Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956, is being replaced by the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, which will come into operation on 1 April this year. Because the latter Act is basically concerned only with matters affecting the Exchequer and the State Revenue Fund, an agreement was reached with the Treasury to the effect that the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956, relating to the finances and accounts of the Railways Administration and to other matters connected with it would be embodied in a separate Bill which would also come into operation on 1 April 1976. The required Bill was introduced in the House of Assembly on 26 January 1976. Since then, however, certain aspects have emerged which require further consideration, and since it will probably be not possible to settle matters before 1 April 1976, i.e. the date on which the proposed Act was to have come into operation, the intention is, as an interim measure, to allow the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1956, except sections 11, 12 and 13 thereof, in so far as they apply to the Railways and Harbours Administration, to remain in force after 1 April 1976. In the meantime, sections 42 and 47 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, will be applicable to the Railways.

Accordingly, the Bill introduced on 26 January 1976 has been withdrawn and a new Bill—known as the Railways and Harbours Finances and Accounts Bill—has been introduced in the House.

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to allowing the hon. the Minister to revive the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1956 under these circumstances. We believe that in the present situation this is perhaps the best step he could have taken. What pleases us particularly is the fact that the hon. gentleman has succeeded in making sections 42 and 47 of the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975 applicable to the Railways as well. I believe that in doing this, he has succeeded in enriching the old Act to some extent because the audit provisions and requirements as embodied in the 1975 Act are wider than those contained in the old Act. I take it that the hon. the Minister will introduce a new, comprehensive Bill at a later stage, if not during this session, then perhaps next year.

I should like to take the opportunity of saying to the hon. gentleman that when this happens, we shall scrutinize his intentions in respect of the audit provisions as contained in Chapter IV of the 1975 Act, because we believe that that is the heart of the whole audit process. Unless the hon. the Minister is able at that stage to satisfy us as far as this is concerned, we shall have difficulties in that connection. In the meantime, however, we are content to allow the matter to be handled in this way.

Mr. Speaker, we shall support the Second Reading of this measure, but I think it is fair at this stage to draw attention to a number of matters. We appreciate the problem which has arisen in regard to 1 April 1976, and for that reason the hon. the Minister has our co-operation. I must say, however, that we have some serious misgivings about the whole concept of State President’s warrants being done away with, because that in effect will mean that ministerial authority will be substituted for Cabinet control. We feel that Cabinet control is more desirable than ministerial approval. In addition, the fact that warrants have been tabled in this House is a matter of consequence, because once one does away with that, it means that there is a lack of parliamentary control. Thirdly, I think attention must be drawn to the fact that there is clearly a distinction between accounting based upon receipt and accounting based upon accrual. Bearing in mind this legislation and the fact that we are now to deal with accruals, that will mean that there should be some degree of consistency in all State departments in regard to the application of this principle.

With regard to surcharge powers, we feel that the Controller and Auditor-General should exercise surcharge powers, because he is correctly the person to exercise these safeguards. We feel that when surcharges are imposed by officials who are directly concerned with a department, such as the head of a department, such a person can be too close to the issue, whereas the Controller and Auditor-General can have a far more objective and detached point of view in regard to these matters. I raise these matters only to draw attention to them and not in an attempt to hinder this legislation, which we accept is urgently needed in the circumstances. Therefore we shall support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise only to repeat what I have already said, that this Bill is an interim measure, and that it is our definite intention to introduce a Bill next year, when we shall be able to discuss the merits of the matters raised by the hon. member for Yeoville in particular.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I merely want to say that, whereas in the ordinary course of events there might have been a number of amendments to this clause and the other clauses, in order to expedite the passing of this legislation we do not propose to move any amendments. We shall rather wait for a more appropriate occasion in order to deal with the matter in detail.

Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my speech, I have pleasure in announcing that the hon. member for Wynberg has been appointed chairman of the United Party’s Posts and Telecommunications group, and I would like to congratulate him on that appointment. [Interjections.] In future he will be directly concerned with postal affairs. Unfortunately for my friends who are so happy to hear the news, I will still be associated with this group because posts and telecommunications fall under our over-all grouping of security and communications.

Our time is limited. The whole of the official Opposition has been allotted only one hour in which to debate this budget of over R500 million. Since I gather from the South African Broadcasting Corporation reports that I adequately congratulated the hon. the Minister and the department yesterday—I was quite surprised to hear just how congratulatory I had been—I shall try to restrain myself today and leave it to Government members who, I am sure, will provide sufficient “mbongo’s” in the ½ hours they have in which to reply.

Instead, Sir, I would like to examine the effects of the budget. Firstly, I would like to comment on the apparent surprise there has been as revealed by the welcome given to the fact that there have been no tariff increases. I should hope there were no tariff increases! But we have had an ominous warning. When tariffs were substantially increased in 1971 the then Minister said that the increases would last for five to ten years, that they were planned to cover at least the next five to ten years. He said that this was in order to ensure stability in planning and in business and that adequate notice would be given before any future changes were made. Some changes have already been made, well within that five to ten year period. I believe that these changes have in fact built up a consumer resistance to many post office services.

For instance?

For instance in the postal service, which will be dealt with in detail by one of my colleagues who will quote the figures. Another reason why we should hope there were no tariff increases is that revenue went up by R21 million during the current year. It shows what the public has come to expect from this Government. The public expects to get hammered and it usually does get hammered. That is why I believe there is relief in some circles at the fact that there have been no increases.

We would like to look specifically at three features of the budget. In order to pinpoint these, I move the following amendment—

1. (a) to eliminate the continued inadequacy of the domestic telephone service to the detriment of economic productivity;
2. (b) to provide postal services commensurate with the essential needs of the infrastructure of the Republic; and
3. (c) to provide any solution to the critical wastage of trained technical staff.”.

In dealing with these three legs of the amendment, I want to turn to the second one first, because this will be dealt with in detail by the hon. member for Wynberg. I only want to touch on certain of the hon. Minister’s announcements in relation to the postal services. The first is that the ocean mail contract payments are to be raised this year and again next year. The position is that in 1971 the contract was for R1,1 million, and that it will be increased to R2 million, which is almost double, by next year. If one looks at the volume of mail to be carried, one finds that there were six million less letters carried in the last year for which statistics are available compared with 1971, namely 12 million letters less by second class mail and six million letters more by first class mail. There was an increase of only some 300 000 parcels. In other words, the traffic being carried remains constant and yet we find that the cost for transport charged has almost doubled in this period. What sort of open-ended agreement has the Post Office entered into? Is this another OFA—Ocean Freight Agreement—with the Conference Lines who are granted a monopoly and a guaranteed return on investment by this Government, without any checks on the accuracy, efficiency or the productivity of the service? It seems as if the Post Office is co-operating and simply giving them what they want. When containerization comes, we shall probably find another 50% or 100% increase in the cost.

The hon. the Minister dealt with a new type of priority mail. I only hope that this will not be similar to the present express letter system where, although post offices accept a letter for express delivery, if it has a 4c stamp instead of a 5c stamp that is it is not sent air mail—they express-deliver it by train. The last one I received took five days from Durban to Cape Town. This new service is only being instituted in respect of main post offices. I hope the Administration will ensure that no priority mail will be accepted for delivery unless it is to be addressed to a main post office, otherwise it is going to take twice as long as a normal letter by the time it has got out to the suburbs.

The hon. the Minister dealt with the delivery of mail to multi-storey buildings. Someone is out of touch. It is either the Minister or somebody else, because I have already had notification from the building I am in, which is no new building, that this system is going to be introduced from January next year. The hon. the Minister says that it will only involve new buildings. Now I want to know who is out of touch. It is the hon. the Minister, or are the instructions that are going out from his postal headquarters wrong? I have no time to deal further with this aspect because I want to turn to the telephone service.

I accept at once that the overseas service has been improved and extended. However, for the domestic user, the South African citizen communicating within South Africa with other South Africans, this has turned out to be a mixed blessing. They accepted the tariff increases because they expected a service which would correspond with the increase in costs. However, what has happened in practice is that we have created a generation of telephone operator neurotics. I do not think the Government appreciates the extent to which this service affects day-to-day life. The hon. the Minister is taking a R64 million profit out of the telecommunication service, and all that the telephone user can expect, is a 1980 model mirage somewhere in the “verre, verre toekoms”. We are told that the new electronic exchanges will only come into operation in the big cities in the 1980s.

I kept my promise to look at the “fine print” to find out why it is that despite the expenditure and despite the overcharging of telephone users by R64 million, we have the problems which we do have with the service. The first bit of fine print is in the hon. the Minister’s own speech where he dealt with it as a matter of pride, while in fact it is a matter for just the opposite. He admitted that in the major cities obsolete telephone exchanges were in operation but that he hoped that within the next year 28 of these would be eliminated. The Government is entirely responsible and it cannot hide behind what is going to happen in the future. For far too long it lived in the tomtom and forked stick age of posts and telecommunications. It lived in an era that was past and year after year this side of the House warned, pleaded and begged the Government to wake up to the need for modernizing and spending capital on new telephone equipment. I can still hear the then hon. member for Orange Grove, Mr. Etienne Malan, warning the Government year after year. I remember 12 years ago, after a trip to America, talking of being able to dial 3 000 miles across a continent for one dollar, and saying: “When will South Africa get that sort of service?” It is not for lack of warning but because the Government refused to move. Even now, the replacements and the extensions that are being put in are the old type of switchboard and switch-gear.

Are you sure?

Of course I am sure. The first electronic exchanges for normal use, not those for experimental use, will come into operation at the end of this year. All the current exchanges, before they are even installed in the Post Office, are obsolete. We are doomed to another generation before these become national monuments and they, in turn, get replaced. This Government owes the country an explanation as to why it has dawdled and dilly-dallied so long that the situation has got to this stage while the backlog continues year after year. Although I have no time to quote I have a quotation here dating back to 1971 where it was forecast that 1973 would see the turning point, when the backlog would be wiped out.

There is another possible reason why we have unsatisfactory service and this is the emphasis that the hon. the Minister places on telephones. A telephone is a nice ornamental thing sitting on your sideboard but it is of no use if it is not connected and if it cannot be used. We find that from 1971 to 1975, from the figures in the annual report, nearly 400 000 additional telephones were supplied. In the same period only 200 000 additional telephone exchange connections were provided. Therefore twice as many telephones were provided as connections to telephone exchanges. I suggest that one of the reasons for the poor services, is that the department has overloaded obsolete exchanges. It has put too many connections on, it has provided instruments to people because of the pressure and the backlog and it has linked them to a system which could not cope with that additional traffic. That is why you have the sort of situation which I tried to describe yesterday.

In our amendment we refer to the effect on economic productivity of this situation. There are 345 000 business connections and assuming that shared lines have two persons to a line, then there are over 1 200 000 telephone instruments on those 345 000 lines. I calculated that there were 1 228 000 instruments at the end of 1975. It is no exaggeration to say that you must try on the average two to three times for every correct connection that you make when you make a telephone call. You get engaged on the dialling tone or on the first or second digit. When you pick up your phone you get the engaged signal instead of a line, and then there are all the other things that go wrong. I challenge any member to say that he does not on average, have to pick up the instrument two to three times to dial before establishing a correct connection. While telephone operators in those 345 000 businesses in South Africa are battling to dial outward calls, they are not able to answer incoming calls, and what person phoning any large organization today, does not hold on for second after second, up to 20 seconds or more, waiting for his call to be answered, once he has succeeded in getting through to a particular number? All this hits productivity. It affects the executive to whom time is money. Unlike the Government members who have nothing to do and all day to do it in a businessman regards time as money and the cumulative effect is to push up costs, costs that in turn are passed on to the consumer. As regards accounts, everybody cannot be wrong. Hundreds of people cannot all be wrong. Yet, when the accounts are tested, the reply invariably is: “Your instrument is fine; it is metering correctly”. I do not have time to deal with it now, but in the Additional Estimates for the Public Service this year Prisons, for instance, spent an additional R202 000 on an initial estimate of R239 000. Justice spent an additional R154 000 on an original estimate of approximately R400 000. This amounts to an additional amount of R1,4 million on pos and telephone services. The Treasury pays the postage, which is an additional R800 000. That means that most of the rest of that amount was for telephone services. This same experience that the Government has, is shared by the ordinary telephone user. The only difference is that the ordinary telephone user cannot raise taxes or increase prices. He has to pay and like it or lump it. The profit increase goes on and on. We shall deal with that on another occasion.

My time has almost expired and I want to deal with the staff for a moment. Our amendment recognizes the sacrifices and efforts made by the Post Office management and staff, and the hon. the Minister has admitted the seriousness of the situation. He has lost 2 341 trained people in the technical field over a period of five years. The TV industry has managed. It has trained people and has kept them. If you order a TV set today, it is installed in your house tomorrow. The department knows one of the answers. It is its attitude to the use of non-White technical labour. They are playing with the problem. Out of 10 000 technical posts they have 120 non-White telephone technicians and only 390 in training.

I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the Government is playing with the problem and it could easily help to overcome it. Time, however, does not permit me to take the matter further. I want to conclude by saying that it is not such a wonderful budget as it seems. It is just a holding action, and people have to go on waiting in the hope of relief.

Mr. Speaker, I want to waste no time in rectifying something which the hon. member for Durban Point said, viz. that there is an unequal division of time. I just want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. the Minister spoke for an hour when he made his budget speech. The remaining three hours are divided equally between the Opposition and the Government benches. We are 122 as against their 49 and therefore this is really a very unfair division. I can understand that the hon. member was not able to speak for longer, since he had nothing left to say. Sir, I shall come back to the hon. member for Durban Point.

In the first place, I want to extend a very cordial welcome to the hon. the Minister on behalf of our side of the House as the new Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. We want to wish him all of the best. Actually, after his first budget yesterday it is no longer even necessary to wish him all of the best, since it went extremely well. Then, too, on behalf of our side of the House I should just like to thank and pay tribute to the former Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, Mr. Marais Viljoen, for the fine and outstanding service he rendered South Africa in his five years in this capacity. Sir, it is not always one’s lot to have such Ministers, but the National Party is privileged to be able to have such men, and that, too, is why we say today “Thank you very much!”

While I am conveying a word of thanks— the hon. member for Durban Point did so initially but withdrew it, as it were, this afternoon—I also want to thank and pay tribute to the Postmaster-General and his staff for the annual report we have been given. It is an outstanding report, comprehensive in all respects, so comprehensive that one need only read it not to have any further questions to ask about Post Office matters. When one considers how neatly it has been compiled, one can only express one’s thanks and appreciation, particularly if one looks at the last page, on which an example of the stamps used is depicted. I find this outstanding. I note that a special stamp has been issued to commemorate the fact that the international bowls championships were held in South Africa this year. Sir, just as South Africa made a clean sweep of the gold medals at that tournament, the Post Office, too, has carried off some gold medals this year, particularly since the Opposition’s criticism has been so weak.

Sir, we have had the opportunity today of judging this budget in the light of national circumstances. We have had the opportunity of judging it in the light of the vast anti-inflation campaign we have launched in South Africa. The hon. member for Durban Point did not utter a word about the extent to which the hon. the Minister had succeeded in drafting an acceptable budget in the light of this joint campaign against inflation. I think that if there is one aspect in regard to which the Minister and the Post Office have succeeded …

I said so yesterday.

Yes, you mentioned in a half-hearted way, but today you withdrew it again. Looking at the five points included in the anti-inflation programme, I want to refer to only two, viz. the increase in production and productivity, with special reference to better training and utilization of labour. This annual report attests to sound training throughout.

