.] Hon. members say they want sufficient time to study legislation. There is one Bill which was introduced yesterday, the Criminal Procedure Bill. I have given them 14 days to study it.

How big is it?

It does not matter how big it is. You do not require 14 days to study a Bill.

Will you tell us how many clauses there are in that Bill, how many pages?

He does not know.

There are 349 clauses.

And how many pages?

Order!

I introduced the Merchant Shipping Act in this House some years ago, which was a bigger Bill and had more clauses. Hon. members did not want a week to study that. As a matter of fact, when it came before the House, they did not speak an hour on it. It is not a question of the size of the Bill and it is not a question of the number of clauses. It is the question of the contents of the Bill. When a Bill is important, it may be only a small Bill while a long Bill may not be important. In any event, it does not depend on the number of clauses.

Is the Criminal Procedure Bill not important?

I do not say that. That is why I have given you 14 days to study it. [Interjections.] You do not require it? Very well then, I can bring it up on Monday then, if hon. members want me to do that.

*Sir, I have also said that I would not introduce contentious legislation in the last hours of the session. I have that much consideration for the Opposition. I know that one cannot introduce contentious legislation in the last hours of the session. I have given that assurance, but they are still not satisfied. But the fact remains that there is not sufficient business at the moment to occupy this House for the next week.

Why not?

Because legislation has not been introduced. Good Lord, can the hon. member not understand that?

Order!

I cannot make a dunce understand if he does not want to understand.

Order! The hon. the Minister must now proceed to a new point. That point has been over-emphasized.

But they ask the same stupid questions over and over again.

May I ask a question? In the circumstances, does the hon. the Minister not think we should start a month later in order to get sufficient legislation on the Order Paper?

I should very much like to do that, but there are very good considerations against it. In the first place there are two Budgets that have to be passed before the end of March. Another reason is that there is an Additional Appropriation which must be passed before the end of the financial year. Otherwise I should very much have liked to have the session start at the beginning of March instead of at the beginning of February. But then we could have the same position as now, with no work; then the hon. members would object just as strongly.

I just want to conclude by saying that if the hon. members want work I shall make them work, make no mistake about that. They can sit here till October; I am in no hurry. Since they have such a zest for work I shall request that all the contentious legislation be introduced before the end of the session. Then they can still be discussing it in July.

Question put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, S. F. Kotzé, P. C. Roux and G. P. van den Berg.

Tellers: W. M. Sutton and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.