Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, in replying to the Second Reading debate, took strong exception to an accusation I had made during the Second Reading debate. This had to do with the inability of S.A. Airways to air freight a certain quantity of grapes to Europe. The quantity of grapes amounted to 600 tons. After the hon. the Minister’s objections yesterday, when he got up in the House and made a big performance about it, saying it was a “blatante leuen”, that the people who had told me this story were telling blatant lies . . . Well, I should like to tell the hon. the Minister just who he is accusing. I shall tell him the origin of this story and how it came about.

Grapes of wrath!

I refer the hon. the Minister to a meeting of the Institute of Transport which was held in Johannesburg on 18 February this year. Should the hon. the Minister want to know where, let me say it was held in the Press-room, on the 25th floor of the President Hotel. It was an open meeting, attended by members of the Press. It was attended by some 60 people, including some senior officials of the Railways Administration. Two of them I happen to know. They were Mr. J. J. Havenga and Mr. Benade. These people were all present when the representatives of two major foreign airlines, pool partners of S.A. Airways, made this accusation in the terms in which I described it. Going into further detail they said the grapes had come from De Dooms and from the Worcester area. They also said that one of the pool partners had a Boeing 747 aircraft available in Johannesburg which they would have loved to use at the time to transport those grapes. They said the grapes could well have been transported on that aircraft when it went back.

Of my own knowledge I do not know about these grapes. However, when this is said in front of senior Railway officials—and there was no contradiction—at a public meeting, I find it very extraordinary that the hon. the Minister should choose to get up in the House now and tell our pool partners that they are blatant liers. I suggest to him that if this is the way he is going to perform as Minister of Transport Affairs, he should think again.

It is still a lie.

The hon. the Minister says it is still a lie. I should suggest to him, however, if he is going to keep good relationships with his pool partners, something is very wrong. I think, of course, that he was putting up a big performance here just because there is an election coming up. [Interjections.]

You got hurt because you gossip.

The hon. the Minister says I am listening to “skinder-praatjies”. He must talk again, because that is a further accusation against the pool partners of S.A. Airways, and I suggest that he . . .

You are the bearer of lies.

. . . moderate his tone slightly . . .

Order! The hon. member for Tygervallei must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, I did not say the hon. member was a lier.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw it. He may not say another hon. member is a bearer of lies.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

Choose your words carefully. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, when I get up in this House and quote a public accusation which has been made against the S.A. Airways and say to the hon. the Minister that this is the story I have been told and then to get a reaction like the reaction I got yesterday, disgusts me, because the hon. the Minister was playing political games.

Let me also point out that this is happening against a background of continual difficulty for many people who export perishables. The hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that considerable difficulty has been experienced by a lot of people in connection with the export of perishables because S.A. Airways insists on keeping it to itself. Of course, with a falling European market we are in a situation in which S.A. Airways can fare better, but the hon. the Minister must also realize that part of the reason for the falling market is the freight rates between South Africa and Britain. I put it to the hon. the Minister that if freight rates were more reasonable our exporters would in fact be able to sell much more to the markets of Europe.

The hon. the Minister has done a very dangerous thing in increasing tariffs as he has, specifically in relation to the export market. One looks at the situation, for example with regard to the exports of iron ore over the Sishen-Saldanha line. The cost of transporting that iron ore has gone up considerably, in a situation in which general recession in world trade is beginning and where export markets are becoming more competitive making it more difficult for us to keep our place in that export market. The hon. the Minister knows this. He knows that there are exporters in Brazil and Australia just waiting for an opportunity to export more iron-ore and yet, Sir, he makes our exporters less competitive by this enormous hike in tariffs. I want to tell that hon. Minister again that he has done South Africa a disservice in raising those tariffs. You know, Sir, we South Africans have to pay the rates or tariffs imposed by the S.A. Railways but importers of our iron-ore do not have to because they have alternatives. They can import from other countries like Brazil and Australia.

Ours is still cheaper.

It is not cheaper at all, Sir. In fact, the rail tariffs in both of those countries are cheaper.

He does not understand much about it.

No, he does not and I am very glad that today is his last day. [Interjections.]

I want to return very briefly to one other matter and that is the question of the large new building that the hon. the Minister intends building in Johannesburg at a cost of R57 million. In his reply to the debate yesterday, the hon. the Minister told us that the Administration was paying a fortune in rentals in respect of buildings all over Johannesburg. He told the House that the figure was, I think, R2,9 million per annum that we were paying in rentals and that this amount would no longer have to be paid if we built this building. I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he do a little arithmetic. If he borrows the money to build a building costing R57 million he is going to have to pay something like 10% for that money today. That means that he is going to have to pay something like R5,7 million per annum in interest instead of R2,9 million. I would say to the hon. the Minister that he is very fortunate to be able to obtain the accommodation that he has at the moment at that price.

Escalation.

Installation, yes, Sir, but . . .

No, escalation.

Well, I would make a bet here and now, Sir, that R57 million is not going to be the total story.

The R2,9 million will also escalate.

Yes, the R2,9 million will also escalate but not to the extent of R5,7 million, and I am being reasonable; I am taking an interest rate of 10%. I would say the hon. the Minister is probably going to have to pay something like 12% for his money at the present time. I want to say that it is a great pity that at a time when capital was readily available and when interest rates were low the Railways did not in fact borrow far more heavily than they did so as to take advantage of those low interest rates a few years ago, or even a year ago. We would then not have been saddled with this tremendous burden of financing capital expenditure from revenue. This is what is killing us, killing the public of South Africa. This is why tariffs are so high. I must appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider this situation very carefully and realize the harm that he is doing to South Africa.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that never during my parliamentary service have I had so many Railway workers ring me up, angry Railwaymen, in connection with their pay increases. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon. the Minister that from the reaction that I have had I know that they are very dissatisfied. They are dissatisfied, Sir, not only at the scale of the increases, 12,5%, but also at the fact that a large amount of regrading has taken place on the Railways and a large number of grades have been downgraded. A lot of Railwaymen aspiring to certain grades have been very much disappointed by this. There is considerable dissatisfaction in this regard and I think that that hon. Minister and his Government should be aware of it—that is, if they care, which I do not think they do. [Interjections.] I do not think they care at all. You know, it is all very well to get up and say fine words about how noble the Railwaymen are to do the job that they are doing in the splendid way in which they do it but words do not pay the bills. There are hundreds of thousands of Railwaymen in South Africa who are experiencing difficulty paying their bills at the moment because of the meanness of that Government and that hon. Minister.

Now who is playing politics?

Well, Sir, that is what the hon. the Minister says but I regard it as my duty as an Opposition member of this House to tell the hon. the Minister a few home truths about how people feel about his budget.

Another interesting feature of the reply by the hon. the Minister yesterday was his promise that he would not raise tariffs for the agricultural industry for 12 months. I found it interesting that he picked out the agricultural industry. He did not say he was not going to raise tariffs generally during the next 12 months. I think we should look at his record because the hon. the Minister quoted some rather selective statistics yesterday in regard to the rate of increase in tariffs in relation to the consumer price index. I could also do that. I could take probably the worst aspect of it and look at how much air fares have gone up during the last 12 months. At the time of the main budget last year they went up by 20%, in October they went up another 10% and now they are going up a further 15%. This means something over 40% since the introduction of the last main budget. Is this in any way commensurate with the increase in the consumer price index? The hon. the Minister must realize that one can do quite a lot with statistics; one can quote them to prove almost anything. People, however, feel it in their pockets and they know perfectly well. One cannot fool all the people all the time.

I should like to have from the hon. the Minister an undertaking that not only agricultural tariffs will not increase, but other tariffs too. We shall give him a little latitude too in that we are prepared to say that if the price of fuel goes up enormously, we shall understand that in such a situation he will have to do something about it. I would suggest that he cut capital expenditure. We realize that there are always the imponderables. I think nevertheless that it will be a very fine bargain with the hon. the Minister if, when he gets up to reply to this debate, he will say, “Right if there are no unexpected increases, I shall give the undertaking that I will not raise Railway tariffs for 12 months and until the main budget is introduced next year”. If he does that, South Africans will be able to plan ahead.

We know—we forecast this—that the rate of inflation under this Government is going to be something like 20% and that it is almost invariably followed by increases in Railway tariffs that fan the flames of inflation. The hon. the Minister knows that we have to vote for this budget otherwise the Railways will not have any money. Therefore, we are going to support him in the Third Reading. I would suggest, however, that he go some of the way towards meeting our complaints and make that undertaking because I suspect that as soon as the election is over, he is going to raise tariffs further.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member how I can make an undertaking in regard to what is going to happen after 29 April? [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister is nevertheless prepared to do it for the agricultural sector; why is he not prepared to do it for the rest? [Interjections.] It also interests me that he really is quite worried about what is going to happen on 29 April.

All in all we in these benches have been horrified at the scale of the tariff increases and we should like to ask the hon. the Minister to think again and at least give us some sort of undertaking for the future so that South Africans can plan ahead without the prospect of this sort of inflation looming ahead.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members in the Opposition benches could, before participating in a debate of this nature, ask themselves what are the goals of the Railways Administration, this tremendously vast undertaking. I think we would have a far more constructive debate if they were to do that. Instead, however, we have had their carping little criticisms that go largely unnoticed—let me say so—by the leaders of our economic life and also by the men who by their sweat, diligence and dedication to their job, make our transport system one of the best in the world. It would appear that the hon. member for Orange Grove must have had a nightmare last night about his transferring himself to Durban North. [Interjections.] He must have had a nightmare last night wondering what the Railwaymen of Durban North—there are quite a number there—are going to think about him when he offers himself there for election in the coming election. [Interjections.]

I was unavoidably absent during the Second Reading debate and as a result I had to resort to reading the Hansard of the two main Opposition speakers, the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. I had to read their Hansard because from the Press I could glean little of what they had to say in the House. The Press obviously did not attach much importance to their remarks or their criticism and therefore I had to resort to reading their Hansard which, let me say, was somewhat of a tedious job. The Press has learnt, just as we in this House have learnt, to attach little importance to what the chief Opposition speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove, has to say on Railway affairs in this House. Last year, just as in this mini-budget, the hon. member took the standpoint that the tariff increases based on the principle of what the traffic can bear, would have a retarding effect on our economic growth. This was the main theme of the hon. member’s speech during that session of Parliament. That budget was based on an estimated growth rate of approximately 5%, and the hon. member said the increases in tariff would have a retarding effect on the growth rate. He said “They would have a retarding effect on our economic growth”. Well, we are all aware of the tremendous growth rate that has been achieved in the past 12 months of our economy. It makes nonsense of the protestations of the hon. member for Orange Grove. This year, because we are making R1 000 million available in this mini-budget for the capital works programme, the hon. member describes it as a “spendthrift and lavish capital expenditure programme”. He goes further and comes with the senseless argument that Railwaymen are the innocent victims of this programme of capital development. The logic of the hon. member for Orange Grove therefore is to cut the capital works programme and give Railwaymen at least a 20% increase, instead of 12½%, in their basic pay. But has the hon. member made any recommendation in the course of all the debates on this mini-budget as to what increase Railwaymen should get on their basic pay today?

Above the cost of living rate.

If it has to be above the cost of living rate we have to assume that the hon. member is prepared to advocate an increase of 20% to 22% . . .

Increase the efficiency . . .

The hon. member for Orange Grove has been party to the Brown Book for a number of years. He had a great deal to say about it in the last session of Parliament and he managed to pick out a few snippets in the Brown Book for this debate. If the hon. member has the attitude of mind that we should not vote this R1 000 million for the capital works programme, why has he never come forward with a suggestion for expunging from the Brown Book any of the proposed capital works that the Railway Administration has put before us? This is the type of opposition, the illogical approach, in an attempt to make small carping criticism . . .

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question?

No, Sir, the hon. member has had his opportunity to speak. These are attempts on the part of the hon. member to make a little political capital out of this mini-budget. The hon. member for Orange Grove’s political life is soon going to come to an end in Durban North; so everything he says here will not be of any avail whatsoever.

We shall see about that.

Mr. Speaker, I never cease to marvel at the structure and the operation of the Railways, an undertaking which is today possibly the most powerful tool in the national programme of economic expansion. Its successful operation is dependent upon the dedication to their jobs of some 266 000 Railwaymen. I shall come back to this aspect in a minute. Whether in the harbours or on rails, in the air or on the road, or in carrying fuel in pipelines, the Railways are concerned and involved with all national groups in our country and in Southern Africa, be they Black, Brown or White.

