laid upon the Table—

as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Transport Affairs, dated 12 March 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Sixth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Communications and Public Works, dated 13 March 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

as Chairman, presented the Seventh Report of the Standing Select Committee on Communications and Public Works, dated 13 March 1986, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I found it very strange that the hon the Minister reacted so strongly to the remark which I made in my speech during the Second Reading stage. The hon the Minister carried on as if I had said that Post Office workers would be able to manage on R20 a month. [Interjections.] All I said was that the staff would be better off with an increase of 21% in their salaries and wages this year, and 19% if the other allowances and so forth were taken into consideration. Is the hon the Minister really trying to suggest that if every staff member were better off by 10%—as the pay rises imply—then a resultant increase of 21% in the total salary and wage schedule will be possible.

The hon the Minister himself did, after all, say that adjustments had been made that were based on the principle of parity by consolidating allowances, as well as by other methods, which boiled down to certain staff members in fact being better off than would have been the case after a 10% pay rise. Therefore, a 10% pay rise for all members of the staff but a 21% increase in salaries, brought about because of the presence of certain mechanisms. That is what I said.

The facts are perfectly clear. The total salaries and wages rose by 22%. When this is brought into line with the increase in personnel, it can be said that it boils down to having an average pay rise of 21%. Where does the hon the Minister think an explanation can be found for this? The hon the Minister himself tried to explain this on the basis of certain mechanisms. In the first place, he said, the difference was explained by the pensionable allowance of 12% and the differentiation allowance of between 10% and 14%. Does the hon the Minister now want to suggest that those amounts were not included in the budget last year or this year? No, surely it is not so because I would say that the 12% is reflected in item 1.1.2.20 and that the 10% to 14% relates to item 1.1.1., “Salaries and Wages”. The money which they have ostensibly received already and which the hon the Minister says is simply being consolidated now, does not explain the difference between the 10% and the 21%.

Another interesting fact—the hon the Minister must listen carefully now—is that the notch increases, which the hon the Minister tried to advance as another explanation, make no difference to the total amount spent on salaries and wages unless other adjustments are also made. Let me illustrate this to the hon the Minister in a very simple way. One could look at it as if one were looking at a ladder, with an official or an employee standing on each rung of the ladder. Every year each employee ascends one rung higher, but then the chap at the top falls off the ladder and the bottom rung becomes unoccupied and a new employee moves into position. From this observation one can draw three conclusions to which the hon the Minister must listen.

In the first place one sees that the total amount paid in wages remains unchanged. Secondly, the man on the middle rung still represents the average wage, which remains the same. Thirdly, it is clear that each employee on the ladder is better off than during the previous year. The explanation that the notch increases contributed to the increase is therefore not satisfactory either. They could only partially account for this. The only conclusion one can draw from these figures is that it is concerned mainly with restructuring and with the parity programme. I therefore congratulate the officials and the employees on their windfall and for their sakes I am glad that they are not better off by a mere 10%. Apparently the hon the Minister regrets this, but I am pleased on their behalf.

I am also pleased that the hon the Minister has given me the assurance that workers on the lower rungs of the ladder received more benefits than workers at the top. In my speech that was all I questioned the Minister about. I take offence at his having imputed to me that I allegedly said that White workers at the top of the ladder were receiving more benefits. I did not say that. It would appear that the hon the Minister and I do not understand each other very well and therefore I shall not be satisfied with his assurance only but I shall institute my own investigation again.

As far as privatisation is concerned, I just want to say that normally it is based on the premise that efficiency is a result of the profit motive linked to competition. One can make the general statement that it is difficult to privatise a monopoly because it does not include the element of competition.

I do want to contend, though, that efficiency as such can be achieved by means of other considerations such as team spirit rather than competition; the will to achieve the best without a commensurate increase in remuneration; and thirdly, dedication to a specific task. I contend that those were the motivating factors which inspired our officials over the last few years to improve the service of the Post Office tremendously.

In my speech during the Second Reading debate, I referred to the expected high demand for services from the informal sector, especially from the large existing Black suburbs as well as informal settlements. A lot has already been done to serve the formal towns, but I should like to know what services are being envisaged for the informal areas which are now rapidly becoming formal towns.

A second question is whether it is profitable to provide, at the present tariffs, the suburban or residential type of service, as in the case of Soweto. I contend that the expected demand for services is being completely underestimated. In Durban alone for example, nearly a million requests would be received overnight, if people were sure that these would be met.

Mr Chairman, I should like to say a few words about the Post Office and refer, especially, to item No 2 of the schedule.

A great deal has been said here about privatisation but I do think that the hon the Minister gave a very good reply. Nevertheless I want to ask those advocating privatisation so strongly to think about it again. The South African Transport Services and the Post Office are the two organisations which helped the Afrikaner through his “poor White” period. [Interjections.] If it were not for those two organisations, we would have been destitute. Those organisations looked after us.

Long before there was a single tarred road in South Africa the Post Office had already planted poles throughout the country. Hon members can still see them today. There are poles all along the winding country roads. Those poles were planted by White Afrikaner hands using a pick and shovel. Only in 1936 did General Hertzog announce a programme for national roads. In my time I travelled on a single gravel road all the way from the far north of South West Africa down to the Cape. Even in the towns there were no tarred roads. One travelled from Cape Town to Johannesburg and everywhere one saw rows of Post Office poles.

During the ’twenties and ’thirties there were work teams which provided the unemployed with work. There was no other livelihood. In those early years, as some members will know, one came across a post office agency every 20 miles. Afrikaner girls worked in those agencies. They were untrained because there were not really many services which they had to provide. They could at least provide the public with a few pounds’ worth of postal orders and stamps. There were no roads and there was no quick means of transport. The Post Office, however, provided these people with job opportunities.

No government can afford to privatise the Railways and the Postal Services. Now we have it again. There is unemployment. Where is private enterprise? The Government has to feed these people. The Government has to give them work as well as train them.

The hon member for Sasolburg …

He has just left. He got a fright! [Interjections.]

Oh my! I saw him here only a moment ago. That hon member said I was old. I want to tell him, however, that I guard my wicket just as well as Cuyper and Ryall guard theirs.

Hear, hear!

Furthermore I should like to tell him that I do not know this hon member for Sasolburg, although I did know the former member for Worcester very well. I believe that they call this hon member “Stoffies”. [Interjections.] I think it is a very good nickname because he kicks up enough dust in this House for at least three groups of enthusiastic supporters. [Interjections.] He kicks up the dust with every speech that he makes.

I knew the former hon member for Worcester very well. He was Louis Stofberg. I knew his parents well. I read in the newspaper that a Coloured woman claimed to have had a hand in his upbringing, although it was his mother who actually brought him up. She was a good woman, but he was a naughty boy. The Coloured woman looked after him and I think she gave him a few surreptitious clouts on his head, and this was what did all the damage. [Interjections.] He is a man who has suffered a serious setback.

The hon member for Worcester was, as I said, Louis Stofberg. He sat in our caucus and was an unreliable man. He leaked all the caucus secrets despite the fact that he signed the oath of secrecy. [Interjections.] He corresponded and was in telephonic communication with a certain Dr A P Treurnicht, who was then a newspaper editor. The two of them were virtually exchanging love-letters, week after week. [Interjections.] I know that the hon member for Rissik was also very close to that encampment. He was never far from the circle. Louis Stofberg and Dr A P Treurnicht corresponded with one another every week. That correspondence is recorded in this book entitled Vorster se 1 000 dae. The author is Schoeman. He was a correspondent of this Dr A P Treurnicht who was the editor of the newspaper.

Order! Was the correspondence to which the hon member Mr Van Staden was referring handled by the Post Office. [Interjections.]

Yes, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg is so obsessed with tapping, Sir, and these are the Post Office’s telephones. [Interjections.]

Then you had Fanie Loubser ousted.

The editor that is being written about…

Do you believe everything that is written in that book? Is it all true?

… later became the member for Waterberg in this House. He had learned such bad manners from the hon member for Worcester that when he arrived here he formed his own secret caucus. He continued with this until he left the NP. Just one thing more: The HNP and the CP cannot get together.

Why not?

I shall reply to that.

Why do you not ’phone each other?

I can understand that. The hon member for Waterberg cannot trust the former member for Worcester because he leaks caucus secrets. [Interjections.] The hon member for Sasolburg is so unreliable that I do not think his own secrets are safe, even though he is a one-man caucus.

Mr Chairman it did me good today to hear that such a person as the hon member Mr Van Staden could think back to the old days in the NP. It was a time when the NP still had something to spare for the Afrikaner. Then the NP still gave some thought to the Afrikaner’s work situation and planted beacons on the National path of South Africa. [Interjections.] It made me think back nostalgically to the years I spent with people in Vrededorp and other places—even elderly women—going about barefoot to help register voters for the NP. Today I think he and I can both ask where are the days when the NP still cared for those people and could still offer them a future. The coffers of the NP are filled with the small contributions they received from those people, so that the NP grew into a party which today has become a rich man’s party to such an extent that at one meeting R8 million was raised. [Interjections.]

There is one thing which we must bear in mind today and that is that the Post Office is, and must remain, the heritage of the people and those who brought it into existence. I agree completely that it would be fatal to transfer the Post Office to the hands of private individuals for the simple reason that those engaged in private enterprise serve only the profit motive. That is why they will not render such a comprehensive service to this country. They will only want to privatise those parts of projects which are lucrative. That cannot be done.

There is one thing in particular which I should like to discuss with the hon the Minister this afternoon, and that is the printing of telephone directories. He is not responsible for this because this contract was entered into a long time ago. I also have some knowledge of printing. [Interjections.] When such a telephone directory is compiled and printed, everything is put on disc. These discs are used again year after year, unless small changes are made. It should cost a person one-tenth of that amount for each reprint. It is true that the price of paper increases, but one can hardly believe that the printing costs of R21 million last year have risen to R27 million this year. Are we not being led up the garden path as far as this is concerned? Should this whole situation not be looked into again?

When one looks at the contract which was concluded one notes that there were price increases but we should make a thorough study of the matter. Surely there are escalation clauses. I really think it is unfair that there should be price increases of this nature. I can believe that the price of paper has gone up 22%. That is true, but one must note that it is an increase of 22% on the total amount of R21 million last year. Consequently it is now being calculated as though the total costs previously went for paper only. One cannot work in this way. It is certainly something we must look into.

Another matter which I find a nuisance is that in every telephone directory one finds entries like this: “Airport, D F Malan: See under Transport in Government Departments.” For heaven’s sake let us put the telephone number there! One would not have looked for it there had it not seemed logical to look for it there in the first place. In the same way one finds: “Airways” and then one has to go and look up where Airways appears. [Interjections.] That means a waste of millions and millions of rands measured in terms of time which the normal worker spends hours finding the right number. [Interjections.] If we could avoid such things in the telephone directories we could save the man in the street a lot of money.

When I am not in this House I use the telephone so often that I have one on either side of me and one in front. If it were possible I would have one behind me as well. It stays there and it works because I am a working man. If one looks up the SAA number one first has to look for it in the South Rand telephone directory. It is a telephone number which one would in all sincerity look up in the Johannesburg telephone directory. It is a dreadful problem.

I want to tell the hon the Minister it sounds if we are going to have an election. He is not going to hold that portfolio for much longer; not because he is not a good Minister. The plea which the hon member Mr Van Staden made for the Railway workers, with reference to the poles they had planted, makes me think an election is on the way. It makes me think that in the back of the hon member’s mind he is thinking about a forthcoming election. Surely the hon the Minister will not win another election. Cannot the hon the Minister not let me know ahead of time so that we can start registering there?

I want to take my leave of the hon the Minister because I do not think he is going to make another speech in that capacity. There is one case of unfairness to him which I should like to set straight. It is always being said that the people at the Post Office listen in. Now we have, however, established that it is done in the SATS because we heard during the debate on the Transport Services’ Appropriation how people’s conversations were being tapped and who those were who were doing it. If I previously suspected the hon the Minister and his department of doing it, I withdraw it now.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to say much about the speech by the hon member for Langlaagte. I do not know where he was when Oom Koot and I worked for the NP. The hon member climbed onto the bandwaggon afterwards and had to jump off again later. [Interjections.]

Do you also stand by apartheid?

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

Today I shall be more positive; I am always positive. During the past year I made it my task to go and fetch my own post, to buy my own stamps and to have my own chats at the philately counter. I also arranged interviews with a regional director. I even indulged in small talk with the postman who delivers the letters. All I can say today is that if one is looking for a model of devotion to duty and of a loyal attitude on the part of an official of a department, one could not do better than consider the behaviour and attitude of the staff of the Post Office. This includes all employees of the Post Office regardless of the position they occupy. It would be remiss and ungrateful of me today if I did not express my appreciation to the exemplary, friendly and helpful personnel of the Post Office. I am speaking from personal experience and when I say that not only are they friendly but also helpful and aware of their responsibilities. We have more than enough evidence of this fact.

It is therefore understandable why the Post Office has on two occasions already received awards for being the most productive department in South Africa. In the process the personnel have built up a pride of their own which they will not lose very easily. The approximately 95 000 staff members of the Post Office deserve our utmost gratitude and appreciation, especially because they are responsible for the most sensitive department in this country.

It would also be appropriate if I were to extend a word of thanks on this occasion to the hon the Minister and his top management, not only for the way in which they control and manage this department, but also for the channels which they make available and the opportunities which are created for staff members, by means of courses and training, to render the best service and reach the highest level of attainment. The result is a happy, contented and appreciative personnel.

Without burdening the House with figures I do want to refer to a single example. The fact of the matter is that more than 7 000 people are undergoing training, including technicians, telecom-electricians and telecom-mechanics, as well as 27 students who have obtained engineering degrees at universities and have been appointed to posts in the service. One should also note that approximately R600 000 has been made available during the past financial year for under- and post-graduate bursaries. In total there are at present 2 000 officials undergoing training or involved in one course or another.

Ample provision is made for training centres. These training centres are located in nine of the biggest cities in our country. The newest training centre is the Soshanguwe near Pretoria. I also have reason to believe that the new training centre at Bloemfontein will commence operations next month. This prestige complex will be a further asset to the Post Office and I believe that it will also be an asset to the city of Bloemfontein.

Ample attention is also being given to staff development such as auxiliary services, work study methods are being undertaken and post-evaluation is being done. There is also a housing scheme for which an amount of R140 million has been made available over the last five years.

The department is also more than sympathetically-disposed towards extra-mural activities. In fact, participation in various sport and cultural activities are being encouraged and are receiving support. The Post Office already boasts of a long list of achievements in sport, and of a number of staff members who have obtained Springbok colours.

Similarly the ATKB, the cultural organisation of the Post Office, gets a great deal of support. It is an organisation which renders an excellent service and on the path of South Africa a series of lasting monuments to which these people contributed can already be seen.

There is something which I find quite astounding, and in this regard I want to point a finger at the CP. I cannot understand how these people see fit to go out of their way in this House to discredit such a wonderful cultural organisation as the ATKB.

Surely the leader said …

Yes, that is the problem, Sir. The hon member really gave the game away. He put forward a very subtle argument here, viz that the Post Office was squandering money. When it is alleged that a specific department is squandering money, surely it must be possible to give an indication of precisely where that squandering is taking place.

When one wants to effect a saving, the first thing one does is to establish what cultural and sports organisations there are, and then cancel their subsidies. The general public—including members of the ATKB—must know how the CP have tried in this House to harm a worthwhile Afrikaans cultural organisation. I want to appeal to them to cut this kind of thing out. Nobody benefits from that hon member jumping and shouting like a clockwork doll until his spring winds down and he resumes his seat. Things simply do not work that way, Mr Chairman. I should like to ask those hon members please to display the responsibility which is due to the average, good official of the Post Office. [Interjections.]

We have great appreciation for what the ATKB is doing and we, on our part, will give them the positive support they deserve.

The personnel of the Post Office including the postmen, the women on the Parliamentary exchange and other staff members elsewhere who sometimes risk their lives to do repair work in certain Black areas, and even mechanics who have to work in cramped workshops and clerks who have to discharge their duties under difficult circumstances, all perform their task with a unique, self-imposed discipline of pride and responsibility.

We are proud of the personnel of this important department—and that is why we convey to them our thanks and our tribute.

Mr Chairman, I think we should be grateful at least to the hon member Mr Vermeulen who brought us back into calmer waters for a few brief moments. History tells us, Sir, that somewhere under a tree near Mossel Bay somebody dropped a letter one day, and that was the start of the Post Office and its activities in South Africa. I wonder if that poor unfortunate gentleman ever thought in those days that he could unlock the sort of debate we have had in discussing Post Office matters here this afternoon.

Apparently it is the understanding of the hon member Mr Van Staden, whom I think we all respect in this House, that as long as one puts a stamp on it and as long as one can telephone it then anything goes. It is open day on the hon members of the CP and the sole hon member of the HNP in this House.