The hon. the Minister’s speech yesterday attests throughout to the training and the good service provided by the Post Office. But this hon. Opposition comes along and disparages it. They do not have one good word to say about the good work which the Post Office and its officials have done. In a very half-hearted way it paid a few tributes to those officials. However, in my opinion they deserve a great deal more than that from the Opposition. Point five requires the application of an extreme degree of self-control as regards increases in wages, salaries and prices. A few years ago the Post Office staff had already undertaken to work two hours per week extra for no additional remuneration. There have been no demands whatsoever for more money from the Post Office staff. They do not come along and ask for salary increases. I think we should thank them for this. The Post Office staff are inspired and animated by a will to serve. They are not people who go around begging and pleading. They put South Africa first and consider how best they can serve the Post Office. However, what do they get from this hon. Opposition? Do those people get any thanks or any tribute paid to them? No, the hon. member today withdrew the few halfhearted words which he did utter yesterday. On behalf of this side of the House I want to say to the Post Office staff—and I shall come back to this later: This side of the House is grateful for the service and the assistance which the Post Office workers have given South Africa up to now.

We may consider the expenditure of the Post Office in the light of the requirements of the anti-inflation programme. The operating expenditure has increased by only 6,8% and the capital works by 7,8%. This is far less than the rate of inflation. Surely that is an outstanding contribution on the part of the Post Office in placing the economy of South Africa on a sound footing. As one can see from the annual report, despite a 4% increase in staff, there has nevertheless been a 15% increase in the revenue of the Post Office. I must say that we can thank Heaven that the hon. member for Durban Point is retiring, because South Africa really does not deserve such a chief critic. I only want to say to him: “Good luck, and good-bye, my friend!”

Let us now consider the staff. According to the annual report of 1975, out of a total of 65 800 staff, 63% were Whites and 37% non-Whites. A scornful remark was made yesterday about the non-Whites employed in the Post Office. Now I really wonder what that scornful remark was aimed at. Was it aimed at the White of South Africa, White South Africa or what? I think that we shall have to argue that point further in future. Today time does not allow me to go into the matter. 35% of the White staff of 41 788 are women. Today I want to address a word of thanks to the women of South Africa. Since there has been a labour crisis in the Post Office over the past few years, it is praiseworthy that they have come forward and offered their services in the interests of the Post Office and in the interests of South Africa.

Let us now compare South Africa’s position as regards female staff with the position abroad. I have here a monthly periodical entitled “The International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.” In this report a study was made of women employed by the post offices in 19 countries. Among the countries included are countries like Belgium, Italy, Japan and the United States. The matter has been thoroughly studied and all aspects have been analysed. It has been found that an average of 21,2% of the office staff of those countries consists of women. At the highest level the percentage is 1,8%. This proves that our women in this country, compared with those in the 19 countries I have mentioned, do their duty as regards the communications system in this country. Let us consider the training aspect, about which the hon. member for Durban Point also had something to say. Surely it is clear from the budget and from the annual report that sound training is in fact being carried out. There is technical training and in-service training, and university bursaries are awarded in this regard. In 1975 there were no fewer than 46 bursaries for full-time study. There are also diploma courses. Furthermore, work study investigations are carried out in the Post office in order to ensure efficiency throughout and make best use of the available staff. Salaries are not paid to people who do not work. A Chair of Communications has been established at the University of Pretoria. From the beginning of 1975, R200 000 will be paid towards that Chair annually by the Post Office. Surely this shows that the Post Office and the Minister—the whole Government, in fact—do not harp on just one idea. They do not merely confine their attention to the semi-skilled and unskilled workers; they devote their attention to the managerial level as well.

Since I have now referred to that level, I want us to take a brief look at the basic services in South Africa. Let us evaluate this budget and ascertain whether it measures up to the requirements as regards basic services, or—to use a modern word—the infrastructure of South Africa. I want to mention only four things which are indispensable in any region or territory for the development of the country: Water, power, transport and communication. As far as communication is concerned, in past years this Post Office has done more than could have been expected of any department or any person. Let us take a look at what the Post Office has done with its human material. This budget and the annual report are a glowing testimonial to what they have accomplished. I refer inter alia to the knowledge our people are acquiring, to the development and expansion of that knowledge and furthermore, to the managerial skills which are being promoted. Surely one cannot pick someone out of a hat and tell him: “Now you are a leader; now you are a manager.” This applies to the Post Office in particular, because they need people who have been thoroughly trained in the technical, administrative and financial and economic spheres. Then, too, the person who guides the activities of the Post Office must be a person who has been trained in all three fields. All this has been achieved, too, over the past year.

We need capital, too. This afternoon the hon. member gave the impression that not enough was being spent. But is one really to do everything in a single day? The Post Office cannot borrow indefinitely. Nor can one simply go and get the technical machinery which the Post Office requires.

How long have you been in power?

Just as long as you have been in Opposition.

All this takes time. The Post Office does not get carried away by a thing that is not going to work. The Post Office first experiments and applies tests. It then comes up at the right time with the thing that will render outstanding service for years.

Remember, we believe in only one thing, and that is good service.

Mr. Speaker, in my opinion the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point is ridiculous. His amendment really does not redound to the credit of this country. I would not have taken it amiss of the hon. member if he had said this afternoon on behalf of the Opposition—as they have said in respect of defence:“We are grateful; here is one thing that is good for South Africa. We shall assist you. This one is good, but the other we are going to attack. ” If he had done that, he would have done South Africa a service. However, what did the hon. member do?—sweet blow-all!

Even less than that.

If we look at the Post Office as such, we see that according to the annual report there was a deficit of R12,5 million last year, representing 13,9% of the operating expenditure of the Post Office. As the hon. member said yesterday, he estimated that the deficit for the year ending 31 March 1976 will amount to 15,3% and that the deficit in the subsequent year will be 16,3%. Naturally we are concerned about a deficit of this nature. However, let me tell the Opposition and South Africa that this is not happening in South Africa only. There is no country in the world that is not sustaining losses on its postal administration. However, our Post Office is not standing passively by. It is not allowing the deficit to get out of hand. A great deal is being done. I am going to mention four things that are being done to counteract this deficit. Firstly there is the increase in the number of self-service post offices. This is working well; it is a great success. Instead of the hon. member thanking the Post Office for what it has done, he complained that the telecommunication system had to pay for this. What is his solution? What must be done to counteract the losses sustained by the Post Office. He has not made a single recommendation as to how the Post Office may counteract it.

[Inaudible.]

After all, he has a monopoly of wisdom. He must tell the new chairman of the Post Office group on that side of the House to tell us, when he rises here, what we have to do to counteract these losses.

Secondly, I want to mention the improvement in labour productivity. I have already discussed this. All these are things which are being done to minimize those losses sustained by the labour-intensive section of the Post Office. I want to ask the hon. member whether he wanted us to cut the salaries of the staff? Surely the main thing here is labour and if we could have done that, the Post Office could have showed a profit. Is that what he wanted? The sorting of post has been automated. As the hon. the Minister mentioned, in September last year we commissioned an automatic mail sorting machine. We went and had a look at it. This is really a fine piece of equipment! I do not know whether hon. members opposite have seen it yet. If they have not yet seen it, they would do well to go and take a look at it. It is the only system which is integrated throughout the world. When one sees with what speed the post is sorted there and how capable the staff there are, one feels good about it. [Interjections.]

Work is being done, too, on rationalization of procedures and tariffs. In spite of the losses sustained, the hon. the Minister has announced that he is going to reduce tariffs. Internal air mail will be reduced from 5 cents to 4 cents. This amounts to a drop of 20%. Surely that is praiseworthy. Other countries would have increased the tariffs.

In this connection there is a small request I want to make. We must standardize still further as far as the size of postal articles is concerned. The tariff on postal articles which are not of standard size has in fact been increased, but we shall simply have to triple this if people do not want to standardize and use envelopes of standard size.

I want to refer, too, to the use of postal codes. The automatic sorting machines cannot sort the mail if the code number is not stated. There are young ladies who sit there and type the postal codes on to the mail items as they fly past. I saw that there were a great many letters on which the postal code was not quoted. Fortunately those young ladies are there; with all their acumen and ability—of course, they have to know the postal code numbers off by heart—they put the postal code numbers on the letters. I think that even Government departments are guilty of not quoting the postal code numbers. I have also ascertained that not all the Government departments have yet had their postal code numbers printed on their letterheads. This must be looked into.

Shame!

As far as the business world is concerned, too, we must ensure that they use the postal codes. I want to ask the private individual in South Africa please to quote the code number when he writes letters; it will then be possible to deliver the letter far more quickly.

I now want to refer to the telephone services. Yesterday, and again today, the hon. member for Durban Point said that there was supposedly such a shortage of telephones. I want to refer to his home town, Durban. When the Post Office took over the telephone service there in 1969, there were 3 818 applications for telephones. What is the position today? Only 872 are left. That is how the Post Office has eliminated the backlog. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister said that it was estimated that on 31 March there would be 2 110 000 telephones in South Africa. As yet there are not even four million of us Whites and therefore this means that there are two Whites to every telephone. What more does the hon. member want? Does he just want to sit and phone from morning to night? As he put it, what it amounts to is that if there are no telephones, South Africa will collapse. Let us compare our telephone service with that of the rest of the world. I want to quote from an article in the South African Financial Gazette of 12 September 1975 in which the following is said about France, one of the strongest countries in the world—

After all, there is not only one person in every household and therefore one can say that in France there are at least eight people for every telephone. How does that compare with the position in South Africa?

What about the telephone backlog of 1 400 in Mont Clare? Isn’t that in Durban. Furthermore, there is a shortage of 2 230 telephones in …

I want to point out to the hon. member that even as far as telephone instalment fees are concerned, South Africa compares favourably with other countries. Again I want to refer to the position in a few overseas countries. After all, the complaint is heard from time to time that installment fees in South Africa are so high. In South Africa we pay R30, but in England it is as high as R91,80.

Who pays R30?

In South Africa R30 is paid. In West Germany R52,74 must be paid; in France, R122,05; and in the USA, R16,94. In the USA it does cost less than in South Africa, but does the hon. member now want South Africa to dominate the USA in the economic sphere? When we compare our country with overseas countries, we find that we are in a favourable position in comparison with most of them. I once again want to take the hon. members to England, where people have such difficulty in phoning.

You really shouldn’t take the hon. members so far; they will get seasick.

One consumer periodical in England points out that the fees have risen sharply, but nevertheless the service has deteriorated, rather than improved. At least one out of every ten calls does not get through to its destination. At the same time the London Daily Mail reports that that country’s post office is the world’s greatest money waster of all times. According to that newspaper the State-controlled post office sustained a loss of about R600 million last year, or R12 per minute. That is what is happening there. We in South Africa are doing a great deal better than that! When I consider a loss of R12 per minute and compare it with our small deficit and with our profits, and when on top of that I consider the fine service which we in this country enjoy, then I can only say that there is no country in the world that has anything so weak as South Africa’s Opposition. [Interjections.] I do not want to elaborate on these matters any further, because my colleagues on this side of this House are going to deliver more body blows to those hon. members.

After all, they are still the old crankhandle party.

There is something else to which I must refer. I have before me a publication on the cover of which is a fine photo of the satellite earth station at Hartebeest-hoek. This station was opened on 3 December last year by the hon. the Prime Minister. I do not know whether our people realize that the cost of construction of this station amounted to R7,5 million. But what South Africa can do with this station! I think our people do not always realize this; the station is too big and too vast, with the result that we are unable to realize exactly what we have here. There are two antennae. The one is aimed at the Atlantic Ocean and covers the USA, Canada, South America and Europe. The other is aimed at the Indian Ocean and therefore covers the East, Australia and New Zealand. At the same time, this station serves as a standby circuit in the event of the cable service to Europe breaking down. On 6 March this year we had the first direct TV transmission from South Africa abroad through this station. The occasion was the big car race at Kyalami. We have this great scheme today, and if a third antennae were to be added, then we could have channels of communication throughout the world. All this has become possible as a result of an investment of only R7,5 million. I believe that this R7,5 million has been spent in the best possible way. Just think that sometimes, as one walks down the street, one sees a building containing a few offices and shops. One then finds out that it costs R20 million to construct that building. But because that building was constructed with a view to a profit for the owners, one can well ask what benefit a capital investment of R20 million in such a building holds for South Africa. After all, it means nothing as regards our communications. A TV service has been introduced in South Africa and this satellite earth station serves as the basis for direct transmissions to abroad and the reception of transmissions from abroad. It is a service the extent and significance of which has not yet been fully realized. I think therefore that it is time that we considered this.

I want to deal with another subject. The giro system has been on the cards for years now, but I just want to refer to it in general terms since the Minister of Finance has appointed a committee to investigate the system. One could say that this subject is, as it were sub judice and consequently I do not want to discuss it further. What the giro system amounts to, of course, is a Post Office cheque account. Owing to the introduction of the computer the banks have already introduced their own clearing system to enable them to clear and exchange cheques among themselves daily. For them, perhaps, it is possible to think along those lines but in my opinion the Post Office can take a different approach. However, I do not want to discuss the matter further, except to ask the hon. the Minister to expedite the report if it does not appear in the course of the year so that we can be told next year during the discussion of the Budget or on another occasion, when it suits the hon. the Minister, what South Africa is going to do as regards the giro system—viz. whether we are going to introduce it or not, and if we are, who will run it and what its effect will be.

It is also as well just to refer to the cable company. I want to point out to the hon. member for Durban Point that this cable which was laid years ago by the Government—it will be in full use in 1978 with 360 telephone cables—links us with all countries. This is the reason why we have such a good overseas service, something to which the hon. member also referred. I think that it is also fitting that we should place on record our gratitude to the people in charge of the cable for having taken such quick action when interruptions occurred. Owing to the construction of the satellite earth station, South Africa is now in the fortunate position that our foreign channels of communication will not be disrupted so severely in future when there is an interruption in the cable service.

I want to mention something else which is to the credit of the Post Office. This year they cut their capital expenditure programme by R7,8 million. My constituency, too, is being affected by this because the microwave system which was to have been built at Lucasrand has been a casualty. However, I do not wish to complain about that. In fact, I am happy to wait another year. I am grateful that even as far as the construction of buildings is concerned, inflation has been counteracted. I do want to ask that when buildings are constructed, we should not make them too luxurious. In South Africa, the tendency is for buildings to be luxurious. I really must say that as far as the Post Office buildings are concerned, I have not yet found this. Nevertheless, I want to sound a timely warning so that this will not happen. We must not build too luxuriously and lose sight of efficiency.

To conclude, I want to say that the Post Office is the friend of every man, woman and child. Who does not feel good on receiving a letter? We sometimes sit in our offices and receive our telephone account, letters and other items of mail without thinking that there are people who have to do all this work behind the scenes. Who of us ever thinks about the postman who delivers the mail every day? Who of us ever thinks so far as to thank him? Who of us thinks to check whether our street number is at the right place so that the postman need not waste time looking for a house? We must ensure that decent post boxes are installed. I am pleased about what the hon. the Minister has said in this connection. I should like to request him to give consideration to applying this to existing buildings as well, so that postboxes will be installed there too. Who of us ever thinks of giving the postman a glass of cooldrink on a hot day or a cup of coffee on a bitterly cold day?

Things are going well with the Post Office and we in South Africa can count ourselves fortunate because we are given such good service by the Post Office and its staff. It has really been an honour and a privilege for me to take part in this debate today. I say this in view of the fact that we have had such an outstanding and well-organized budget this year.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sunnyside has just said that we on the Opposition side do not appreciate the services being rendered by the staff of the Post Office. Unfortunately the hon. member has not studied our amendment properly. He will see that we say at the beginning of the amendment that “this House acknowledges the efforts and sacrifices of the Post Office management and staff”. So what am I to make of this? Has the hon. member not listened or is he unable to read? The hon. member also said that the increase in the budget was far below the rate of inflation. What he omitted to say, however, was that the services provided for in the budget were far less extensive than before. It is because of this that the increase in the budget is smaller; this is obvious.