It is involved in the conflicting interests of many users, and to this end the Railways has to survive the close scrutiny of the business community and a full probing of its activities by Parliament, by the Auditor-General, the newspapers and various public organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries. For this reason, as an integral part of the economy of our country, it has to have top leadership of the highest quality, not only in its management, but also at the Government level. We in this House who carry the final authority as directors of the Railways Administration, can consider ourselves singularly fortunate that in the new management structure of the Railways we have such an outstanding top management team, with the General Manager and his three Deputy General Managers, with their team of 10 Assistant General Managers who all hold delegated responsibilities in the various facets of Railway operations. It has been my privilege, over some 19 years, to participate in Railway budget debates, and in that time I have seen a remarkable change come about in the attitude of most South Africans towards our State-owned Railway network. The Railway system was frequently derided as being outmoded, incompetent and unreliable, and many of these attacks were unfair and did little more than sap the morale of the Railwaymen.

You made those attacks.

In the time I have been in this House, members of the Opposition have probably been the main culprits in this regard.

You made those attacks.

Today however—

What I have just said is not my testimonial, but what was reported, some 12 months ago, in the International Railway Journal. I should like to repeat it, because it is something that hon. members in this House and members of the general public could well take note of—

That is an international testimonial. That is something, for example, which the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, the chief Railway spokesman of the NRP, cannot understand. He, like the hon. member for Orange Grove, also had a lot to say about the advisability of the present capital programme. He just does not appreciate the fact that the capital works programme of the Railways is developed, not as that hon. member says “for expanding the Railways into the greatest railway system in the world”, but as an international authority, the International Railway Journal says, to ensure that it is “a powerful tool in the national programme of economic expansion”. This simple little fact the hon. member for Amanzimtoti does not seem to grasp. While I am about it, for the particular benefit of the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is about to terminate his political life in Durban-North, as I have said . . .

What about you?

Yes, what about you?

… I should like to quote a further unsolicited testimonial for our Railways Administration.

You are a fraud, man!

The hon. gentlemen are concerned about my political future. Let me tell them that they can rest assured that I will be back. They need have no fears about that.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is an hon. member permitted to say that the hon. member who is speaking is a fraud?

Order! No, he is not. What did the hon. member say?

I said he was a fraud.

The hon. member must withdraw the word “fraud” immediately.

Certainly, Sir, I withdraw it.

Allow me to give a further unsolicited testimonial in regard to our Railways system. In January of this year Lloyds’ List, a respected journal of Lloyds of London, reported—

In other words, in a period of a decade the Railways’ carrying capacity, its ability to move goods, increased by 50%, with a less than 10% increase in the available labour force. To illustrate the changes that have come about in the administration and operation of the Railway system, one need only refer to what is clearly evidenced in the General Manager’s reports of recent years, particularly the latest. The South African Railways believes that its function is to create conditions in which the private sector of the economy can apply its capital and entrepreneurship with the least difficulty. Capital investment in the Railways is for no other purpose than to serve the country’s economy.

The S.A. Railways’ Management believes that the S.A. Railways must continue to provide an infrastructure that will adequately meet South Africa’s transport needs and to stimulate the economy. Moreover, should the Railways fail to provide an adequate infrastructure, the concept of a Southern African economic community would be a pipe-dream. Therefore it is interesting to note that on a list of the 10 most railway intensive systems in the world, the S.A. Railways is third on the list of capital expenditure on railway systems. Only the USA and West Germany exceed our expenditure on capital improvements to increase the carrying capacity and the efficiency of the Railways. The point I want to emphasize is that the present managerial concepts of the S.A. Railways has wider horizons than just the managing of a railway system per se. We know the limitations of the horizons of the hon. member for Orange Grove, that he cannot look further than just a railway engine and a railway coach on the local line taking him home tonight to Rondebosch, or wherever he goes on the suburban train. Management’s horizons reach out to fully gearing the rail system and its subsidiaries, the Airways, Road Transport Services, pipelines and harbours to regular contact and exchange of information in regard to the needs of private enterprise and the strategic economic planning of Government and the broader concept of the economic community for Southern Africa. In a free market economy all these objectives have to be correlated in the basic planning of the Railways Administration.

I should like to add a word in regard to the establishment of a South African economic community and the possible involvement of independent States on our northern borders and the role of the S.A. Railways in that regard. The Railways Administration should be congratulated on their transportation diplomacy, because that is what it is. The fact is that the Railways as a transport organization, equally concerned with the State and the private sector and with its involvement in Africa, in 1979 carried some 7 ¼ million tons of traffic to neighbouring States on our northern and eastern borders. The Railways Administration has a unique opportunity not accessible to any other Government department, and the Railways can exploit this opportunity to the utmost advantage of South Africa, even in the political sphere, something which I believe is beyond doubt. Despite recent meetings of the independent northern States to discuss ways of lessening their dependence on the S.A. Railways, I hope the Railways’ Management will pursue its outward looking transportation policy and philosophy, as I believe that this policy is based on the belief that normal trade relations are preferable to any less friendly action and can only lead to better understanding between States.

Before turning to staff matters, I should like to make a few comments on the operations division of the Railways, which is the heart of Railway activities, and I hope the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti will take note of what I have to say now. A review of past reports of General Managers, reports from 1973 to 1979, indicate—I do not want to quote numerous figures—an increase in operating efficiency at an annual average rate of 8,8% per annum. This increase in productivity is the result of many factors, but there are three vitally important ones, viz. the introduction of air-brakes, the use of diesel and electric traction and the introduction of sophisticated train control systems. In spite of this progress, there are also factors which have worked against greater efficiency. The one serious problem the Railway Administration has to face is the productivity of rolling stock. To illustrate this, let me point out that in 1968-’69 the average turn-round time of a truck was only 9,9 days, whereas in 1978-’79, 10 years later, the average turn-round time of a truck was 11,4 days. Based on a truck fleet of 160 000 trucks, a reduction of one day in turn-round time could eliminate 16 000 trucks. Accepting that the average price of a truck is R25 000, this would represent a saving in capital expenditure of some R400 million. A saving in the turn-round time of trucks is in fact a saving on capital expenditure. Certain schemes were put into operation which had the effect of improving the turn-round time, but I mention this fact to show the tremendous importance of Sentrarand at Bapsfontein. I hope the hon. member for Amanzimtoti will not this. It has appeared in the Browne Book for two or three years and it will still appear for the following two to three years during which we shall still be voting money for this capital expenditure of some millions of rand. Sentrarand, the new marshalling yard, will lead to significant savings, and the nature of the foreward planning by the Administration will also lead to vital savings and benefits to the economy as a whole, because this will undoubtedly assist in achieving a faster turn-round time of trucks and hence a saving on possible further capital expenditure.

I should now like to say a few words on the staff position, particularly at a time such as this when some 100 000 Railwaymen have to vote on Government policies. When one comes to an election and one casts one’s vote, it is naturally a part of human nature that one will also have regard for one’s own self-interest. I blame no Railwayman for that. I should however like to say categorically that Railwaymen, whether in the operational field, in workshops or at desks in the administrative field, have always had a fair deal from the Government. Where there have been tariff increases, the Railwaymen have always had their fair share. Although there may be some criticism and the odd Railwayman may disturb the hon. member for Orange Grove’s nightmare by telephoning him, on the whole Railwaymen—and they should bear this in mind in this election —have had a fair deal from the Government and the Railway Administration.

Railwaymen have been the most dedicated workers of any industry in South Africa. One has only to look at the small turnaround of staff in the Railways to see this. Their worker organizations have always been able to present their fair and reasonable demands to the Government. The Department of Manpower created last year in the Administration has in the achievement of its goals had the full co-operation of Railway staff associations. With no easing of the White manpower recruitment problems of the Administration, it is inevitable that further avenues for the employment of Blacks and members of other non-White groups will have to be opened. The fact is that 21 000 graded positions formerly occupied by Whites are today held by non-White employees of the Railway Administration. Staff associations—and this is the most important part—recognize and appreciate the position, and the very extensive training programmes for Blacks are undertaken with the full acceptance and co-operation of the White workers. In fact, Sir, it would be impossible to train something like the 70 000 non-White workers who have already been trained, without the fullest co-operation of the White workers in the S.A. Railways. The Railways have always been in the forefront in maintaining good staff relations between its workers in the various race groups. There is no other industry in South Africa that could provide such a good example as the Railways have done. This, I believe, is largely due to the efforts of the various Railways staff associations. They have recognized the increasing importance of the non-White workers in the Railways Administration, to keep the wheels of the Railways in South Africa turning. They have taken a bigger step forward than any other trade union organization in that the Federal Council of Staff Associations only recently amended their constitution so that registered and recognized trade unions of non-White employees could obtain membership of the council and take their place on that council.

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the figures, it is interesting to note the increasing dependence of the Railways on Black workers. On Railway operations alone, between 1976 and 1980, although there was a decline of 2 000 Whites, there was a considerable increase of Black workers. There has been an increase in the whole staff complement to the extent that while the White complement has decreased, over this four-year period, by something 1 000, the non-White staff has increased by over 11 000.

Mr. Speaker, considerable emphasis is placed today on management training in the Railways, not only at the higher levels, but also at the lower levels. This is necessary because of the rapid and vast technological and technical changes that are taking place in Railway operations. There has been a pay-off in efficiency since this management training was started in 1975. I should, however, like to issue a word of warning here. I hope that in the training that is now taking place the Administration will not lose sight of the traditional pride that Railwaymen have had in their jobs and in the dedication they have displayed to the concept of keeping the wheels turning. Management training can tend too much to be of an impersonal nature. There has, however, always been that personal touch in the case of the man who has entered the service of the Railways Administration. I hope that the concept of a personalized approach, and of management training programmes which are applicable all the way down to line management, will never be taken away, leaving nothing more than an impersonal situation in which a man simply does a job. I hope that that will always be borne in mind by our Railways administrators.

Before I sit down, Sir, I should like to make one further comment. The hon. the Minister introduced a Bill the other day in terms of which Railway employees are no longer referred to as Railway servants. All of them, whether they are White, Brown, Asian or Black, are now referred to as employees. It is so that non-Whites are enjoying an improved status by fulfilling skilled, and sometimes very highly skilled, jobs. I should like, with respect, to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the manner in which the tables are presented in the Report of the Administration, on page 107 for example, are not satisfactory. On page 107 of the report classification of staff is given. The classification of the Whites according to their grades is given, but in the case of the non-Whites, they are simply classified as to whether they are Coloured, Indian or Black, and their status, based on the jobs which they fulfil, is not given. I should like to recommend that we change this presentation of the description of Railway employees. We have changed these descriptions in the Act, so we can surely change these in the report as well.

Then, Sir, I should like to say—and this is something the electorate should bear in mind during the coming election—that the Railways have displayed a highly developed management function. They have displayed efficiency at the highest levels of production. They have shown cost consciousness in all aspects of Railway operations. They have shown, through this Government, a responsibility towards the rest of the economy of South Africa. Perhaps most importantly, under this National Government the Railways have shown continuing endeavours to achieve greater improvements in all spheres of operations. They are not content to sit back and rest on their laurels.

Finally, Sir, under this Government, the Railways have shown that in spite of all the engineering and technical advances, in the final analysis they, the Government and the Minister realize that the achievements of the Railways rest entirely on a job happy and contented multinational staff. I believe that the Railwaymen will in this election show that this is so.

Mr. Speaker, I am rather amazed that the hon. member for Von Brandis made the speech that he has made. He started off by saying that he had read the Hansard of my Second Reading speech . . .

But he did not understand it.