However, I would like to exchange a few thoughts with the hon the Minister on this nettle some issue of privatisation. Privatisation has become a new buzzword. We are now throwing this word around in this House with gay abandon under just about every vote. It is on everybody’s lips. I wonder whether we are using the correct terminology. I noticed in the hon the Minister’s reply to the Second Reading debate that he used the word “liberalisation” when talking about these matters. It is a nice word but also one with the sort of connotation that I would not really like to see. I think that what we possibly should be looking at are the words “contracting out”.

When I say this I think of a particular instance that I noticed last year during a tour of the workshops in Braamfontein in Johannesburg. I was very impressed with what we saw there. I was tremendously impressed with the quality of work that was being done and I could see that in the timber shop and in the shops where they were refurbishing telephones there were dedicated people who knew exactly what they were doing. The work was all connected with the Post Office and its infrastructure. However, when one got into the mechanical workshop and into the motor workshop one saw disaster. I think the hon the Minister will agree that the space that he has at his disposal in that particular area is hopelessly inadequate for what they are seeking to achieve, ie to keep an enormous fleet of vehicles—the Witwatersrand area must certainly have an enormous fleet of vehicles—on the road. These vehicles must also always be well serviced and well maintained. Is it not time that the Post Office should be looking at those particular areas of concern—the odd motor workshop here, perhaps the carpentry shop there and the building department in some other place—where the facilities that they currently have are not adequate to meet the needs? That is possibly what they should use as a starting point towards contracting out or privatisation, if one wants to insist on using the terminology.

I think much can be achieved by doing this. I do not for one moment believe that people will necessarily lose their jobs. I really do not believe that. There is a shortage of that type of artisan and they could be utilised in other workshops. However, I do sincerely believe that the Post Office could improve its efficiency and it could certainly improve the situation that obtains at a place like Braamfontein. Having spent my life in the motor trade I do fell that I am talking with a little experience. I sincerely think that the costs in that particular workshop could be halved were one to contract out that work.

I do not for one minute suggest that the Post Office should look at the privatisation or contracting out of the services that are intimate to its own needs. There are certain things that only the Post Office can service and the Post Office must provide its own infrastructure to do so. For those services I suggest that the Post Office must continue and develop the amenities that it has. However, I earnestly urge the hon the Minister to have look at this area.

There is one further point to which I would like to refer briefly and that is a little plea for the postman. This is not directed specifically to the hon the Minister but it involves him because I feel the time has come for us to make an appeal to the public of South Africa to be more aware of the postman who walks around delivering the mail. He does this under very difficult circumstances. I am proud to say that my “better half” very often stops to give a postman a lift. I think this is something that should be encouraged; openly encouraged, moreover. The Post Office should ask the public to assist them in this. Very often one sees a postman with a bag over his shoulder who has a long way to go before he even starts delivering his mail. In my opinion the public should be made aware of this and be asked to assist. It will not cost anybody anything. It is merely a case of extending a little courtesy to our postal officials.

Mr Chairman, it would seem to be a bit dark at the back here. Apparently you cannot see me because you put the question twice.

In any case, I should like to start by having my appreciation for the sympathetic and compassionate way in which the hon the Minister of Communications treats us in Port Elizabeth, placed on record. The hon the Minister grew up in the Eastern Cape. That is why he understands the serious problems of our area all the more. I should like to thank him most sincerely for always going out of his way to be helpful and for always being prepared to listen to the complaints and problems we take to him.

The activities of the new post office and regional head office building in Port Elizabeth—work has started on phase 1 of a R30 million plus project—are a good example of the activities of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications in Port Elizabeth. At present there are 25 post offices in the municipal area of Port Elizabeth. Although only one additional post office has been provided during the past two years, improved services by means of new buildings in Linton Grange—this is in the constituency of the hon member for Algoa—New Brighton and Green Acres have been supplied during this time.

The determining of the sites for additional post offices in the following areas will commence in the 1986-87 financial year: Booysens Park, Chatty, Emerald Hill, Hunter’s Retreat, Malabar and Motherwell. Bearing in mind the tremendous developments which are expected in the Fairview area of Port Elizabeth, I want to make a friendly appeal today to the hon the Minister to have the possibility of establishing a post office in the Fairview-Lorraine area in the constituency of Newton Park investigated.

The undertaking, Wonderwonings (Edms) Bpk, will erect 1 000 new houses for first-time buyers within the next five years. New dwellings are also being built continually in Lorraine and particularly in Kamma Park. The necessity for post office facilities in this area is consequently a reality and I should like to hear what the hon the Minister has to say about this.

In addition postal deliveries in 161 delivery areas take place by means of a postal collection point in Port Elizabeth. I am glad to hear that the service is going to be extended in the course of the 1986-87 financial year to meet the increasing demand. There are 290 street letter boxes in the area and sufficient post boxes are available at post offices to keep pace with the increasing public demand.

As far as accommodation in the department itself is concerned various programmes are under way. In referring to the various programmes, I shall mention the centre, the service and the estimated date of completion.

The first of these is Linton Grange, where a microwave tower and accommodation for equipment is being erected. It is expected to be completed by the second half of 1987. There is also the conversion of the automatic telephone exchange and the trunk call exchange for cable transmission, which is also expected to be completed towards the end of 1987. Then there is also an urban aerial line construction section, to be completed by the second half of 1988, as well as the enlargement of a construction yard at Gibaud Road in Port Elizabeth, which is expected to be completed during the first half of 1987. There is also a vehicle repair and service centre, also in Gibaud Road, which is expected to be completed towards the end of 1987. There are the changes and improvements to the existing purchases and deliveries depot at Deal Party, which is expected to be completed by the second half of 1987; the enlargement of the workshop at Hough Street, which is expected to be completed by the second half of 1988; the leased services centre and parking facilities in Horton Street, which are expected to be completed by the second half of 1988; and lastly, the replacement of the existing post office at Saultville, which is expected to be completed by the first half of 1988.

As far as telephone services are concerned, there are only four applicants on the waiting list in the constituency of Newton Park. This is really an achievement and I should very much like to thank the hon the Minister for this. [Interjections.] I hope that backlog will also be eliminated in the near future.

I shall not concern myself with the problems of my hon colleague in Uitenhage. Apparently there is a long waiting list in that area. It just depends who is representing you; then you get things done! [Interjections.]

In the entire area of Port Elizabeth there are 7 091 applicants waiting for telephones, of whom 3 600 live in the Black residential areas of New Brighton and Zwide. I sincerely hope that peace and calm will take the place of unrest and violence in our Black residential areas so that we can give the Department of Posts and Telecommunications a chance to supply the services there to the Black people who would like to make use of them.

In conclusion I should like to hear from the hon the Minister whether high priority cannot perhaps be given to the building of an old age home for the retired members of the excellent staff of his department.

It was a pleasure to be able to participate in this debate. I enjoyed listening to the hon member Mr Van Staden. It was enjoyable to hear how Afrikaner hands set up the poles along the national roads of South Africa. It is just a pity that people have now come along who are trying to dig out those poles.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Newton Park dealt with Port Elizabeth and parochial matters and I trust that the hon the Minister will deal with them in detail.

As I am no longer on the Standing Committee on Posts and Telecommunications, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the hon the Minister, the Postmaster-General and the officials for the kindness and the courtesy they showed me during the period in which I served on the standing committee. I hope we will have dealings in the future again.

I would like to deal with the wider subject of the future of telecommunications under the heading: Quo vadis? Where are we going? I have extracted the following from the preface to the 1984-1985 Annual Report of the Postmaster-General:

Further on in the report they say the following:

I would have thought that with the next century only 14 years away, we would have been told by the hon the Minister of Communications of his department’s plans for the next century. Instead, he made the usual dull Post Office Budget Speech on possibly the most exciting subject with which this House can deal. I quote from the speech, as follows:

I have to tell this House that if the hon the Minister of Communications avoids the electronic revolution, the most exciting, exhilarating occurrence in man’s history, and concentrates only on improving basic services and avoids luxuries, he will be fast precipitating South Africa into becoming another banana republic.

I quote further from the hon the Minister’s speech, as follows:

The information revolution has exploded upon the world. The greatest contributor to the future financing of our telecommunications is about to appear. The information system that will change the face of business in South Africa will be the use of computers in home, office and factory, from the largest to the smallest. This is now slowly taking place. The hon the Minister, however, does not give us a single word of explanation as to how his telecommunications service is going to meet this demand between now and the end of the century.

Rip Van Winkle.

This was no sweat when the world’s telecommunications systems belonged to a protected engineering company fraternity, all of whom knew one another. The changes forcing computer and telecommunications companies to compete in networking and systems integration are also undermining the telecom regulatory structure. The social and economic transformation caused by this process will be the biggest telecommunications story of the next few years. I shall say more about this later.

I now want to quote from that part of the hon the Minister’s speech where he deals with finance. He said:

Surely the hon the Minister understands that the Franzsen Commission’s finding on Post Office financing were based on a telecommunications business as it existed in 1972. It is a different business today and it is going to become revolutionised in the future, so the Franzsen recommendations may be outdated.

Let me explain to this House why I believe that the hon the Minister was grossly negligent in not dealing with this revolution. South Africa is no longer an isolated country at the bottom end of Africa. Scenes of police violence in unheard of places like Guguletu, Langa and Uitenhage have appeared on television screens in the homes of people in the smallest villages all over the world within hours of their happening. How can this happen? The whole world is now on the telecommunications line.

Twenty years ago telecommunications was one of the world’s most boring industries. Economics and technology have now turned it into one of the most exciting. It has become the key to the biggest industrial change of the next few decades—the developed world has shifted to an information economy. The plunging of an industry long dominated by cautious monopolistic utilities into innovation-driven chaos has upset and irritated many people, particularly those—perhaps the hon the Minister is one of them—who believed they were operating a monopoly business which would exist as such for ever. They ought instead to be exhilarated by the changes that are taking place.

The Economist dated 23 November 1985 states the following:

General Motors, as I shall show, is only one of such private companies.

The urge to chatter on the telephone is not that strong any more. The telephone and the information network it represents have become something else. It has become one of the world’s most effective productivity raisers. Corporate telecommunications is moving out of the chief accountant’s hands and into the chief executive’s. What used to be a cost of doing business is becoming a source of competitive advantage and profit. The new telecommunications network is a product of the computer programmes, and the destinies of telephone and computer are intertwined in many ways. Even though at present voice traffic still accounts for the lion’s share—perhaps 90% of telecommunications services—traffic in data is increasing much faster and some say that telecommunications 10 years from now will consist mainly of data transfer.

I believe that the “Phone Company”, as we knew it in the past, is now dead. In its place we have a completely new telecommunications business, and the hon the Minister’s business is that of “information movement and management”. That is why I tell this House that we who participate in the Posts and Telecommunications debate must wake up from our Rip van Winkle sleep. This whole Budget belongs to an era now gone. Why is this? In the mid-1960s chips and computers pronounced the death sentence on the natural monopoly. It has already been executed for all telecommunications equipment and services save one—the local loop that runs the network into individual homes and offices.

Another cause of this revolution is the drive to automate manufacturing. Factory automation so far has been largely confined to “islands” within the assembly process. Linking these islands of automation in a single system that will require little human intervention is now the main goal of the big manufacturing companies. Tying these islands into a single system is largely a task of data communication between computers and robots.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise simply to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon member. The office of the future is already here. Look at some of our modern offices with various computers. Do hon members know that the chance of actually reaching a person when one makes a business telephone call is less than 30%? If the hon member for Langlaagte had realised that, he would not have brought that telephone directory here today because it is not necessary. That is the problem.

Computers benefit from networking as much as telephones. The world is seeing in all this the first serious attempt to wipe out the influence of distance and ignorance on human affairs.

General Motors spent over eight billion dollars—that is at todays exchange rate R16 billion—in acquiring various large companies like the Electronic Data Company to knit all of General Motors’ information based activities—from management and accounting through inventory control, car design and control of manufacturing—into a unified, global system.

What does this mean? It will be possible for sections of the General Motors factory in Port Elizabeth to be operated directly by a computer situated in Detroit, Michigan in the USA. It is for this reason that in the United States AT&T—the American Telephone and Telegraph Company—had to be broken up. It was among the biggest and most efficient and profitable companies in the USA but it had to become competitive with IBM, the largest and most profitable computer company on earth, and the American anti-trust laws caused it to break up. The two competing giants, IBM and AT&T, each aided and abetted by various major international telecommunications component-producing companies are about to revolutionise the telecommunications world, and the fight for the major share of this multi-billion dollar world business is about to begin. In which camp will South Africa find itself?

One final question, Sir. Can the present monopoly be maintained? Telecommunications, which was for decades one of the stablest and most plannable industries, is racing headlong towards a computer-like state of continuous market-driven change despite all the efforts of powerful government-backed monopolies to stop it. The telecommunications industry’s history of government-sustained monopoly poses a bigger problem. I believe that there is no question that the monopolies will have to go, but a lot of doubt exists in my mind in connection with how they ought to go. They will probably have to go because they stand in the way of the market-driven turbulence that technology has made possible in telecommunications, and which the economic demands of automation have made necessary. The people who run the telecommunications monopolies are often dedicated public servants and engineers whose problem is not that they are technologically unfriendly but that they hate the market-place. Their resistance to competition has the same family resemblance everywhere in the world. The telephone networks that used to be thought of as a vital social service that nobody would provide unless the Government did it, do not exist any more.

I would like to conclude by asking whether it is not the dream stuff of bureaucrats like the hon the Minister who presumes—as a shocking number of people all over the world still do—to tell people how many telephones they need and what services they ought to receive through them. In the meantime a telecommunications revolution is overtaking them. Is this not the reason why the networks have to be taken away from the bureaucrats?

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Bezuidenhout will pardon me if I do not react to his speech. He provided us with a few stimulating ideas but cried a few crocodile tears as well and donned the cloak of a prophet. But I shall leave it to the hon the Minister to react to his speech.

I should like to make use of this opportunity to bring a little matter which affects my constituency to the attention of the hon the Minister. On 18 March, 1982 I participated, in this House, in a debate on the Postal Services. I made an appeal to the then Minister of Posts and Telecommunications concerning the automation of the telephone exchange at Theunissen. I tried to bring to the hon Minister’s attention and spell out to him the new developments that had taken place there, especially in the field of mining. That area was then part of the automation programme for the 1984-85 financial year. I explained to him that we understood the problems of the Postal Services and that we would wait patiently for the 1984-85 financial year. My request to him was, however, that we should not be moved backwards on the programme. The Minister said in his reply that he was aware of the expansion that was taking place in that area and his words were: “We shall see to it that Theunissen does not lag behind.”

That is how I conveyed what had happened to my voters, asking them to be patient because 1985 was not too far in the future. Unfortunately the year has passed and now I have a lot of disappointed voters on my hands. I gather that the department plans to replace approximately 30 manual exchanges with automatic exchanges this year, but the information which was given to me indicates that Theunissen is not included among these 30; on the contrary, it has now been placed on the 1988-89 programme and might only be completed in 1990. I want to tell the hon the Minister that the pressure on those exchanges has not diminished since 1982; on the contrary, it has increased greatly. I should now like to ask nicely whether we could not perhaps be given higher priority on that programme.

There is another point which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister, and this is a highly emotional matter. It is concerned with overcrowding and congestion at post offices in the rural areas. I have nothing against the fact that there are no longer separate entrances and separate service points for each population group. I have nothing against standing in a queue with Black people, waiting my turn to be served. However, one thing that irritates me is when someone, whether they be White or Black, comes from behind and forces his way into the front of the queue. Unfortunately there are people who do not consider others and who always push in so as to be served first. It causes negative feelings and friction.

I see in the annual report that the laboratory of the Post Office has designed a prototype single-file system which has been tested at the Randburg post office. I am of the opinion that it is an ideal system which can be used to try to preserve order in the post offices. Incidentally, I have noticed that this system has also been introduced in certain banks. I have been given the assurance that it works very well. I should therefore like to know what the possibility is of its being introduced in the rural areas.

In conclusion I should just like to extend a word of thanks to the personnel of the Post Office. In smaller towns, the post office is the government building which is used and visited most extensively by the public. The friendly manner and service of the personnel enhances the image of the entire Public Service. It is true that the image which is created in the post office becomes the general view held of public servants. Therefore I should like to extend a word of thanks and appreciation to the personnel, especially to those that have to be on their feet eight hours a day, behind a counter, and who still serve the public with a smile. We thank them sincerely for that fine service.

I should like to ask that we ensure that a shortage of these people does not arise. They are also human, and must also have one free day a month in order to go shopping, but most of the time there is nobody that can take their place. I should therefore like to ask the hon the Minister politely that we look after the people who provide the service for the Post Office in rural areas well. We have the greatest gratitude and appreciation for the service they are rendering.

Mr Chairman, it is very clear that the disorder prevailing in the Post Office is a result of the dismantling of apartheid. I want to tell the hon the Minister that it certainly is not the fault of the officials. It is the fault of the Government. We have just heard it now from the hon member for Winburg.

If the hon the Minister reads carefully he will notice that in my speech during the Second Reading debate, I expressly described the Post Office as being a Post Office that was controlled by the National Party. By that of course I meant the NP Government. As far as telephone tapping is concerned, I believe it is specifically in the interests of the NP.