The hon. member for Sunnyside also said that we should not kick up a fuss about the technical staff of the Post Office. But the hon. member is wrong. The hon. the Minister is very concerned about the technical staff, and he said in his speech that 2 341 highly trained staff resigned from the Post Office between the years 1971 and 1975. Why should we not mention that in our amendment? We have every right to do so. We also have every right to tell the hon. the Minister and the Government that they should get a move on with the training of highly trained technicians. How is it possible for them to have lost 2 341 technicians within a period of five years? We may rightly say to them to get a move on and to train far more than they have trained before. That is why the matter has been raised in our amendment.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I have only 15 minutes to make my speech and I shall unfortunately be unable to reply to any questions.

The hon. member also said that the loss on postal services was terrible, and asked what could be done to contain the loss. In the same breath the hon. member added that he resented the hon. member for Durban Point’s saying that we should look after the staff. Consequently he asked whether we should pay the staff more when a loss was being suffered. This is a scandalous remark. We have the fullest confidence in the staff of the Post Office. We feel that they are making sacrifices to keep the post office going. Now the hon. member for Sunnyside says, however, that we should not pay the post office workers more, because that would increase our loss. [Interjections.] I regret that this is so, but I cannot devote any more time to the hon. member for Sunnyside. There are more important matters I should like to deal with.

†Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my speech I would like to say that, as the hon. the Minister who is now the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications, lately was the Minister of National Education and still is the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, there are two matters he should consider at the beginning of his new period of office. The first is that he should seriously consider whether television is not a matter which should remain under his charge. He had it under his charge for quite a number of years, and as he has now come to Posts and Telecommunications, I wonder whether he should not give serious thought to taking the television programmes and the whole of the television network under the aegis of his command. Another matter is that as the hon. the Minister is still the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, I believe that he should now give further serious consideration to the provision of services to pensioners at reduced rates. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister has said that there were to be no increases in postal rates. This is not quite what it seems to be. The rate on air mail has been pegged, and there has been a concession in respect of air mail. However, it is only pegged in respect of standardized items. There are very complicated conditions applicable to standardized items. These complicated conditions will be very confusing to the public. If one tells the public, as the hon. the Minister told the public yesterday, that to qualify as a standardized item the item must not be more than 120 × 235 mm in size, not more than 50 gramme in mass and not more than 5 mm in thickness, I do not believe that one will have the public with one. I believe that non-standardized items will account for much more than what the hon. the Minister had budgeted for. The hon. the Minister has budgeted for non-standardized items in terms of a rate that has gone up. I do not think the hon. the Minister really stressed this matter; I think he played that rather pianissimo. In fact, the rate on a letter of up to 20 grammes goes up from 4c to 6c as far as surface mail is concerned. This is an increase of 50%. As far as air mail is concerned, the rate goes up from 5c to 6c which is an increase of 20%. When it comes to printed papers up to 20 grammes the rate goes up from 3c to 4c as far as surface mail is concerned. As far as air mail is concerned the rate goes up from 5c to 6c. This is a general increase of 33%. What do we understand by “printed papers”? Many members of the public will not realize that printed papers include greeting and Christmas cards. If one intends sending greeting or Christmas cards after 1 April 1976, one will be paying 4c for surface mail and 6c for air mail whereas before one paid 3c and 5c respectively. I believe that we must keep this in perspective. We must bear in mind that, although the hon. the Minister has said that there are no postal rate increases, these rates are in fact going to work as if there had been an increase. There are going to be so many people who are going to be confused with the new standardized items that the hon. the Minister is in fact going to collect a lot more by way of this increase.

There seems to be some feeling in the Government at this stage that the Post Office can look after its own affairs. I believe that when the Post Office became an autonomous department with its own budget in 1968, the Government gave the impression that it believed that, because of the self-financing character of the new Department of Posts and Telecommunications, it could look after itself entirely and that it would have no further call on the Treasury. This appears from section 2 of the Post Office Readjustment Act which says that—

It goes on to say—

What happened was that when the Government felt that the Post Office could look after itself, it also contrived a myth that the Post Office could be run as a business. I have just read out what stand in the Act itself. When the then Minister introduced this measure on 30 April 1968, this was what he said—

I believe that the hon. the Minister has forgotten those words that were uttered on 30 April 1968 and I think he ought to think about them again. Successive Ministers of Posts and Telecommunications have perpetuated this myth by implying that the Post Office could be run at a profit, or if not at a profit, at the very least on a break-even basis. The impression was given that henceforth the Post Office would have no further call on the Exchequer. Successive budgets have indicated the Minister’s belief that the Post Office can generate its own finance and does not need financial assistance from other financial sources. We have already heard from the hon. member for Durban Point that telecommunication services, in fact, subsidize all the other services of the Post Office. In the Post Office the losses have been colossal. It started off at R4,2 million in the year 1973-’74 and in the year 1974-’75 it was R12,4 million. In the year 1975-’76 the loss was R15,3 million. In perpetuation of the myth of operating the Post Office as a business the profits on telecommunications have been applied towards wiping out the losses on postal services.

It appears as if the hon. the Minister believes he will be able to do so indefinitely. This belief on the part of the hon. the Minister is absolutely misguided. As the losses on postal services increase it will become more and more difficult for him to find sufficient profit in telecommunication services to pay for the losses on the postal services. He will be compelled, therefore, to increase the telecommunication tariffs, not because this price hike will be necessary to operate telecommunications, but for the sole purposes of carrying the loss on postal services. Such price hikes in respect of telecommunications have a ceiling. Telecommunication users will be prepared to accept only such increases as will be considered economically viable. Price hikes above such a ceiling will meet with determined telecommunication subscriber resistance and the overall effect will be less profitability on the telecommunications account. Indiscriminate tariff increases for telecommunication users will therefore be self-defeating and will eventually land the telecommunication account in a financial mess. The solution to this problem is certainly not to increase postal tariffs, because if one increases these tariffs, one will encounter user resistance. Today many businesses are already using their own delivery services because it is cheaper than that of the Post Office.

The solution lies in exploding the myth that the Post Office can be run as a business. Every country in the Western world contributes towards the social services provided by post offices. If a postal service was operated as a well-run business, it would be sensible to close individual post offices that were losing money. Recognizing the need to provide this service for the entire community, other countries in the Western world have appropriated from public funds substantial amounts for postal services. During the 10 year period from 1962 to 1972 Great Britain appropriated £142 million; West Germany 5 966 billion marks; France 26 million francs; Switzerland 980 million Swiss francs. These countries have population densities varying from 234 to 627 persons per square mile. The United States, with a population density of only 53 persons per square mile, showed a loss on postal services exceeding two billion dollars. To provide an efficient postal service in the Republic of South Africa, with the population density of 17,57 persons per square kilometer, the loss on our postal services will climb steadily. The hon. the Minister has already curtailed postal services in respect of collections and deliveries and we are now down to one a day in urban areas. If he curtails them any further, the public will refuse to use them and private enterprise will probably step in—at any rate, so far as deliveries in dense urban areas are concerned. Such a development will produce still greater losses.

We cannot maintain our way of life unless we also maintain an efficient system of postal communications, readily accessible to everyone at a price everyone can afford to pay. The postal services benefit the entire nation. They benefit the recipients of postal articles as well as the senders. Considering their importance within the economy of the Republic, they also benefit those who do not use the services at all.

When we look through the estimates introduced by the hon. the Minister of Finance year after year, we see that millions of rand are voted for the maintenance of essential infrastructure of the Republic and the taxpayers accept that most of this expenditure is necessary for the running of the country. Those who never see a harbour or use it in any way do not argue that no money should be spent on it. Nor do those who never use the airways contend that no money should be spent on it. Our postal services should be expanded, not curtailed, and the general body of taxpayers should pay for them. More than 100 years ago a United States Postmaster-General, Alexander Randall, said—

I support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make the completely hypothetical statement that, should the official Opposition come into power, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition would at least have no problem in finding Ministers. He has one hon. member on his side of the House who is an authority on Defence and on Railways, and who will help the hon. member for Wynberg in keeping the telephones going. The hon. member for Durban Point is South Africa’s television star; he is the man with all the knowledge in the world; he is the man who can prove anything at all with statistics and figures, naming chapter and verse. I want to ask the big hon. member for Durban Point a simple little question: How many telephone exchanges are there in the Republic of South Africa?

Two thousand.

The hon. member has hit the nail on the head. If there is a waiting list of 20 telephones per exchange, what does that add up to?

Maths. lesson.

It is 40 000. The hon. member for Houghton must be patient. I want to make it very clear that the Post Office is a department of which we may be very proud. It displays first-rate efficiency which affects the whole economy of South Africa, and I shall prove this. This is the tragedy of the matter. Yesterday, when the hon. the Minister delivered his budget speech, the hon. member for Durban Point and his colleagues sat there without even being able to produce a smile. Here we have a very good budget, a budget which inspires confidence and which contains no rates increases, but the hon. member for Durban Point and his companions did not respond to it at all. I want to say this to the hon. members: Until the official Opposition gives credit where credit is due, they will never be a proper Opposition. I believe that the hon. member for Houghton, although I differ from her politically as night does from day, will show more political knowledge in her criticism.

What is the true position in South Africa? South Africa is a country of wide expanses, comprising over 1 million square kilometres, five times the size of the United Kingdom and much bigger than West Germany, France Belgium and Holland together. It is an extensive country, a gigantic country with immense potential. The whole idea of hon. members of the other side is to exploit telecommunications by saying that it is a poor service. I want to prove the opposite. I say South Africa has an excellent service, a service which is comparable with the rest of the world as far as rates, service and development are concerned, and the hon. member for Durban Point must realize this. In South Africa we have a waiting list of 4,5% and if this remains so in the years ahead, I shall have no problems. The problem is, and the hon. member for Durban Point must realize it, that the waiting period would be ideal if it were limited to 48 hours in the urban areas and a month in rural areas. That is the ideal of efficiency. If there were not a waiting list in South Africa, I would be a very worried man, because then we would not have the potential, the inherent growth potential, which we want to have in South Africa. There must be a waiting list; it shows growth and development, and information will support this. What has the Post Office achieved during the past eight financial years in the field of telecommunications? More than R870 million in capital has been allotted to this. More than three-quarters of a million additional telephones have been provided. The ratio of automatic telephone services to hand-operated services has increased by more than 83%. Trunk connections have been increased by more than 6,2 million kilometres. More than 8 000 additional telex services have been provided. In spite of that, the Post Office has generally kept its rates lower than most overseas countries, and this in spite of the higher costs of the provision and maintenance of services. But let us look at the past five years. They were dynamic. In the past five years R714 million in capital has been spent on telecommunication services. More than half a million new telephones were provided during the five years. What is important is the number of postponed requests over the past five years. The percentage was 7,66% and at the end of March, and this year it will be 4,50%. This means that the waiting list is shrinking and that the service is being provided. The hon. member’s tutor set him on the wrong course right from the start. The hon. member must remember never to make statements in this House merely to derive opportunistic advantage from them. The hon. member made the statement that the postal rates were being increased considerably, but that this was being glossed over.

The National Party does not have to gloss over anything, nor does the Post Office. The postal rates have been lowered. Show me another country in the world which can lower postal rates despite the present inflationary tendencies. I challenge the hon. member to do so. But now he is trying to talk it away and to make out that this is not the case. Let us compare it with Britain. Britain wants to boycott its post office service. I read the following in Die Transvaler of 13 October 1975—

And then hon. members complain about postal rates in South Africa! Look at the postal rates in South Africa for domestic airmail. It is an achievement. The hon. member ought to stand up and say that he feels proud of it and wants to participate in this achievement. This achievement not only favours the individual; the achievement as far as postal rates are concerned favours our whole economy in South Africa, and commerce in South Africa will be truly thankful for this decrease in rates. In the Republic of South Africa the rate on 50 grammes is 4c by airmail. In England, it is 11c on 60 grammes; in France, 15c on 20 grammes; in the U.S.A., 11c on 28 grammes; in Australia, 19c on 50 grammes; and in Canada, 7c on 28 grammes. In South Africa it is 4c on 50 grammes by airmail. But then the hon. member says that things are being glossed over. Nothing is being glossed over. It is a proud achievement.

Sir, the postal service is an important department. The hon. member for Wynberg spoke about the staff problems. It is true that the Post Office has lost 2 341 trained technicians over the past four years, but what is important is that 3 403 technicians have been trained by means of the dynamic training system offered by this department. In other words, this department is providing a service, not only for itself, but also for the private sector of South Africa, something for which we must be grateful and not something about which to criticize the Post Office. We must realize the value of a department which trains people to be absorbed by the private sector. It is only a pity that certain posts are offered which do not promote the productivity of South Africa and which are unnecessary, but other hon. members on our side will deal with this more extensively. But I say it is an achievement for the Post Office to train over 3 000 people in four years. Admittedly there was a loss of over 2 000, but they are still in the private sector. They have not disappeared; they are not overseas, but are taking part in the further development of South Africa.

Sir, we can easily draw comparisons with regard to the telephone rates. Local calls in the RSA cost 4c; in England 6c; in West Germany 6c; in France 6c and in the USA 6c. Can you see, Sir, that we are in a privileged position in South Africa to have such low tariffs? I say it is important in a young, growing economy, in a country with the potential of South Africa.

This demands a sound telecommunications system, also as far as the defence of our country is concerned. But from the start I want to warn against luxuries in telecommunication. Certain overseas countries have burnt their fingers badly by all sorts of new scientific developments. Once these are applied in practice, they find that they do not constitute an effective service and that a tremendous amount of money has gone to waste. We should rather develop on the basic principles and expand our telecommunications system on a scientific foundation in order to provide an effective service in South Africa, and not necessarily a luxury service. If the hon. member for Houghton goes overseas, she can have all the luxury services in the world, but I say that here in South Africa we must provide an effective service, a service of which we may be proud, a service which South Africa can afford. South Africa’s postal service is a good one. There must be no doubt about this. Let us look at what somebody says about this—

[Interjections.]

†Yes, I know you will never be satisfied. Then in The Argus: “Where else can we get such service?” These are categorical statements made by people in regard to the wonderful services rendered by this department. I think we have had a record service from the Post Office in the last four years.

*It is surprising to see what has been done, and the greatest success of this whole Budget is that we did not have to make use of the Treasury’s funds which were available. The key to our success in the midst of this inflation is that we did not need to make use of the funds of the Treasury and that we could draw 2,6% of our people’s savings, by means of the savings services of the Post Office. This is an achievement, in spite of the fact that there is no question of competition with the building societies and banks, but nevertheless 2,6% of savings and investments are drawn by the Post Office. With this 2,6% we are carrying out the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee, namely that 50% should be derived from loans and 50% from profits. This is an achievement, and we must realize it today. The postal service has a corps of workers of which we may be proud. For several years they had to work literally hundreds of hours overtime every months and they have never asked for a cent in remuneration for it. Opposition members should attend the functions of the staff associations. They should meet them socially, during the festive season, for example, in order to see what loyal people we have in the postal services. They are people who consider it an honour and a privilege to do their duty in this department.