While I am prepared to accept that he might not be able to understand what I had to say about economics and financial reasoning, to have him stand up here and make the speech which he did, praising the management team of the Railways especially after the Budget which has been presented, is I think ludicrous. Surely, if one is to praise a management team one must first of all ask oneself on what basis one can praise them. Surely it must be within the ability of that team to keep costs down and to increase revenue within the constraints or the wherewithal it has in terms of capital and manpower. If that is how one measures a management team, as one certainly does in business as the hon. the Minister is aware, then how can the hon. member say that the Railways at the present time are being so efficient and economical? In my Second Reading speech I clearly indicated that vast sectors of this undertaking were running in a totally uneconomical manner. I have been at a loss with Government members during this debate. At a moment when we are faced with this evil inflation not one hon. member on that side of the House has stood up and made a constructive speech on how the Railways can use this tremendous economic whack to curb inflation. I just want to say to the hon. the Minister that after listening to his reply to the Second Reading I am terribly disappointed with him. This is his first Railway budget and here he has released what I believe to be one of the biggest contributions ever to the inflationary spiral in South Africa. During the Second Reading debate I was prepared not to prejudge the hon. the Minister, because this is his first budget. I rather endeavoured to examine the budget and to measure the Railways’ financial performance over the immediate past in a constructive and object manner, in the faint hope that in his reply to the debate he would give this House his assurance that he really considers inflation to be a real danger to the future well-being of South Africa. I sincerely hoped that he would also give us his assurance that he would use this powerful economic weapon, which I said he had, to do something about fighting inflation. However, in his reply to the Second Reading he made no attempt whatsoever to address himself to the problem of inflation. Rather, if one reads his speech, he just skirted around the issue and made some lame excuses for inflation. He did not for one moment indicate that he accepted the fact that his actions in presenting this budget at this time made him and the Railway Administration a major contributor to inflation in South Africa. That is why I am so pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance is here, because I know that he is concerned about this. He is a practical man. He is a professional engineer, like I am. He understands what productivity means and he also knows what profitability means. That is why I am pleased he is here, and I hope that he is going to talk to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he really appreciates what he has done to South Africa by presenting the budget that he has.

He has added something like 2% to the inflation rate in South Africa. [Interjections.]

No, that is an exaggeration.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Von Brandis says it is an exaggeration. Well, I have a newspaper clipping here from The Citizen . . . [Interjections.]

Well, Hendrik, that is your newspaper.

I should like to quote from this. In this report an executive of the Standard Bank is saying the following—

This is the problem which I have already mentioned. For the hon. member for Von Brandis to say this budget is not going to have an effect on inflation merely indicates how little he knows about it. This is exactly what the NRP has warned the Government against in the past. That is also what I tried to convey to the hon. the Minister during the Second Reading debate. Transport is not a primary producer of wealth. It is rather a service industry which lives off primary producers. Therefore transport costs must be kept at a minimum. Surely the hon. the Minister should know this because he, like myself, is a farmer. What chance does a farmer have to market his crops at a reasonable price to the consumer when all his hard efforts to try to keep down his production costs are swept down the drain by the flood of inflationary transport costs? The hon. the Minister should realize it. According to this newspaper article, Iscor must now pay R28,2 million a year more in rail transport costs. What then about the other sectors of the industry?

I should now like to quote from the business section of the Natal Mercury of 25 February 1981—

The other price increases which are expected are then mentioned, as follows. It says maize and oil prices are expected to rise in May by an estimated 15%. The price of flour is expected to increase in October by between 10% and 12%. Furthermore, the Steel and Engineering Federation of South Africa’s wage award affecting 500 000 workers is going to have to be brought forward by two months, and is estimated as going to require a 20% wage increase.

Absolutely unreal.

This report further mentions other prices which are expected to be increased shortly. Among them are the prices of cars, tractors, paint, petrol, building materials, etc. It is all there for the hon. the Minister to see. All this is the result of increasing transport costs.

The hon. the Minister and the NP Government, I firmly believe, do not know how to control inflation. If they do, they do not particularly care whether inflation is curbed or not.

Quite correct.

Mr. Speaker, I believe they have given up the fight against inflation. They are just prepared to let the man in the street battle against the rising costs. They do not care about the man in the street. I firmly believe that they are one of those groups who do not take inflation seriously.

They think it is a joke.

I believe the hon. the Minister should know better. I should like to quote further from the business section of the Natal Mercury of 24 February 1981. Mr. Roger Hurn, managing director of Smith Industries Ltd., says the following—

These are the messages we are getting, Sir, but hon. members on that side of the House do not seem to get them at all. As I have tried to indicate to the hon. the Minister, I see inflation as an extreme danger to the future of South Africa. I had hoped that the hon. the Minister would respond in this regard but he has not. I also believe that he has let down the employees of the Railways and I want to quote yet again from the Press in regard to this budget for the benefit of the hon. member for Von Brandis who has just sat down and who waxed so eloquent about how grateful Railway employees should be. I want to quote from The Citizen of 24 February. Under the heading “Conductors Rap Increases” the report has this to say—

That is a Railwayman speaking, Sir.

Why did the staff associations not adopt the same attitude?

And then the hon. the Minister says that Railway employees must find their future with the Railways.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I am sorry, I do not have the time.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in the minute I have left to me, I want to address some harsh words to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister and the S.A. Railways are a major contributor to inflation in South Africa today and, as such, I say they are threatening the future economic prosperity of South Africa as well as the future employment of our citizens. I believe they must be condemned for presenting an inflationary budget and I also believe they must be condemned for blinding themselves to the reality of this situation. Hon. members like the hon. member for Von Brandis stand at their desks starry-eyed when they talk about the wheeling and dealing of the S.A. Railways.

Not starry-eyed but with bloodshot eyes!

They shut their eyes to the day to day struggle of people such as Mr. Venter. I think that they should be condemned for this. The Railway Administration is grossly over-capitalized today for the job it is required to do. Depreciation and interest rates are crippling its economic performance. I believe that its administrative sector is top-heavy. There are too many Chiefs in the Railways and not enough Indians to do the job. Because of this, the Railways’ fixed costs are too high and, like many unscrupulous businessmen in South Africa today, as I quoted from these Press reports, because they have no real competition, they are ripping off the public of South Africa by raising the prices of their services and tariffs which the poor man in the street then has to pay.

I want to say in conclusion that the fat cat Nats like the hon. member for Von Brandis have forgotten what it is like to struggle in the economic jungle outside this House and I believe that the Government is to be condemned for this particular budget.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear to me that the hon. member for Amanzimtoti knows just as little about the economy and management of the S.A. Railways as I do. He criticized, and when he could not go any further, he tried to embarrass the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs by saying that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance has a different approach towards these things than the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs does. I want to point out to the hon. member that there is absolutely no difference between the approach of the hon. the Deputy Minister and that of the hon. the Minister, because both of them know what they want to do and what they want to achieve. They are always endeavouring to do the best to the benefit of the country.

I have reached a stage in my life where I must say, as someone said on a certain occasion—

This can apply both physically and psychologically. Things change as time passes and over the past decade and a half I have had the privilege of the path of my life running through this place too. It was a good experience. I am privileged and grateful that this was the case. Time passes by so quickly that a decade and a half rushes by. A decade and a half ago the hon. member for Houghton—I want to thank her, but unfortunately she has just left the Chamber—addressed very fine words to me when I delivered my maiden speech here. It seems like yesterday. However, when one looks at her, one knows that at that time she was definitely much more beautiful than Cas Greyling and myself were. [Interjections.]

I have reason to be grateful. I have reason to appreciate hon. members in this House. Here one’s insight is increased, one’s perspective is broadened—one is honed here. I am convinced that if this had not been my lot, I would have been a much poorer person.

Sir, you will allow me to make a few exceptions. After I have thanked hon. members on both sides of the house for friendship and goodwill, I want to add: People may differ with one another—there is nothing wrong with this, because “fools never differ” and we must differ on certain things—but we can still all be patriots, and this is important. I want to thank you personally, Sir. I want to thank the Secretariat, the Secretary and his staff, for all the sympathy that one experienced here and for all the goodwill. My special thanks to Hansard who take a great deal of trouble with hon. members’ speeches. Sometimes I am amazed at what they can make of them so that one can still look at them and read them with meaning.

I should like to express a word of sincere gratitude to the service officers in this building. Most of them are pensioners, people who worked for the S.A. Railways, people who have learned and although it is said that people are not so productive there, we have seen the opposite here amongst the service officers. I wonder if hon. members always appreciate them as they should.

I should like to thank the S.A. Police who guard this place. I also want to thank the Whips on both sides of the House for the fine co-operation that I have enjoyed from them and which they have with one another although they are in opposition to one another. This is definitely an exemplary way of behaving.

I am also very much indebted to the S.A. Railways—the Ministers that we have had thus far as well as the top management.

Since the hon. member for Constantia alleged recently in another debate that the 13 MPs from Pretoria are not very concerned about national affairs—I do not want to wrong him; but I think he said this—I do want to bring to his attention the fact that we continually made representations to the Management of the S.A. Railways in connection with the Wintersnes-Mabopani-Belle Ombre railway line. We asked for that railway line to be strengthened and for the best travelling facilities to be established for commuters. However, we did not have it broadcast in the newspapers, but discussed it with the Minister concerned and with the Management, and in this way we continued to promote the matter. I can also say today with gratitude that we have come a long way along that road since 1973, when R33 million was voted to be spent on that railway line. The railway fine was opened in December last year. Mr. Speaker, this is undoubtedly evidence of productivity. Tremendous progress was made there, and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti may do well to take note of it. In spite of many problems that arose, including problems with respect to stations that are being built in another country, not in the Republic, the Railways continued to make progress.

Having expressed my appreciation for everything that has already been achieved and having thanked the hon. the Minister and the Management for what is yet going to be done in the future, I want to propose that we should give serious consideration to changing the travelling pattern in South Africa. This does not have a bearing on rail transport alone, but on other types of transport as well. I feel that we should encourage the travelling public to travel by train instead of by car. I do not want to go into details, but if one thinks of fuel and other costs alone one realizes that it is much cheaper to travel by train. Perhaps roadbuilding programmes could be curtailed drastically if more people were to make use of rail transport. Therefore I feel that train journeys should be encouraged, but at the same time there should be more facilities on trains and the various services should be synchronized in such a way that commuters do not have to put up with discomfort at terminals.

I wish the hon. the Minister every success. As we have learned to know him over the years, I believe that he will do his utmost to make the S.A. Railways a paying concern. The same also applies to the Management of the S.A. Railways. They are wonderful people and listen patiently to one when one puts matters to them and they go out of their way to be helpful.

Everything of the best to every hon. member in this House, and may the election proceed as it should.

Mr. Speaker, may I firstly tell the hon. member for Hercules that I think all of us in the House wish him well for the future. We certainly hope that his political career will not be at an end, even though his parliamentary career might be coming to an end, because whatever else can be said about the hon. member for Hercules, he certainly has been a very loyal member of his political party, whose cause he has tried to advance over many years. I think it is an emotional moment for anybody to have to say “goodbye” in Parliament. Parliament does something to an individual, and when he leaves it must be heart-wrenching to have to say “goodbye” to his colleagues. I have had the pleasure of going on a visit to a neighbouring territory under that hon. member’s leadership. Not only did he conduct himself with utmost decorum, but he also lent dignity to the occasion. I wish him well and hope he will enjoy good health in the years that lie ahead of him.

There are, however, other emotional moments involving people who are here today. Let us take, for example, the constituency of the hon. member for Von Brandis. I do not know what is going to happen to the hon. member for Von Brandis—so he must forgive me if I do not comment on that—but his constituency is going to disappear, and that is undoubtedly an historic event, because Von Brandis is an historic name in parliamentary history in South Africa, and to that extent it is a sad moment to have to say “goodbye” to Von Brandis. Whether we say “goodbye” to the hon. member or not, however, history will show.

You do not say “goodbye” today.

Not today, but tomorrow. Be that as it may, I say “goodbye” to the constituency whose name is an important one.

There is another constituency that I think one must say “goodbye” to today, and I hope that the hon. member representing that constituency will continue to speak for the Opposition on Railway matters in this House for many, many years to come, because I think he has done so with distinction over a considerable period of time. I am referring to my colleague, Mr. Rupert Lorimer, who is at present the hon. member for Orange Grove but who will be the hon. member for Durban North and will speak about Railway matters in this House in future. [Interjections.]

There is another matter I should like to touch on. I want to say that it is my belief that I did an injustice to the hon. member for Umhlanga the other day. I referred to his having made some remarks concerning the air and cabin crews of S.A. Airways. I said that he had said they were sloppy. What he had, in fact, referred to was the fact that it was the SAA that rendered a sloppy service. He made it clear, some time later, that he certainly was not referring to the air crew and cabin crews. I therefore withdraw the remarks I made and regret having uttered them at the expense of that hon. member.

Thank you, Harry.