The NP listens in. They listen in to their political opponents. The Postmaster General said that he could not give us a guarantee that this was not the case and the hon the Minister was kind enough to admit that it was now the policy. You simply do not tell anyone whom you are listening in to. History has shown, and I say it again to them, that we have every reason to believe that we are being tapped. In fact we have information to this effect. [Interjections.] This hon Minister is therefore abusing the power of the State on a vast scale in order to harm its political opponents; in order to get at them.

Now I should like to ask the hon the Minister just one question. When the right wing comes into power, does he want us to deal with them in the same way they are dealing with us at the moment? Alternatively, do they want us to deal with them in the way in which we are asking them to deal with us? He is free to tell me this afternoon. How do they want us to deal with them the day we come into power? Must we also tap their telephones? [Interjections.] If they have nothing to say, then we shall do what we want to the day we come into power.

Next, I want to refer to my old acquaintance of many years’ standing in the NP, the hon member Mr Van Staden, who for a moment this afternoon caused me to feel nostalgic. Perhaps he will not remember the incident which I am now going to recount. Perhaps he will. The Saturday night before 26 May, 1948 I was a young reporter for Die Burger on an assignment in Worcester to report on Dr Dӧnges’s meeting. That night I drove with the hon member Mr Van Staden over the Bainskloof Pass to Paarl where he dropped me at my parents’ home so that I could get back to Die Burger in Cape Town the next day. That night I was in mortal danger. On several occasions I was nearly sent rolling down the precipices of Bainskloof because while he was driving he was busy looking at me and explaining why he should be the one to become the Minister of Labour and not Ben Schoeman. [Interjections.] Just think what South Africa did not miss! Look what we did not have instead of the work he is doing inside the NP. Yes, he is shaking his head but perhaps he might still remember it. It was nice, Oom Koot!

Concerning the question of leaking information from the caucus, I want to ask him something. Who was it that informed the Sunday Times a week or two later concerning the six members who had abstained from voting after Dr Hertzog, the two Marais’, myself, the hon member for Rissik and Mr Cas Greyling had done so during an NP caucus meeting in March 1969? [Interjections.]

Daan van der Merwe! [Interjections.]

No, Mr Chairman. I shall tell you who it was. It was the hon member Mr Van Staden. He did it on the instructions of the State President. [Interjections.] He was in a position to be able to speak about the leaking of caucus secrets. They did it so that they could get us into their sights. They wanted to get at us in public but they could not do it by allowing the story to leak out to their own newspapers and so they leaked it to the Sunday Times. [Interjections.] The hon member Mr Van Staden is usually the agent for such activities inside the NP.

I should like to tell the hon member for Newton Park that he displayed the same kind of ignorance this afternoon. He said we were destroying the beacons of policy, but the NP destroyed its own beacons of principle. Can he not understand this? They destroyed their principles and trampled them underfoot and for that reason diverted from policy in a way we were not prepared to do. That is the problem with the NP of today. They cannot understand that there is an organic connection between principles and policy. That is why the hon member is still sitting there. He has nostalgia for the old days of the NP, while the principles of Afrikaner nationalism are being preserved here on this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sasolburg spoke about the way we are supposed to have treated them and speculated on how they were going to treat us.

The first time I met the hon member for Sasolburg was when he became the MPC for Worcester. It was during a congress in Port Elizabeth when my colleagues and I were chatting together in my hotel room. Then one or two more colleagues arrived and they brought him with them. When they brought him into the room I asked them what the man was doing there. They replied that he was the MPC for Worcester. I said that I did not care who he was, he had to leave. I did not want him in my room. [Interjections.] The hon members of this House can now decide for themselves how good a judge of people I am.

During last year’s debate I spoke about the Post Office officials who were having a hard time because they were being bitten so badly by dogs. Now I can report back. This year the position did not improve much. In 1985 there were 130 cases of Post Office officials who were bitten by dogs owned by private individuals while they were carrying out their official duties. I am now referring to dogs guarding people’s private property. I think that dogs are fully entitled to bite people if they are guarding their owners’ property, but in the same way that these dogs are doing their duty, the Post Office is also doing its duty to the officials by paying all their medical expenses and giving them special leave with full pay when who are injured.

It is not only the dogs that are biting. Throughout the country the little foxes are spoiling the vines. The CP and the HNP member, the hon member for Sasolburg, are attacking our officials and denigrating them in this House and the following day, as happened in the case of the hon member for Sasolburg this afternoon, they turn the story around and say that they never intended to insult or denigrate the officials. They actually meant that the Government was bad.

A government is only as good or as bad as the officials with which it must work. Officials are only as good or as bad as a government allows them to be. Consequently it depends on how the Government treats them. If the Government pays them fairly for good work and gives them security in their daily lives and after their retirement, one has good officials. If the Government pays officials who render a poor service too much, one gets bad officials. Underpayment of good officials can also turn them into bad officials.

The Official Opposition, the CP and the HNP cannot attack the Government in this House because costs, services and salaries are rising, and then curry favour with the Public Service by telling them that if they come into power, they will pay them more or better. They cannot run with the hare and hunt with the hounds. They are either a hound or a hare, although there are no animals in this House. They must be frank and say that the officials are being overpaid for doing too little, bad work. If they mean that, they must either say so or state openly that the people are being underpaid for the great deal of good work they are doing, and that the Government must increase the salaries. They must be honest.

It is the Government’s duty to compensate its officials in such a way that it will get and retain the best people in the country. It is also its duty, because it is working with the taxpayer’s money, to keep an eye on the officials and ensure that they are doing their duties properly.

If there are hon members of the Government or of the opposition parties who are trying to buy the officials’ favour and are trying to bid for them, not one of them belongs in Parliament. As the highest authority Parliament is elevated above the officials and is responsible for their remuneration and for their behaviour and treatment of the public. The officials’ responsibility and service to the taxpayers of South Africa must be regulated by Parliament. If this had not been the case we would not have needed a Parliament.

If hon members of the Government or of the opposition parties try to bribe the officials for their own political gain and then come into power, no matter who they are, they will lose all control of the Public Service. A bureaucracy will then be created which, like a monstrous octopus, will paralyse the entire country and squeeze it to a pulp with its long tentacles. Such a bureaucracy will be worse than a dictator. That is why it behoves all of us on this side as well as on that side of the House to act responsibly and not make promises which in the interests of the country will be totally impossible to implement.

It is always dangerous to compare departments with each other. Nevertheless, I want to say today that I personally put the Post Office in first place; it is tops. From the Postmaster General down to the lowest level I have always experienced nothing but politeness and excellent, quick service. Any organisation which aims to provide an excellent service and does so quickly and efficiently, and always does so with politeness, friendliness and helpfulness, has a winning recipe. That is how the Post Office runs its business, and that is why I think it is number one. It is tops.

Friendliness, politeness and helpfulness! If only all officials of all departments could learn and apply those three words to all people there would be less hatred and enmity in our country. Fewer people would complain about the paralysing grip of bureaucracy. Fewer people would want to destroy the “system” and everything that goes with it.

Because the people of the Post Office are tops, they deserve the 100% housing loan scheme which has been introduced for them. The aim of this scheme is to enable an official to purchase or build a home without a deposit. Post Office staff of all races can qualify for this.

The scheme works as follows: The official gets a 100% loan from a building society where the Post Office has provided collateral security by means of an investment. Payments are at building society interest rates and officials receive a housing subsidy. The housing subsidy for which the people qualify constitutes financial assistance to officials to make monthly repayments. Again all people qualify for this.

Statistics show that up to and including 1983 there were only 11 000 applications for subsidies at a cost of R17 million. In 1985-86 there were 15 357 applications at an estimated cost of R67 million. I wanted to refer to the housing scheme as well, but my hon benchfellow has told me that my time has expired.

I want to conclude my speech by saying that I think that the Post Office looks after its people very well.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Winburg has made a plea because there is now crowding out in his constituency.

I was not in favour of that!

The hon member was against it. He said that he was asking that something be done about it. The hon member said that there was crowding out in his constituency because people were not waiting their turn but were pushing in at the head of the queue. That is not crowding out—that is bad manners. [Interjections.]

Where was the hon member on 14 March 1984 when the hon member for Nigel moved an amendment during the discussion of the Post Office Appropriation? According to Hansard: House of Assembly: Vol 113, col 2918, he moved “to omit all the words after “that”, etc. There was also a point (1) on inflation and then in point (2) he asked the Minister to give the assurance that he—

Where was this hon member then? Was there not crowding out then? There was, but this hon member voted against that amendment. I think that I must inform his voters about this and send them this amendment and point out to them that the hon member voted against it. He wanted crowding out in his constituency.

Please sit down!

No, the hon member must not now sanctimoniously come here and say that he is unhappy about this. He voted against that amendment and tied the hon the Minister’s hands so that he could not take action. If the hon member had voted with us that day—that is how he should have voted …

Now he can no longer show his face in Hoopstad.

Now he can no longer show his face in that constituency. Relations of mine live there, and I know how people are forcing their way into queues there and crowding other people out.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order, I think the hon member is talking nonsense.

Order! That is not a point of order, the hon member for Sunnyside may proceed.

Is the hon member being racist today and that is why he does not want crowding out and is complaining about it? I want to tell the hon member that he should rather be consistent and agree with the CP when we appeal for good and orderly management in this country. [Interjections.]

Today I do not know where I am with the Free Staters, because the hon member Mr Vermeulen has accused us of wanting to dismantle or something of the sort, that wonderful cultural thing, the Afrikaanse Taal-en Kultuurbond.

Read the amendment.

When we ask that the hon the Minister must give the assurance that it will not become multiracial and that it will remain a White cultural organisation, we are dismantling it. [Interjections.] When we ask that this wonderful organisation must remain White, the hon member says that we are dismantling it, but what is his hon Leader doing? The State President has said that the doors must be thrown open, whereas the CP has said that we want to protect the Post Office and its people.

This afternoon I was amazed to hear how extremely conservative all these hon speakers are. I thought we were back in 1948 the way they were suddenly fighting for the Afrikaner. This convinced me that there was an election or a referendum in the offing, or perhaps they have report-back meetings and they were preparing themselves to go and say something there. [Interjections.]

We say that this wonderful cultural organisation must be kept White. We have nothing against people of colour—the Coloureds, Indians and Blacks—having similar cultural organisations of their own. We are pleading for what is our own.

The hon member for Waterkloof said that own affairs was the so-called strong leg of the NP, but where is that strong leg? Look how our own little coffee lounge is also being thrown open to people of colour! [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr van Staden really amused me this afternoon. He said that the hon member for Sasolburg had sworn an oath of secrecy, and then he revealed things outside the caucus. That is a blatant untruth! No one in our caucus ever swore an oath of secrecy that they would not talk about caucus matters outside. It was assumed that one would not do so. But this afternoon the hon member proclaimed something here in this House which he knew was not true, and he did not even blush. [Interjections.]

You swear the oath when you become a candidate. [Interjections.]

I should like to know what the oath is which is supposedly sworn. I challenge the hon member Mr van Staden to bring me that oath and show it to me. [Interjections.] I should like to see it. But my integrity does not allow me to do so.

I want to say something about the financing of our capital expenditure. The Franzsen Commission suggested at that stage that 50% of the capital works should be financed from own finances, and 50% from loans which were negotiated. I think that the Franzsen Commission undertook a scientific investigation. Excellent, competent and intelligent people served on the Committee. They suggested a scheme, and for many years all the departments, including the Post Office and the Railways, accepted that scheme as being a good one.

But now the hon the Minister says the following in his Appropriation speech:

What other approach is this? How on earth can one say that the Franzsen Commission’s scheme no longer applies today? What has changed today from what it was ten or fifteen years ago?

A great deal.

What is very different is that the NP has given away and sold out the sovereign power of the Whites. But as far as finances are concerned, a rand is still a rand.

No.

A rand is a rand, except when there is a devaluation, as in fact happened through the fault of the hon the Minister’s Government. I maintain that it is still a sound policy to finance 50% of the capital expenses from own funds. If the hon the Minister does not do this and continues to do what he is doing now, ie only financing 12,7% of the expenditure from own funds, he is in the process of destroying future generations with these kind of loans. If the hon the Minister is going to spend R1 723 million, of which only R218 million comes from own funds, he is placing a burden on the next generation which those people will not be able to carry.

That is the only thing you have said which is correct; I agree with you.

I am glad that the hon the Minister agrees with me, because this is a fact…

Why do you not want me to get higher financing if there is no own financing?

Sir, we could have got higher financing, and would have got it, if this Government was not wasting so much money. If they had not allowed the economy to collapse, the hon the Minister would not have had problems. [Interjections.] If the Government had not done things in such a way that the entire world lost confidence in it, and had not strangled the economy, the hon the Minister would have had an income which would even have made it possible for him to reduce the tariffs.

When I speak a second time I shall pursue this matter further; my time has now expired.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sunnyside will not take it amiss if I do not react now to what he is going to say in his next speech. For the sake of etiquette I want to react to what the hon member has just said!

The hon member touched on two matters here to which I do want to react. He referred to the ATKB as a cultural thing (kultuurding). [Interjections.] I want to talk about the ATKB today, but I cannot talk about an Afrikaner organisation which another hon member calls a cultural thing (kultuurding). [Interjections.] I do not think it is necessary for us to go and look at the hon member’s speech in Hansard now. If the hon member tells me that it was a slip of the tongue, I shall accept that and not pursue the matter. [Interjections.] But the hon member must admit that he did use the words this cultural thing. If the hon member withdraws this, I shall not elaborate on it. [Interjections.]

I want to speak to the hon the Minister for a moment. I want to tell him that it is clear to me that not many appeals are being made to him today. He is actually having an easy debate. I suppose the hon the Minister will not take it amiss if I make a few appeals and ask a few favours.

Every one of these hon members approach the hon the Minister from time to time regarding problems with telephones. After all, the hon the Minister cannot win. The department cannot win either. If there is not a shortage of telephones, and if there is not a too long waiting list, there is a problem because there is a telephone.

Then the telephones are out of order.

What are the problems about which there are complaints? The hon member for Rissik is correct. If one visits a voter, he tells one that the telephone is out of order, it is out of order again, or just when I wanted to telephone you—I knew that I had to telephone you—I found that the telephone was out of order. The telephone is always blamed.

I am sure that the hon the Minister has the same problems we do. I have already visited people who have told me that their telephone was not out of order because they threw it against the wall—it simply fell off the desk onto the carpet—and of course all the good telephones have been given to the Blacks in Mamelodi again. They say that they are given this rubbish. One cannot get away from this kind of argument.

There are also the accounts which are always supposed to be wrong. The other day I visited a friend who showed me his account. He said it was R300 for the month but he was away on holiday. I asked him whether he had had a student looking after his house or perhaps a servant. He replied that he had a servant but she could neither read nor write—what would she know about a telephone—and in any case her family was living in Harare. [Interjections.]

I have only two favours to ask of the hon the Minister and Mr Ridgard. I have a community in miniature, consisting of senior citizens. They call it De Meerpaal. There is a lady there, Dr Strydom, who has promised me that she will continue to support the National Party until June of this year if that little community can get telephones. It is a community, but they do not give me half as many problems as a Greek I have in Walt-loo. The hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs is after all acquainted with the Greeks in Waltloo. This Greek said to me: “Oh, Sir, you are the MP for this area, and you want a donation for the Government”. I replied: “No, for the NP.” To which he replied: “I will tell you what. You get two more lines from Lapa for me and you get R5 000 for the National Party”. Two years have elapsed and I have not received that R5 000 yet. [Interjections.] I am merely telling the hon the Minister that it is a poor constituency. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to a matter which is very important to the officials of the Post Office and is very close to their hearts, namely the ATKB. The ATKB—it came into existence at a very modest gathering in 1953 and consisted of approximately 100 members at that stage—of which the hon the Minister is the chief patron today, is an organisation which I believe every Afrikaans-speaking person in South Africa is extremely proud of. [Interjections.] I also believe that the employees of the Post Office are even prouder of it.

Today that organisation has more than 8 000 members. Does the hon member for Sunnyside—he wanted to ask me a question—know who the members of the ATKB are? He said that he was afraid that people of colour would be admitted. Of course the ATKB has its own constitution. The Government does not prescribe to it who it may admit as members. We all know that the ATKB has its own independent constitution.

Mr Chairman, there is in fact something I myself did not know—and neither did the hon member for Sunnyside. Of the 8 000 members of the ATKB approximately 1 500 are English-speaking. [Interjections.] Yes, that is a fact. But let us not pursue this matter. I believe that the ATKB has reason to be extremely proud. We need only drive to Paarl and look at the Taalmonument there to realise that.

In 1962 the ATKB decided that it was going to build the Taalmonument. All of us who speak Afrikaans and love the Afrikaans language are equally proud of it. But there was a time when 8 000 people had to take a decision and implement it on behalf of 2 million people. I believe that this is something to be very proud of.