We must be careful, when we try to embarrass the ruling party politically, as the Opposition is at present doing, not to criticize people who are trying to develop and improve the department. This is what hon. members are doing when they speak about an incompetent service, a weak service and a shortage of telephones, while people are working hard year in and year out. What is the result of this? These people feel that their hard work is the result of this? These people feel that their hard work serves no purpose, because the official Opposition in South Africa speaks disparagingly about services which are actually excellent services. Let us be honest and look at the position in connection with faults this year. The incidence of faults in rented apparatus decreased by 6%. This is an achievement in itself. Cable faults decreased by 8%. This proves that this department is improving day by day. The best argument to prove the sound economic set-up of the Post Office is that the capacity of the telecommunications services increased to such an extent that it was not necessary for us to borrow funds from the Treasury. This in itself is proof that better service is being provided in South Africa. The greater capacity which is being handled today is undeniable proof of a wonderful service. The time has come for us in South Africa, bearing in mind the enemies outside and inside South Africa and the inflation problem which we have to contend with, to put one aspect first at all times, and this is efficiency on the management level. We must not tell people to work harder, because then we are criticizing them. We must show people how to work harder and more efficiently, and this can only come from the management level. I say today, and I mean it, that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications has found the formula for acting dynamically in South Africa with greater effectiveness and with a greater sense of purpose in the interests of South Africa. This is worth emulating, and other departments and the private sector ought to examine what is being done in the Post Office on the management level, through good relationships, by inspiring people and by encouraging feeling of loyalty.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that one can reasonably be expected to react to the euphoria which has been generated on the Government benches over this budget by speeches such as we have just had from the hon. member for Rustenburg and his predecessor, the hon. member for Sunnyside. To react to them would mean entering into the realm of fantasy, and for that there is no time this afternoon. But despite our disagreement with that kind of make-believe, I believe that we and the public of South Africa have reason to be grateful and thankful to the hon. the Minister and the Postmaster-General and his financial staff for having introduced a budget without any tariff increases. And not only that. To add to the miracle we are, from the beginning of next month, going to pay one cent less than we do today on internal air mail letters. To my way of thinking, these two facts constitute some kind of a record, especially as far as this Government is concerned. We learn to be thankful for mercies of all kinds— however small.

Before dealing with some aspects of the Post Office administration, I hope I will be allowed to draw attention to the fact that last Wednesday marked the 100th anniversary of the invention of the telephone. It was on 10 March 1876 that the American, Alexander Graham Bell, picked up a telephone instrument and said: “Come here, Mr. Watson, I want you.” We have heard a lot about telephones this afternoon in other countries, and I gather there are today over 336 million telephones in the world, including about 4 million telephones in Africa, of which more than half are in the Republic. The target figure which South Africa should however try to emulate is to catch up with the city of Washington in the United States which, believe it or not, has more telephones than people.

I believe this is the only city in the world to achieve this fantastic target. It is generally accepted that the United States’ telephone system—and I am not going to talk too much about this—at least the Bell system part of it, is probably the best in the world. One of the reasons for that I can imagine is that it has at least 1 600 regional competitors keeping it on its toes. It is forging ahead and I read the other day that it is on the verge of another technological leap forward which is going to see the introduction of computer-controlled exchanges that automatically forward to specified numbers and allow more than two people to talk on one line. We know that the situation in South Africa is that more than two people often talk on one line and we do not even know how many people are listening in at the same time. And we manage this without any kind of computer whatsoever! In spite of the efforts, and very considerable efforts, that have gone into improving the telephone service in the last year—efforts of which I believe the public is not always sufficiently aware—the position in regard to telephones continues to cause grave concern to private subscribers and to businesses alike. Apart from the backlog of telephones which persists in spite of the installation of a record number 122 000 additional telephones last year, the quality of the service in most of the larger centres, particularly Johannesburg also causes real concern, frustration and aggravation. We know some of the reasons for this. For instance we know that there is a great deal of outdated material which should have been replaced 10 or 15 years ago. We know of overladen exchanges and a chronic shortage of skilled personnel for installation and maintenance work. We also know of the growing demand for telephone services. We know all this and more, and we know, too, that in some areas there has, in fact, been an improvement in the quality as well as the quantity of the service, and the hope is held out for more improvements in the years ahead. The fact is that the public remains sharply and deeply critical of the shortcomings which remain in the service and believes that even more could be done to bring about an improvement. This is particularly true in a huge area like the Witwatersrand complex.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear from the budget speech of the hon. the Minister yesterday, and from the annual report of the Postmaster-General, that the crux of the matter today remains, as it has been for many years, the question of labour. More people of colour are being trained as technicians and as telephone electricians, and, mercifully, Sir, one was grateful to read in the Postmaster-General’s report that these people are now being used where the need is greatest and not, as was the case until very recently, only “in their own areas”. We now find non-White cable jointers, for instance, operating in a place like Johannesburg. This, I submit, is a really important step forward, but I think what we should realize is that, since it is clearly impossible to attract sufficient numbers of Whites to do this kind of skilled work, the Post Office has absolutely no option but to train and to recruit the necessary and increasing numbers of non-Whites. However, is it doing enough— this is the inevitable question—or is it being hamstrung? Is the Post Office being hamstrung by the Government’s ideological block on the use of non-White workers in skilled occupations? [Interjections.] This block, Mr. Speaker, was epitomized in the statement by the hon. the Minister in his budget speech yesterday, when he said:

Mr. Speaker, there is no question of supplanting anybody. There is a desperate need, and there is only one way in which to overcome this need, and that is to employ anybody, irrespective of the colour of his skin, who is able to do the work. This is the only criterion that we should use. What one wants is an assurance that there is no artificial ceiling being placed on the numbers of non-Whites who are being trained for this kind of work in the Post Office. Moreover, is it not possible to intensify the training that is being given, and even to introduce crash courses for the less sophisticated categories of skilled work? I ask this in all seriousness, because this is a very important area.

While I am talking of staff, may I lodge a plea for sympathetic consideration to be given to the salary and wage demands of the lower paid categories of workers, and let me say for the benefit of the friends on my left— geographically; politically they are to the right—for Whites as well as for non-Whites. Particularly I would urge that greater efforts be made to narrow the gap between the wages of White and non-White workers. I take a random figure from the estimates of operating expenditure which we were given in the last couple of days. I find that in the engineering section 12 268 Africans will earn an average—I hope I am right, and if I am wrong, the hon. the Minister must please put me right— of just under R60 a month. In the general operating staff category I find that the average earnings of 5 814 Black workers will be just over R90 a month. I speak subject to correction, but I believe that these figures are as close as one can get. Both these figures, if they are correct, are in my opinion completely indefensible.

This opinion is strengthened when I find that the 22 210 Whites in the general operating staff earn between them over R73 million, or an average of over R3 200 a year—well over three times the average wage of an African worker. Quite apart from that, it is in my view deplorable that any department of State should expect Black people to exist on just over R60 a month, a figure which is well below the most conservative poverty datum line estimate that I have read. However, before I am accused of ignoring the White workers, let me say that an average …

You usually do!

Well, are you not glad that we have broken our duck at last? An average of just over R260 a month for White workers in some categories, is nothing to be proud of. I repeat that the wage needs of the lowest paid workers in the Post Office need sympathetic and urgent consideration. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, it is again necessary, I am afraid, to draw attention to the very desperate need for telephones in Black areas. In Soweto, for instance, there are more people on the telephone waiting list than there are telephones. In other words, there are 1 240 people waiting for telephones in this community of nearly a million people, and there are only 1 024 people who have telephones. There is one private telephone for every 1 000 residents and one public telephone for every 26 000 residents in Soweto. The mayor of Soweto said recently that it was a “shame and a disgrace” for a vast complex like this to be without an adequate telephone service. I once read somewhere that help is as near as the nearest telephone. If help, either medical, protective, physical or in any other sense is as near to people as the nearest telephone, help is very, very far away from hundreds of thousands of Black and Brown people all over South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Coloured areas of the Cape Peninsula is extremely serious. There is a total of just over 121 telephones, I find, in all the Coloured residential areas in the Peninsula, and as far as the Black areas here are concerned, the position is even worse. In Langa, Guguletu and Nyanga, for instance, we read that no improvement can be expected until the end of 1977, and probably 1978. This is according to information that the hon. the Minister gave us earlier this session.

Mr. Speaker, one knows that the telephone backlog is running close to six figures, and there has to be a very clearly defined priority list; but I suggest that the needs of the Black population are so great as to warrant very serious and special attention.

Now, Mr. Speaker, there is another matter which I wish to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, and in connection with which I want to ask him to take some action to rectify things. I am referring to the charges that so many hotels make for telephone calls. I believe that the time has come when the Post Office should insist that profiteering on phone calls made by residents should cease. It has, I believe, the power to do so. Some of this profiteering is—and I say it without hesitation—scandalous. I think it is bad enough to have to pay at least 10 cents for a four cent call, but when, for a trunk call which normally costs about R20, a resident is in fact charged R60—this was a call to the United States—then, surely, the time has come to take some kind of action. I know of a case like this and it occurred here in Cape Town. I have also been told of a trunk call between two South African towns in the north, for which a resident was called upon to pay R20, while the actual cost the hotel had to pay for the call, was R8. This meant a profit of nearly 150%.

That is scandalous!

That is scandalous. For once the hon. member and I do agree.

†Mr. Speaker, nobody would object to a reasonable service levy on telephone calls from hotels, but surely the emphasis should be on “reasonable”. In my view it is indefensible that profits, in some cases exorbitant profits, should be made on a Government service, which is after all simply being transmitted by an outside agency. I know that there are hotels in this country that make no charge at all for local calls, although they probably provide for the cost in their bed and breakfast charges, which is certainly one of the better ways of doing it. Our contention is that the charges should be based on experience and on reasonableness.

Apart from the unfairness of the whole thing, these high charges levied by some of the hotels reflect very badly on the Post Office, which is another reason why I believe the hon. the Minister ought to take cognizance of this. The Post Office is too often unfairly called upon to take the blame for this. This happens particularly in the case of visiting businessmen, who blame it on the Post Office. I would urge the hon. the Minister to give his attention to this matter, and to see whether it is not possible to lay down a reasonable percentage which could serve as a service levy.

* There is another matter I should urgently like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister and that is the interception at some point or other—I do not know where—of a postal article of Prof. André Brink of Grahamstown. [Interjections.] I should now like to mention the facts. A manuscript of 12 pages and an accompanying letter was posted to the editorial staff of the magazine Mayfair in London between March and May 1974 in Grahamstown. [Interjections.] Hon. members should just keep the principle of the matter in view and shut their eyes to all these other absurdities. More than 18 months later, on 15 December 1975, a photo-copy of this letter, with the date erased, was published by the Pretoria daily newspaper Hoofstad, together with a synopsis of the story. As a matter of interest I may add that reading the synopsis caused the author to suspect that the story had in the interim been tampered with, but we shall say nothing further on that score. However, the important point is that the postal article never reached its destination in London. I should now like to know the following from the hon. the Minister: One: How is it possible for such a postal article to be dealt with so irregularly? Two: Who has access to private post except employees of the Post Office? Three: Is there any idea of how private post could be intercepted and then be furnished to a newspaper? Although it is to me completely unheard of that a newspaper is able, with an easy conscience, to publish private, intercepted post, the newspaper owes the Minister, the Post Office and the public an explanation as to how they came into possession of that postal article. I think they owe it to all of us to explain where they found the postal article and how they got hold of it. One should also like to know whether it was simply by chance that a few days before the publication of these documents in Hoofstad, a sister newspaper in Johannesburg called for Government action against Prof. Brink. Therefore, it becomes a bit difficult to avoid the suspicion that what we are in fact dealing with here is an organized campaign against an author whom—to put it mildly—elements in the Nationalist Party are not too fond of. [Interjections.]

I want to emphasize that I do not for one moment suggest that the Post Office was involved in this campaign. [Interjections.] Not at all. I shall explain why. We are dealing here with certain extremely unpleasant facts which are ultimately—and I emphasize the word “ultimately”—the responsibility of the Minister, and that was why I felt that it was necessary to broach the matter here. What the public of South Africa wants to know, is whether the Post Office is being used by elements to further their own ends. Is there any way in which we can prevent this sort of thing, because it dare not be allowed to continue? Should there be hon. members who think that this is a unique or rare case, I should perhaps just quote the case of Mr. Brian O’Lynn, the leader of the Federal Party in South West Africa.

A good United Party supporter.

I do not know what he is. In his case a copy of a confidential letter to an American professor reached a prominent Nationalist in some inexplicable way. The contents of that letter were used against Mr. O’Lynn. I am mentioning this case merely to prove that there is more than just the Brink case for which the public should receive an explanation. It is in the highest interests of the Post Office that the public be assured that private post is not tampered with and that if it does happen, it is not the handiwork of the Post Office or of its officials. The Post Office’s integrity and the public’s confidence in it is at stake, and that is why I have raised this matter here this afternoon and am asking for an explanation.

†Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that we welcome the new and extended services the Department of Posts and Telecommunications has undertaken to provide in various fields. With the promise of better services to the public in the sphere of postal and telephone services, one can hope that the planned reduction in capital expenditure, which is the Post Office’s contribution to the fight against inflation, is not in fact going to interfere with those new and better services because South Africa needs them desperately.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown did a very shocking thing here this afternoon. At the end of his speech he came forward with a whole string of insinuations, but each time hid behind the excuse that he was not accusing the Post Office of having a part in that kind of thing. Immediately after his excuse however, he made another insinuation. For whose information did he do that type of thing? Why does he speak about matters like André Brink and his kind in this debate?

Those are his friends.

My hon. friend says that those are his friends; that I can well understand. However, the message is going to be spread abroad from here that the Post Office cannot be trusted because anything which goes through the post is subject to examination and that the type of thing will happen which he maintains happened to André Brink’s mail. But the hon. member is no longer a child. The hon. member is getting on in years and he and Prof. Brink ought to know that if they have reason to believe that improper action has taken place, they have every right to go to the Police. I am now beginning to get the impression that the hon. member and his friends have something to hide. That is why they are afraid to lay such matters before the Police. However, the hon. member’s actions here this afternoon can only have one result and that is to place a very excellent service under suspicion. One must condemn this type of action with the greatest possible contempt.

When the hon. member began to make his speech I sat up straight because, in contrast to last year, he began on a different note today. However, I am sorry that he concluded on such a discordant note. He began by thanking the Post Office for the fact that there were no tariff increases this year. Last year he began his speech by referring to the short-sightedness and the lack of imaginative planning in the Post Office. He therefore began on a better note this year, but this is where it ended, because immediately after that he became more negative. I think it would be a good thing to consider his speech for a moment. He spoke about the situation on the Witwatersrand as though the situation there was impossibly bad. Surely this is not true.

If the hon. member wants to express appreciation, he should in fact express appreciation for the excellent work which is being done in an area like that of the Witwatersrand not only to improve and maintain the telephone service there, but also to decrease the backlog which exists there dramatically. In the year ending 31 March 1971 the capital expenditure for the Witwatersrand amounted to R21,l million. The waiting list then stood at 48 956. Since then the capital expenditure has risen steadily and in the current year which ends 31 March, approximately R55,1 million will have been spent on telecommunication services on the Witwatersrand, while the waiting list will be brought down to 38 000 this year. This is something to be proud of when one takes all the factors into consideration and in particular takes note of the fact that, as my hon. friends indicated this afternoon, the services in general have also improved considerably during this time, apart from the backlog. If one considers these things, one cannot but take off one’s hat to and have only the greatest appreciation for the Post Office, the ministry and the staff responsible for this.