If I may, I now want to turn my attention more specifically to the hon. the Minister. I actually do not understand that hon. Minister at all. What I do not understand about the hon. the Minister is the fact that when he is asked to tell the House whether, after the election, there are going to be further railway tariff increases, in his reply he chooses to deal only with agricultural products. That leads to the inescapable inference that it is his intention, if he is still the Minister concerned after the next election, to increase the tariffs in respect of passenger services and other goods traffic. That is certainly an inescapable inference. If he had neglected to reply at all, or if he had said that he did not know what was going to happen, one would have been able to understand him, but he chooses to give an undertaking to farmers. He considers, however, that the consumers of South Africa can go to blazes. That is the reality. He does not care two hoots about the consumers of South Africa. He is concerned about the farmers only, and I believe that he is concerned about the farmers because he is absolutely terrified of the HNP in the Eastern Transvaal. He is, however, wrong. He should worry about the people of South Africa as a whole, rather than choose one section of the community. It gets worse, however, I want to give him the opportunity of getting up in this debate and taking the country into his confidence about what his intentions are as far as railway tariffs are concerned. If he does not do so now, he will be chased up hill and down dale as the enemy of the consumer, as the person who has led us up the garden path before an election. The hon. the Minister has a history and he testified to it himself during the Second Reading debate. He said—

Is this correct? A little earlier in his speech he said—

And in five years’ time?

Over 12 months. The attitude of the hon. the Minister in coming to the House and boasting that the consumers had to pay 70% more for meat, is something we will not allow him to forget. The hon. the Minister does not care about the consumers; he has a one-track mind, and that is not a railway track either. He has a one-track mind, and it is not in favour of the consumers. He is not interested in the consumers. That has been his attitude. Just as the hon. the Minister said he was not prepared to forecast inflation rates, even though he said that the increase in rail tariffs was less than the anticipated inflation rate, he merrily went ahead with the little train he was pushing for a particular interest group, ignoring the consumers of South Africa, and I regard that as a tragedy. And if hon. members think he is doing much for the workers in the Railways, let me tell them what the actual position is. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister reads Rapport. In Sake-Rapport of 25 January 1981 an analysis was given of how real salaries had decreased under this Government over a period of five years. Railways salaries are taken as an example. Over a period of five years, from 1975 to 1980, despite all the big talk on the part of the hon. the Minister and on the part of the Nationalist Party, the average White Railwayman’s salary had dropped by 8% in real terms. This analysis is based upon Government statistics, and not upon some kind of official Opposition propaganda or even on information given by my hon. colleagues here. It is based upon official information as analysed and presented by the Bureau for Market Research at the University of South Africa and presented by a newspaper that supports the NP Government. Sir, there has been a decrease of 8% in salaries for Whites, but the overall decrease in the salaries for all workers was 5%. In regard to the Coloured people employed on the Railways, the decrease in salaries was 20%, and in regard to the salaries for Asiatics, the decrease was 8%. In fairness I must state that the Blacks on the Railways had an increase in real terms over that period. But the White worker was 8% worse off in purchasing power after having worked for the Railways for five years.

It is a disgrace!

Is that a proud record to have? I would hang my head in shame and would not even reply to this debate. I would go outside and cry rather than come here and act as the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has done. Does he have any feelings whatsoever for the people employed by him? The hon. the Minister has the audacity to come here and boast about what he has done for the Railway worker, but that worker is worse off in real terms after five years as a result of the activities of the NP Government.

He should buy another dairy herd.

Sir, there are other things that I wish to discuss, some strange things that have happened. Tariffs have been increased, but I think there must be some funny kind of prejudice afoot here, because if one catches a train from Johannesburg to go and visit the hon. member for Rissik, one has to pay only 9,8% more. However, if one wishes to go and see the hon. member for Verwoerdburg, one has to pay 9,9% more.

He is “verlig”.

If one wants to go and see the hon. member for Kempton Park, one has to pay 10,9% more, and to Roodepoort one pays 12,2% more. For some reason unknown to me one has to pay 12,3% more if one wishes to go to Benoni, and if one wishes to go to Florida—the constituencies become a little more verlig as one goes along—the fare has been increased by 12,9%.

What about Waterberg?

Why is this going on? What is actually behind all this? What is the hon. the Minister trying to do? Does he want me to go and see the hon. member for Rissik but not the hon. member for Florida? What is it he is after? There is something strange being done as regards these tariffs. I would have imagined that the hon. the Minister would have acted in a non-discriminatory fashion in increasing tariffs. If one wants to travel third class, the same pattern exists.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member why he did not mention that if one goes from Germiston to Krugersdorp one pays 2% less?

That actually proves my point. That shows how ridiculous these tariff increases in fact are. It makes no sense. Surely one applies a consistent pattern when one increases tariffs.

The whole thing has been rectified.

It is cockeyed, like the Government.

It was cockeyed.

How long has it been cockeyed?

The hon. the Minister has now come along with these increases, but I want to say that, even if he makes it cheap for me, I am not going to go and see the hon. member for Rissik.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville delivered an amusing speech. It was actually a type of election speech. Right at the very outset, I want to invite the PFP to put up a candidate in the goldfields of the Free State. I do not know whether they have decided to do so, but if they should make such a decision, I invite them to do so. I want to say at once that their candidate will lose his deposit. I shall leave it at that.

The hon. member for Yeoville made certain statements that had a bearing on the Railway worker in South Africa. The hon. the Minister has already replied to them yesterday. The hon. member asked how the Railway worker in South Africa could trust the NP. In the first instance, the official Opposition must tell me what member on that side of the House represents Railway workers in South Africa. I want to say that the Railway workers of South Africa trust the NP. They trust the NP in the first instance because they know that the NP is a party that governs in a responsible fashion. When there is an election ahead, the NP does not try to buy people with frivolous promises. [Interjections.] The hon. members must wait a moment, and then they can carry on laughing. The Minister, as a responsible Minister, had to take certain steps. This Government, as a responsible Government, cannot always do popular things only. The hon. the Minister had to increase certain tarriffs—this is obvious. He had to increase them in order to balance his books. In addition he proved that this side of the House appreciates what the Railway people are doing in South Africa today, not for the NP, but also for the hon. members on that side of the House and for South Africa as a whole. I shall leave the hon. member at that.

This may be the last time that I rise to my feet here—time will tell. Therefore, in the first instance I want to say a short, but very meaningful word to the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs, and thank him very much for his friendship over the years. The present hon. Minister of Transport Affairs was Minister of Agriculture for nearly 12 years. He and I came here together. I have had the pleasant privilege of being in the House with previous Ministers of Agriculture, but I want to say here today that I believe that South Africa’s farmers had the greatest confidence in this hon. Minister and came to love him over the years. I do not have the least doubt that with his practical approach, the hon. the Minister will serve the Department of Transport Affairs, which he has already been dealing with for a few months, with the greatest love and loyalty too—and I say this in modesty as the chairman of the other leg of the Department of Transport Affairs. That is not all, Sir. With his humanistic approach we shall find that the people in his department will learn to love him just as the people who work for him on his farm do.

For each one of us, as my good friend the hon. member for Stilfontein said on one occasion, there is a time to come and a time to go. I am standing here today with a great deal of gratitude in my heart. I could in fact rejoice because other people have not been given the opportunity to stand here as I am doing today. This opportunity was granted to me for a long stretch of my life, viz. 27 years, and it has been my pleasant privilege to represent the constituency of Welkom. I spent 12 years in the Provincial Council—I had just entered my twenties then—and 15 years here. Few people are given the opportunity to do so much. I say this in all modesty. Baise van Rensburg, a good friend of mine, worked out that the average time that a member has spent here since 1910 is approximately seven years. It may be a little more today. I was granted much more. I have learned a few things in this time, and I am going to mention just one of them a little later.

As I said, it has been my lot to represent Welkom for 27 years. Hon. members must not think that I am saying what I am about to say with bitterness in my heart. But I am going to say it in spite of the fact that I myself am not a member of the Broeder-bond. I am not saying this with bitterness in my heart, but with the greatest feeling of love and piety towards my party and with the greatest affection towards my colleagues in this House. But if a time has come in South Africa which is creating bitterness, it is the work of certain secret organizations in South Africa. I want to motivate this. Hon. members may do well to listen to me and I do not want any of my colleagues, all of whom I am very fond, to hold it against me at all. Why are certain people discriminated against within the ranks of Afrikanerdom? I believe there was a time, 20 years and longer ago, when that organization served a purpose in South Africa, but I say with the greatest responsibility at my disposal today, that I think, in view of the discrimination that takes place there, that this is an organization that has run its course, for the sake of the unanimity of the Afrikaner. I am going to leave it at that. I want to say once again to my colleagues that I am not saying this with bitterness in my heart. I am saying it on this occasion because it is a matter that I wanted to get off my chest.

I say thank you very much to every person in this House for their friendship. I say thank you to everyone, from Oom Whitey to Oom Ahlers, whatever their position. It was a pleasant time for me. The fact that I am ending my connection with Parliament, is the conclusion to a chapter in the history of my family. My grandfather was a member of Parliament, and so was my father. I am the third generation, and I have four fine sons who may continue the tradition. I experienced a pleasant time here in the House and I am leaving here and taking the most pleasant memories back to Welkom. I have another responsibility too as a good Afrikaner Nationalist. I am proud of the fact that I am Afrikaans-speaking. I have another responsibility too. I had to ensure that my successor had certain qualities and I have been aware of one quality in him for years, a quality that I believe is essential for any person in public life, in politics, and that is loyalty. He was loyal to me, he was loyal to the party to which he belonged, and which I believe is much more important, is that anyone who is elected to a responsible position in public life and in a party should be loyal to his leaders. He has done so.

In conclusion, I believe that he will represent Welkom as a member of the NP and I believe that he will have those qualities, because to my mind the finest quality of any person in political life is in fact loyalty. He must be a person who is loyal to his leaders, whether they are his provincial leaders or the leaders that are sitting here before me, viz. the Cabinet members. Above all, he must be loyal to his leader. In his absence I want to tell him that it was my pleasant privilege to be able to serve under three Prime Ministers: A short while under the late Dr. Verwoerd, a longer while under Mr. Vorster and under Mr. P. W. Botha for the past two years. I have the greatest respect for him.

I conclude by saying to one and all that I hope and trust that the NP will achieve its greatest victory on 29 April under his competent, dynamic leadership. Everything of the best to one and all.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Whips for the opportunity that I have to say a few words here now. It seems to me to be a day of goodbyes. As hon. members know, I am not standing for re-election. Therefore this will be my last opportunity to say something in this House. I should also just like to say thank you to all those with whom I came into contact and who were so good to my wife and I. To you, Mr. Speaker, I say thank you very much for your example, as well as to the Cabinet and my colleagues. It was a special opportunity for me. Even though it was brief, it will remain a fine chapter in the history of my life.

I listened to the Railway debate and I should like to say a few words about our hon. the Minister. I promise him I will not talk about auctions! He was referred to in a mocking fashion as the Minister of Inflation—I do not want to make my last speech a malicious one because I do not believe I am malicious. I do not actually want to congratulate him on becoming Minister of Transport Affairs; I rather want to congratulate Transport Affairs on obtaining our Minister of Agriculture. In his years as Minister of Agriculture, agriculture in South Africa gained significance. I should like to refer to a few figures here, because I know, as an hon. member has already said before, that if the hon. the Minister fulfills his task with the same dedication, the same enthusiasm and the same attitude towards his duty as he did in agriculture, then Transport Affairs has nothing to fear. I just want to mention a few figures with regard to agriculture that I consider important. It is becoming increasingly clear to me that the role that agriculture plays in South Africa, is becoming a larger, more important one. I am referring here in particular to the hon. the Minister because he has a direct interest in it. Do hon. members know that the quantity of land in South Africa used for agricultural purposes, was on the increase until 1960? This took place as border areas were included in agriculture. However, from 1960 the quantity of land that was used for agricultural purposes decreased, to the extent that we had a decrease of nearly 7% in 1979. In 1960 the figure was 92 million hectares. In 1979 86 million hectares were available for agriculture. If we think of the rate at which we had to make services available, build railway lines, construct roads and plan towns, as well as the rate at which we had to build dams, it appears that one of the things towards which we shall have to adopt a very selective attitude in future, will be the use of high potential agricultural land. We must bear in mind that the population of South Africa is increasing and that it is calculated that there will be 50 million people in this country by the end of the century. These are important elements in agriculture.

I want to point out another important aspect. How many of us realize today that the capital used by the 72 000 farmers of South Africa for capital investment in agricultural land, cattle and farm equipment— we know that the number of farmers has decreased from 120 000 to 72 000 over the past three decades—amounts to R330 000 per farmer today? Do we realize that the farmers in the maize regions of the Transvaal and the Free State spend between R90 000 and R100 000 per year in working capital today, merely to establish their maize harvest? Are we aware of the fact that the 72 000 farmers of South Africa have an average debt of R44 000? When we think of all these things, and in addition take note of how the price of land is increasing, we must realize that it will require more and more capital for new farmers to enter agriculture.