In Monday’s Transvaler I read that the final concerts of Applous are going to be held in Stellenbosch this year. Mr Chairman, I am convinced that there are hon members in this House who do not even know what the term Applous stands for. All they can perhaps think of is clapping hands. Applous is an undertaking handled by the ATKB, which presents recitals of singing and choral works. Initially it was only intended for high schools, but at the moment primary schools are also included. In 1985 as many as 104 schools participated in the activities of Applous. A total of 25 000 pupils were involved in the activities of Applous last year.

The ATKB has discovered a winning recipe—a recipe to get young people involved in its activities. After all hon members have seen how the fathers and mothers in Acacia Park run with their children when those children participate in the 100 metres or the 50 metres at the school sports. I was there the day the hon member for Durban Point nearly jumped into the swimming-pool when his young daughter became the first Raw in more than a century to win a trophy. [Interjections.] She then went on to become a champion.

The point I want to make is the following: When one gets the child involved—whether it is in swimming, athletics, or even choral singing—one also involves the father, the mother, the brothers, the sisters, the grandmothers and the grandfathers. They come to watch and to listen. This is also the recipe which the ATKB used to get the Afrikaner involved.

Mr Chairman, allow me to conclude my speech by referring to one or two aspects of the philosophy of the ATKB, and I should also like the hon member for Sunnyside to think about this. I know that the hon member for Sunnyside is also proud of the ATKB. I do not doubt that. I want to refer to what the ATKB said in its own mouthpiece. The ATKB is an organisation which believes that the Afrikaner must not stagnate and worry pointlessly about change. One is delighted to see how the ATKB encourages its members to give positive guidance in the process of change in South Africa—not only to exist, but to give positive guidance.

The hon the Minister is consequently entitled to be proud of a body of officials and employees who are striving for reform and who are calling upon their members to participate in the process of reform rather than to oppose.

Mr Chairman, I have no intention of following on the theme discussed by the hon member for Roodeplaat. I must admit that I thought his reference to the daughter of hon member for Durban Point was very appropriate. [Interjections.] I just want to say, Mr Chairman, that it is my intention to deal with an aspect which I do not believe has been mentioned before in this debate. It is in relation to the complete lack of communications in many of the rural areas.

I note that it was indicated in the Annual Report, with a certain sense of pride, that the waiting list for telephones was now approximately 185 000. However, I want to dispute the accuracy of this assessment because there are people living in areas which fall under the South African Development Trust as a start which have not even been accorded any opportunity of indicating whether they wish telephone services to be installed in their areas for the simple reason that there is no telephone service at all available to a vast majority of these people. I want to take issue on this because in some of the remote rural areas which fall under the control of the SADT they have no links whatsoever with the outside world. I want to refer to certain of these areas which fall within my constituency. For the information of the hon the Minister I mention Compensation, Indaleni, other areas in the magisterial district of Hlangenani and Xumeni. These areas comprise settlement areas of thousands of people and they do not have even one public telephone kiosk or any post office services. We must therefore not be carried away too much by the fact that it is said that the demand for telephone services is almost fully satisfied.

Let us just look at some of the hardships these people are experiencing in these remote areas. They have to walk in some cases some 8-10 km to the nearest trading store in order to make telephone calls. At the same time they are often required, before making a telephone call, to make purchases at that particular trading store. Let me repeat—there are no public call boxes and there are no postal facilities available in many of these areas.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister made reference to a decrease in the revenue as a result of a slight decline in the use of telephones. This is where I would like to refer to the comment of my colleague the hon member for Umhlanga and his reference to the need for marketing strategies to be applied within the department. What better market could one have than this untapped market that is just waiting for development? I have endeavoured to try to obtain facilities for these people who live in these areas and have been advised that there are just no lines available. This brings me to the point that the hon member for Bezuidenhout raised in his speech. This is where I have difficulty in a way in supporting aspects of his speech because I feel the time has come when careful assessment must be made of those services that are regarded as essential and those services that are regarded as exotic and possibly not of an essential nature; in other words we are looking again at the old story of, for want of a better word, “luxury” services. It is essential that the department should make a careful study of priorities, and those remote areas which have no direct communication with the outside world should be given the priority consideration that they deserve.

I have very little time left and just want to say that I have received details in regard to the development of telephone exchanges in my constituency. I am appreciative of some of the steps that have been taken but I am also disappointed that the stage of automatic telephone systems has not been extended more than it has.

I want to make one observation. One finds in the post offices and exchanges of the rural constituencies that it is far easier to extract a smile from the staff in those post offices and exchanges than in many of the urban offices. There is a little message in this: Perhaps the staff of the offices in the urban areas could take a leaf out of the book of the staff in the rural areas who invariably regard themselves as being part of the community.

Mr Chairman, is it not strange how one must listen every year in the Post Office Appropriation debate to speeches which very clearly create the impression that not everyone realises the importance of the role played by the Post Office and its communications system in our national economy. But I cannot say that of the hon member for Mooi River, who has just resumed his seat, because in his speech he indicated to us that he was interested in the development of the service. He made a very constructive speech here and I should like to congratulate him on it.

I am very glad that there is an opportunity to talk about and debate the activities of the Post Office. This is a debate during which there is the opportunity to outline the tremendous technological progress. There is such tremendous technological progress that virtually every new technological process is already out of date the moment it has been installed and put into operation.

I am referring here mainly to the automatic telephone exchanges. This system makes it possible for the Post Office to render a far better direct service. The process of automation is very rapidly eliminating the old manual exchanges. It is expected that 35 manual exchanges will be replaced by automatic exchanges during the present financial year. What is more, quite a number of smaller manual exchanges will be closed down and the services will be transferred to nearby automatic telephone exchanges. In this way approximately 27 000 telephone services connected to manual exchanges will be converted into automatic services. This will mean that approximately 95% of the total number of telephone points in the RSA will have an automatic service.

At present there are still 830 manual exchanges in the Republic, to which 200 000 services are connected. We find these manual exchanges mainly in the small rural post offices. In the process of development they are also disappearing very quickly. I cannot resist the temptation to praise the role played by the small farm post office and to have something about these specific post offices placed on record.

Precisely the same thing happens to them as happens to people; The moment you disappear, the next generation knows nothing about you. When we talk about the small farm or field post offices, I see them in the cultural context. One then experiences something which touches one’s heart.

The Boer nation owes its origins and its development, its culture and its cultural heritage to innumerable factors which were formative and unifying. These are factors which cannot always be expressed in words. This is an influence which we never wanted to lose in our history and which we do not want to lose now. These are things which people who did not experience them for themselves will never understand. These are things which besides the Bible brought about an own creation, and which unobtrusively moulded the character and the culture of the Afrikaner nation.

In the remote parts of the rural areas there were four places where country people always assembled. These places were: The shop, where butter and eggs were traded for merchandise; the school; the police station; and the post office, where post was collected once or twice a week. If a telephone call had to be made, it was made at the post office. That was in the days when there were no farm telephones, but only public telephones in the post office. In the post office people talked about their weal and woe. But they also talked politics—that old Nat-Sap politics. What enjoyable politics! [Interjections.]

In the past that little post office played a role, and it still plays a role today in the lives of our people. In the formative history of the Afrikaner in particular, it was an indispensable link. Because of modern development that little post office is going to its final resting-place, but it is leaving a permanent mark on the development of the culture of our people. For that reason, when such a little post office is closed down, the farming community is very sorry to see it go. I want to ask that where small post offices—including the post offices in my constituency—render a service, they should not simply be closed—even if they are being operated at a loss! We cannot only consider their material advantage. There is also a deeper meaning which we must not ignore.

But we cannot only dwell on sentimental matters. The development of the post office and the communication services is also making the world far smaller for farmers. There is virtually no farm which does not have a telephone service. In my own constituency, with Middelburg as the seat of the South-Eastern Transvaal regional office, many developments have taken place. I should like to thank the hon the Minister and his department for this.

In the publication Postel of March 1986 we find a wonderful article on the operation of the computer terminals and a Gentex machine which was put into operation in Middelburg, and the centralisation system of services. During the past year three microwave towers have been installed in my constituency. In passing I want to mention that one of these towers was built on my farm. It almost caused consternation because a very big story was going the rounds that Sasol VI was going to be built on that specific spot, and that I had sold my farm to Sasol. I am merely saying this for the information of those hon members who would like to invest. [Interjections.] They are welcome to come and talk business with me.

The exchange at Groblersdal was automated and came into operation during the second half of 1985, with the SOR 18 system on the farm lines. We are experiencing tremendous progress in that area. But there are shortcomings. I want to suggest, for example, that this service be brought into line with the other services which are being rendered. There are still manual exchanges which must be replaced by automatic exchanges; and I would appreciate it if these exchanges could be automated and linked to other automatic services.

Another extremely pressing problem is the overloading of the old automatic farm lines. Most of the farm lines in the Middelburg district are overloaded. There are cases where business undertakings and even mining industries and feedlot undertakings are on the same fines as farmers. Obviously those organisations have a far greater number of calls and urgent telephone traffic which has to be dealt with during office hours. This means that other consumers simply cannot get a line to do business during business hours. When farmers sometimes need the telephone to order spares and so on, they simply cannot get a line.

I am asking that the possibility be investigated of introducing the SOR 18 system there as well, as soon as possible. I wrote to the hon the Minister about this. Recently the hon the Minister also replied to a letter of mine saying that this could not be done before the 1989-90 financial year. Nevertheless, I want to tell the hon the Minister that the need is very great. We would appreciate it if he would look into this.

Mr Chairman, the member for Middelburg dealt largely with constituency matters. I wish he had mentioned the telephone exchange at Arnot, where I have family living. I hope he will press the hon the Minister to have the exchange at Arnot upgraded as soon as possible so that it will be easier for me to get in touch with my family there. [Interjections.]

During the course of his address, the hon member Mr Van Staden spoke about the number of White people who have worked in the Post Office for many years. In passing, I simply want to mention—I do not want to make a big argument out of it—that during the course of the Post Office tour we had last year in Pretoria—a very good one which we appreciated and found of great value—one thing that struck me was the large number of White people working in the offices there. I hope it will not be too long before the employment practices of the Post Office reflect the totality of the South African population. [Interjections.]

I have often mentioned the Post Office and the high regard I have for the management and the employees of that organisation. However, I think that during the course of the discussion of this Budget the hon the Minister dealt the Post Office a body blow by way of the tariff increases that he announced. As a justification for the increases, the hon the Minister mentions the cost escalations of more than 21% for specialised equipment. However, it is not acceptable for him to say that one of the reasons for the escalation in tariffs is the cost escalation of the specialised equipment. This is because, as we told him during the additional appropriation debate, it is the Government that is responsible for those cost increases. This is so because we have to pay for our imports in Rubicon rand. We went into that a great depth during the course of the additional appropriation debate and there is no need to go through it again. However, it is the Government’s fault that we have all these increased costs.

I say it is a body blow because people will be angry with the Post Office. That is wrong, because they should be angry with the hon the Minister and not with the Post Office.

Hear, hear!

It is after all the hon the Minister who takes the political decisions in his department. Among the people who should be unhappy with the hon the Minister, are businesses and big business in particular. They are the ones who are going to bear the brunt of the increases that the hon the Minister has announced. Incidentally, he talks about adjustments. He and the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs have found a new word. They no longer talk about increases. They talk about adjustments. They must please use the English language as it is intended to be used. Increases are increases and not adjustments. They should be absolutely clear about that because the figures of 17% and 20% are quite clearly increases and not adjustments. [Interjections.]

Adjustments upwards.

There is a 20% increase in the cost of telephone calls and a 17% increase in postage rates. In addition to that, the discounts offered on bulk postage rates have been reduced from 30% and 15% to 25% and 10% respectively. In fact, when one goes through the list, there is hardly an item that the hon the Minister has left unscathed as far as tariff increases are concerned.

What about the tickey box?

Yes, there is one item. The tickey box. That is one item he did not touch. [Interjections.] Can the hon the Minister name another item in respect of which he did not increase the tariffs? [Interjections.] Can he name another one? After all, who does the tickey box affect?

Another tickey box!

So there are two tickey boxes he did not touch! That is very good. The main point I want to make is …

Mail order services.

Mail order services are affected by the bulk discounts. [Interjections.] It is the big businesses and organisations which are his main customers that have been affected to a great extent. Does he understand what he has done? I am aware of one retail organisation that posts 1,4 million statements per month. That is an incredible number of statements they post to their customers. What used to cost them R142 800 per month taking into account the discounts they were allowed, will now cost them R176 400 per month. That amounts to an increase of R33 600 per month. Every month they are going to have to pay the Post Office an extra almost R34 000. [Interjections.] No, that is an increase, not an adjustment.

The Readers Digest?

No, it is not. It is a big organisation. This increase came in one fell swoop which will inevitably be passed on to the consumer. Not all organisations automatically pass on increases to their customers. They tend to absorb them themselves. They increase productivity or they reduce costs, unlike the hon the Minister who simply passes on the increases by way of tariff adjustments, or increases, in order to balance his books. [Interjections.]

The Post Office won the prize for productivity.

Yes, I know about the prize that he got. I hope he is going to get a prize every year, because the better the productivity in the Post Office … [Interjections.] No, nobody gives that hon the Minister a prize. It was the Post Office who got the prize for productivity, because the Post Office is on the ball in spite of the hon the Minister.

With the increases the hon the Minister is introducing by way of this Budget, he is showing the contempt he has for business in this country. It would appear that he is antibusiness, and is only interested in increasing tariffs and balancing his books. I must confess that a tariff of 14 cents per letter is not a great deal of money if one looks at it in isolation. One must be quite honest about that. Many aged or lonely people rely on the postal services to keep in touch with their families and with the outside world. At 14 cents that is value indeed, because if one considers the service one gets by paying 14 cents for a letter to be delivered, that service is certainly of great value. There might be a case for reviewing that tariff. However, when one takes into account the hon the Minister’s biggest customers, namely the large businesses and the organisations, as I have mentioned, the increases of 17% and 20% are unacceptable unless he can allow larger discount for bulk posting.

Wait for the next election.

Yes, then they will come down.

Then you subsidise them.

Not at all.

I subsidise big business. [Interjections.]

Not at all. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Johannesburg North may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. The hon the Minister keeps interrupting me.

The next question I want to mention I have raised with the hon the Minister before but without satisfaction. I am referring to the question of overseas calls after hours. He mentioned the single call which I think has gone up by 5 cents per minute, but there is no adjusted tariffs for after-hours calls. Businesses and people contacting persons overseas often phone in the evenings when it is a lot easier to do so and there is simply no reduced tariff for doing that. In the United Kingdom and the USA, as I have mentioned to the hon the Minister, there are frequently lower tariffs for phoning after hours, as we have internally. Internally there are three rates in this country. Why cannot we have three rates for phoning overseas? Why cannot the equipment we have that meters the trunk calls say between Cape Town and Johannesburg at different rates at different times during the day, be used for overseas calls?

I explained that to you last year.

Well, maybe the hon the Minister must explain it in words of one syllable. I know about the problem with equipment, which he wrote to me about, but what is he doing to obtain that equipment and so improve the service offered by the Post Office?

There are two other matters I want to speak on. The one concerns Soweto. In 1983 there were 31 000 applicants on the waiting list to have telephones installed. In 1984 that number was reduced to 21 000 applicants, and now there are just over 17 000 applicants on the waiting list. That is very good progress indeed. I urge the hon the Minister to pursue the installation of telephones in Soweto with vigour. It might not be possible for the hon the Minister to do anything with vigour, but I would ask him at least to look at the Soweto situation and install those telephones as soon as possible. He will be providing not only a service for these subscribers and the population of Soweto but also a source of revenue for the Post Office.

I wish to raise a matter concerning postal codes. I hope the hon the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that negotiations are taking place between the Post Office and the TBVC countries with the aim of eliminating postal codes in those countries. Could he tell us whether this is the case and, if so, why it is being done? I have been told by certain organisations which have large postal deliveries to those countries that it is complicating their administration. It seems unreasonable to do away with existing postal codes.

My last request concerns my own constituency. I have mentioned the problem in the Northlands post office in Rudd Road, Illovo before. Not enough counters are open to serve this large area. More staff are needed and I ask the hon the Minister to give attention to this matter.

What about Bramley? The same thing applies there.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Roodeplaat said that I had referred in a very bad way to the ATKB by calling it a “thing”. This organisation is a beautiful thing. If the hon member or I were to hug a little child and say: “You are your father’s most precious thing”, would we be rejecting it? No, Sir, it is a beautiful thing; a lovely organisation.

I can tell the hon member that I am also glad that there are so many English speaking members. Normally when I refer to an Afrikaans organisation, I am including Afrikaans and English speaking members. After all, the CP has thousand of English speaking members. [Interjections.] But I say that the ATKB must not be thrown open to people of colour; it must remain for Whites. Does the hon member for Roodeplaat agree?

Do not prescribe to the ATKB.

Does he agree—yes or no?

It depends on whether the members vote against it.

Order! The hon member for Sunnyside must not provoke the hon member for Roodeplaat into contravening the rules of this House.