The hon. member also had quite a lot to say about the labour situation in the Post Office. I shall return to that later. I should just like to touch on the Official Opposition for a moment. I was listening to the two speakers on the Opposition side and especially when they were casting about in their attempt to find points on which they could criticize the Post Office, I could not help thinking of a UP speaker who in 1950, before the elections in South West Africa, predicted that there would be a “helse smash” on election day in South West Africa because the UP would win. When I listened to them this afternoon and watched them trying to find something to criticize, it occurred to me that this Budget was a kind of “smash” for them because they had just about nothing to criticize. If one considers the postal services—much has been said this afternoon about all the complaints and problems in the Post Office—one need only go to the people who make use of the Post Office and the postal services. One then sees that there is only great praise from the general public for the excellent service which the Post Office provides rendering. I have here a newspaper report under the headline “Russiese Jood is vol vir Suid-Afrikaanse Poswese.” This report appeared in Die Hoof stad of 21 October 1975. I do not have time to go into details but this man, a foreigner in our country, has only the greatest praise for the Post Office.

A Russian Jew at that?

Yes, a Russian Jew at that. He has only the greatest praise for the service which he received here in South Africa. We can also look at a report which appeared in The Argus of 13 February 1976.

But an Afrikaner like Rene does not even have any praise for it.

Yes, as my friend behind me has said, while a Russian Jew praises it, an Afrikaaner like the hon. member for Parktown only has criticism in this connection. I think we should try to exchange these two. The caption to the report which appeared in The Argus was “Post Office helped to find lost R80”. The introductory paragraph is important. It reads—

It is not a Nationalist newspaper which is writing these things; it is not a Nationalist Minister or a Nationalist M.P who says this; it is a report which appeared in The Argus. The hon. member for Parktown will probably admit that, if they write things like this, there must be some substance in the praise meted out to the Post Office for the services which they render. For this reason one finds it strange that a member like the hon. member for Parktown criticizes it so much and that the hon. members for Durban Point and Wynberg come with a long story about the Post Office. As far as the criticism is concerned, I want to say that I am absolutely convinced that one can reject this because there is no substance in it. The fact of the matter is that the services which are being rendered, are being rendered in such a way that they should compel general admiration because there are problems involved in rendering these services successfully.

Problems which were created by the National Party

What one expects from a responsible Opposition, is that they should say to the Post Office here: “Thank you very much for the good work which you are doing. We realize that there are bottlenecks and we on this side would like to support you. We are not here to criticize you or to try to demolish you; we would like to help you. We would like to be the Aarons and the Hurs who hold up your arms”. However, one does not get this from such an irresponsible Opposition as this. The question one has to answer is whether the Post Office is in a position to accept the immense challenges which rendering that service and building up a strong infrastructure present it with. I want to say without reservation that as far as I am concerned, the Post Office is coping successfully with those challenges. We can say with great pride that the Post Office has rendered full service in that respect during the past year.

When one comes to the telecommunications services—I have already referred to the postal services—then one sees that one of the largest bottlenecks on that level is labour. The hon. member for Parktown also referred to this. Once again he had the same story as last year. Last year he said he was disconcerted to see in the Annual Report of the Postmaster-General that the non-Whites who qualified as technicians would serve in their own areas. Today he told the same story, although he might have phrased it differently. He is disconcerted because the people who are being trained will have to work in the non-White areas only.

No, I said that they should work in all areas.

Yes, but according to the Annual Report they are used for that purpose, and you are on record in Hansard as having said that. You need only look it up.

I was referring to all areas and I said that I was grateful for that.

The hon. member is now alleging that he said that the non-Whites should work in all areas. This is precisely what is at issue. This Government, which is a far-sighted Government, and well known for the fact that, in contrast to the days when the present Opposition was in power, it has handled the labour situation in a very purposeful manner over the years, said that we must train non-Whites to render service in their own areas to their own people. This, is after all, in accordance with the declared policy of the Government, a policy which has been approved in one election after another by the vast majority of the voters in South Africa. It would be a bad day for this country if the Government had to listen to the ridiculous arguments of hon. members on that side who say that we should overturn the present state of affairs and train non-Whites to work anywhere. What would the result of this be? There is no doubt that it would lead to all kinds of friction and unnecessary problems for us. One would in fact be destroying everything which one has been building up until now. I am referring to the stable labour force which is able to do the work expected of them to the best of their ability. Until now we have had an excellent, responsible labour force in this country. On the one hand we are dealing with the White workers corps that was prepared to co-operate so that the Black people could be trained for service in their own areas. The Government or Post Office must not be expected to abandon that principle and policy, because this would only lead to unnecessary chaos in the country. I consequently want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for having persisted with that pattern until now. They would do well to continue with it.

Mr. Speaker, what an incredible performance, if I may call it that, we have had from the hon. member for Springs this afternoon! He poured his vitriol all over the head of the hon. member for Parktown, but I wonder whether he is aware of the fact that the Post Office does not belong to the NP. It belongs to the people of South Africa. As regards his reference to the Russian Jew who praised our telephone service, I wonder if that Russian Jew gave his address in Siberia, because I am sure that it is from Siberia that he must have come. [Interjections.]

I want to join previous speakers in welcoming the hon. the Minister to his new post and I wish him well. I concede that there are many reasons for his obvious pride in his first budget, but I feel it is our duty on these benches to expose and to highlight those areas that must be criticized and, believe you me, there is ample room for criticizm.

It saddens me in the extreme to note that the hon. the Minister saw fit to use these words in his budget speech yesterday—

Surely it would have sufficed were he to draw the country’s attention to the more responsible attitude and stand now being taken by the White Staff Associations who, again in the words of the hon. the Minister, have this view—

This thinking on their part is more commendable. However, I submit its effect is spoilt by the hon. the Minister’s unfortunate preamble. The whole country will support the White Staff Associations in their attitude as it can only lead to more and better job opportunities for all races, to greater productivity and above all, to a golden opportunity for the Minister to do something concrete in respect of technical staff. We have constantly pleaded for increased training of non-Whites in the technical fields. The hon. the Minister referred to “more than 200 non-Whites who are currently trained as technical and semi-technical workers”, but this, I submit, is but a drop in the bucket. There are currently 134 non-Whites receiving training as technicians and 333 as telephone electricians. In this connection I refer to the hon. the Minister’s budget speech as follows—

In other words, there are today 467 non-Whites undergoing training. I am sure that no one will disagree when I say that the efficiency of the telephone service rests largely on the maintenance back-up it receives. It follows, therefore, that training of far, far larger numbers of non-Whites in the fields of technicians and telephone electricians is both vital and urgent.

As a hypothetical case let us look at the metropolitan areas of Durban and Cape Town. In these areas Indian and Coloured/labour is readily available and I believe that these people are capable and anxious to be trained for and embark on careers of this nature. An active recruitment and training campaign should be embarked upon now as it can only result in improvement: Speedier attention to complaints, speedier attention to faults and speedier installation and removal of services as well as transfers of existing services. It is easy to add to this list of benefits, but I think it is sufficient to say that the delays are costing the country enormous sums of money.

I want to deal with another matter concerning staff in the Post Office—the postal collecting and delivery staff. The hon. the Minister is quite correct when he says that better use can be made of the staff than plodding up and down stairs in multi-storeyed buildings. We agree with him wholeheartedly. We welcome the new arrangement, but we fail to understand his reference to the “already depleted staff” whilst the Postmaster-General’s report reflects a steady, albeit not dramatic, growth over the past five years up to 31 March 1975 of postal collecting and delivery staff. What has happended during the last 12 months? Has the staff been depleted so dramatically? If this is the case, has it been more marked in the White or non-White sector of the staff? I cannot accept that it has been in the non-White sector because there has been a steady increase, a steady growth pattern over the years. If it has been in the White sector, why have we not embarked on a vigorous campaign in the non-White sector in order to balance the situation?

I should like to spend a few minutes on the domestic telephone services. Apart from that evergreen and perennial complaint of constantly getting numbers that bear no relationship to the one you dial at, incidentally, 4 or 8 cents a throw for local calls, my other pet aversion happens to be the party line. I have said it before and I shall continue to say that our present party line system in South Africa is an imposition that no modem society should have to suffer or endure. This imposition is suffered by most South African farmers. Although the farmers on the Natal North Coast are naturally uppermost in my mind, I direct my plea to the hon. the Minister on behalf of all farmers of South Africa who have to put up with this antiquated system of communication. The hon. the Minister has made remarks in respect of Tzaneen and Politsi. We note remarks. We heard all about Tzaneen from his predecessor in 1974. He told us all about it and he explained how increased rentals would have to be paid by these people. We accept this but, as I say, we note the remarks of the hon. the Minister. However, the big BUT remains: When can we expect to some tangible measure of improvement countrywide? In his speech yesterday the hon. the Minister told us—

That word “some” has an ominous note. We would be far happier if the hon. the Minister would be more specific. This budget clearly shows that the telephone service is the goose that lays the golden egg. I think it is time that the goose was allowed to nest in the farmyard.

While on the subject of telephones, I would like to deal with part-time telephone services. According to today’s Press the Postmaster-General has stated that, in common with all other countries, we could never hope to eliminate the backlog of telephone applications. We may accept this, but my question is: Can the part-time service not be expanded in certain areas to narrow the backlog substantially? Perhaps greater publicity could also be given to the availability of this service. Working couples, I believe, would be quite happy with a telephone service from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. daily on Mondays to Fridays, plus all weekends and public holidays. Here is the point I want to stress. This is at slightly over 50% of the normal rental to these young married couples who may live in flats. Surely this would help tremendously to relieve the congestion on the lines.

Sir, I think it would be remiss of me if I were to finish my speech without giving praise and credit where credit is due. I should like to congratulate the Post Office most heartily on its achievements in the field of television link-up. They are doing an outstanding job of work. The reproduction of broadcast programmes is better than anything I have ever seen in Britain or in Europe and we can only sincerely say that we would appreciate it if they would keep up this standard.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlanga, in accordance with the first leg of the amendment, referred in metaphorical language to the “antique” telephone system of South Africa, but it is informative to note that that side of the House, while we are dealing here with an exceptional year of achievements in the field of post and telecommunications, did not make a single reference to the decrease in and the elimination of cable faults over the past few years. If they had only for a moment considered the two largest bottlenecks, they would have seen that 8,99% of the cable faults on the Witwatersrand have been eliminated. In the Cape Peninsula, which is subject to torrential rains, no less than 20% of the cable faults have been eliminated. This is no mean achievement. But on that side of the House, with the exception of the hon. member for Parktown, there was not a single reference to the tremendous increase in telephone traffic and the number of telephone installations. That side of the House loses sight of the fact that the Post Office could not have begun with an ultra-modern telephone system years ago when the telephone requirements and needs were not yet sufficient to justify such an ultra-modem and expensive system as that. I want to concede that there are still times when one becomes frustrated because there are faults in the dialling system when one wants to use a telephone, but what are the reasons for this? It happens in the larger centres in particular where immense expansion is taking place, including more extensive cable-laying, the replacement of exchanges with larger exchanges, and especially in the peak-hours, when everyone decides to use this instrument at the same time.

With reference to this I should like to say a few words about the lack of discipline in the use of telephones in South Africa, and probably in other countries of the world as well. It is a generally accepted fact that during the peak hours in South Africa, especially in the mornings, the telephone utilization per 100 subscribers is higher than in any other part of the world. It is also interesting to note that when more than two million local and trunk calls have to be dealt with, thousands upon thousands of these calls are in fact social calls. I have no objection to a person making a social call and in this way making a contribution towards the fight against inflation by not using his car or petrol. Nor do I object to the person who wants to use the telephone for recreational purposes. But there is another side to the matter, and this is when our long conversations take place from homes as well as from places of employment, when the total cost for an hour’s dawdling on the telephone costs only 4 cents, and when those calls take place during the morning peak-hours when important telephone channels for business purposes are being blocked. This causes overloading and is one of the main reasons for our experiencing problems during peak-hours in South Africa when we want to use the telephone.

I believe that our dear womenfolk are not entirely to be absolved of this either. One cannot use this instrument in this undisciplined manner. It leads inevitably to a wastage of manpower of time and of manhours. It is revealing to note that it has been established by means of random tests on the Witwatersrand that up to 50% of the calls made from places of employment are personal calls made by members of the staff. It has also been established, and this is also interesting to note, that these people, these offenders—if I may call them that—make up to 10 calls a day and that the average duration of such a call is six minutes. I do not object to the person who has to make a social or personal call for essential reasons, but there are problems when too many calls are made and when the duration of these calls is too long, and when they do not serve any essential purpose. Apart from the loss of working hours, they hamper other important business calls. This over-utilization then leads to dialling problems, which are so frustrating, and which often result in criticism of this side of the House or of the department because their instruments or their equipment is allegedly inadequate. Therefore I believe that everyone in South Africa should consider it his task to use and to cause telephones to be used judiciously, to space calls and, as far as is practicable, not to use the telephone unnecessarily during the peak-hours. We should apply discipline when using the telephone and see that it is applied by others and we should subject ourselves to such discipline at our place of employment too. I believe that it is our task to teach children to use this instrument wisely right from the start. If we do this, we will be able to save many man-hours and I believe that the revenue which is lost as a result of social telephone calls not being made will be recovered ten times over because it will be possible to make more business calls during those peak-hours. This in its turn could result in a thousand fold increase in productivity in this country.

I would like to say a few words about the second leg of the Opposition’s amendment. This deals with the postal service. Every postal service in the world is run at a loss and our postal service in this country operates at a loss of R16 million per year. But we are providing an exceptional service to the public through the postal service. It is certainly no joke to have to handle four million postal articles a day. The other side of the House levelled the accusation that this Government had failed to set up a satisfactory postal service, but once again there was not a single reference to what has already been achieved in this connection. There was not a single reference to the preferential overnight postal service which has just been established. There was not a single reference to the fact that all the present surface mail which is conveyed by air as from 1 April will be conveyed at a reduced tariff. Not a single reference was made to the immense mechanization, or to the sorting machine in Cape Town and the one which is at present being installed in Johannesburg nor to the one which will be installed later this year in Durban. The accusation is being levelled at us that the department has in fact failed to do its duty. I want to deny this in the strongest terms, because it is far from the truth. It is interesting to consider for a moment a situation as described in Time of 15 March 1976, in which serious concern is expressed about the postal system in America, and from which it appears that a loss of R2 320 million is going to be suffered this year. But apart from that, it is interesting to note that according to this article steps are being considered to make the postal service more effective, and do you know what those steps are? And this in a country like the USA, the country to which most other countries in the world look for advice because it usually takes the lead in connection with affairs in this nature. Sir, do you know what they are considering? They are considering the abolition of postal deliveries on a Saturday. Such a situation has not yet arisen in this country. They are even considering going further and erecting special containers on the sidewalks so that the postal authorities may deposit mail in these containers for collection by the public. This is an aspect which I want to emphasize. In our country we have been employing a similar system for years. They are only now considering putting such a system into operation, and then it is still only something which is being contemplated.

In South Africa we are doing precisely the same thing by means of self-service offices, which are expanding all the time because it has already become clear what a great asset they are and to what great advantage they may be used. The idea which I would like to emphasize is that this proves how far ahead the department already is with the planning of its postal service and that it is intrinsically geared to providing the most effective service, even if it has to work at a loss, a fact which we will have to accept because the history of postal services throughout the world has demonstrated this to us.