In passing I also want to refer today to something else which is of tremendous importance to me. I want to refer with the greatest of praise to the people of the Agricultural Technical Services, the people of our research units. They have helped us to combat the technological problems in agriculture and to find the best methods of conserving our land and utilizing it to the full. We developed the idea of having economical agricultural units, that our farms should be larger. From a purely economic viewpoint, I believe that this is certainly the case. However, there is one question that I want to ask here today, a question to which I believe we should give serious consideration. Can we in South Africa afford the fact that our rural areas are being depopulated at the present rate? Is it in the interest of South Africa that the schools in our smaller towns are becoming increasingly smaller, that our rural areas are bleeding to death? Is this question not of such strategic importance that we should give urgent attention to it?

I promised not to speak longer, and I want to keep my promise. However, I want to elucidate one more aspect of agriculture. This is something of which one is entitled to be proud. Agriculture today asks a mere 1,8% of the total import of South Africa for itself. Now let us take a look at the other side of the picture. After the farmers of South Africa have fed the entire population of South Africa, provided them with food relatively cheaply, agricultural products which represent 23% of the total exports of South Africa are exported. This is an achievement of which we may really be proud. South Africa is the only country in Africa that exports food. South Africa is one of the only six or seven countries in the world that are able to do so.

During the decade between 1970 and 1980, the agricultural yield increased by an average of 4,5% annually, whilst the labour force in agriculture decreased from 1,67 million to 1,228 million; therefore a decrease of 28%. In the meanwhile, the agricultural yield, productivity in agriculture, speaks for itself. That is why we can say today that we are proud to be part and parcel of the farmers of South Africa. That is why I also want to tell the hon. the Minister, our former Minister of Agriculture, that we realize that he speaks the language of the farmers. He can suffer a drought with us and he can also rejoice with us when it rains and the veld looks beautiful. He can lead people and inspire them. That is why I know that the Railways will also do well.

I conclude with something that I have already said once before. If there should be something like reincarnation, I would pray that I could come back as a farmer, that I could be as free as a bird in the fresh air on my own farm once again. It is a fine life. This is the type of life from which the soul of the nation of South Africa was born, from which the Afrikaner obtained his culture and from which he gained his strength. Let us keep it this way by keeping our agriculture in South Africa strong, defensible and healthy, so that people who want to take a risk and work, can enter this profession with joy.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove committed a terrible blunder here by talking about the 600 tons of grapes that were allowed to rot. He can cast about and carry on and look for excuses as much as he likes here, but all he is doing is to get himself deeper into the mire.

†While he was talking, Mr. Speaker, my officials telephoned to people who were present at that meeting. It is no good the hon. member trying to get away with this type of gossip, “ouvrou-skinderstories”—with great respect to the hon. member for Houghton! [Interjections.]

*The man from the Railways who was present at that meeting and who heard what was said, told the person who raised the issue: This is not a matter for the Railways; it is a matter for the Airways. No one from the Airways was present at that meeting. If the hon. member so wishes, we could investigate the matter further and then we could also subpoena the hon. member to come and testify before us about the source of these stories. I want to reiterate today that I do not know of a single farmer whose grapes were allowed to rot; I do not know where this 600 tons of grapes were allowed to rot. I say the story is nothing but gossip, and the object of the story was to tie it in with the monopoly of such a fine organization as the S.A. Airways.

Mr. Speaker, one of the participators in that meeting who made a speech was the chairman of the South African Foreign Trade Association, Mr. Keyser. Will the hon. the Minister talk to that gentleman about it because the matter was raised with him?

I am prepared to talk to anybody and I am prepared to raise this matter in Parliament and give more facts when we return here again. The important point about this whole matter is that the hon. member keeps harping on the fact that the South African Airways are keeping everything for themselves; they are a monopoly and that is the reason why 600 tons of grapes valued at R120 000 went rotten. The hon. member does not even have the courage to say sorry, let us forget about it, I made a mistake. He keeps on harping on this matter. I want to say again that the more he discusses this matter the more problems there will be for him because it is not true.

The hon. member also said that we should encourage the export of iron ore by not having an enormous tariff increase. What are the true facts, Sir? The rail tariff increase is 4,1% and the harbour tariff increase is 6,3%—an enormous increase! We are killing the export industry! We are killing the iron ore industry! My problem, Mr. Speaker, with the hon. member for Orange Grove is the fact that he is playing politics with the Railways all the time, as is the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member for Yeoville is not here now. He levelled a large number of accusations at the Railways, now he is not here.

The hon. member for Orange Grove also referred to the building we wish to construct in Johannesburg at a cost of R57 million. I told the hon. member that at the moment we were paying R2,9 million in rentals for office buildings only and that most of the R57 million in respect of our own building would be for computers and that most of the building would be underground. We have to be efficient, Mr. Speaker. One cannot have the head office of an organization with a working budget of more than R4 000 million scattered all over Johannesburg. We want to be efficient.

The hon. member also told us that so many railwaymen had telephoned him to express their dissatisfaction about the salary increases. While he was speaking the hon. member for Von Brandis asked whether any of the staff associations had complained as well. We have approximately 267 000 railway employees. How many telephone calls did the hon. member receive?

Probably between five and ten.

Between five and ten telephone calls out of 267 000 workers!

Is the hon. the Minister telling me that they are all satisfied?

Which staff associations contacted you?

Mr. Speaker, as I say, the hon. member for Orange Grove and the hon. member for Yeoville are playing politics with the Railways. The hon. member said that I had said that there would be no tariff increases in respect of agricultural products within the next twelve months. The hon. member for Yeoville said in this regard that it would have been better had I said that I did not know.

*But what are the facts? The day before yesterday the hon. member for Yeoville yelled at me here that I was raising the tariffs for the conveyance of sheep and cattle and that the price of meat would consequently go up by 30%. Surely it is recorded in Hansard.

†The hon. member for Yeoville said the price of beef and mutton would increase by 30%—this stands in Hansard—because of the increase in tariffs. When I replied to the Second Reading debate I said that I can give the assurance—the hon. member referred only to agricultural products when he said that I was to cause the price of food getting more expensive—that for the next 12 months, beginning with effect from yesterday, there would not be a tariff increase for agricultural products.

And for the, others?

As far as the others are concerned I said in my introductory speech that the time had come to have a look at certain tariffs from time to time.

*The hon. member is now saying that I should rather have said that I did not know. If I had told him that I did not know, there would have been ructions in this House! What does one look like if one says one does not know?

In other words, the tariffs for the others are going up. That is what you are saying.

The hon. member said that I was only fighting for the farmers. He went on to say that the salaries of Railway officials had fallen behind by 8% during the past five years, but he did not say a word about the net income of the same farmers producing food for him which had fallen 16,5% behind during the past five years. He said nothing about that, because his party does not represent a single seat in the rural areas. He is trying now to get a little stick to beat us with in the constituencies in which there are many Railway officials, but in which he does not have a snowball’s chance in any case.

I had no intention of playing politics, but time and again the hon. member starts to play politics with a splendid undertaking such as the Railways. I am not quarrelling; I wanted to close the proceedings in a congenial atmosphere today. I wanted to be friendly, but the hon. member is annoying me now by making these wild accusations, among others that I am only fighting for the farmers in our country.

†I want to remind the hon. member for Amanzimtoti that I did not say a single word about fighting inflation. If the hon. member can give me the assurance that the price of electricity, steel and fuel will remain static, there will also not be a single tariff increase in the Railways. I can give him that assurance here and now.

It is because of the increase in Railway tariffs that the price of those commodities increased. [Interjections.]

I am speaking the same language as the hon. the Deputy Minister to whom has been referred. How can one expect us to import certain materials when there is inflation overseas and not increase tariffs? There is also the more expensive price of electric engines. Everything’s price is increasing overseas, but we still have to import them. I think every industrialist in South Africa is prepared to say that we can maintain the prevailing price levels provided other items do not increase in price.

*I should so much like to fight inflation. Unfortunately I am dealing with a business undertaking which is directly affected by the fact that the price of aviation fuel has gone up by 128% during the past two years.

The hon. member for Yeoville said that he would be quite satisfied if I were to say that I would not introduce any tariff increases unless there was an increase in the fuel price. He said that about 45 minutes ago.

That is untrue! The hon. member for Orange Grove said that.

Very well then, but the hon. members for Orange Grove and Yeoville are, after all, birds of a feather. [Interjections.] Who in this House, whether he is on the Government or on the Opposition side, is not concerned about inflation? It can break the economy of any country. I must give the Railway officials a salary increase of 12,5%, on which I have to spend R225 million, but the hon. member said I should give them 15,9%. That is inflationary! I have to combat inflation. The Railway official says that he will join me in trying to combat inflation, and is therefore satisfied with an increase of 12,5%, but the hon. member says he will spend R257 million on salary increases. Is that not more inflationary than the increase of 12,5% which I gave them?

Are you convincing yourself?

If they want to talk about a monopoly, hon. members would do well to compare the fare increases of bus companies with the tariff increases of the Railways.

†Hon. members should have a look at the increases in busfares brought about by municipalities under control of the PFP. Look at Putco.

The PFP does not control . . .

Go and look at the transport business in the private sector and compare their price increases to that of the S.A. Railways.

*Mr. Speaker, I am not angry at the hon. members for Orange Grove, Yeoville and Amanzimtoti. Actually they paid me a great tribute here. They assumed that when we meet again in August, I shall still be the Minister of Transport Affairs. I sincerely thank them for that. With that prospect before me, I am going to have an enjoyable election.

The hon. member for Hercules and I arrived in this House at the same time, and he has a fruitful period of service behind him. We came to know Frik le Roux as a competent Whip, as a person who made his contribution, and I wish to thank him for that. His proposal that our people should travel more often by train than by car is a demonstration to me that South Africa is prospering. In Pretoria I have frequently seen only one person travelling to work by car while he—and the typists, other men and women—could just as easily have made use of bus or train transport. Consequently it was a fine idea which the hon. member raised here.

The hon. member for Welkom was chairman of our Transport group. He has had 27 years of political experience in the provincial council and the House of Assembly, and I have never considered him to be a person who could become embittered. I am still of that same opinion today. He said that he had grown to love us here, but we also grew to love Michiel de Wet. We are sorry he is leaving, and I think Welkom is also sorry, because he served that town with dedication. I thank him for his contribution.

The hon. member for Heilbron is chairman of the Free State Agricultural Union and was for more than 30 years chairman of NCD—National Co-operative Dairies. This undertaking, under his chairmanship, expanded tremendously in the Transvaal, Natal and the Free State, and, inter alia, took over Clover Dairies. But what I really want to thank him for is the great part which he played in calmly amalgamating the Milk Board and Dairy into the Dairy Control Board, while I was Minister of Agriculture. I must also say that the reason why I sold my dairy herd is by no means the reason the Opposition is advancing. I do not wish to talk about my own business, because if I were to tell the truth, the Opposition would say that I am making propaganda for the milk farmers, and consequently I shall say nothing further about it. Nevertheless I shall say very quietly that there is not much money in this game, in a dairy.

To these three gentlemen of whom we have now taken leave, and also the others who are leaving, I just wish to say that a politician is a strange creature. This always reminds me of something I saw in America. Once I was spending a night with a farmer in Texas. Earlier that day I had been helping to operate a combine harvester, because I wanted to see how they did things. In his study that night I saw this motto hanging on the wall—

Those men used their heads. I want to thank them very much for their contribution. To conclude this Railway debate I should like to quote another passage. I do not know who the author was, but it goes like this—

Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Second Reading debate I wish to say that one should never be ungrateful. I am therefore not ungrateful for the hon. member for Hillbrow’s initial friendly remarks in connection with the Post Office Part Appropriation. Having said that, however, let me add that the hon. member read his speech almost in its entirety.

So did you.

Yes, I did deliver a prepared speech, but the hon. member knows the rules of this House.

It applies to you as much as to me.

His friendly remarks about the previous Postmaster-General and about the present Postmaster-General would have sounded so much better—perhaps as coming straight from the heart—if they had not been read from prepared copy.

It is nevertheless on record.