Sir, if you had not saved him, he would have been doomed. [Interjections.]

I was still in the process of addressing the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] May I get the hon Whip’s attention? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member how he expects that organisation to make progress if the CP votes against this appropriation? Then they are after all taking all the money away. [Interjections.]

I just want to finish what I am saying before I answer the hon member. [Interjections.] We are voting against it because money is being wasted so recklessly. If this had not been the case, they could have got double the amount of money.

A year ago the hon the Minister said that the investigation had started. Can he tell us who has been appointed to that committee, what their terms of reference are and when they are going to publish a report one day? The hon the Minister must also indicate to us what the difference is between what this committee knows and what the previous one knew. After all the hon the Minister also said the following:

Which policies have now come to the fore which contradict the decisions of the previous committee? I am now talking about finances, not about politics.

I now want to discuss the matter of postmen. They walk up one street and down the next to deliver post from house to house, but very often the number of the house is hidden behind a tree or on a stone or is not indicated anywhere. I think the time has come for us to introduce a standardised system in this country, even if this must be done by means of legislation. Every house’s number must appear directly above its front door—very large and clear. They can affix the numbers in innumerable places—above the door or on the gate, it does not matter where—but when postman arrives …

That is inflationary. You hate the home-owners. [Interjections.]

No, every good thing one recommends is ostensibly hatred. The hon Chief Whip should go and deliver post for a while; then he will see what is going on. [Interjections.] This will also be good for politics, because the NP no longer has canvassers going from door to door doing canvassing for them. They no longer care. But I think that this will be a very good and thorough step, which will make life easier for all people making deliveries.

I should like to put a number of questions to the hon the Minister. We no longer have committee stages—as we do for additional appropriations—during which we can ask questions in the course of discussing the appropriation. For that reason I want to put a few questions to the hon the Minister now.

On page 4 of the Appropriation, under Item 1.1.2.2, it is indicated that service bonus expenditure rose from R46 million to R80 million. What does that increase involve, and does it include the 3% by which those people’s salaries were reduced the previous year? As far as the pension fund for temporary employees is concerned—this is Item 1.1.3.1.2—there is an increase from R12,8 million to R18,5 million, and we would be glad if the hon the Minister would also say more about that. The next item is rent, which rose from R20,5 million to R28,5 million.

Can the hon member please give me the number?

It is Item 1.3.1, and it falls under Accommodation. This is a 39% increase and I cannot understand why there is such a big increase. Were some of the buildings sold? Did the Post Office expand that much? Are so many post offices going to be opened? [Interjections.] Is anything further going to be spent?

In conclusion I should like to ask something about exchange rate adjustments. According to Item 1.7.1.6 the hon the Minister budgeted for a loss of R76 million last year, but now he has brought this down to R15 million.

Is that Item 1.7.1.6?

Yes, and I should like to know how this reduction can be reconciled with the tremendous increase in all international expenditure being indicated here. How can these two things be reconciled? I should very much like the hon the Minister to explain this to us.

Mr Chairman, I first wish to thank the following hon members for their participation in the debate. The hon member for Greytown, the hon member for Langlaagte, the hon member Mr Vermeulen, the hon member Mr Van Staden, the hon member for Umhlanga, the hon member for Newton Park, the hon member for Bezuidenhout, the hon member for Winburg, the hon member for Sasolburg, the hon member for East London North, the hon member for Sunny-side, the hon member for Roodeplaat, the hon member for Mooi River, the hon member for Middelburg, the hon member for Johannesburg North and once again the hon member for Sunnyside.

My time for replying is limited and I think I shall arrange with the hon Chief Whip next year because I cannot possibly reply to sixteen speeches within about 17 minutes. That is humanly impossible as there are some which actually do not require a reply but there are others on which one should certainly comment. [Interjections.]

At the outset I wish to pause for a few moments as regards the hon member for Greytown as I wish to clarify a misunderstanding. That hon member turned up here like a new financial guru capable of throwing figures together, obtaining an average percentage and then creating expectations among Post Office personnel that they were entitled to a 21% increase. Everyone reading the paper will ask why he is getting only 10% but the hon member merely takes any figures he is able to obtain and adds them.

No, not any figures. The hon the Minister is talking nonsense.

If the hon member would just be quiet …

Order! In this debate there has been much talk of listening in but I think there is far too much interjecting in this House.

We obtain a few figures, which I shall supply to the hon member, but he will have to control himself as he is going to get a drubbing in this House. [Interjections.] In the first place, as regards parity in salaries, almost R500 000 is being appropriated which is going only to people who have to reach parity in salaries. It is not going to people in general.

50 000!

Sir, the hon member is impossible; I cannot conduct a debate with him!

Order! The hon member for Greytown has had a turn to speak. Will he please contain himself now. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member is wasting my time. He would do me a great favour if he would preferably leave the House.

Let us examine the narrowing of the wage gap between Whites and Blacks. An amount of R1,4 million is going exclusively to Black personnel. The average used by the hon member for Greytown is irrelevant here. There is the question of unskilled labourers among Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. We are in the process of placing them on a salary scale instead of conforming to the local wage system because the wages are too low for people who certainly want to work at a career. We are introducing salary scales for these people and this will cost us R18,7 million. This is going only to Blacks at the bottom of the scale about whom the hon member was so concerned yesterday. How can the hon member add that and arrive at an average of 21%. [Interjections.]

Nor is that all. The hon member for Greytown also took the service bonus, which is now being paid out in full again, and added that to the total. He simply added this R34 million as well! He took all that and then said Post Office personnel would all get a 21% increase. [Interjections.] He also added pension contributions which we are obliged to pay to the fund. Sir, the member of staff does not receive that!

Nonsense!

He does not receive R30 million but the hon member added that amount. We also contribute to the medical fund but the member of staff does not receive the R75 million that amounts to. If one adds all that, one arrives at a figure of R91 million. The hon member worked with a figure based on the difference of R259 million and arrived at 21%. If one merely subtracts these figures, one already arrives at 13,5%; that is if one wants to juggle with averages. [Interjections.]

There is something else. Three per cent of our wages may be compared with a sponge for posts which may be created. This 3% amounts to R44 million but is not being paid to anybody. As these posts are created, payments are made. The hon member just added this to his calculations as well to arrive at 21%. [Interjections.]

He is saying things I did not say.

If this hon member were to compile a budget, I can only say we would have to plead for mercy in this House every day. We would not make it to the end of the year at all. The hon member would do well to control his temper; he is going to be called to account in this House. [Interjections.] Because newspapers quoted his words, he created expectations among people. He created the impression among other people in the Public Service that the Post Office had jumped the gun and that we were supposedly no longer giving a 10% increase—this is what everyone throughout the Public Service is getting—but were granting a 21% rise. The hon member for Greytown is head and shoulders above everyone else as regards irresponsibility. [Interjections.] I wish to leave it at that for a moment, however.

I think the hon member for Sasolburg saw one should not tackle the hon member Mr Van Staden without gloves. As the hon member for Sasolburg said, he might be old but I would prefer to be old like him than young in the way the hon member for Sasolburg is! [Interjections.]

I wish to react to one comment made by the hon member for Sasolburg for which he apologised. He is not present at the moment but I cannot let it pass; my reaction has to be recorded in Hansard. The hon member’s allegation that I as the Minister gave instructions that the conversations of political opponents should be tapped is a blatant lie and I wish to say it in this House so that it may be recorded in Hansard. I wish to say this, because the hon member will broadcast outside again that he had told the Minister he had political opponents’ telephone conversations tapped. I quoted from the Post Office Act yesterday to prove to him that I am not permitted to move beyond the parameters of the Act. I am not interested in political opponents. The services people request are aimed at those who are a threat to national security. If the hon member has a guilty conscience in this respect, he probably falls among those who are monitored. If that is not the case, he is not being monitored.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Brakpan will cause me to use a word in a moment which is impermissible in this House.

The hon member for Langlaagte spoke about the telephone directory.

Order! Did the hon the Minister say the hon member for Sasolburg had told a blatant lie?

Yes, Sir, I did.

The hon the Minister must withdraw the words “blatant lie” (infame leuen).

Sir, I withdraw it. I withdraw the word “blatant”.

The hon the Minister must also withdraw the word “lie”.

I withdraw the words “blatant lie”, but I wish to say that the hon member is a total stranger to the truth if he circulates rumours that the Minister listens in to political opponents’ conversations. This closely approximates something else I can think of.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Minister not permitted to say the hon member has told a lie?

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Langlaagte spoke about his problem with telephone directories and their high costs. The reason for this is that we print telephone directories inter alia. We are a department which installs up to 300 000 telephones a year so the next year we obviously have to print 300 000 more telephone directories. There is an increase in the volume printed and an increase in costs to the private sector; this is not difficult to understand.

†The hon member for Umhlanga spoke about privatisation, liberalisation and he used a very nice expression, “farming out”. A number of our services, even some of our motor services are farmed out. On the particular date when the hon member was there, we were moving into another area as well; this area was overstocked. We have made provision but we will have a further look at this question, although we are worried that the costs in the private sector might escalate if we do not do some of the work ourself. However, we will investigate this further.

The hon member’s appeal to give postmen a lift is a good idea. The postmen really do work very hard.

*The hon member for Newton Park, who could not be present either, spoke about waiting applicants. He thanked us very graciously on behalf of the people of Port Elizabeth, which I appreciate.

†There is also the quo vadis speech of the hon member for Bezuidenhout. It is a pity the hon member did not remain the main speaker on that side as far as Post Office matters are concerned, although I differ with him. He suddenly tells us to wake up to the electronic revolution. In everything the hon member mentioned we are three quarters of the way in. I will deal with this matter at the right moment, namely at the Third Reading when I will discuss the effect of this budget on the future. That is when we can talk about that. I cannot reply to the hon member now, except that I could perhaps give him an example of how far we are into this electronic revolution. Everybody who watched Network last night saw Mr Fred Bell in Chile, sitting in front of a camera there, talking to a young lady in Johannesburg who questioned him, but we could see him in our lounges or dining rooms. This transmission first passed through the network in Chile, then through the undersea cable or via the satellite and then into our network. That does not belong to the SABC; only the screen and the tower belong to the SABC. The rest came through our network and one had a vivid image of Mr Bell telling us about the wonders that Armscor is doing overseas. That is just an example of what is actually happening in our part of the electronic revolution. I will deal with the quo vadis speech of the hon member at a later stage.

*The hon member for Winburg raised quite a number of matters, inter alia about Theunissen. Unfortunately we have had to revise the entire programme for country exchanges. We are doing our best and we shall get to those offices, but we are unable to do so at this stage.

The hon member also spoke about overcrowding—we solve this before breakfast. Take the post office in Springs as an example—those hon members are near Springs. Pay that post office a visit as I did a few days ago. There is a queue such as one finds in banks but in an improved form. There are no people waiting as there is electronic apparatus which indicates a vacant counter. People move to and fro.

I wish to mention something else to hon members on the other side. We are now using two Black counter clerks there. No one is obliged to patronise them as one can wait until one can be served at another counter. In the quarter of an hour I stood there, dozens of Whites went straight to them. They told me they were among the ablest clerks they had ever taken into service—just as good as any others. What is wrong with that? [Interjections.] Hon members are served a cup of coffee by a Black woman; they may just as well buy a stamp off her.

The hon member referred to the image of the official and I thank him for that.

I have already dealt with the hon member for Sasolburg’s speech.

I regret to learn from the hon member for East London North of all the cases of our people being bitten by dogs, but I appreciate the hon member’s keeping us informed on the numbers. I had hoped for a decrease this year but the converse appears to be true. Perhaps it is because the volume of post has increased and the postman has to do the rounds more frequently. We thank the hon member for the fine words of praise as regards the friendliness, courtesy and helpfulness of officialdom of the Post Office. If we can bring only these aspects to the attention of the public, the Post Office is succeeding—regardless of its budget. The Post Office is then succeeding in rendering a great service.

The hon member for Sunnyside referred to the hon member for Winburg’s speech and to the question of overcrowding but he had better leave the matter to us. Strangely enough I have not received complaints from a single member on the other side of the House over the past 12 months in connection with overcrowding at post offices. Not one of them has written to me in complaint.

But letters no longer help!

No, Sir, the hon member for Rissik will not get away with that so easily. He is welcome to write me a letter on overcrowding. The moment I receive that letter, I have the complaint thoroughly investigated and attempt finding a solution to the problem as soon as possible.

The hon member for Sunnyside was naturally the chief spokesman for his party on Post and Telecommunications in the time when this system was introduced. He voted in favour of it.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

No, Mr Chairman, I do not wish to reply to questions now.

I did not vote for it! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon member for Roodepoort’s speech on the … [Interjections.] I apologise, Sir. The hon member for Roodeplaat will forgive me the small slip. [Interjections.] Whatever the case, I listened to his exceptional speech on the ATKB. I wish to request the hon member for Sunnyside to keep the ATKB out of discussions on politics. The ATKB is an autonomous body; a body with its own constitution. We are proud of the ATKB; it is promoting a cultural action in the Post Office.

Am I not permitted to praise the ATKB? I am praising it!

It makes no difference; just keep the ATKB out of the arena of cheap politics. The ATKB has its own autonomous constitution and is capable of dealing with its own affairs.

After all, you are its patron!

Apart from being the patron of the ATKB, I have no further say in that organisation. Neither need the hon member have any fear. I shall protect him as an Afrikaner when the time comes for that one day. [Interjections.]

And those Black post office assistants of yours in Springs—are they permitted to join the ATKB? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, a further matter on which I have a few comments is in connection with the Franzsen Commission. At present we are examining the report of this commission. The hon member asked me why the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission were no longer good enough. This is obviously because that report is altogether outdated; it was released more than ten years ago. All I want the hon member to appreciate is that the basis of the case is the question whether we wish to strive for a greater or a lesser degree of self-financing. There is no other relevant question; only one of these two considerations is relevant. I believe the 50% recommended by the Franzsen Commission as regards self-financing was altogether too low. I believe the Post Office will have to prepare itself to accept the responsibility for more than 50% of its financing. We have to attempt managing our affairs in a very difficult world; we cannot keep on taking up loans. The hon member said earlier our descendants were going to bankrupt themselves in paying the interest on our loans. I agree with him; it is true so why is he haranguing me about it now? I say we are investigating the matter departmentally and I shall announce further measures in the foreseeable future after consulting top management of the Post Office about them.

†The hon member for Mooi River referred to the lack of communications in certain rural areas in his constituency. I am not quite sure which areas those are but I will read his speech in Hansard carefully and reply to him in writing in relation to the particular rural areas to which he referred. We are very wary of making any promises in this connection because I have already been forced to break some of my promises as a result of a sudden change in urgent needs. We need telephones in urban areas more than in the rural areas. The result has been that we have had to delay our programme for the rural areas to a certain degree. We do hope, however, that Mooi River will have its needs ministered to one of these days.

The hon member also made mention of the decrease in our revenue. The decrease in our revenue was only 0,8%. That was the decrease in relation to our total expenditure. That does not mean, however, that it amounted to the same decrease in our estimated revenue. We did not experience a decrease in our actual revenue, only in our estimated revenue. To be out by only 0,8% in one’s estimate, when it is of this complicated nature, I believe, is indicative of excellent budgeting in the fickle times in which we live.

The hon member also referred to the friendly faces behind post office counters in the rural areas of our country. That is quite correct. One is always greeted with a smile by post office staff in rural communities.

*The hon member for Middelburg evoked nostalgic memories of those small country stores, the little post office and the people bartering butter and eggs. I come from a small town and often went in with butter and eggs and emerged with groceries. It was amazing what groceries one could obtain in exchange for a pound of butter and 12 eggs. The hon member referred to his constituency and we shall attend to the few matters he raised.

†The hon member for Johannesburg North completely contradicted the hon member for Bezuidenhout. The hon member for Bezuidenhout says we must wake up and not be like Rip van Winkle. We must charge into the electronic revolution. How must I do this? With an overdraft in my pocket? The hon member for Johannesburg North says we are dealing business a body blow by increasing the tariffs. He says it is not so bad to charge 14 cents for the letters but he is worried about the poor person, the businessman and our big clients who want to telephone. He says they have to pay more. However, somebody has to bring in the revenue. He referred to the consumer price index. At the stage when their budget was drawn up the consumer price index in Britain was 4. Their rebate was 13% lower than ours but they have been privatised and want the profit while we only want enough money to be able to break square.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?

No, Sir. The hon member for Johannesburg North also referred to Soweto. Soweto has the most modern electronic exchange in the world. Over the next short while we will be installing up to 14 000 telephones in Soweto.

I praised you for that.

I must, however, place one thing on record. I have given strict instructions that no telephone technician will go into unrest areas at the risk of his life. I am not going to allow one telephone technician to be killed by unruly people or mobs.

I have no problem with that.

They will have to wait for telephones until such time that they realise that the need is there to let our people in and not to assault them or to destroy our equipment.

Business interrupted in accordance with Rule 47.