I should like to come to the last aspect of the amendment. The Government has been accused of failing to provide a solution for the critical loss of trained technical staff. There are certain factors which we cannot get away from. Our mail staff in the Post Office has decreased from 38% to 32% over the past years. However, South Africa is a country of opportunities in an expanding, growing and flourishing economy. In a situation like this there will always be more opportunities for employment than there will be manpower. Then, too, the Government cannot compete with the salaries which are offered in the private sector. There are always people there who are prepared to “buy” a person and pay for the training which he has already received. What has the department done over the years? It has recruited people overseas to the best of its ability and made degree courses and bursaries available for university training. It has offered the maximum opportunities—and it is still doing so—for maximum and specialized training in a variety of directions in the Post Office. There is probably nothing the department has not done to try to solve its staff problems and supplement its staff. If one does all these things and goes out of one’s way to train approximately 3 500 technical staff to a highly qualified level over a period of five years, and one loses approximately 2 300 of those people to the private sector over the same period then one receives a knock-out blow from which one cannot easily recover.

If this is what the Post Office has to deal with and will have to deal with in future, then the question arises whether the department has been sitting idle and has done nothing to solve the problem. I believe that the Post Office has shown exceptional initiative here, too, in the first place by employing women. I believe that by doing this and by applying the principle that women will receive equal salaries for equal work, the Post Office has taken the initiative and set to the outside world an example worth following. Therefore we can today be proud of the 15 000 women, 35% of the White employees, who are doing highly qualified and specialized work, whether on a permanent or temporary basis. The Post Office also set an example by allowing women who marry to remain on the permanent staff, thus utilizing their services further. Few of us will probably realize that, if we go and look at the workshops and the exchanges of the Post Office, we shall find almost 2 000 women there doing highly specialized and technical work, such as the disassembling of telephones and the repairing of faults. I believe that we men have underestimated women in this respect and that few of us could probably ever imagine that they could be useful as maintenance staff. In this connection we must pay special tribute to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications because they were already able to foresee at an earlier stage that a shortage would develop in respect of technicians and then began using women on a part-time as well as permanent basis in good time.

However, it did not stop here. Years ago the Department had already realized that the initiative had to be taken in good time with the training of non-Whites in a variety of fields, including the technical fields. Non-Whites could then specialize in those fields. The non-Whites can do work in their own areas as well as in other areas. It is informative to note that out of a total of 233 trained telephone electricians, as well as 300 which are at present being trained, there are no less than 62 who are working in the immediate area of the Cape Peninsula. It is also informative to see that in the Republic of South Africa there are already 61 grade III and grade IV postmasters and superintendents. In addition there are also approximately 1 100 clerks who have been trained for a special task, as well as 700 senior telephone operators. They are all Brown, Black and Indian people who fill these important functions. The non-White persons provide work of a high standard. There is no question of friction between the White and the non-White worker. This is possible because employment did not take place as the Progressive Party wants it to, but because they are not employed on a mixed basis. The services of these people are carefully utilized and their employment is carefully effected. This is done in consultation with and with the approval of the Post Office staff associations. That is why it is based on certain fixed principles. Mixed employment, which may result in friction, cannot be allowed to take place. The White person will not be ousted by the non-White so that the White will be left without work and destitute. Nor will a White person need to work under the supervision of a non-White person. In this way harmonious conditions of employment can be created. Owing to well-considered planning in this connection the department finds itself in a situation where the secretariat of the Post Office, of which 90% are Black people, as well as the technical training school where more technicians can be trained, can be handed over to the Government of the Transkei when that area becomes independent in October this year. It is also informative to note that there are no less than 16 Grade II and Grade IV Coloured and Indian postmasters, and that in our immediate vicinity we have three Grade III postmasters who are on a salary scale with a maximum of more than R6 000. These people are in control of post offices in Lansdowne, Elsies River and Athlone, inter alia. I believe that this is a significant breakthrough. There are also trained telephone electricians who are at present employed at these exchanges. Athlone may once again serve as a typical example in this regard. At the end of the year the first Coloured technician will qualify, and will also be assigned to this telephone exchange. After a period of five years, as laid down, it will be possible to promote them to the position of senior technician. Coloured people will therefore be able to have exchanges completely manned and controlled by Coloured people in their areas. We must be level-headed about this matter. We shall probably experience problems with staff for a many years to come, and with technical faults which we shall have to solve.

In our country we shall, for many years to come, experience problems as a result of the immense increase in the demand for telephone services by White people. We shall also have to be ready for and adjust to a new phase. Owing to the increase in employment opportunities and the high standard of living enjoyed by everyone today, we can expect, in the years ahead, that there will be a tremendous demand for telephones on the part of the non-Whites in South Africa as well. It is significant that the Post Office did not neglect to take the initiative in large projects like Atlantis and Mitchell’s Plain while these projects were still in the development stage and the provision of services was still in progress. They laid the necessary cables in consultation and in co-operation with Escom so that when the people there need a telephone service, it will be possible to install that service underground, and make it available in such a way that it will be possible to install the infrastructure in an aesthetic yet in the cheapest possible manner. Furthermore it is also interesting to note that we have a problem in this country in respect of shortage of technicians. But it is a world-wide tendency that people are moving away from the technical directions. While we are struggling to cope with the shortage of White technicians, it will be important and essential that non-White technicians, beside the work which they are doing in their own areas, should also work in White areas from time to time, just as White technicians are at present working in non-White areas. If one’s telephone is out of order and one depends on this important instrument for one’s livelihood, then one wants it to be repaired. We cannot then tell the public that there is a shortage of labour. Just as we are today prepared to allow a non-White electrician, a non-White plumber and a non-White painter to work in our homes, so the work of a telephone technician may be done by someone of another colour in these cases. These people can also be used for the maintenance of the total of 40 000 km of cables and of the 3 600 telephone cables in the immediate vicinity of the Cape Peninsula which require repair work from time to time. For this reason non-White technicians and telephone electricians will have to be trained on a larger scale.

I want to return for a moment to the hon. member for Umhlanga, who accused us of not training enough of these people. I should like to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that when the quota for the training of electricians is determined, there is not always a sufficient demand from Coloureds who want to be trained. This year there is a record amount of persons being trained as electricians and technicians. But there are still eight short on the recruitment quota for 1976. Over the past few years it was not possible to fill the quota for the training of telephone electricians. It is therefore unfair to accuse the Government of failing to do so, because this Government provides the facilities and those people have the opportunity to make use of them. How-ever, I believe that the training of Coloureds in the Post Office testifies to dynamic approach of the Department to its labour problems. Salaries are supplemented by making additional benefits available—benefits such as a medical aid scheme, favourable leave facilities and by effective technical training which is offered to these people and the orderly manner in which they are being employed without disturbing the relationship with the trade unions. I believe it is an example which could most readily be followed by the public sector. The non-White worker has also expressed his appreciation of the department by voluntarily working thousands of hours without any remuneration in order thus to play his part in the fight against inflation, which is certainly no mean contribution to the achievements of the Post Office which has shown an increase in productivity of 18,7% over the past five years, as against the average of approximately 11% throughout the country as a whole during the same period.

With these few words I should just like to say that it is a good thing that we have been able to discuss such a magnificent budget today and that we have been able to discuss this exceptional Annual Report in this particular year, characterized as it is by the hundredth anniversary of the invention of the telephone. The department has succeeded in presenting a budget and an Annual Report which is definitely a testimonial to the record achievements and effective progress of the Department.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durbanville and the hon. member for Springs have adopted contradictory attitudes. The hon. member for Durbanville said that just as it would not matter if an electrician of a different colour were to do repair-work in the house of a White, it would not matter either if a technician of a different colour were to do it. The hon. member for Springs—I do not know where he is at the moment—said at the end of his speech that the Post Office and the hon. the Minister should go ahead with the policy of training technicians only for work in their own areas. Where do we stand? Here we have two speakers of the National Party who are contradicting each other. The impression I get is the same as that of the hon. member for Parktown, namely that it is something which we have already survived and which has already passed. At one stage the policy was indeed what the hon. member for Springs believes it to be. We are looking forward to having the matter clarified when the hon. the Minister replies to this aspect.

†Mr. Speaker, I think that most hon. members have, over the last couple of years, become accustomed to the fact that when one analyses the budget and the estimates, one finds at least two things. First of all, one will find a considerable profit in respect of telecommunications. I think we have started to accept this as being natural. Secondly, one will find a loss on the postal service and more than that, one will find an escalation of the loss. If ever anyone in South Africa requires proof of the alarming economic deterioration in this country, he needs only to take into consideration the losses which the postal services have suffered during the last five or six years and the circumstances which surrounded it. Of course, this needs to be seen in its true perspective. From 1968-’ 69 it escalated from R4,3 million to the present R15,3 million. I already know what the natural reaction is—I think we have had it from the hon. member for Sunnyside, when he said: “Oh, yes, after all it is labour intensive.” I do not deny this, I realize that there is an element of truth in that statement. However, in viewing this in its true perspective, we must also take into account that in the intervening years, the Post Office has taken several steps to compensate for this. In the first place, we have had, in my view unrealistic and large tariff increases five or six years ago. This resulted in the building up of consumer resistance. We have had all sorts of new innovations, like mechanization, self-sorting machines, self-service post offices. We have taken all these steps.

Thirdly, the Post Office has taken certain decisions such as the cutting of certain essential services to the public. These things have happened, but in spite of it, the costs escalated. Furthermore, we should also remember that a direct result of the building up of consumer resistance, the Post Office were in fact during the year 1974-’75 handling less traffic than in 1969-’70. If one compares the volume of those two years, one will find that the Post Office was actually handling 164 million articles less, that is after we have taken all these other steps. These articles consist approximately of 100 million first-class mail letters, 36 million second-class mail articles and 4 million registered articles. I have taken these two years because 1969-’70 was the last year in which a proper census had been taken, and according to the annual report, we find that the statistics in respect of 1974-’75 have been calculated on a more reliable basis than had been the case in the first few years in the 1970s. This indicates to me that if the economic situation were slightly healthier, instead of bad, these steps which the Post Office took willingly, such as the increase of tariffs, reduction in services, mechanization and automation, and the others which it took unwillingly, such as the drop in turnover, should have been adequate in weathering the impact of salary increases which we have had, increases in the price of petrol and all the evils which resulted from devaluation. The fact that it did not show me how sick the country’s economy is, and this is the greatest misfortune which the hon. the Minister and the Post Office must cope with.

We must be realistic as far as this is concerned. He has to operate the postal service in a country with a sick economy and I think it is advisable for the hon. the Minister to realize that he has had a breathing period of five or six years. He has had this and he is already talking about an increase in traffic. As a result of the natural growth in the infrastructure, he will soon be faced with greater volume and he should gear his whole operation so that he can cope with it, but all the time he should bear in mind that whatever methods have been applied in the past, they have in fact proved to be inadequate. This is why I am not surprised that we do not have a tariff increase at this stage. I do not think that we can afford to have a tariff increase, because a tariff increase today may result in further resistance and this may bring about insufficient savings to cut down overhead expenditure.

*I should like to refer again to the lack of training for technical staff. Various members have spoken about this and the hon. the Minister should realize that this is also something which creates a tremendous problem for us. The shortage of technical staff, is of course, fatal for future development. The battle in which the Post Office is involved at the moment is a battle for the provision of essential new services and of replacement. It should be kept in mind that there are cases, for example, in Johannesburg, where a key exchange is 48 years old. When it was originally installed, it had been designed for a life of only 25 to 30 years. Everybody realizes at the moment that the operations of the department are primarily concentrated on, if I may use the term, White South Africa. The hon. member for Durbanville also referred to that and the time is more than ripe, of course, for the services for Black and Coloured South Africa to be considered for drastic improvement. The question is whether we can do that. I do not blame the Postmaster-General for having said in the Daily News of 26 November 1975—

This is the problem. It is a realistic statement and that is why I do not blame him, especially if we bear in mind the present shortage and the wastage caused by the resignation of trained staff. I do not blame him when he says that, but that is the main problem we shall be faced with. Vigorous action has to be taken in this respect. Not enough non-Whites are being trained, of course, and if the department is not going to use those persons where they are really needed, it will not help us. What alternative do we have? The alternative is that immigrants have to be recruited abroad. It is alarming to see that the success we have achieved over the years in recruiting immigrants has been slight. But more still: Far too many people who have been recruited abroad are not satisfied with the working conditions and their work here. There are too many who either want to go back or are waiting to go to private enterprises as soon as their contracts have been fulfilled. I realize that among immigrants, just as with any other group of people, one finds three groups: the group that is easily satisfied, the group you can never satisfy and the reasonable group. When one talks to the reasonable group, however, one finds that one of the problems—and I should also like to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister—is that so many of them tell you that they came here under a wrong impression. As a result of unbalanced information, they were not told exactly what the working conditions and the circumstances in the country would be like. It could be the fault of the immigration officials that these persons come here to find that the conditions are not as they were told and that the cost of living is far higher. The result is that they then become frustrated. It is a matter which the hon. the Minister will have to do something about.

Mr. Speaker, I have been congratulated from the Government as well as the Opposition side on having assumed this portfolio, and I should like to express my sincere thanks for this. I appreciate the good wishes. The hon. member for Durban Point, as chief spokesman on the Opposition side, added a tail-piece to his congratulations, which I want to describe as a joke that fell flat. He referred to my leadership of the National Party in the Orange Free State. It is very clear to me that the albatross of the Schlebusch Commission is a heavy weight round his neck and that he is trying to pass it on to me. I want to tell him that if I had been a member, as he is, of a party in which there is so much intrigue as in the United Party, I would have had cause for concern. However, I have no cause for concern about my leadership of the National Party in the Free State. The Free State supports me.

I can see that random shot went home.

The hon. member also made certain remarks in passing which were not so important, but which I do want to mention. He said that I had devoted a large part of my budget speech to facts which had already been furnished in the report of the Postmaster-General. I do not think he did his homework properly, because the report of the Postmaster-General covers the period 1974-’75, while the information which I gave went up to the date of the Budget. He also referred to the report in his exchange with my colleague, the hon. member for Sunnyside, and he asked the hon. member whether he had not read the report. I could ask him the same question. Did he not read the report and notice that it was the report for the period 1974-’75? But these are minor points which I want to mention in passing. To those of us who know the hon. member for Durban Point well, it is common knowledge that when he has nothing to say and when he does not have an argument, he never fails to take one of two lines of action: either he cracks jokes or he dramatizes and exaggerates terribly. Fortunately he did not go so far yesterday. He tried a combination of these two techniques. I want to say to him that this debate—which will be the last in which he will be the chief spokesman on the Opposition side—will be known as the debate of lost opportunities. In this debate he had wonderful opportunities in several respects. On the one hand we are considering a really favourable and positive budget. There can be no doubt about that. On the other hand, there is the fact that this Budget has been introduced by a Minister who had very little to do with the achievements of the department. Furthermore, it is a fact that this budget clearly proves that we have now entered the electronic era and that we have virtually entered upon a new dispensation. For these reasons I believe that the hon. member would have utilized a golden opportunity if, in his swansong as the chief spokesman on the Opposition side, he had supported the budget on behalf of his side of the House with only a few criticisms here and there. I am sure that by doing this, he would have gained much more publicity and much more recognition for himself in many circles than he has obtained by means of other work done by him through all the years. However, the hon. member saw fit to let his opportunities slip, and I must leave him at that.

†The hon. member for Durban Point termed this budget a “restrained” budget. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, what he expected, because restraint is the in-word in the times in which we are living—restraint in our personal and public demands, restraint in our personal and public spending, restraint in everything except in our efforts to increase productivity. I therefore do not know whether the hon. member expected a different type of budget. I must say that the comments on the budget, in all the newspapers that I have read so far, have been very favourable. For the purposes of the record I would like to quote a telegram which I received this morning:

The telegram was signed M. Bernitz, chairman, and members of the National Consultative Committee on Postal Affairs.