Apart from that, my overall impression of the hon. member’s speech was that he was trying to set up political puppets—here I am referring particularly to his remarks about Post Office tariffs, which are to remain the same—only to shoot them down himself. Perhaps I could do no better than refer to the contents of the hon. member’s amendment, and I quote—

I think it was the hon. member for Boksburg who remarked in his speech that he really thought that the Opposition speakers, especially speakers of the official Opposition, should be invited to make a tour of Post Office facilities so as to orientate them properly, to inform them of what really goes on and to show them how the Post Office operates. I think it is common knowledge to all enlightened hon. members of this House that the Post Office recruits staff every year. It does its recruiting amongst young people, irrespective of race. The hon. member must therefore be aware, not only of the campaign at schools and elsewhere, but also of the advertising campaigns and the many special training schemes for all races. Is the hon. member aware of the Post Office training centre for Coloureds at Belhar and the training centre at Durban, where a special new building is being built? Is the hon. member aware of the training centre for Blacks at Soshanguve near Pretoria, where we even train young people from neighbouring countries? Is the hon. member aware of the training facilities for clerical staff in all seven regions of the country? The hon. member nods his head. Why does he then ask the House to refuse to pass the Bill unless my department and I embark upon an extensive recruiting and training programme for all races?

I told you why.

Sir, I got the impression that somebody else must have written the speech which the hon. member read out here. That is the only conclusion I could come to.

That is untrue. You have come to the wrong conclusion.

Since we are discussing the whole matter of training and recruiting, I may just as well inform the House about the number of people involved in training. At the moment no fewer than 4 385 young people of all races are undergoing technical training. I should like to point out to the hon. member that there are 3 300 Whites, 508 Coloureds, 183 Indians and 390 Blacks undergoing training. I should further like to tell the hon. member that this training was not started recently; it has been going on for years. Consequently the first point of the hon. member’s amendment is just so much nonsense.

How long has it been going on?

Since 1972, but I can go back even further . . .

I wish you would.

. . . but I do not have the time to go back too far. My department had to attend lately to questions which came from the hon. member for Bryanston and from some other hon. members. These questions will, when they appear in Hansard, take up several pages, and to reply to them all entails quite a lot of work, as well as a lot of time.

Send them a letter.

Since 1972, 540 Coloureds, 288 Indians and 150 Blacks have completed their training and these training and recruiting programmes are being extended every year.

While we are on this point, the hon. member for Bryanston asked yesterday what the department is doing to close the wage gap. Once again, the hon. member should be aware of the programme for narrowing the wage gap which the Government started many years ago and he should also be aware of the fact that the Post Office, as a State department is also following that principle. In some respects the Post Office is perhaps even progressing faster than some of the other departments.

*Steady progress has been made since 1969, Sir, and the Post Office is continuing that progress this year by means of salary adjustments as from 1 April to narrow the gap even further. Progress has been made since 1969, when Coloured and Indian postmasters and clerks received 80% of the salaries of Whites and Blacks received 60%. By 1 July 1974, Coloureds and Indians were receiving 82,5% of the salaries of Whites, and Blacks 62,5%. As from 1 July 1976, Coloureds and Asians received 86,2% of the salaries of Whites, and Blacks 66,7%. In April 1979, Coloureds and Indians were receiving 88,2% of the salaries of Whites, and Blacks 69,8%. In April 1980, parity had already been achieved at certain levels with regard to Indian and Coloured Post Office employees. From postmaster grade II upwards, full parity has already been achieved. Black postmasters grade II get approximately 85% of the salaries of White postmasters. In respect of other ranks, Coloureds and Indians get 90% and Blacks get 73% of the salaries of their White counterparts. As from 1 April this year, further impressive progress will be made in this connection—I cannot yet give the percentages involved, because they are still being worked out. So that aspect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow is completely invalid.

†The third leg of the hon. member’s amendment reads as follows, with reference to the Minister and the department—

Once again, the hon. member is living in the dark. Not only do we have development programmes for three years ahead; we have development programmes for five, for ten, and fifteen years ahead. Is the hon. member aware—he should be, because he reads the newspapers—that in the business section of a prominent newspaper it was announced last year that on behalf of my department I had signed long-term contracts with several suppliers covering the next 15 years and that those contracts, in terms of the value of money today, amount to R5 billion, the biggest ever contract to be signed in South Africa? In terms of the value of money in ten to fifteen years hence, it could even amount to R10 billion. Is the hon. member aware of that? The hon. member is pleading for a three-year plan, but the way he argued yesterday actually amounts to doing it the other way round. I shall, however, come back to that.

The final leg of the hon. member’s amendment, again with reference to the Minister and the department, reads as follows—

That is paragraph (a) of the fourth leg. Paragraph (b) reads—

*It is generally known that in terms of the Act, tariffs may be increased without having to be submitted to Parliament first. I want to ask the hon. member whether we have ever effected important tariff changes in the past without first submitting them to Parliament.

[Inaudible.]

Is the hon. member aware of the fact that since becoming the responsible Minister, I have postponed for four months tariff increases approved by this House? I received no word of thanks for that. I did not even receive a word of thanks in his speech for the fact that I lowered tariffs during the recess last year.

Thank you for that.

Thanks for the somewhat belated thanks. It is traditional for important tariff increases first to be submitted to Parliament. If the hon. member believes that I shall not adhere to that and that I shall introduce major tariff increases left and right—I am not even talking about the decreases—he must make out a case for this and try to motivate it.

†After all, Mr. Speaker, we have in this department a body which we call the National Consultative Committee on Post Office Affairs, a committee on which several representatives of the private sector serve, amongst other representatives from Assocom, the FCI and others. They meet regularly from time to time, almost quarterly. Those gentlemen—or ladies, if they would care to serve on that consultative committee—are informed from time to time regarding the financial situation of the Post Office and whether it would become necessary in due course to increase tariffs. We therefore have a very proud record in this regard, and I therefore simply cannot understand what the hon. member means in terms of the fourth leg of his amendment.

Once again I wish to refer to the fact that the tariff increases announced by my predecessor in 1979, to be implemented as from 1 October 1979—although according to the hon. member’s speech these tariffs were destined to be implemented on 1 October 1978; he had his dates wrong—were only implemented from 1 February last year, while some of the tariffs will be implemented gradually over the next four years. I am now especially referring to the tariffs which apply to newsprint. If the hon. member does not believe me, I would refer him to Government Gazette No. 6705 of 19 October 1979, in particular to page 25. Once again the general public was informed four months before the eventual implementation of the first stage of the tariff increases. All the legs of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow therefore make no sense at all. I will come back to the hon. member at a later stage as far as the meaning of the amendments are concerned. Perhaps I should put it to him immediately: Should it happen that the House decides that this amendment be approved, it would in effect mean that the Post Office officials would not be getting their salaries during the next seven months.

That is right. We all know that.

Must I tell the thousands of employees of the Post Office that the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on Post Office affairs moved an amendment which, if accepted, would have taken away their salaries?

That will be contrary to parliamentary practice.

One can always hide behind parliamentary practice. As the hon. member for Umhlanga said last year: “I am in the Opposition. I am very happy with the budget, but it is my duty as a member of the Opposition to oppose it.” That would perhaps be more honest. However, it does not make sense to me to hide . . .

You do not understand my amendment. It does not say that we must not approve the budget.

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the question of understanding, I have quite a lot to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow.

You must try to understand it.

That hon. member has repeatedly suggested that a stabilization fund be established. He says that we should deposit the surpluses in a stabilization fund to cushion future tariff increases. Has the hon. member really given serious thought to this proposal? The hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has a stabilization fund available to him, but was that fund able to save him from tariff increases this year? The point is that the revenue of the S.A. Railways is much more uncertain than that of the Post Office. As we saw in the latest debate conducted here, drought conditions in agriculture affect the revenue of the Railways. Economic recession in our trade partner countries, where our imports have to come from, has an effect on the revenue of the Railways, even if there is an economic upswing in this country. However, if the hon. member made a study of the history of the Post Office, of its revenue and of its expenditure, he would see that there is a tendency here which is not subject to so many fluctuations. If the hon. member understands this aspect, he should tell me whether it makes sense, in a time of high inflation, to have funds lying on productive. In other words, the hon. member is advocating something which he has not considered in all its implications. I want to make this charge against him.

The hon. member also said that we should use the profits from the telecommunications section of the department to cover the losses on the postal services. That is exactly what we are doing. We have said before that we try to levy tariffs on the basis of keeping costs as close as possible to the price. We must relate the two as closely as possible. However, we know what the postal service means to the country, and for that reason we try to subsidize it, but we shall not be able to go on doing so indefinitely. I have also told the hon. member that we shall not stop subsidizing the losses on the postal service overnight. We shall not do it without coming to Parliament. Nor shall we do it in the near future. If the hon. member can understand that, he will know what we are talking about.

The hon. member also mentioned the waiting lists for telephone services that exist. Some people are inclined to start reading a document at the end and not at the beginning. To me, as to any student of the activities of the Post Office, the most important fact is that we were able to instal 44 000 more telephones this year than last year. We installed 250 000 this year. It is true that the waiting list has grown in the meanwhile, but if the hon. member had studied the situation, he would have found that it is impossible altogether to dispose of the waiting list which exists at any given moment, especially in a developing country like South Africa, for fresh applications keep coming in as fast as the old ones are granted. However, when one is on the winning side and one is installing more telephones than fresh applications are being received, the service is doing well and it may be said that we are keeping up. Many of the applications on the waiting list are granted, depending on whether the necessary cables are available. But then fresh ones are received. They keep coming in. One should be grateful for the fact that there is such a demand for these services, but although the backlog is quickly wiped out, fresh applications are continually being received.

The hon. member also spoke about three years’ advance planning. I have told him that in fact we plan up to 15 years ahead. In our planning for the next three years, with regard to telephone services only, we are geared to provide 741 000 new telephone services. This does not refer only to the apparatus, but includes the cable network and, the most complicated of all, the exchanges which are now becoming fully electronic. Now the hon. member can get an indication of the way we plan. Although the hon. member also made a plea for three-year planning, he requested that equipment should be kept in stock. Has the hon. member ever considered what could happen if one were to keep large supplies of expensive electronic exchange equipment in stock?

It would rust.

One of the hon. members says it could rust. That could happen. It could rust. It could also be damaged by water, fire, etc. These things could happen if one kept large supplies of this expensive equipment in stock. However, it would also represent capital which would not be earning any interest and which would not generate any revenue for a long time.

What about cables?

Cables are in order. But why would one let a cable lie unutilized, while the production programme at the factory in South Africa which produces them enables one to obtain it immediately? Why should cables therefore lie unutilized in storerooms, storerooms which would also have to be built?

It would be cheaper. [Interjections.]

However, the most important thing which the hon. member for Hillbrow loses sight of in making a plea which militates against his plea for mediumterm planning is related to the fact that technological developments … No, the hon. member for Hillbrow must listen to me now, and in the process he might learn something about the matters he loves to talk about. Technological developments are so rapid that if one were to store sophisticated exchange units on a large scale, they would be obsolete by the time one wanted to use them, three or four years later, perhaps. Moreover, every telephone exchange has to be planned according to its own specifications. Therefore it is no use building a telephone exchange now and keeping it in stock and then installing it somewhere at a later stage if its specifications are not applicable. I hope that I have now given the hon. member a comprehensive idea of how we do in fact plan ahead in this department.

The hon. member for Hillbrow then asked me another question, which also militates against his insistence on planning.

†The hon. member wanted to know from me whether the phasing in of electronic exchanges and the phasing out of electromechanical exchanges would not be a waste. Fortunately, I can assure the hon. member that, on account of our long-term planning, there will be no waste whatsoever.

I was referring to the past.

Yes, even in reference to the past. When we install new fully electronic exchanges the old ones can be used in other areas which still have to be automated. They can be used in several other areas for quite a long time. That is the position thanks to our planning.

I have something more to say to the hon. member in connection with his remarks about recruiting and the staff position in general in the Post Office. I want to accuse the hon. member for Hillbrow today of having made a Press statement relating to the staff position in the Post Office without first having made a proper study of the annual report of the Postmaster-General. He made it only after reading the Rand Daily Mail. The annual report of the Postmaster-General was tabled in this House on Monday, 9 February. The hon. member therefore had ample time, in the course of that afternoon and the following day, to make a proper study of the report. On Wednesday, 11 February, the Rand Daily Mail carried a report under the following heading: “Now Post Office crisis bared.” It reads—

I accuse the hon. member for Hillbrow of having made his Press statement, which appeared on the afternoon of 11 February, after having read only this newspaper report, and not after having read and having made a proper study of the annual report of the Postmaster-General. What did the hon. member for Hillbrow say? I have a copy here of the Press statement released by him. It is signed “Mr. Alf Widman, MP for Hillbrow”. I quote—

This is fair enough, Mr. Speaker. These figures do appear in the report of the Postmaster-General. What is interesting, however, is the fact that in the very same paragraph of the annual report from which the hon. member for Hillbrow supposedly quoted . . . After all, Mr. Speaker, he was quoting from the Rand Daily Mail.