Schedule, Clauses and Title agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Chairman, we have now reached the Third Reading, the last stage of the Post Office Appropriation Bill. We are dealing here with a schedule which involves capital expenditure of R5,4 billion. That is not to be scoffed at. We are dealing here with tariff increases where the hon the Minister is asking for an increase of R475 million, and the hon the Minister wants to know why I am not shocked and why I am not disappointed. I am not shocked because he keeps on shocking the country with his tariff increases which are not really justified and he keeps on disappointing us with replies to a budget debate which are not replies and do not deal with the points raised. All he could do about the inaccuracies that I pointed out in the Budget was to attack me for my alleged inaccuracies. He alleged that I was guilty of four inaccuracies. However, he himself is mistaken in respect of three of those four alleged inaccuracies. At the beginning of his speech, for example, he said:

He is referring to me—

I never said it was the third year that he had presented the Budget. If the hon the Minister will look at my speech in Hansard he will see that I said:

I never said it was the third one.

What is a hat trick?

A hat trick is three in succession. Does the hon member not understand cricket? In the last three Budgets there have been increases and in cricket a hat trick is three wickets with successive balls.

I cannot play cricket.

Then the hon the Minister went further and said: “Hy gaan nog verder en sê daar was ’n bloeitydperk van vyf jaar.” When one reads my speech of 10 March in Hansard one sees however that I never spoke of a “bloeitydperk” at all. I said:

I never spoke of a “bloeitydperk”. Why does the hon the Minister put up skittles in the form of statements which nobody ever made and then deal with those non-existent arguments?

I admit that I made one mistake. There was one inaccuracy in that I said five years instead of four. I am prepared to be hanged on that statement. I did not, however, raise tariffs based on my inaccuracies as the hon the Minister did. He has also not dealt with the inaccuracies to which I referred.

The most important inaccuracy of this Budget is the very fact that he budgets for a deficit of R36 million. He increases the postage on letters by 2c. Every cent will bring in R17 million. The hon the Minister, however, framed his Budget in August last year and he pitched it on an exchange rate of 41 American cents to the rand whereas it is running at 50,1 and 50,4 American cents at the moment. The Budget is therefore totally inaccurate but the hon the Minister does not deal with that fact. He does not deal with the whole list of inaccuracies that I mentioned. The amount of R1 005 million I mentioned is not disputed. The hon the Minister does not deal with the inaccuracies which I mentioned with regard to the estimated expenditure in the schedule before us. In this regard I mentioned a small figure of R140 million.

The hon the Minister does not deal with the inaccuracies in the arguments concerning cross-subsidisation between the postal and telecommunications services because of the amount of R800 million that is spent on staff.

The hon the Minister does not deal with those inaccuracies at all but he raises tariffs based on these inaccuracies. To my mind it is totally unjustified to do that in those circumstances.

I want to know what the hon the Minister is going to do about framing a Budget in August for the following year. Is the hon the Minister satisfied to be inaccurate every year because he frames a budget in August of the previous year? If I or anybody else were the Minister I would complain that there was something wrong with the system. One cannot sit down in August to frame a Budget for a financial year which operates from the April of the following year to the April of the year thereafter Such a budget then extends over a period of some 18 months. The hon the Minister should do something to rectify the system. I want to know from the hon the Minister precisely what he is going to do about future Post Office Budgets.

The hon the Minister took the hon member for Greytown to task for alleging together with the newspapers that there will be a salary increase of 21% for the employees of the Post Office. The hon the Minister attacked the hon member for Greytown viciously on this point. The hon member presented a sound and reasonable argument but the hon the Minister did not deal with it. He merely screamed and shouted at him and only referred to pension moneys but he did not deal with the hon member’s arguments at all.

One can take the hon member’s argument and put it in another way. Having done that, neither the hon the Minister nor any other member in this House can deny that not only the Post Office but the whole of the Public Service including the SATS are receiving a 21% salary increase. To start with they are getting a 10% increase.

It doesn’t help to explain it to you.

Just a moment. They are getting a 10% increase to start with. Then they are receiving a 3% increase because the 3% that they lost on the 13th cheque is being reinstated. They are also getting an increase of 8,33% on that thirteenth cheque. All of this amounts to 21,33%. Does the hon the Minister want to deny that? How then is the argument of the hon member for Greytown incorrect? [Interjections.]

Let there be no misunderstanding: Nobody on this side of the House has any objection to the Public Service and anybody else employed by the State receiving this increase. They deserve it and we are only too happy that they are getting this increase. It is at least something towards meeting the high cost of living and the high rate of inflation for which this very Government is responsible.

Let us therefore put the record quite straight. If the hon the Minister can deny my accusation and tell me that my figures are wrong then he must stand up and do it.

I have here a cutting from Business Day of 28 November 1985. I quote from it:

That was in November last year—

I should also like to quote from another report in Business Day of November 25. The report is headed “Post Office—the key to Altech growth”. We all know Altech; we went to visit them. I quote from the report:

How does one reconcile that with the facts which the hon the Minister reflects in this particular Budget? He said R297,4 million or 6,8% was overspent. How is one to reconcile these two issues? On the one hand the Government is supposed to be curbing expenditure while on the other hand this hon the Minister announces an overexpenditure of R297,4 million.

A further point I should like to raise relates to what the hon member for Bezuidenhout said a few moments ago—he made a very fine speech—and to what the hon member for Johannesburg North said. The hon the Minister always tries to simplify matters by saying they contradict each other. They do not contradict each other, however. [Interjections.] As a matter of fact, we are indebted to the hon member for Bezuidenhout for drawing our attention to something. A report was published recently which was headed “High-tech phones fall victim to their success.” The report pertains to the Minitel that is operated in France. This Minitel has a video service which is attached to the telephone and which eliminates the need for telephone directories. The hon member for Langlaagte also raised a point in this regard. In any case, more than 800 000 Minitels have been installed in France. I should like to quote from the article:

Is that not a modern service?

What does it cost?

The services “range from home banking, travel schedules and games to ‘contact clubs’ involving freewheeling conversations typed onto the screen and transmitted through a commercial computer”. [Interjections.]

What hon members have been saying and what I want to emphasise is: While we are looking at the technological developments which are taking place so rapidly that they are hard to keep up with, we must get our priorities right. We must not indulge in high capital expenditure if the items we spend money on are going to be out of date within a short time. All we are asking is that our money be spent frugally and wisely, and that care be taken not to spend money on items that might be outdated within a year or two. With less expenditure—this need not involve more expenditure—we can provide a better service by means of the electronic equipment available today. That is all we are saying; and there is nothing contradictory in that. So the two hon members on this side of the House did not contradict each other in what they said here today; on the contrary, they made a very valuable contribution. [Interjections.]

There has been a lot of discussion here on privatisation. I do not know why the hon the Minister gets excited about privatisation. His own colleague, the hon the Minister of Administration and Economic Advisory Services, sent a letter—it was dated 6 December 1985—asking that we consider privatisation. He says:

Is the hon the Minister aware of the fact that in a report in Business Day on Friday, 9 August, 1985, there is a call for Telecomms to be privatised? The report is headed: “ ‘Telecomms should be privatised’, says expert”. I quote from that report:

[Interjections.] The report goes on:

That is what I asked for in my Second Reading Speech. Let us have a new look at this. There are people in this country who are prepared to deal with electronic mail and other aspects. All we are trying to do is to help the Post Office. We are simply trying to keep down tariffs. Those, then, are the circumstances under which we presented our arguments today.

There is a further point about which I must express my disappointment. We have an organisation known as the National Consultative Committee for Post Office Affairs. They work very closely with the postal officials and I think the hon the Minister too has seen them from time to time. The statement which they issued pursuant to this Budget presentation was that the committee believed that the 17,8% increase in operating expenditure was excessive and inflationary. The hon the Minister has not denied that it is excessive and neither has he denied that it is inflationary.

They mention that the fall-off in the demand for telephones may to some extent be ascribed to the recession. However, the committee also stated that it believed that the sharp increase in telephone tariffs—25% last year and 20% this year—was a contributory factor towards reduced revenue. Why does the hon the Minister not listen to them?

I do not think the hon the Minister is in touch with the public. I have here a letter that was sent to me on a completely unsolicited basis. The writer, a lady, says the following:

She goes on to say:

This is an ordinary consumer. Surely one must take notice.

Just one letter?

How many did you get?

Many!

Supporting you?

[Inaudible.]

Because of all the circumstances, if it were possible procedurally to vote against the Third Reading, I would have asked hon members on this side of the House to do so. I would have done so because of the increase in tariffs and because of the way this Budget has been handled. I cannot do so, however, because there will not be sufficient money to do the things that have to be done in the Post Office and to pay the salaries that must be paid.

Mr Chairman, I am very grateful the hon the Minister adopted a very strong standpoint on privatisation. This is a word which is being used too lavishly in this House nowadays. If there are people who wish to fritter away the population’s property, this is a very good way of doing so.

We on this side of the House strongly support private initiative; we know what great work this does for our country but there are certain enterprises belonging to the people of South Africa such as inter alia the Post Office. People who infringe on this are depriving the people of something they own. One point is certain: We should like to retain what belongs to this people. The Post Office, including telecommunications, is national property—this may not be tampered with.

The other day I raised the case of Iscor which is also national property. In that regard I mentioned how in approximately 1928 there was a battle to pilot legislation through this Parliament to such a degree that a joint sitting had ultimately to be held in the Senate and the House of Assembly of the time in order to have it passed with a majority vote in Parliament. When the legislation had been approved, great imperialists of the time and in particular Col Deneys Reitz shouted out in this House: “£5 miljoen na die maan”. That is how people felt. Fortunately that spirit has disappeared from South Africa; we are very jealous of our own.

During the Transport Services debates, this idea of privatisation emerged time and again—also emanating from the side of the Government. Hon members have every right to do this but the moment it is taken away, we will know who the losers will be; the people of South Africa.

During the Second Reading debate the hon member for Boksburg mentioned the high revenue derived by the Post Office from data modems last year; he mentioned that it amounted to R50 million. I regret to say those data modems have also been privatised because, if this had not been done, we would most probably have been R50 million better off.

Today is the sixth time I have spoken in this Chamber on a post office for Heidelberg. This is the pleasantest of the six occasions as the post office at Heidelberg has been completed and will be officially opened tomorrow week on 21 March by the hon the Minister of Communications. I requested him to do so. When I spoke on this in 1984, I know he went to the then Postmaster General who sat where Mr Ridgard is now sitting. A new post office was approved for Heidelberg and money found for it. Shortly afterwards I received a letter from Mr Bester, mentioning that a new post office would be constructed.

The site on which the new post office has been built has a long history. Prior to 1979, when I was an MPC in the Transvaal, the Heidelberg Public School stood there. That school has an illustrious history and people who wish to know more about it as well as about the town of Heidelberg may read the book by Dr A E Faul Bosman, the minister of religion at Heidelberg, Transvaal, at the time. In that hon members will see what was done in olden days and the struggles to make education possible in Heidelberg. I succeeded in obtaining a new Public School building at the time, which meant that land became vacant as the school buildings were of a temporary construction and were vacated and removed. Then a new battle was jointed because the land belonged to the Transvaal Provincial Administration. We had to request that body to relinquish part of that land to make a site available for the construction of a new post office. My very zealous MPC for Nigel, Mr Karel Schoeman, used his influence with the Transvaal Provincial Administration and they gave up part of that land. It was a very good piece of land on which to build the post office. I told the hon the Minister we would roll out the red carpet for him when that post office was opened. He will see it when he arrives there a week tomorrow. We are grateful for it and cannot let it pass unmarked. My thanks also to the former Postmaster General, Mr Bester, who retired before the building could be completed and was succeeded by Mr Ridgard. I also wish to thank Mr Ridgard and all his officials for all they have done to expedite the completion of that work.

Personnel in service of the Department of Post and Telecommunications are a happy group. They are also suffering under economic pressures like other members of the community as I mentioned in my Second Reading speech. I mentioned it most pertinently that there was no fault to be found with the Post Office in that regard but that it lay with the central Government. An important factor for which I wish to pay tribute to Post Office staff is that, to my knowledge—and I am saying this in all sincerity—there is no discrimination in the service of the Post Office. Unfortunately I cannot say this of other departments. Nevertheless I can speak on this with great authority regarding the Post Office as I have visited many post offices. I know a Post Office official has considerable freedom; for instance, such a person is not victimised if he belongs to a different political party. It sometimes happens that a person’s salary is inadequate and I shall later revert to this matter but it is when there is discrimination against a person and something snaps in him that it calls for revenge! Thank God this is not the case in the service of the Post Office. I wish I could say this of all other institutions. One can purchase White labour and it is among the best available in the world but one side of a White worker can never be bought: His soul is not for sale!

I wish to thank the hon the Minister again for everything he has done regarding the Heidelberg post office. I shall also bring it to the attention of the people of Heidelberg again tomorrow week. I also wish to thank the staff and Mr Ridgard again for everything they have done. That beautiful, decorative building looks splendid and no errors crept in; inspectors visited it regularly. We realise there were problems as regards contracts at one stage but they were solved satisfactorily. The attractive building stands there as an adornment to the town of Heidelberg.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Nigel said nothing requiring a response and I may refer later in my speech to other remarks made during this debate.

We have reached the end not only of the Post Office Appropriation debate but also the legislative programme of the Post Office for this year. It is consequently a fitting occasion to convey the thanks of this side of the House to the hon the Minister, the Postmaster General and his deputies for the very good co-operation we have received on this side of the House and that they make it easy for spokesmen on this side to speak on behalf of the Post Office. It is a well-administered department—one which it is a pleasure to champion.

It is also the end of the first full year in which the Standing Committee on Communications and Public Works fulfilled its duties. I think it would be negligent on my part if I were not to express my gratitude on this occasion to hon members of all parties who served on the committee. To my mind we accomplished good and in certain aspects even pioneering work. I think hon members on all sides of the House of Assembly will agree that one aspect of the new tricameral dispensation which has brought about a decided improvement in the quality of legislation is the period of two days permitted for consideration and dissection of the Post Office Appropriation.

I wish to revert to the debate by referring to the hon member for Hillbrow’s repeated allegations of inaccuracy in the hon the Minister’s estimates which we have in the appropriation before us now. In last year’s Third Reading debate this hon member filled four entire Hansard columns with inaccuracies in the appropriation of the time. I shall not quote everything he said then but I wish to refer to his reaction to the increase in rates of 14,8% provided for last year. At the time the hon member filled two columns with calculations in his own characteristic arithmetic—or perhaps I had better say that of the PFP which the hon member for Greytown has also learned from him now.

He was actually “shocked”.

So he was “shocked” again but in the course of his estimates the hon member came to the conclusion last year that rate increases of 14,8% would yield R400 million. According to his estimates of the hon the Minister’s inaccurate calculations of his budgetary requirements, it was fair to reach the simple conclusion that a quarter of it would be adequate and necessitate an increase of nearly 3,7%. The hon member therefore told us last year that 3,7% and not 14,8% was required according to his calculations. The hon the Minister said in this year’s appropriation speech that the total expenditure for 1985-86 was estimated at R4 674,8 million which is R297,4 million or 6,8% higher than the original Vote. Last year’s estimated 14,8% increase in other words meant that the Vote fell short by 6,8%. The hon the Minister said this himself. As the proverb runs: “After all, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.”

Who taught you that?

Can the hon member for Hillbrow spend a moment telling this House and the country what would have happened if the hon the Minister had accepted his proposed 3,7% increase last year? We would have landed in a pickle from which we would never have emerged. [Interjections.] I think hon members of this House know by this time that it is a recipe for catastrophe to follow PFP calculations. [Interjections.] It is a recipe for disaster in this House as much as a recipe for disaster to the Post Office.

[Inaudible.]

Let us leave this hon member’s calculations at that and in preference examine the effect of the appropriation. I must first refer again to those strange calculations of the hon member for Hillbrow, however. He told the hon the Minister that, if he introduced Minitel as in France—France already has 800 000 of these little screens next to one’s telephone on which the same information appears as is at present in the telephone directory—the thousands of rands presently being spent on telephone directories could be saved. What money is to be used for this if the hon the Minister is not permitted to increase rates? How is he to instal that novelty? He now wishes to force other innovations upon the Post Office but did not take into account all the new facilities the Post Office was able to make available to users in consequence of recent annual increases in rates. Nowhere in speeches of the hon member and his fellow party members or in speeches of any other hon Opposition speakers was there any sign of appreciation for all the innovations provided by the Post Office to South African users recently. [Interjections.]

If one examines this entire debate, it is very clear that the Opposition parties are obsessed with rates.

You must listen to the debate. Read the Hansard again!

Year after year there is snivelling about rate adjustments but ultimately this is the price we have to pay to have one of the most modern and up-to-date telephone services in the world. We have almost become accustomed to this now but should one not ask oneself in a Third Reading debate whether it is really necessary for the National Productivity Institute to have to tell us—we who are the Parliament of South Africa and the head of the Post Office—that we are debating here on an organisation which is an example to the rest of the country—to private as well as public sectors? Is it too much to expect the Opposition to show a little more appreciation of it in this House of Assembly? Does our hon Minister have to travel to the USA to learn there that we are one of the most advanced countries in the entire world as regards the development of an integrated digital telephone communications system? Is it too much to ask that PFP experts in the spheres of finance and commerce as well as the CP experts should express some appreciation of the enormous role played by a modern telecommunications network in the international trade relations of this country?