*Mr. Speaker, I must say that to me, this comment is the response to the budget which I was privileged to introduce. Similar comment has been passed by hon. members as well, more explicitly on this side of the House than on the other side, of course, but I shall be honest and say that I did occasionally hear it being expressed by hon. members on the Opposition side as well.

Mr. Speaker, what has really been the nature of the criticism that has been directed against us by the Opposition? To me it was quite obvious that the Opposition was obsessed with one deficiency in particular. I concede that that deficiency does exist on the part of the Post Office, and that is the deficiency in respect of the telephone service. The mistake they made in this case, however, was their attempt to measure the tremendously comprehensive service of the Post Office in terms of this one deficiency, and to use it as a criterion for judging and even condemning the Post Office. If we consider in how many fields the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is active, if we think of all the things that are involved—the extent of its service, its ramifications and the variety of clients that have to be satisfied, as well as the methods available to it, its financial means as well as its labour potential—I believe that it is a complete misrepresentation on the part of the Opposition to try and condemn the Post Office on the grounds of one small facet of its activities. That is the mistake which the hon. member made.

What percentage of the revenue is derived from that?

Allow me to finish my argument. Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. Opposition has completely lost its perspective and that it has failed to take an overall view. What the Opposition is doing now reminds me of what Langenhoven said: “Who would make fun of one hole in a sieve?” This is exactly what the Opposition did today.

A second criticism expressed by the Opposition was that the Post Office neglected the needs of the non-Whites, that it did not do justice to the non-Whites, in regard to the services provided to them as well as the training they receive.

I should like to say a great deal more about these matters. In the first place I wanted to say that the Post Office respects the claim to service that every inhabitant of South Africa has and that the Post Office would very much like to meet it. The better it is able to meet it, after all, the better the revenue it received and the greater its achievement. However, I want to make it quite clear, too—and this has already been pointed out by one of the colleagues on my side, I think it was the hon. member for Rustenburg—that the distances in this country are very great and that there are tremendous tasks which have to be performed by the Post Office. Consequently, when we are confronted by a task of this nature in a country and in the circumstances we have in South Africa, it goes without saying that things have to be done on a priority basis.

However, how are these priorities determined? The Post Office was criticized by several hon. members for the faulty service provided in certain parts of Johannesburg. I have information here which I can quote. The hon. member for Parktown was one of the members who had most to say about this. However, I want to ask him whether he, as representative of the constituency of Parktown, or his colleagues, the hon. members for Sandton and for Bryanston—all of them Johannesburg representatives—would be prepared to agree to the further provision of telephones in their constituencies being suspended for the time being so that telephone services may first be provided in areas such as Alexandra, Soweto and the other Bantu areas. Let them rise, Mr. Speaker, and say that they are prepared to agree to such an arrangement.

Then I shall tell them that I accept their bona fides in this matter.

We said you should be fair in your treatment of every group in their respective areas.

Mr. Speaker, I have said … [Interjections.] … that I recognize the right and the claim of every citizen of South Africa to the services of the Post Office. The Post Office would like to provide the necessary services to everyone as far as possible. However, we have come to the point where priorities have to be determined. The fact is, unfortunately, that the Postmaster-General and his staff and the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications are the people who have to determine the priorities. Therefore I repeat my question to the hon. members concerned. May we take it that they are willing to let us freeze the waiting lists for telephones in their constituencies so that we may first extend the services in the non-White areas? I should like to have their reply at the Third Reading. Let us take Soweto as an example. There are 985 private and 61 call-box services in Soweto at the moment. We are planning big cable works at the moment and we hope to introduce automation at the following places which serve Soweto: Power Park in March 1976, Kwa-Xuma in 1979-’80 and Iketlo in 1978-’79. These are all exchanges which serve Soweto. I say this just to indicate that we are providing services as far as we can. We must take account of the demand as well. The hon. member must bear in mind that the demand may not be as large at the moment as he imagines it to be. I think there are still many of our non-Whites who would rather use their employer’s phone or a public call-box than to pay the money for having a telephone of their own installed and then to pay for the cost of the calls themselves. I think the hon. member is losing sight of this.

Further to this, I now wish to raise the question of the training of non-Whites. The hon. member for Umhlanga and the hon. member for Parktown criticized me for having used the words “without supplanting the Whites” in my budget speech. However, I accept full responsibility for that phrase and I am not ashamed of it, because I can motivate it. There have been many Whites in the Post Office all these years who have rendered good and useful services, and I want no part of any action that would turn them out of the positions which they occupy and in which they function efficiently.

That is not what I mean.

Then what is the hon. member’s objection to the word “supplanting”? This goes for the hon. member for Umhlanga as well, for he also objected to the use of that word. If the hon. member has no objection to my point of view, what objection could he have to that word? I want to repeat emphatically that we shall protect the interests of the White workers in the Post Office. As long as those people who have served us for years continue to perform useful and valuable work, as long as they are responsible and take pride in their work, we shall protect them in that work. However, if there are no people to do the work, we shall obviously have to make use of other available people, and this we shall do in the closest co-operation with the staff associations of the Post Office. This is the only guarantee for preventing friction in labour circles. What is wrong with it? In my budget speech and in the report of the Postmaster-General, many examples are quoted of the co-operation we get from the staff associations in this very field. I am quite satisfied that that aspect is being handled satisfactorily. We are training non-Whites at a rate we can control, because such training must take place in an orderly manner. The hon. member for Durban Central said that the training had to be done more rapidly, otherwise we would never catch up. He probably forgot that I had said in the budget speech that we were expanding facilities. We are doing this at a rate which is physically practicable for us, considering our needs, and also—this goes without saying— with the full co-operation of the staff associations. We are doing this in a planned manner and we are doing it judiciously. If we continue along the present lines, we shall indeed have laid a sound foundation. As far as the Opposition is concerned, however, there is a serious reproach I want to address to them. I regret having to raise this point in the absence of the member concerned.

Hon. members will recall that I replied to a question in this House ten days or two weeks ago. The question had been asked by the hon. member for Albany. He asked whether any instructions had been given to the postmaster at Peddie concerning the employment of non-Whites. I replied to that in the affirmative. I said that the postmaster there had to employ three non-Whites so that they could be trained for service in the post office because Peddie was to be incorporated into the Ciskei. These are three non-Whites in an establishment of nine, I believe. Vacancies occurred and it is our intention to train three non-Whites. The Peddie exchange provides a day-and-night telephone service. The vacancies which occurred were for one counter clerk and two people in the telephone exchange, who will have to work chiefly at night. Mr. Speaker, I used to be a member of the House of Assembly, too, and I do not wish to deny the hon. member’s problems. However, in that respect our actions at the post office concerned were in perfect agreement with the demands that are made here to the effect that more non-Whites should be trained for service in the Post Office. Here we have a place which is to become Black, we want to train people to staff that post office, and then we have a UP member of Parliament putting a question in this regard on the Order Paper, and, what is more, subsequently leading a deputation to me about the same matter. [Interjections.] I am not indifferent to the problem. The deputation came to state the problem to me, but why, in demanding more training for Blacks in the Post Office, do hon. members not take account of problems which may exist in this connection? Surely this is not a reasonable attitude. I object to it. When hon. members make an attack of that kind, it must be better qualified. [Interjections.] I believe this aspect indicates an error of reasoning on the part of the Opposition. But I shall leave the matter at that.

The third point which struck me was that the hon. Opposition seemed to believe that it could control and administer the Post Office while acting as an armchair critic. However, the Post Office has left that stage far behind. The present task of the Post Office management is just as specialized and just as sophisticated as that of the biggest industry in the country. The Opposition may make suggestions and may criticize—that is its responsibility—but the Opposition must not think that it can really administer the Post Office in the capacity of an armchair critic.

I now want to go into a few of the points raised by the hon. member for Durban Point. He announced that the hon. member for Wynberg would henceforth be the chief spokesman on the Opposition side. I want to congratulate him on that. I hope he will have great success. We are beginning the term together and I hope we shall be able to disagree with each other for a long time across the floor of the House.

The hon. member for Durban Point spoke of my predecessor. According to him, my predecessor said that the tariff increases which took place at the time should be sufficient for five to ten years. Why did the hon. member say “ten years”? I am not aware of my predecessor’s ever having spoken of ten years. In any case, let us not make a debating point of this. I want to ask: Who of us is able to predict with absolute certainty that a step taken today will suffice for five or ten years? It was impossible for him to know when he used that expression—let it be five or ten years—that inflation would increase to such an extent and that we would devalue. He was unable to take this into consideration, and the hon. member knows that inflation and devaluation are largely responsible for the cost increases in the Post Office.

The hon. member also spoke of the overloading of telephone lines. He made little sums after his fashion. We know what the proverb says of statisticians who make little sums after their fashion. I want to tell the hon. member that it is possible for one line to serve more than one apparatus. Consequently the calculation he made does not really prove anything. It does not prove the contrary of what I want to suggest, namely that there was no deliberate overloading of communication lines.

The hon. member also referred to the contract for ocean mail. It is clear to me that the hon. member is overburdened by work himself. There are too many committees of which he is the chairman. He did not do his homework in regard to this matter. If he wants to make a statement such as the one he made in regard to the contract for ocean mail, I expect him to do his homework beforehand. When the ocean mail contract was originally negotiated, it was tabled in this House. If the hon. member had checked this, he would have seen that the contract provided for escalation in costs by agreement between the two parties. Did he expect that contract to remain unchanged over the years, particularly in the light of the circumstances in recent years? I want to say to the hon. member that negotiations have taken place and are still to take place and that the figure I mentioned in my speech was quite reasonable. The hon. member spoke of the cost which had doubled while the volume transported had decreased. If one does not calculate these things over a period, taking account of mass transport as well as parcel and letter transport in order to obtain a proper average, one cannot compare things in that way.

I took it over five years.

The hon. member also spoke of mail delivery in multi-storeyed buildings. I want to ask him: Why does he doubt my word, knowing full well that what I say here I have to account for? He doubts my word in favour of the landlord from whom he rents his flat or house. He said that his landlord had said so. By doing so, he cast suspicion on what I had said here. I want to tell the hon. member that what I said was correct and that I stand by it. I am glad the hon. member’s landlord tried to persuade him to agree to having those facilities provided there as well. I referred to this matter in my budget speech, too. I said that we hoped that the owners of existing buildings would co-operate in this connection so that we would have that facility in future which would make it possible for mail to be delivered there without being delivered to the individuals to whom the articles are addressed.

That is sensible.

I am glad to hear that the hon. member has now become sensible after having listened to me.

The hon. member for Wynberg asked whether television did not properly belong under the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, where the radio used to be. That is a question that can be argued. I remember that I discussed the same point with Mr. Etienne Malan two or three years ago. I want to give the hon. member the same reply that I gave then, namely that this matter does not rest with me. The hon. member will have to discuss it with the hon. the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the division of the portfolios. If the hon. member were to raise it under the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote, he would get a more adequate reply.

What is your own opinion?

I said on that occasion, and I quoted examples of overseas countries by way of illustration, that as far as the programme and service aspects of television are concerned, it is quite appropriate to have it under National Education, because it has a task regarding education and entertainment which forms part of the educational process. For this reason I consider it to be quite appropriate that it should fall under the Department of National Education. The technical side, concerning the provision of cables, microwave channels, etc., obviously belongs to the Post Office. On that point we have no argument with each other.

In other words, the status quo is to be maintained?

No, I said that the hon. the Prime Minister would decide about it.

The hon. member also said that it was a myth that the Post Office could be operated as a business enterprise. The hon. member for Durban Point said the same about this matter. I take it that they discussed it with each other before the hon. member made his speech. It is not quite clear to me what they are aiming at. I got the impression that they were aiming at a larger State subsidy and at lower tariffs for the consumer. If I am wrong, he must tell me so, but that is the impression I got. As far as I am concerned, I am convinced that it is much better for the Post Office to be able to mobilize domestic money by means of its savings services and to use a large part of that for providing these services at a reasonable tariff and, in most cases, a lower tariff than in overseas countries, and to operate the Post Office in this manner.

Comparisons were made here between our posts and telecommunications and overseas services. The hon. member for Parktown referred to Washington. He said that there was a development taking place there which would enable two people to talk on one line at the same time and he said that we should get a move on and introduce it here as well. I want to tell him that we already have it. Here we enable ten people to speak on one line with absolute privacy. But forget about that. That was just by the way. The hon. member compared our services with overseas services. In this connection I want to read a short quotation from Time of 15 March this year. The report concerned deals with the American posts and telecommunications service. Postmaster-General Bailar says, inter alia—

Take note!

The report goes on to say—

It continues in this vein. We always think that the grass is greener on the other side. We should rather look at what we have before us and at the information supplied in the budget speech. I believe that we have reason to be very grateful. For my part, I am convinced that if we consider the Post Office’s task and its means, under which I include money and manpower, as well as the needs of our people in the country, we have every reason to be grateful for the very good and even efficient service which we have. Obviously there are shortcomings here and there and I want to say that we are not closing our eyes to these.

The hon. member for Parktown then spoke of the charges levied by certain hotels on telephone calls. You will recall that I replied to a question in this House a few weeks ago and said that we were investigating the matter. I want to tell you that up to now we have had long but unfortunately futile negotiations about this matter, and I think we have now come to this stage where we simply have to take a decision. Whether the action I shall take will be as drastic as the hon. member wants it to be, I do not know, but in any case, I agree with him that action has to be taken.

The hon. member also raised the question of salary relief. I have stated my point of view—but I want to repeat it here because the hon. member raised it—that both the Government and the Post Office Administration are thoroughly aware of the circumstances in which the Post Office staff have to perform their work. We know their needs and we know their expectations. We have proved in the past that we are not indifferent to them. I want to say to them what I said in my budget speech, that when the time is ripe, we shall do what can be done, considering the national circumstances, in co-operation with them. The hon. member also referred to the alleged interception of a postal article of Professor André Brink. He did not say whether he could prove that that article had in fact been mailed. What he did do here was to sow suspicion against the Post Office through his inquiry, although he said that he did not blame the Post Office. But why does he ask this question across the floor of this House in a Second Reading debate? If he had only wanted information, he could have had a question placed on the Order Paper, asking whether the Post Office had intercepted a postal article of Professor André Brink, and I would have had to reply to him on that. But he saw fit to say in this debate that although he was not casting any reflection on the Post Office, the article had nevertheless disappeared. Did we know anything about it, he asked, and did we intercept it? I want to say to the hon. member, having taken him to task—he and I are both Free Staters and we do not quarrel continually—that if Professor Brink had really mailed that article and had stated under oath that he had mailed it himself, and the article had really not reached its destination, then I think he should have done what any other person would have done, i.e. to inquire about that article and to lodge a complaint with the Post Office, if need be, saying that he had mailed the article on this or that date. What became of the matter? Did he ascertain from the people to whom he had sent it that they had not received it? Does he have it in black and white that that article never reached them? That we do not know. Sir, I want to tell you that the Post Office knows nothing about the alleged interception of this article.

I want to tell the hon. member—and I say this by way of reassuring the public as well—that the Post Office does not intercept postal articles, except if the articles are mailed in contravention of legal prescriptions. I could tell a story about what happened to me myself in this respect. I was travelling by car from Johannesburg to Cape Town and I spent the night at Colesberg, where I left my fire-arm in the hotel room by accident. Four days later the postmaster in the Strand sent for me and asked whether it was my fire-arm. When I replied in the affirmative, he pointed out that one was not allowed to send a fire-arm by post. That, Mr. Speaker, is an example of an article which has been mailed in contravention of legal prescriptions and then intercepted. Furthermore, I want to refer the hon. member to section 118(a) of the Post Office Act, and then I want to leave the matter at that.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga called the party line system his pet aversion. To some extent I have sympathy with him, but in my speech I referred to the new SOR-8 system which will be introduced in due course. I therefore suggest that the hon. member exercise some patience. In years to come he may have the same system on his party line and that will solve his problem.