What are you trying to prove?

The hon. member will understand just now what I am trying to prove.

You are wasting our time.

Mr. Speaker, right at the very beginning of the paragraph from which the hon. member for Hillbrow was supposed to have quoted he will find that in the same financial year the full-time staff of the department increased by between 2 500 and 3 000 full-time members. However, the hon. member was not interested in putting the situation into its correct perspective, and neither was the Rand Daily Mail. Furthermore, in the same report, the hon. member could have found the figures indicating that during the two previous financial years when the economy was going through something of a recession the figures were 20,4% and 20,48%, respectively, in respect of staff who left the service of the Post. Office. Therefore, the increase in this regard during the financial year covered by this report, a year in which we had a booming economy and when there was very much more competition for employment from the private sector, was not at all excessive. However, the hon. member for Hillbrow comes along and through the medium of a Press statement tries to paint a one-sided picture of the staff position in the Post Office.

You still lost 17 000 of your staff.

I want to suggest to the hon. member that he make a study of these matters. I want to tell the hon. member that had he been of a more enquiring nature he could have verified the facts by asking some other person who knows more about the subject than he does. He could have asked the Postmaster-General. He could have asked him for the reasons for this particular phenomenon because there are reasons for it. Apart from the competition that the Post Office experienced in that year, which was a boom year, on the part of the private sector, it is common knowledge that most of the people who left the service of the department, just as in the case of other State departments, were female staff. It is commonly known that women move regularly from one employer to another. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, I do not dispute that they change jobs. Sometimes they come back, too. I want to say to hon. members that often when a woman marries she retires from the service. If she is a married woman and her husband leaves to work in a different area, she has to accompany him. We also have the situation that women retire in large numbers in December every year because their husbands get leave in December, particularly in Pretoria, and if their leave does not coincide with their husband’s, they leave the service. In other words, the picture the hon. member for Hillbrow tried to present by way of his Press statement is just as one-sided as that presented by the Rand Daily Mail, which only took the trouble to obtain the correct information from the Postmaster-General four days after that report appeared. The Sunday Times did exactly the same thing. On the following Sunday they placed the same one-sided report, and despite a letter written to that newspaper by the Postmaster-General—if I had had the time, I could quote it to the House in order to place this situation in its correct perspective—that newspaper did not take the trouble to place that letter last Sunday. I take the hon. member for Hillbrow to task for not even having made a study of a document which was made available to him in good time. He suffers from the same election fever as that newspaper. He is so quick to run to the newspapers that he had to amend part of his statement at a later stage.

The hon. the Minister says that Blacks are slow thinkers and women are fast movers.

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Sunnyside for having disposed of the hon. member for Hillbrow most effectively.

I now come to the hon. member for Umhlanga. I have just said that one should not hide behind parliamentary customs. As he did last year, he again told us what a good budget this was. He used the expression “let us give credit where credit is due”. [Interjections.] But then he said that it was his task as a member of the Opposition to criticize as well. He did so, and I have no argument with him on that score except with regard to certain aspects of his criticism. I also want to thank that hon. member for his friendly words.

†Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked me whether I did not think that at this stage our tariffs were too high. My reply to that is a definite “No”. If the hon. member would only compare postal tariffs in this country with those in any other country in the world he would agree with me that our tariffs are among the lowest in the world.

The hon. member also complimented me and my department because of the fact that the department is being run, as he and other hon. members have said, on business lines. They have pleaded over the years that this should be the case and therefore they are very pleased that it is being run on business lines. The hon. member then however pleaded—I appreciate the background of his plea because we have an election on 29 April— that aged people should actually be subsidized by way of cheaper telephone rentals and in some other respects. There is a contradiction embodied in that request because it cannot be asked that the department should be run on business lines while at the same time it is expected to be run on welfare lines. These two views do not meet.

But it is good business.

I agree that one can say it is good business when one bears 29 April in mind, but I must point out to the hon. member that I also happen to know how one should run a welfare department. Many years ago I was the Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. That, however, is a story completely of its own.

As regards the aged the hon. member should have addressed his plea to the hon. the Minister of Health, Welfare and Pensions. Had he done that, it would have been quite in order. In these days of inflation, however, a department that is supposed to be run on business lines, cannot at the same time function as a welfare department. The hon. member must be aware of the fact that hon. members also enjoy particular benefits through the offices of the Post Office. They can telephone their homes or their constituencies free of charge, but my department does not bear the costs in that regard. Parliament does.

*The hon. member also asked me to do something about the growing waiting list for telephones. I want to repeat what I said to the hon. member for Hillbrow. In this growing and flourishing country it will never be possible to eliminate a waiting list. What is important is that it must be possible to say that the period of time that elapses between the receipt of applications and the disposal thereof is shorter. However, the waiting list will always have a tendency to grow. If the hon. member joins me in appealing that we reduce the period of time that elapses between receipt of applications and the disposal thereof, then that is a horse of a different colour. We are doing that in any event. I can quote from a letter in which it is stated that the writer received his telephone 24 hours after he had applied. Surely that is evidence of progress. I say that this must be the approach.

The hon. member also remarked that the majority of those waiting for telephones were Black people. I pointed out to the hon. member in private conversation that he was making the incorrect inference from a paragraph he read in the annual report. His remark bears no relation to the true state of affairs, and I pointed this out last year as well. There is an increasing number of applications for telephone services from our non-White areas, but that they form the majority of those waiting, is not true. I do not take it amiss of him, because he did not infer that out of malice. [Interjections.] Perhaps due to the way he read the paragraph it was not quite clear to him.

As far as Soweto is concerned, there are at present 16 000 telephone services available and in the course of the coming year three additional automatic exchanges will be commissioned, providing 10 000 additional lines.

†The hon. member also referred to party lines and he equated those lines in his constituency with something in the ark. I agree that it used to be quite a lot of fun in the old days to have party-line telephones. He is very fortunate in that fairly soon in his constituency he and all the other farmers there will be able to enjoy another facility apart from the improvement brought about many years ago with the installation of semi-automatic telephones. When one has such a telephone, one still shares a line with one’s neighbours, but one cannot listen in to conversations they are having with other people. One can only hear one’s neighbour if one dials his number. Of course, those who use the same party line cannot use their telephones simultaneously; they each have to await their turn.

We recently developed a system in South Africa called SOR 8 which makes it possible for nine subscribers on a party line to dial over the same line at the same time to anywhere in the world. The newest SOR 18 system, an improvement on the SOR 8, enables as many as 19 subscribers to operate on the same line at the same time. These new systems will be installed in the case of the new areas that will be automated, and will make even party lines just as private as an ordinary private telephone line. I congratulate the hon. member on the fact that his constituency will have the benefit of that service. This particular system, the SOR 8 and SOR 18, was developed in South Africa and at present is being used only in this country. But there is an extensive export market for this, and perhaps that is one of the reasons why I recently received an invitation to address an international conference on telecommunications in the USA later this year, with special reference to the telecommunication services in South Africa.

The hon. member raised a question about the new push-button telephone. I brought one of these instruments along to show him and other hon. members what it looks like. Unfortunately I cannot connect it here in the House, but hon. members may try it out later this afternoon. [Interjections.] The hon. member asked whether this instrument has a memory. Yes, it has. After one has dialled a number and it is engaged, one replaces the receiver and if one wishes to dial again, one simply presses a certain button and the number is then dialled automatically. Hon. members are welcome to come and have a look at the instrument afterwards.

The hon. member complained about our international telex service, and this surprised me. We have at present a telex service to 190 countries. Of these 98 can be dialled directly. I have never before heard any complaints regarding our international telex services and therefore made inquiries. According to my information only two complaints were reported during the past year, but these were due not to faults with our service but with the service somewhere in France to some of the French islands. However, the French managed to sort out those problems. So, only two cases were reported, and therefore I was really surprised to learn from the hon. member that there were complaints.

It is difficult to dial.

Not according to my information.

The hon. member also referred to the fact that the Post Office has been able to decrease its fuel consumption, also the distances covered by Post Office vehicles although the number of vehicles has increased by more than 1 100. The hon. member asked for an explanation. It is quite obvious that if more and more services are being made available, more people are needed to maintain those services. Hon. members on the other side for instance have asked for more postal delivery services and also for other services in their respective constituencies. Well, if one expands the scope of one’s services, one needs more vehicles. When a fault is reported, the technician cannot wait several hours for a vehicle that is being used by one of his colleagues to be made available to him. He must attend to the complaint straight away. So I really think it is a feather in the cap of the Post Office that despite increasing the number of vehicles in use from 11 000 to 12 100, it has still been able to cut down on fuel consumption and the distance covered.

*The hon. member also asked whether we could not utilize our profits to instal air-conditioning in very hot and very cold places. We have a programme in accordance with which we are doing so, and we are starting at places where the temperature fluctuations are the greatest.

Durban.

Yes, Durban in particular. I have just approved an extention of these services to a few places. The hon. member’s request therefore has merit.

†The hon. member for Umhlanga said something yesterday that I simply could not understand. In referring to tariffs, he mentioned the volume of mail articles handled over the last five years. He said—

I simply could not believe the figure. He went on—

The hon. member then said—

I was rather surprised, but I checked up, and what did I find? In the statistics of the department reference is made to kilo-rand. In other words, the hon. member did not read the report properly. It is not a question of 1,5 million, but 1,5 billion. In other words, the increase in postal articles handled during the year to which the report refers amounts to 88 million.

Yes, but the percentage remains the same.

No, the percentage cannot remain the same if the increase is in the billions rather than millions.

Oh, come on!

The hon. member indicated that there was an increase of 0,188 million. In actual fact it was 88 billion.

The percentage still remains the same. [Interjections.]

I do not think the hon. member did his homework very well. He would not have used that as an argument if he had done his homework well. If he had, he would have found that he was wrong.

I should now like to turn to the hon. member for Yeoville. He surprised me yesterday. He said he was not going to hold a political speech and indeed, he made a very positive speech. He referred to the disaster that took place at the Yeoville telephone exchange. The difference between him and the hon. member for Hillbrow is that although the hon. member for Yeoville does not concern himself with Post Office affairs every day, when the disaster took place in his constituency he took a personal interest in what happened there. He therefore knew what he was talking about here, and in addition he raised a number of valid points. For example, how this brought home to one the dependence of the individual on telephones and, secondly, the community spirit that such a disaster engenders. The hon. member described this very effectively. He also mentioned that such circumstances spotfight the need for stand-by material.

†That is exactly what we have done. Fortunately we keep such material ready for use. I really do wish to thank the hon. member for his remarks in this regard.

The hon. member also referred to the role played by the CB radio service and specially referred to one particular organization. I am in full agreement with him. Last year when I remarked on the abuse of the CB service, I heard some opposing voices. I do not say it came from the Opposition, but there was some measure of disagreement.

The organization to which the hon. member for Yeoville referred backed me up all the way, and not only in my request to the users of the CB service to organize themselves properly. They acted voluntarily on several occasions to assist in times of need, such as the emergency to which the hon. member referred. I think there are also other organizations who are doing their fair share to organize the users of CB radios properly.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to consider harnessing these organizations on a national basis to render this kind of service in cases of emergency?

Sir, last year I requested that these organizations should strive to do just that. It is a very sound idea, and I am therefore in full agreement with the hon. member.

*The hon. member for Durban Central said he was very satisfied with the services in Durban. However, he also added that the tariffs for telecommunications services in South Africa were high. All I can do is to repeat what I have just said to his benchmate, the hon. member for Umhlanga, namely that our tariffs are among the lowest in the world. The hon. member for Springs replied to him very effectively in this regard, viz. if he listened to the statistics quoted by the hon. member for Springs. I want to thank that hon. member, too, for the statistics he quoted to prove that our tariffs are indeed very low.

†The hon. member for Durban Central also remarked that we have had no new innovations lately.

[Inaudible.]

I wish the hon. member had listened to my speech yesterday and had also read the annual report. He must be living in a fool’s paradise if he believes that there were no new innovations in the Post Office lately.

*The hon. member also complained about hotels, I think it was in Durban . . .

No, in Johannesburg.