Mr Chairman, can I ask the hon member a question?

No, I cannot reply now; my time is very limited.

Do the great champions of a free Press in the PFP ranks realise why all the representatives of the greatest Press, radio and television networks are based in Zambia, Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland and Mozambique? They are based in South Africa because the most modern communications network is available to them here. These representatives carry out their assignments from Johannesburg to send reports to their mother organisations.

If we can make use of all these benefits at prices which remain low compared with world standards—the PFP can accept this whether it likes it or not—we should realise we are a fortunate country. If the Official Opposition realises all this, could we not expect a little more pride among its members when they speak of what benefits these rates purchase for us?

We are still waiting for any positive sounds from Opposition ranks as regards the achievements to which the hon the Minister referred in his Second Reading speech. These were all the fruits of a realistic rates policy. [Interjections.] I am referring to matters like the development of a new basic and cheaper Erika telephone instrument; to the decrease in the telephone waiting list by 38 000 or 17%; to progress in the field of an expanded motorphone service which makes us one of the most modern countries in the world; to the prospect mentioned by the hon the Minister that one will soon be able to make one’s calls from a public telephone booth with a card like a credit card. These are all facilities brought by this hon Minister, this Government and this administration to the telephone user of South Africa, thanks to a realistic rates policy.

Nevertheless hon members of Opposition parties time after time see no further than a rate being adjusted to prevailing circumstances. [Interjections.] If they had listened to the hon the Minister’s appropriation speech with a more positive attitude, they would have noted—and they could also have mentioned—how far-seeing it was of the administration to institute a housing scheme a few years ago which has now become so self-generating that it was possible to prune the appropriation for that housing scheme by 66% this year. This is another example of the judicious spending of today leading to the economy of tomorrow.

If Opposition parties could not find grounds for a little pride from the hon the Minister’s speech, they certainly accompanied us on the Post Office study tour last year. Surely they could have found some small aspect or other in that on which they could have reported positively. Are they not impressed by the increasing number of optical fibre links in our telecommunications network? Does it not impress them that we have the technology in South Africa to enable us to install this type of network domestically? Does it not excite them when, thanks to the Post Office, we are able to assist one large supplier after the other in making South Africa more self-sufficient?

I am not even speaking of rapid progress in the field of mechanisation of the postal service; I have not even referred to the large sorting machines and the optical character reading equipment. The postal service is admittedly the one expensive service in our administration in the sense that it is labour-intensive. A machine sorting 18 000 letters per hour to 104 destinations definitely has to assist in decreasing this labour-intensity.

I can proceed in this way and talk for an hour on all the modern developments in Post Office administration. These are developments every right-minded person in this House should be able to mention with pride but what do we find? We hear the same old snivelling about rate adjustments we heard last year, the year before and the year before that. I regret and it is unfortunate that, if we wish for a constantly improving, more effective and more modern telephone and postal service in this country, the onus will rest on the NP in this respect and not on Opposition parties.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Umlazi stated his case. We have heard him and I do want to associate myself with the remarks he made earlier in his speech, particularly in connection with the officials, the Postmaster General and his staff. I also think that he is deserving of a certain measure of praise for the way that he has, in the first year of the life of the standing committee, brought that committee to a point where we have a very good working arrangement and we have a very good understanding of each other’s problems and our little personal quirks and fancies. I think it speaks well of the hon member for Umlazi that he does conduct the affairs of that committee on a very smooth and even note.

I think that the programme for this year’s budget has been one of the best that I have taken part in over the past 10 or 12 years, a programme in the sense that the introductory speech was given on a Monday which gave us an opportunity to study it and the opportunity to study the content of the budget before the Second Reading debate took place a few days later. We then had another breathing space before today when we are having both the Committee and the Third Reading stage. If this sort of programme can be maintained we will have far better and far more effective debates on all budgetary matters.

We should not only consider the effects of this Budget but I think what we have to do is to take heed of comment from certain quarters—comment that was made last year and repeated again this year. It is now incumbent upon us at this stage to start looking—I am sure the hon the Minister and the Postmaster General and his staff are well aware of this—at what we are going to do in next year’s Budget. Having heard everything that has been said, all the comment, all the criticism, I suggest that next year must be the thing we have to start looking at.

I would like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to comment that came from the Durban Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce both last year and this year. I do this because I think that the hon Minister knows and understands that the Durban Chamber of Commerce—it is now known as the Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce—is the largest by way of membership in the country. It is a very effective and a very well-meaning voice of commerce in South Africa. Last year the president of the chamber in a newsletter dated 9 March 1985, suggested the following about last year’s Budget:

He went on to say:

He then said:

This year, as reported in The Natal Mercury of Tuesday 4 March, the chamber again reacts and the newspaper suggests in its headline that the hikes come as no surprise to the Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce. Indeed, the content of the chambers’ quoted comment would suggest this. The spokesman for the chamber went on to say:

That is the essence of what I was also trying to say in my Second Reading speech to the hon the Minister. I think this is a situation that should be monitored very, very carefully. I sincerely believe that a close watch should be kept in the immediately ensuing months as of 1 April—as from the time when the new tariffs come into operation. I believe that the volume of sales, both in respect of mail items and in respect of telephone services—telephone unit calls—must be very, very carefully monitored in order to establish what the effect has been of these tariff increases. I say this because I believe that that must have a dramatic sort of input into what is planned for next year. If there is a tendency noticed in consumer resistance, we must recognise it early, we must identify it early and we must be able to effect the necessary compensations in our thinking for next year’s budget.

Sir, I make these observations in the spirit of wanting somehow to put some thought into the hon the Minister’s mind in connection with what the effect of this Budget could possibly be. I do honestly believe he is going to through a somewhat torrid time as far as volumes are concerned.

In conclusion, Sir, I wonder if I could mention something which I could perhaps have mentioned had I had more time during the Committee Stage. It is, however, an item that concerns me, and that is the question of the express delivery of mail items. Now, we are going to be faced from 1 April with a minimum charge of something like R1,80 on an express delivery items, and I want to suggest that this is a service which is not effective. It is neither effective nor is it efficient. It is with regret that I have to say this. I do think, however, every hon member must be honest in this regard. How many times have we had mail items, sent to us express mail from Parliament to our homes, without them arriving any quicker than a normal mail item?

The other day, Sir, I had experience of a classic instance. I bank at Barclays Bank in Durban North, which is in Broadway. Right behind Barclays Bank, adjoining it, is the mail postal section of the Durban North post office. I posted an express article to the bank because I wanted to obtain an overseas draft, and the express mail arrived after a personal note that I wrote to the bank manager, probably asking for another sort of draft, but anyway, be that as it may. The bank manager received the normally mailed article before the express mail article, and—let me hasten to add—I made note of addressing it to a street address and not to a box number, knowing that express mail does not necessarily arrive at its destination earlier if addressed to a box number.

The application, which was for American dollars, took three days to get there. The draft which was mailed back to me took three days to get back here, and on the same day that that draft was mailed the bank happened to post me a bank statement. Do you know, Sir, that that bank statement arrived in my pigeonhole here in Parliament a couple of hours before the express mail item notification reached me? I merely suggest that our express mail is not a service which is really producing the sort of results that it should. I wonder if it should not be looked at again, and possibly either rehashed or even phased out because I believe we are not providing the sort of service that we should in this regard.

In conclusion, Sir, I want to express my gratitude to the Postmaster-General and his staff for their courtesy and co-operation at all times in respect of all matters which, during the course of the year, I have had occasion to bring to their notice and to ask for their assistance. I am really grateful to them.

Mr Chairman, at this late stage I shall not respond to the hon member for Umhlanga’s speech. I believe he will understand.

Whereas the hon member exhibited his satisfaction with affairs concerning the Post Office at such a high level, I prefer to confine myself to the subject of philately. I think we cannot permit a debate such as this to pass without some mention of philately. I wish to start by saying I think philatelists in general should be most satisfied with the issue of the new 14c stamp on which the Johannesburg city hall is portrayed. This was recently declared a national monument—I think in 1979.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member—this is the fifth year I am putting this question—whether he would be so good as to ask the hon Minister of Communications when the Marble Hall exchange will be automated? [Interjections.]

I think the hon the Minister of Communications has taken note of that.

The Johannesburg city hall, the foundation stone of which was laid on 29 November 1910, was opened five years later in 1915 by Viscount Buxton who was the Governor General of the Union of South Africa at that time. This beautiful building—it actually is a fine one—cost approximately R1 million to erect. I hope the Marble Hall post office will run to more than that. I do not know to what degree there is a relationship between the choice of the Johannesburg city hall for the 14c stamp and the fact that Johannesburg is celebrating its centenary this year. Upon investigation it appears to me to be mere coincidence. I think a few of us—especially the collectors, the chairman of our standing committee and others, but I do not wish to involve him here—secretly hoped that Matjiesfontein—this is for the 15c stamp—would be granted that honour. Financially it would have been advantageous to the Post Office if we had given preference to Matjiesfontein instead of the Johannesburg city hall.

In all seriousness I should like to thank the Chief Director of Philatelic Services as I think we are being furnished with a great service. We wish to congratulate him on the conscientious and meticulous way in which approximately three quarters of a million orders are executed annually. This is a gigantic undertaking, also bearing in mind that over the past financial year stamps to the value of half a million rands were even sold overseas. We congratulate him heartily on this and say he is rendering South Africa an important service abroad. It is also necessary to point out that the Post Office takes part in prestigious exhibitions overseas: During 1984 in Essen, Germany; Tel Aviv in Israel in 1985 and exhibitions in Essen and Chicago this year. Whereas the entire turnover in philatelic sales was more than R9 million, we believe it will exceed the R10 million mark in an improved economic climate during the coming financial year. This can happen and we are fully confident that it will happen.

In this respect I should like to put a reasonable request. As I am aware that Post Office staff visit schools annually on recruiting drives, I wish to inquire whether it is possible that they encourage pupils or even the schools themselves to become deposit-account holders with the Philatelic Services. Stamps, especially commemorative issues, are of great historical value and schools can benefit greatly from them. Each commemorative cover is supplied with a printed card inside describing the motif of the stamp or stamps. It would be a good idea if commemorative stamps which have already been issued—some of the most beautiful of which seldom if ever appear on an ordinary envelope and of which some of my hon colleagues in the House are unaware—could be exhibited at schools. There are stamps, for instance, on which the entire Preamble to the Constitution is printed and others which may be of historical value. Schools could benefit greatly from a stamp collection.

It may be of interest to refer briefly to rates. I made an extract from the “Staatsalmanak” of the “Zuid-Afrikaansche Republiek” of 90 years ago. The postmaster of quite an important place in the Transvaal drew a salary of almost £325 per annum but he also had to pay one penny for a stamp. If the ratio between that penny stamp and the salary were projected against the salary at the same place and in the same position today, it would be found that that stamp would cost between 35 and 40 cents now. That is why the statement may be made that the dispatch of letters in South Africa today is still among the cheapest in the world.

The same applies to postbox rentals. In 1886 it cost £1.10/-per annum to rent a post-box. On a similar projection as done with postal rates, one finds it would come down to approximately R24 today so we have not kept pace here with the current income structure either.

Public interest in philately is increasing, especially if one notes the gross turnover of this exceptional service has increased by 11,26% over the past year. At present, items to the value of approximately R10 million are sold annually.

I wish to refer to a very important event which is to take place shortly. On 31 May this year a stamp is to be issued commemorating the 25th anniversary of the RSA. I have been informed it will not depict the Alpha XH1 helicopter but I believe it will be something that will find general favour. As this stamp is about to be issued, I should like us to purchase it in large quantities as I think we shall be able to feel very proud of it.

A few days ago I also showed the hon the Minister of Communications a set of our 1961 definitive series stamps bearing the signatures of the entire Cabinet of the time. I shall frame it and donate it to the Post Office Museum with pleasure.

You must donate it to the Minister!

Yes, to the hon Minister. We have been assured that stamps designed to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Republic will be very popular. We may be proud of the achievement of the commemoration of the 25th anniversary of the RSA—thanks also to the NP for its purposeful guidance.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank members on both sides of the House who participated in the Third Reading debate. Certain matters were raised to which I shall now reply. Speakers were the hon members for Hillbrow, Nigel, Umlazi and Umhlanga as well as the hon member Mr Vermeulen.

It was clear to me that there was far more calm during the Third Reading debate. I think this could be attributed to the fact that debating went chiefly on the consequences of the appropriation and here the hon member for Umlazi set the example. Here we no longer deal with the clarification of miscellaneous remarks made yesterday and the day before; this deals with the consequences of the appropriation.

†There are a few points that I must reply to. I find it very strange that I have to keep on repeating arguments to the hon member for Hillbrow in order to try to convince him. I am not sure but perhaps I speak too fast when I speak Afrikaans so that the hon member does not understand the points that I am trying to make.

In the debate over the past few days I have mentioned that the framing of the budget starts in August of the previous year but that that is not when we finalise the budget. This budget was finalised in January of this year. The hon member for Hillbrow complained that we used the exchange rate of 41 American cents to the rand. He asked if that was still a realistic figure because the exchange rate had risen to 50 American cents to the rand.

I want to ask the hon member what exchange rate he would have used. We had a very interesting statement from the hon member for Umlazi last year. He said we needed an increase of 3,7% but we ended with a deficit of R300 million with the increase of 14,6% that I asked for.

That was because you overspent!

What would the hon member for Hillbrow’s deficit have been? [Interjections.] All I ask—and this is a simple request—is that the hon member tell us what rand-dollar exchange rate he would have used in drawing up this budget. Let us get it on record. Let us record it in Hansard.

Mr Chairman, my answer …

The hon member need not get up. I cannot sit down now.

I would have waited until the last minute.

Order! We cannot…

I would at least have waited until December.

Order!

What was the exchange rate in January?

In January the rand was the equivalent of about 46 US cents to 48 US cents, I think. Would the hon member have used that exchange rate?

The exchange rate was 38 US cents to R1 then.

Was it 48 US cents to R1?

38 US cents.

Oh, was the exchange rate 38 US cents to R1 in January? Well then, would the hon member for Hillbrow have used that exchange rate in January? [Interjections.]

I would have waited until the last moment.

The last moment in this instance would have been the day I introduced the budget, and the exchange rate was 50 US cents to R1 then.

Now let us get this on record. Will the hon member just listen to me for a moment? Would he have taken an exchange rate at 50 US cents to R1? I do not want to sound as if I am selling anything, but would the hon member have used that exchange rate of 50 US cents to R1?

You sound as if you are.

The hon member for Greytown says he would have. Still, it is really the answer of the hon member for Hillbrow that is important.

I did not say that. I said you sound as if you are selling something. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Hillbrow says “Yes”. [Interjections.] We will remember that.

*The House will remember that next year. The hon member for Hillbrow said he would have based his appropriation on an exchange rate of (US) 50 cents to R1. We remained conservative—for one reason: We cannot predict whether the exchange rate will rise or fall; this depends on who does this or that and what the Americans decide.

The hon member disregarded one cardinal point: I budgeted for a deficit of R36 million. Even if there is an improvement in the exchange rate, this will have to continue for some time before the deficit of R36 million is covered. If I had budgeted for a surplus, the hon member would have had good reason for complaint. I budgeted for a deficit in the hope that we could accomplish savings here and there and also in the hope that, if there were an improvement in the exchange rate, I could cover that deficit of R36 million in that way. Surely that is simple. The hon member for Bezuidenhout agrees with me because he knows this is true. He is a businessman.

†The hon member for Hillbrow keeps telling me that I overspent R297 million.

That is right.

I have explained to the hon member that there is not one single item on which this department, the top executive or the Postmaster General overspent. The additional expenditure is due to factors over which we had absolutely no control. These factors included the exchange rate, the increased rate of interest and various other factors that I already mentioned during the debate on the Additional Appropriation. I am not going to discuss these factors again; the hon member can read the speeches I made during that debate. There was not a single item on which we overspent because of poor budgeting.

Then you must cut down on costs.

The hon member for Hillbrow has already raised the point about the 800 000 Minitel systems installed in France. It is nice to talk. Who is going to pay for the whisky, however? Who is going to install the Minitel? What does the hon member know about the cost of Minitel? The French government actually installed the Minitel for those people. The people did not buy the Minitel systems. The systems were installed for them. Does the hon member expect the Post Office to install the Minitel system here? If he does expect us to, can he tell us where we will get the money from to do it?

I did not say that. I said you should not spend money on the wrong things.

Well, I am asking the hon member the question now. Anyway, that was what he insinuated. [Interjections.]