*The hon. member for Durban Central spoke of a diseased economy in South Africa.

I tried to catch the eye of the hon. member for Constantia, but unfortunately I was unable to do so. It is no disgrace to be stupid, but I think it is a disaster if one gives oneself out to be clever. [Interjections.] I am no economist and I am very reluctant to speak about economic matters. However, when the hon. member for Durban Central speaks in this House of the sick economy of South Africa without qualifying that statement in any way, I think it is absolutely disgraceful. I do not think he has rendered South Africa any service by saying that. He makes this statement in spite of the fact that overseas investments are still streaming to South Africa with the uncertainty concerning financial matters which prevails abroad. I am very sorry that I have reacted so sharply to this, but I really believe that the hon. member deserved it.

His party is a sympton of disease.

The hon. member spoke of the shortage of technicians. This is indeed a problem for the Post Office. However, for any sizeable enterprise in South Africa to be able to train more people than it loses and still to provide a service such as the one provided by the Post Office is, I believe, an achievement of which it may rightly be proud. I agree that we should like to train the people, but I do not know exactly what the hon. member means by “technician”, because there are various categories of technicians. Our requirements for someone who wants to be trained as a true technician with a view to professional advancement is that he must have a matriculation certificate and that he must have studied mathematics up to matric. People such as these are not just to be had for the asking. We have to compete with all the other professions in South Africa to obtain such people. We provide the training by means of all the facilities which we create and which have been so well described by several of my colleagues. In this way we try to combat this problem.

The hon. member for Sunnyside referred, quite modestly, I may say, to the giro system. Hon. members know, of course, that the giro system has been investigated by the Post Office before. At the time, in the early sixties, the Post Office found that it could not successfully introduce the system by means of manual operation. Therefore the time was not yet ripe for the Post Office to introduce it. In the meantime, the Minister of Finance has appointed Professor Franzsen to investigate this matter. Consequently it is a matter which is now in his hands. For this reason I can do little to expedite the report, but I agree with the hon. member that we all await it with interest.

The hon. members for Sunnyside and Rustenburg drew a striking comparison, I think, between our telephone service and the ones abroad. I am grateful to them for having done so.

The hon. member for Springs reacted very effectively to the question of the training of non-Whites in particular and he made it quite clear what the Government’s policy in this regard is. The hon. member for Durbanville also referred to this, but the hon. member for Durban Central tried to indicate that there was a difference between the hon. members for Durbanville and Springs. I said that we were training the non-Whites to enable them, in the first place, to serve in their own homelands eventually, and also to serve in their own residential areas. If one has non-Whites available, why would one have the mail delivered by Whites in Guguletu, Heideveld and Duinefontein, for example? For this reason it is our policy to use these people. What I emphasized, however, is that when problem situations arise, we are already using non-Whites for service in White areas, in co-operation with the staff associations. We shall do this provided that we have the co-operation of the staff associations. There is no difference of attitude between my two colleagues. I believe that the problem is that they did not have as much time available to them for stating their cases as I have for my reply as the Minister.

I think I have now replied to all the questions that were asked in the House. I want to conclude by saying that the Post Office has a formidable task in South Africa, a task which must be performed in circumstances which cannot be compared with the circumstances in other countries. I do not want to elaborate on this, because we have already had references in this connection this afternoon. I want to repeat that I am sure that with the knowledge it has, with the managerial skill available to it and with the foundation which has been laid in respect of equipment and the people able to control it, the Post Office is able to provide a more than just satisfying service in comparison with services provided overseas. I want to quote from a letter which appeared in The Argus on 18 February 1976. I cannot pronounce the person’s name, but from the spelling I conclude that it is a person of Scottish descent now living in Cape Town. She writes that they were surprised when a post office official called on them a short while ago to discuss a matter with them. She describes the matter concerned as follows—

So there is appreciation, too, for what the Post Office does. I am grateful for this and I hope that the staff of the Post Office, including the Postmaster-General, will take cognizance of it. Perhaps people concentrate so much on the isolated complaints that all the major tasks that are performed and all the positive things that are done pass by unnoticed.

†The problem with the official Opposition is that they do not see the wood for the trees.

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

Upon which the House divided:

AYES—84: Albertyn, J. T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Barnard, S. P.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, P. W.; Botma, M. C.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzee, S. F.; Cronje, P.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. F. C.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hefer, W. J.; Heunis, J. C.; Horn, J. W. L.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Ligthelm, N. W.; Louw, E.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, H.; Nel D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Venter, A. A.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vilonel, J. J.; Vlok, A. J.; Volker, V. A.; Vorster, B. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: J. M. Henning, N. F. Treumicht, C. V. van der Merwe and W. L. van der Merwe.

NOES—37: Aronson, T.; Bartlett, G. S.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Baxter, D. D.; Cadman, R. M.; Dalling, D. J.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; De Villiers, J. I.; De Villiers, R. M.; Eglin, C. W.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; McIntosh, G. B. D.; Mills, G. W.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Olivier, N. J. J.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Streicher, D. M.; Suzman, H.; Van Coller, C. A.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Eck, H. J.; Van Rensburg, H. E. J.; Waddell, G. H.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: W. G. Kingwill and W. M. Sutton.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill accordingly read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedules 1 and 2:

Mr. Chairman, it was very interesting that a loud howl emanated from the bush after I had fired a random shot into the bush. [Interjections.] It was a very peculiar “ouch”. Do hon. members know what the reaction was when I spoke of the people who read the stars of the Free State? Their reply to this was to speak of the Schlebusch Commission. I do not know what the Schlebusch Commission or the leadership of the Free State has to do with the stars of the Free State. Nevertheless, it was a very interesting reaction. We now know that his people support him, although I did not refer to that at all. I did not say a single word about the matter. The hon. the Minister obviously feels threatened and it is interesting for us to see where the threat is coming from. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that I have no Schlebusch Commission around my neck, but I know who was peeping over his shoulder when he was speaking.

The hon. the Minister dismissed the whole basis of our attack on the telephone services with a few words. He asked how we could have done this, and said we should have supported this wonderful budget, this good and positive budget. He accused us of having singled out one small matter, in respect of which they had admitted that shortcomings did exist, and discussing only that. But, Sir, that small matter produces 77% of the total revenue of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. It amounts to R488 million as against the total revenue of R621 million. The hon. the Minister complains because we speak of an undertaking which affects 2 million telephone subscribers and which produces 77% of the revenue of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. After this he refused to reply any further, washed his hands as far as this matter was concerned and admitted that shortcomings did exist. He did ask, however, why we dealt with that and not with the positive aspects. It is our task as Opposition to point out and criticize shortcomings and to obtain answers in this regard from the Government. We did not receive any answer in regard to this matter. However, I should like to touch on a few other matters as well.

†I want to refer firstly to the hotel telephone charges to which the hon. member for Parktown referred in the Second Reading debate. There are two sides to this question. I have had representations and I have correspondence here which I do not have the time to quote from both sides, from users and from hotels. The practice is for hotels to charge a 150% profit on internal domestic calls. I am now talking of some of the major hotel chains. On foreign calls they make 33%. I do not think that anybody objects to a 150% profit margin on a local call, to paying 10 cents for a 4 cent call as there are service costs, etc., to be covered. However, I think everybody objects to paying 150% on a long-distance trunk-call when you are paying by the unit. The result then becomes totally disproportionate. But the hotels have evidence, and they produce balance sheets and audited statements, to show that in fact, in charging 150% profit on the cost to them, they only just cover their costs. Now what is wrong? Is it the account system to which I referred earlier, or is it that the hotels are not keeping proper records? They claim that on the charges made to them by the Post Office, when they charge 150% profit margin, 10 cents per unit, it just covers their costs. I think that we want a bit more clarity on this point.

I want to refer briefly to the question of Post Office staff in South West Africa. I asked a question on allowances paid to Post Office staff in South West Africa. In South West Africa postal officials receive, at the lowest scale, R60 per year. The intermediary rate is R80 per year and the highest rate is R120 per year. In the case of the Railways it ranges from a minimum of R108 per year to a maximum of R360. The Public Service allowance goes from R71 to R165 plus homeland allowances. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider bringing the postal staff into line with the Public Service and with the Railways in this respect.

I now want to refer to the question of installation costs. The hon. member for Sunnyside claimed that the installation cost amounted to R30. I have had three complaints in this regard recently. I have here a letter to a newspaper which was not denied. The regional director simply explained why it cost R40 to transfer a telephone. I had a complaint yesterday, also from the Cape, that it cost R40 to transfer a telephone. I want to know what the discrepancy is. How can you have one tariff laid down, and yet have people claiming that they are paying a different tariff? When you come to hospital phones, where no installation is involved because a post office technician does not come near the place, the Post Office charges installation fees when a nurse simply takes a telephone out of a cupboard and plugs it in next to the bed of the patient. Then you get the case of a transfer when a person with a telephone moves into a house with another telephone. Again there is nothing to do as it is a question of simply plugging in the phone. Again they have to pay the full installation fee. I believe that this is a matter which should be looked at. Particularly as far as pensioners are concerned, the installation cost and the monthly rental is more than many pensioners can afford. With the profits that we are making on the telephone service it should be possible to give old-age pensioners, with the lowest income, a concessionary telephone rental. These people cannot get around, they cannot visit as ordinary, younger people can do, they are often bedridden or tied to their rooms and a telephone to them is the only means of communication. I pleaded with the hon. the Minister in his former capacity for concessionary television licences for old-age homes, but he would not budge. I plead with him again here. There is a margin and I urge him to do something about it. While talking of pensioners, when a bread-winner dies the Post Office charges R10 simply to transfer the phone to his wife’s name; the same phone, the same instrument, the same line. I think that this is a shocking thing to do.

The hon. member for Sunnyside needs a little lesson in arithmetic. He said that there was only a backlog of 800 telephones in Durban. Does he not know that Chatsworth is in Durban, within the municipal area of Durban, and that there are 2 208 persons on the waiting-list for telephones according to the report? Does he not know that Montclair is in the municipal area of Durban and that there are 1 408 persons on the waiting-list for telephones in that area? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Point referred to several aspects with which he has been experiencing difficulties. At the outset he referred to the additional tariff charged in hotels for telephone calls. I have no knowledge of the hotel industry, but I imagine that if I were an hotel owner and the hon. member for Durban Point were to walk into my hotel and I had to judge him on his appearance, I would expect him to have a large appetite. In that case I would do anything to add something to the tariff in order to try and cover the costs of the breakfast for the next morning.

The hon. members on both sides of this House have already expressed appreciation for various facets of the service of this department. It is also fitting on this occasion that we express appreciation for the priorities chosen by the Post Office during the past few years. One of the best methods of determining whether those priorities and those services were correctly chosen is to determine to what extent the particular services are being used. Personally I think one of the most important decisions taken by the department in the past few years, was to accept full responsibility for the Post Office Savings Bank and National Savings Certificates, as from 1 April 1974. In order to test the need for and the convenience of the particular section of the Post Office, I have made a few calculations which indicate that the Post Office can play an ever-increasing role in the South African economy, as well as in the infrastructure of South Africa. In referring to the infrastructure, however, I keep in mind the fact that the Post Office also forms part of the infrastructure. Allow me to say at once that when one refers to essential extension, this is not done in a reproachful sense. We shall have to accept that communication has to be developed and streamlined further in South Africa. However, we shall also have to accept not only that in future communication in South Africa will have to be effective in respect of convenience and streamlining, but also that regard will have to be had in further developments which will take place, to the strategic importance of the Post Office. In this respect one especially thinks of the elimination of the vulnerability of South Africa’s communications network.

I said a few moments ago that I had made a few calculations. One of these calculations was to test the effectiveness of the Post Office’s savings service. If one has regard to the fact that the annual population growth in South Africa is 2,12 on a population of approximately 25,5 million, and compares this figure to the number of savings accounts opened annually, one finds that each year one out of every three additions to the total population opens a savings account. Further calculations indicate that one out of every 13,5 people already has a Post Office savings account. In this regard one inevitably works with averages, but in view of the fact that an amount of approximately R156,5 million is deposited annually in Post Office savings accounts, the final conclusion is that every member of the total population of 25,5 million deposits R6,15 in the Post Office Savings Bank annually, and that one out of every 12 people makes an investment in the Post Office Savings Bank annually. At present the average amount per investor in the Post Office Savings Bank amounts to R86. This, therefore, confirms my earlier argument that there is in fact room for the small investor. I have already made this calculation, however, in order to determine whether justification actually exists for the continued maintenance of the Post Office Savings Bank service, as well as for the further issuing of national savings certificates. I believe that the data I have obtained from the simple calculation, indicate that the savings service does in fact have a role to play in the Post Office and that it is a section of the Post Office which will have to be utilized to an increasing extent in future. In his budget speech, the hon. the Minister indicated that investments in the savings services were growing steadily, and that a net increase of R103 million in total investments was expected for the present financial year. He said—

Therefore, when we have arranged our priorities correctly, and when we realize the importance of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, one wonders whether the time has not arrived for more generous provision to be made for savings facilities in the Post Office. I do not think it is irresponsible to request that the aforementioned 2,6% be increased to approximately 6% of the total annual investment, even if this has to be effected by means of increasing the rate of interest or by means of improved benefits in respect of tax savings. I believe that other bodies, especially building societies and commercial banks, will not agree with this, because—and this we know—housing also occupies an important place on the priority list. However, when one has regard to the fact that an enormous area is still lying fallow for the Post Office, I believe that the possibility of granting a concession of this nature to the Post Office will contribute not only towards alleviating existing problems, but also towards eliminating some bottlenecks.

One of the important facets to which attention will have to be given in future, is the particular vulnerability of South Africa’s telephone network, especially in the rural areas. From the nature of the case it is a fact that telephone cables extend over long distances and that they are exposed to tension which may easily give rise to leakage or disruption. As far as mass and volume are concerned, a telephone cable is small, and consequently it can be sabotaged easily. For that reason it is definitely important that the Post Office do the necessary research so as to ensure that the communications system in South Africa is safeguarded in all respects. This might sound drastic indeed, but I believe that the time may have arrived that the Post Office take the lead in establishing a general radio communication, especially in the rural and border areas. It is true that radio communication is the province of the private industrialist, but with a view to standardizing means of communication in South Africa, generally and also with a view to effecting direct communication between our remote areas, especially border areas, and certain strategic points, I should like to request the Post Office to pay more attention to this facet in future, and to ensure that communication—perhaps by means of a radio network—will be more streamlined, more effective and more certain.

If it is possible for the Post Office to extend its savings services and to utilize the additional capital flowing from this for research and extension, I should like to ask that a formula be sought in terms of which post offices, especially smaller farm post offices, may be compensated for the role they play in recruiting investors in savings accounts and in national savings certificates. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the smaller rural and farm post offices play a special role in their areas, not only in the field of Posts and Telecommunications, but also as a binding factor in the rural areas. Therefore, if the rural and farming communities co-operate to bring about a flow of capital to the Post Office savings bank, we have the courage to ask the hon. the Minister to favour those post offices in some way in relation to investments made in those post offices. Since I am dealing with the smaller post offices, I should also like to request the hon. the Minister kindly to give attention to the salaries of those people who are half-day workers. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.