What have we already done? We already have an electronic service. We can, when the time comes, go on to the Minitel system. We already have an electronic service that will cut down markedly on the cost of publishing telephone directories. A telephone user who wants to know a particular telephone number can simply call our exchange by dialling a certain number and giving the name and address—or as near the full address as possible—of the person he is trying to contact. Our exchange will then simply call up the data on their computer and within moments will be able to give the user the number he wants—and the user does not even have to pay for the call to our exchange! So we already have a system that we can develop into a more advanced electronic telephone inquiry system.

The hon member once again quoted a private consultant. This consultant flew into South Africa just to address a meeting. In fact, he got out so quickly that when I looked for him the next day he was gone. I thought: If this fellow has so much experience about privatisation, then I would like to talk to him about it. I mean, he just flew in and out; yet he said that we were just the right sort of people to privatise. That sort of talk gets one nowhere! We are also keen to know. We are also keen to improve our budgetary methods. I am going to do something about it. We are going to get expert advice on our whole financial system and we are also going to take cognisance of the Franzsen Commission’s report.

*I now come to the hon member for Sunnyside. He must tell me only whether we require more or less self-financing; surely that is simple. He should forget about Dr Franzsen who said 50%. Do we require more or less? The hon member need not reply to me.

Fifty per cent.

Fifty per cent? All right, we have been aiming for that for four years but have not reached it yet. We have not reached it because of frequent changes in factors beyond our control such as this fluctuating exchange rate, the interest rate and various other unforeseen circumstances. Interest rates plunged so low this year that we received only 12%; we cannot continue with that. If we cannot maintain a very much higher level of self-financing, it is equally true that this country cannot afford continued borrowing for its postal services. We shall then have to revert to the letter-in-the-cleft-stick method. We shall also have to revert to the system of messengers instead of installing telephones. Then we will be retrogressing. [Interjections.] To my mind this is what the hon member wants.

†The hon member talked about inflation. He did excuse himself, I know. However, he did talk about inflation. Must I tell this House once again that all the expert advice we have received indicates that this budget can only affect the inflation rate by 0,15% in the short term? There could be an additional effect of 0,05% in the long term, producing a total inflation rise of 0,2%. Now we have to weigh up the pros and cons. Should I go for this electronic revolution? Should I meet it head-on as the hon member said? Alternatively, should I bury my head in the sand and, like the hon member for Greytown, say: “No, no. These increased tariffs are terrible.” Various other hon members also said that. We cannot talk in a serious debate with our tongues in our cheeks. Hon members certainly do want telephones. The hon member for Johannesburg North wants a new post office and he wants to know when I am going to wipe out the backlog in Soweto. We put in 300 000 telephones last year. We have a waiting list of over 200 000. We have the demand. Must we now chase these people away and say that we are very sorry but the Official Opposition says that there are to be no more tariff increases. Are we to tell them that we have a few things to do such as reducing staff and cutting down on our contract orders? Are we to tell our contractors that we do not want any more equipment? In that case, they would have to lay off staff and this would create a ripple effect. [Interjections.]

*Hon members should give me a chance now; I did not worry them. Surely the hon member for Greytown has had a sufficient drubbing today. He should not be so persistent. [Interjections.]

I should like to thank the hon member for Nigel for his recognition of my staff and me as regards the recently constructed post office. I think the hon member realises we required money to build the post office and we placed it on the programme.

I appreciate his standpoint on privatisation. I do not say we should not privatise an enterprise; I merely say we should stop talking about it as if it were the alpha and omega of everything.

†The hon member for Umhlanga said the same thing. We cannot simply privatise telecommunications and think we have a utopian situation without knowing what it is all about. We will make some inquiries during the coming year. I shall be holding discussions with the Postmaster-General and the top executive on this issue. I have some ideas about reviewing our entire financial situation. We are not afraid to have it scrutinised. However, then it will be done by an expert who can give us advice instead of perhaps only criticising us.

*The hon member spoke about a department without political discrimination; I hope it will remain so but I wish to say something to the hon member. This reminds me of the hon member for Sasolburg who also apologised. I cannot omit repeating what he said about the Post Office. He said:

This must be recorded. [Interjections.] I honestly want to tell this House today that if there is one person in the Post Office who has ever voted for the HNP and still wishes to do so after this speech, I shall be most surprised. I shall be most surprised because that is what the hon member for Sasolburg thinks of the Post Office. [Interjections.] He did say that. [Interjections.] No, we had to drag in a little politics now and then but hon members there dragged them in throughout. [Interjections.]

I wish to get to the hon member for Umlazi who is the chairman of the standing committee. He commented on the successful operation of the committee but I wish to say here today that the committee operates so successfully precisely because it has a dedicated, capable chairman. [Interjections.] I wish to tell the hon member he has the gift of dealing with people although he sometimes runs into a headwind. In such a case the Bill takes a turn through the three Houses, is remitted to the standing committee and reappears in the three Houses. We had that type of experience today. I wish to pay tribute to his negotiating powers; he also knows what the Constitution requires; he knows how to pilot a Bill and this is important. I wish to thank him very much. I have just one more comment. He made a speech again today indicating that he regarded the Third Reading debate as the one in which one voiced one’s predictions on the future.

He spoke about the new Erica telephone and the shrinking waiting list of applicants. This was an example of a good Third Reading speech. He spoke of the benefits of realistic rates; he pointed out to the hon member for Hillbrow that he had said last year that we required an increase of only 3,7%. I had actually forgotten about that. Can hon members imagine what it would have looked like if I had had to come here today to report that my calculations were out by quite a few million rands and not in consequence of unforeseen circumstances? This would have meant that I would have been unable at present or in the next few years to offer the personnel sitting there any form of further remuneration and that we would also have had to dismiss people.

The hon member spoke about the Erica telephone. Perhaps I should mention it here today that we are examining a new method of making this telephone available to subscribers.

†Instead of people having to pay a single amount, which sometimes may be a hardship, we are considering rather letting the terminal at a small rental of about R1, which could simply be added to the network rental.

*The subscriber will not even be aware of it. If we assume an increase in his telephone rental of R1 or a shade over, he need not spend R35 or R70 or R90 or whatever on a lump-sum payment. The principle would be to let the terminal instead of recovering a single large lump sum. It would then make budgeting much easier as we would know a certain number of telephones earned a specific amount in rental for us. At the moment we do not know who wants the new telephones. We are earning a large amount of money from people who are fetching the Disa telephones. We are considering the idea of preferably letting the terminal as we are doing to members of the private sector, for instance. We may just as well put that idea into operation among private subscribers.

The hon member for Umlazi pointed out the inaccuracy of the hon member for Hill-brow’s statements and I am grateful to him for that as it lightens my task considerably. I am not always sure whether I leave an impression on the chaps whom I address and it is therefore very helpful if he also contributes in this regard. Perhaps hon members understand better when he addresses them so beautifully in English.

†The hon member for Umhlanga also mentioned the effect of the budget. He warned us against pricing ourselves out of the market. One obviously has to be concerned about this, but current demand shows that last year’s tariff increases did not frighten off the clients who needed telephones. We installed 300 000 telephones last year and had a waiting list of over 200 000. The demand has not nearly been satisfied and would have been much higher this year if it had not been for the unrest because of which a number of telephones could not be installed in the townships.

I take the hon member’s point about express mail, but I do have a problem in respect of the transport of postal matter. The hon member will have noticed that there have been a number of large robberies of bank money in transit. In the Transvaal R1,4 million was stolen in one such incident and a young railwayman was killed. Some arrests were made the other day. Every now and again such robberies take place such as the other day on the South Coast of Natal and they have become more frequent. We transport this sort of mail at the ordinary package rate without even receiving a percentage. If a mailbag contains R1,4 million, for example, we take it all the way to the station and then hand it over to the SATS who have to guard it and transport it…

At a loss!

… and we pay. [Interjections.] All the bank pays us is the ordinary parcel rate. There is a bit of insurance that we carry—I think it is up to R1 000—but the banks are covered by insurance companies. We cannot carry on like this. In the first place we are getting a bad name because, whenever a robbery is reported, it is mentioned that postal bags were stolen. The hon Minister of Transport Affairs also gets a bad name because they are stolen out of a SATS truck. We will have to discuss this matter seriously with the banks. Perhaps we can privatise this service by having the banks transport their own money. [Interjections.] This is a chance to see whether the private sector is keen to let us privatise. I just mention that because we are looking at the matter very seriously. We find it a big problem, because we do not want any of our staff to be at risk in order to protect mail bags.

*I now come to the hon member Mr Vermeulen who spoke on philately. It is always pleasant to listen to a speech on this subject. The hon member spoke on it so feelingly, as well as about the Johannesburg city hall depicted on the stamp. He put an indirect question to me which was put to him by another member—a “retread” type of question—on the post office at Marble Hall. I now have a problem and perhaps I had better ask the hon member who put the question to the hon member Mr Vermeulen whether he would be so kind as to inform the Post Office in writing where that place Marble Hall is. We received the application four years ago and we have been looking for the place for three. If he would just indicate the exact location to us, I hope we shall be able to send our people there but he will have to show us where Marble Hall is. In more serious vein I wish to say, however, that I shall attend to this and we shall see what we can do. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Vermeulen cited a few fine examples here. He said a stamp worth one penny long ago should now cost 35 cents according to proof he produced; that is about what such a stamp should cost. If it were so, we would not have had a loss of R123 million. At one stage we treaded rather lightly in making people pay for a service and now we are short. I am forced to increase rates annually. I am not saying this has not been done before but we are experiencing a period in which matters move fast. There are automatic sorters and automatic exchanges for which we require money. He also pointed out that the rental for postboxes which used to be £1.10/-should be R24 now. That is actually what it ought to be if we were to start comparing figures. Where else can one rent a postbox at R15 per annum? That is the amount at which we let them annually and hon members can calculate the daily cost themselves—I think it is 1,5 cents—but the hon member for Greytown can calculate it for me quickly. [Interjections.]

I now wish to get to a few points standing over from the previous debate and to which I promised hon members replies. The hon member for Sunnyside inquired into the investigation I said we would institute. This is a departmental investigation which is being carried out by our financial section. There are financial experts in this section who are actually investigating the entire matter of the financing of our capital programmes and the findings of the Franzsen Commission because circumstances have changed. The hon member will concede to us that in order to obviate the presentation of a distorted image of the financial operations each year, it now appears necessary to include the amount we provide for annually for the redemption of loans. The redemption load is spread over a number of years instead of our being burdened unfairly in a specific year with an incidental high redemption and with a smaller incidental burden in the subsequent year. We should prefer to prepare ourselves now to budget annually for the payment of a specific amount in interest and redemption until we have extinguished the backlog. This is how we regard the redemption of loans.

Internal funds must of necessity be regarded as such as they are derived from the revenue generated by rates. This already makes a difference. Previously we did not indicate them as internal funds. If we now draw upon money we have made from rates to redeem a loan, however, it is preferable for us to decide on a constant amount. We have to take all these types of things into calculation. A moment ago I mentioned to an hon member that we were planning to obtain expert advice to examine this specific matter with us.

The hon member for Sunnyside put a question on the increase in rentals under item 1.3.1 in the appropriation. That is a normal increase and is attributable inter alia to the fact that new accommodation had to be created. In addition it is a fact that, if contracts expire which we entered into as early as 15 years ago, for instance, contractors of necessity charge higher rentals. It is only natural that we should have to pay more now; it is ordinary growth taking place in that sphere.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout made a very interesting quo vadis speech. However, all I can ask the hon member is where he has been for the past four years. He said that we were avoiding the electronic revolution. He said it was negligence not to see this electronic revolution. However, what has the Post Office been meeting head-on for the past four or more years? How else could we have installed, in four years, the fastest ever one million telephones? It took a hundred years to install two million telephones. It then took six more years to install the next million, but we have installed one million in four years.

That was the old system.

The hon member says that this is an old system; he thinks a telephone is just a piece of equipment standing on a table. The hon member does not realise we have started on carrier lines with optical fibre throughout the country—from Johannesburg to Durban, from Durban to Cape Town, from Durban to Port Elizabeth and from Port Elizabeth to Johannesburg. We are using optical fibre. We have installed electronic digital exchanges at such a rate that we have already automated 95% of our total network.

We are spending a few hundred million rand every year in extending our microwave network. We are also extending our satellite station; we hire space on Intelsat and we have Diginet. We have produced Diginet. If I had the time I could look for the cutting in which the business people say that they think our tariffs for Diginet are very reasonable. They have the facility of Diginet and it has been installed with the most modern equipment. We are working towards an integrated digital network service—the ISDN—which will carry everything. It will carry data, speech and vision through the same cable. Where has the hon member been for the past four years?

I have been looking at you.

Now he says we should watch out for the electronic revolution. The hon member said that the telephone should be taken away from the bureaucrats. Whom do we give it to?

If the hon member wants to, he can read it. The hon member for Hillbrow quoted some consultant or other. Let us consider the opinions of other people too. The executive director of Altech is in the private sector. He said that although he was in favour of greater participation by the private sector the privatising of telecommunications in this country was not a solution for South Africa. This man is in the private sector. We must take notice of what he says, not of a consultant who flies into and out of the country and who says he is a consultant for 400 or 500 companies in the private sector. Obviously such a man would be in favour of privatisation. Look at Telebank and Beltel. Where has the hon member been for the past four years? Look at the telex and teletex services. By the end of the year there will be 32 650 teletex machines of the most modern type one can find anywhere in the world. We have privatised our PABX systems in businesses. There is not a single area in the electronics field where we have not met the revolution head-on. In fact, we have not only met the revolution but we have also been responsible for one in our own services. I mentioned the example of Fred Bell talking about our Armscor exhibition.

[Inaudible.]

A magnificent exhibition and it was on our TV screens. Now the hon member for Bezuidenhout waves his hands as if we have been doing nothing. What is the rest of the electronics revolution the hon member is talking about?

What are you going to do about bypassing your system?

The hon member bypasses my questions—that is his problem.

You do not know what I am talking about!

I wish to reply to the hon member’s quo vadis speech. We have many departments in the Post Office; we have four Deputy Postmasters General each in control of a department; we have a marketing section in which experts work. Yesterday I had a meal with representatives of a firm which designed our television advertisements. All outside the Post Office say the advertisements are among the best they have ever seen. Our marketing has coined us in excess of R500 million in domestic investments.

Even if I as the Minister have to say it of my top management and officials: Obviously this is not a department which is asleep! They would never say it themselves because they are quiet people who work hard. We have an engineering and a technical department from the ranks of which we regularly send people overseas: At the moment some are abroad examining new developments. Now the hon member wants to tell me we are asleep like Rip van Winkle and the electronic revolution is charging down on us. We intend keeping to basic innovations; at this stage we cannot afford to install luxuries. I am not saying, however, that we shall never install luxuries because everything is developing so fast. We require finance to do this and the money paid is for a service which is to be provided. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? He wonders where we will find the money. There are two banks, like Merill Lynch and Chemical Bank supporting IBM and AT & T, and the hon the Minister is able to buy goods from any company in the world. Why has he not been overseas to see if he cannot get money from the banks for his organisation?

The hon member for Bezuidenhout has been moaning together with that side of the House about rates the entire day. The rates have been increased so that we need take up fewer loans. The hon member complained because our self-financing ran to only 12% last year and we suffered heavy losses. Now he provides the names of two banks from which I should request finance. [Interjections.] If I had started as early as 5.30pm enumerating banks with which we have contact, I could have continued with this until 6.30pm. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bezuidenhout must kindly control himself.

I wish to tell the hon member we are in continual contact with banks. I have people abroad and we are already discussing new methods of financing with our suppliers. [Interjections.] I am leaving for overseas in two or three weeks’ time to talk to four suppliers but this is not occurring in consequence of the hon member for Bezuidenhout’s proposals. I have been planning it since last year but circumstances have prevented my going.

I greatly appreciate the hon member for Bezuidenhout who once rejuvenated a hopeless business enterprise. I do not wish to scold him today but he should not regard our undertaking as a hopeless one. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the House that the telecommunications department is well informed on the foremost developments in the world. They told us in the USA that they were unsure whether the Canadians or we ourselves were ahead in development. Nevertheless we first have to ensure that our basic services are established in the country—for which I require money. As long as there is a demand, we shall have to continue supplying these basic services.

There are people in Opposition party ranks who are complaining but the public out there does not mind paying for a good service. It is our goal to provide the best service possible to all, from someone who wishes to make a telephone call from the farm up to a business undertaking in the city, even if it is not automated yet. We require staff with quality and training to be able to do this; we are proceeding with the training of personnel. This year, for example, we are training 7 000 technical staff members of all races. Does the private sector do this? What has the private sector done? It has cut back. Over the past few months it has enticed 600 of our staff by means of higher salaries. That is what it does—it keeps a continuous watch on us. We are not afraid of the future.

†The Post Office is not afraid to meet the future. We will train our personnel; we will work according to our budget; we will supply what is needed and we will keep the electronics industry running in this country at a rate that will ensure proper employment for a lot of people.

*My colleague, the hon the Minister of Manpower, knows we train people in the Post Office.

Business interrupted in accordance with Rule 47.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.