Oh, in Johannesburg. The hon. member comes from Durban; that is why I immediately thought of Durban. The hon. member complained that hotels charge unnecessarily high service fees for telephone services. Sir, this matter caused problems a few years ago, and my predecessor discussed it with Fedhasa. An agreement was reached, and I received the latest report in this connection very recently. It is evident from that report that only isolated complaints are still received. In fact, over the past year only four complaints have been received, of which three were in any event proved to be unfounded. Nevertheless I want to ask the hon. member to notify Fedhasa immediately if he should encounter the malpractices of the magnitude he described here. That organization regards it as a matter of honour that their members should not act in this way. As far as I know, this is not a widespread phenomenon. In any event, the hon. member must please notify them of the matter. I also want to call upon the hon. member for Umhlanga not to raise exceptional cases in this House when problems are experienced with regard to postal deliveries; he should mention them at once so that the matter can be given attention. The hon. member must not try to make a rule of the exception.

I have already replied to the hon. member for Bryanston in connection with salaries. He also appealed for facilities for the elderly at the new post office for Randburg, which also serves part of his constituency. That is a very fine idea, but once again it is not the function of my department. The department has to be operated on business principles. I want to suggest something to the hon. member. In a number of large centres in the country I have seen local welfare organizations and service organizations serving tea to those of the elderly who had to wait in the lobby for a time, particularly on those days when old-age pensions are paid. These organizations render a praiseworthy service. I want to suggest to him and to the hon. member for Randburg, who is his neighbour, that they urge welfare organizations and service organizations in their constituency to render such services to the elderly.

The hon. member also made an appeal in connection with facilities for paraplegics. Nowadays the same facilities are provided at all major new buildings, for example the Verwoerd Building opposite and at post office buildings. This is done to afford them easier access to such buildings.

The hon. member for Boksburg requested us rather to have flats or houses built for our staff ourselves instead of purchasing them. This is already being done at a number of places. In Pretoria there is a large project of two blocks of flats capable of accommodating a total of 100 families. It was recently handed over to the contractors. It is near Drie Lelies. We have a fine and extensive housing scheme in progress at Derdepoort, and others, too, are being built. However, we want to retain our staff at this stage as well. If we are to do so—and that is the essence of the complaint by the hon. member for Hillbrow—then we must make the necessary provision now and therefore in certain areas where shortages existed, we had to purchase blocks of flats urgently. We had no choice but to purchase them to accommodate our people. The hon. member for Hillbrow complains in the newspapers and elsewhere about the conditions of service of our staff, but when we purchased a block of flats he was the first to complain to me that we were going to evict the poor people there so that Post Office people could take it over. [Interjections.] How, then, are we to retain our staff? I therefore want to ask the hon. member for Boksburg to bear these considerations in mind. We are indeed doing this. Like the hon. member for Kempton Park and others, the hon. member also pleaded that the private sector should do more in regard to the training of their own staff, particularly in the electronics industry. I wholeheartedly endorse that.

The hon. member for Overvaal asked that a sight-seeing tour be arranged for members of Parliament. I wholeheartedly endorse that. However, I wish to add that we made three such efforts last year, and on all three occasions we found that after we had made all the arrangements, only one or two hon. members turned up. Some of the hon. members had to accompany overseas missions. Nor does this only effect specific parties. However we shall see what we can do in this connection later this year.

The hon. member for Vryheid called for attention to be given to initial salaries. I want to tell him that in Transvaal, being one of the areas where there is a shortage we make provision for differentiated salaries, particularly at the initial level, in order to overcome that problem. He also advocating staff housing on a wider scale. I want to say to him that in his main town, Vryheid, the Post Office has purchased a block of flats to accommodate some of its staff. He also advocated a five-day working week. This is where the Post Office differs from other service organizations. On Saturdays the public wants a postal service. Therefore we must have appreciation for the staff of the Post Office. Although they relieve one another and work in smaller teams, they are at the office on Saturdays to render service. Unfortunately we shall not be able to close post offices on Saturdays, as is the case with other institutions.

The hon. member for Nigel, too, made a very strong plea for the private sector to give attention to the training of its own technical staff. I want to thank him for that. He pointed out the tax benefits that the private sector enjoys in this connection. That is quite correct. The hon. member also expressed his thanks for the new post office in his constituency. I am aware of the background of the matter and it was a pleasure for me to assist in that regard. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to the new post office to be built in Port Elizabeth. As he said, the City Council of Port Elizabeth agreed with the Post Office ten years ago that we should sell the fine old building there to them when we constructed a new building. However, just recently the city council has been tending to get cold feet in this regard.

I should like to confirm that this will not deter us from continuing with the building contract for that new post office, which will also include the regional main post office. We are carrying on in that regard with an open mind. Indeed, the idea I advanced here yesterday concerning the decentralization of Post Office staff may result in Port Elizabeth playing an important role in the future as far as the post office is concerned. If there are problems of any kind, for example if the City Council is unable to find sufficient funds . . . [Time expired.]

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

Upon which the House divided:

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. the Minister with great interest. I heard the petty points he made during his reply. I must express my disappointment at the reply to this debate by the hon. the Minister. The main issues to which we referred, the questions we put to him, he failed to answer. The most important aspects referred to were those of the clerical staff and of the 76 000 people employed by the Post Office. I asked him a simple question. I wanted to know how much money had been set aside to pay Post Office employees their increased wages. I asked him what the increases were. There are 76 000 people waiting, people who want to know what they are going to receive, what their pay-packets are going to contain on 1 April, and how they are going to meet their expenses. The hon. the Minister also raised several points, to which I shall be happy to reply.

Before I proceed, however, I should like to deal with the hon. member for Sunnyside. The hon. member devoted his entire speech to me yesterday. He challenged me by putting several questions to me across the floor of the House. At that stage I indicated that I would be happy to answer those questions at the Third Reading, and that I choose to do now. There were several points, however, that were raised by both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Sunnyside, and where those questions do coincide I should prefer to answer them together.

The first point raised was the question regarding the statement I made to the Press in connection with the Postmaster-General’s annual report. In this respect two attacks were made on me, the first one by the hon. the Minister himself who said I had not read the report and that I had failed to quote the first part of that report. The hon. the Minister also said the Rand Daily Mail had failed to quote from the Postmaster-General’s annual report. The second attack on me was made by the hon. member for Sunnyside who said I was inconsistent in my attack. Allow me to dispose quickly of the first point, the one raised by the hon. the Minister. In this connection I should like to refer to the annual report of the Postmaster-General. I quote from page 29 of the report, as follows—

The paragraph that was quoted, and to which reference was made by both the hon. the Minister and the hon. member for Sunnyside, reads as follows—

If we make a simple calculation, we find that the hon. the Minister and this department are minus 18,94% of their former staff establishment. What is it then about which the hon. the Minister is making such a fuss?

No, you have it completely wrong.

No, I do not have it wrong. The hon. the Minister is minus 18,94% of his former full-time staff establishment. The overall full-time staff gain of the Post Office was 3,56%. The ultimate loss in staff was 32,5% of the full-time staff establishment. Why does the hon. the Minister make such a fuss then?

I want to turn now to the hon. member for Sunnyside who made a vicious attack on me in the House yesterday. He revealed a bitterness which, I believe, is part of his make-up. I have a copy of his speech with me. He said the following about me—

Well, in the light of the good-byes that have already been said here in the House, I can only put it to the hon. member for Sunnyside that we shall see who is going to say good-bye on 29 April.

As far as the report in the Rand Daily Mail is concerned, the hon. member quotes the paragraph to which I have already referred. Then he goes on to say that he is surprised to see that I am shocked at it. He then goes on to say that on the one hand I express my shock at the loss of staff by the Post Office but on the other hand I congratulate the Postmaster-General on his report. Then he says the following—

In other words, the hon. member accuses me of being inconsistent. The hon. member for Sunnyside, however, evidently does not understand English properly because, when I referred to the Postmaster-General’s report in my speech, I said very clearly that I should like to congratulate the Postmaster-General on his annual report, which was clear, full of detail and very well presented. Nowhere did I say that it was not beyond criticism. Does the hon. member not understand the words I actually used? Does that mean that I cannot raise any point in connection with the report merely because I congratulated the Postmaster-General or because I have said the report is clear and filled with detail and well presented? Mr. Speaker, it is obvious he does not understand the arguments that I raised. I said it was no criterion whatsoever in so far as the content of the report itself was concerned.

Then the hon. member attacked me because I referred to the brilliant leadership of the department. I should very much like an hon. member on that side to stand up and tell me what it means when I refer to the fact that this department had brilliant leadership. The hon. member tried to make out as if I had levelled some sort of accusation against Mr. Rive. The hon. member, of course, should know that Mr. Rive’s brilliant administration is not at question at all. What is at question here—and this is what I said in my speech—is the action of the hon. the Minister himself. He is the responsible Minister. This is his portfolio and he lays down the policy for the department. Had the hon. member for Sunnyside understood my argument he would have realized that what I was saying was, firstly, that the Government has to accept full responsibility for the fact that there had been three Ministers controlling this portfolio in three successive years.

Secondly, I said that both the hon. the Minister and the Government had failed to take cognizance of the warnings—and I repeated them in my speech—that previous Ministers had issued since 1972, warnings that were issued both by Ministers and Postmasters-General in regard to the position of his staff. There is also the question of the narrowing of the wage gap. In this connection we find that at the present moment Coloured and Indian staff are being paid 90% of White salaries and Black staff, 73% of White salaries. How can any department pursue an honest recruiting and train ing programme, particularly as far as Coloureds and Indians are concerned, while this gap still exists in regard to the salaries paid to these people? It is only when this wage gap has been totally eliminated that the Department will be able to go ahead with a positive recruitment programme. To take the hon. member’s argument further, it makes no difference whether the report was as at 31 March 1980 or whether it covered the present position. The arguments that I advanced in this regard still remain exactly the same.

The hon. member for Sunnyside then attacked me in regard to the reference I made to the establishment of a stabilization fund. The hon. member asked me whether the contributions to this fund should come from the postal services or the telecommunications services. The hon. member said—

Here we have an accountant, Sir, who poses this brilliant question as to where this money is to come from. Can you imagine that the hon. member could ask such a question, Sir? Here we have a postal service showing a loss of R53 million this year—and in my speech yesterday I reminded him of the loss in this regard over successive years; in 1976 it was R22 million, in 1977, R30 million, in 1978, R38 million—and in the face of these losses we have this hon. member asking whether we should take money from these services to establish a stabilization fund! What a brilliant question from an accountant, Mr. Speaker! I am afraid I fail to understand the logic of the hon. member.

A lot of people did not understand Einstein.

I want to put another question to the hon. member in this regard. In fact, the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs referred to this aspect today. The Railways have in fact established a Rates Equalization Fund.

But that did not save them from increasing their rates.

This fund also shows substantial losses. In fact, one of the losses referred to during the debate on the part appropriation of the Railways was the loss on passenger services of R450 million. Can anybody explain this? I want to ask the hon. member whether he can explain to me why the Railways have a Rates Equalization Fund and yet the Post Office cannot have one.

Will the hon. member allow me to explain the position to him?

No, I am sorry. I do not have the time for that. I want the hon. member to take his medicine. He must sit and listen. I want to tell the hon. member that as far as the Railway Administration is concerned, the surplus, which this year was R43 million and the deficit, which last year was R67 million, of the net income after appropriation, is transferred to the Rates Equalization Fund. This sort of thing has been going on since the fund was established in 1909 and this is done in terms of section 128 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act.

And how do they finance themselves? Where do they get funds for capital expenditure from? Does the hon. member know? He does not, so I shall tell him. They have three sources. Firstly, as far as local loans are concerned, the Treasury handles these loans and the money is obtained from that source. Secondly, as far as foreign loans are concerned which is another source of revenue for capital expenditure, those are obtained by the S.A. Railways themselves. As far as the third source is concerned, that is appropriated by income from revenue itself. Let me compare this third leg with the formula laid down by the Franzsen Commission to which the hon. member referred. This formula is on a 60:40 basis which, incidentally, is improved in this case by 14,3%. The Railways, however, have no such formula, so why should there be such a formula in this instance? In fact, only R150 million out of R440 million, or 3,4% of revenue, has gone to the Rates Equalization Fund. Why then must the Post Office take 59,1%? That is why I said that this is not the law of the Medes and the Persians. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central interjected at that stage and, in answer to the question “Where must the money come from?”, he said “From Santa Claus”. Well, I do not see a chimney in this House. The hon. member then added the nonsensical suggestion that there should be a levy of 5%. I submit therefore that if the Railways have been able to operate in this manner since 1909, why cannot the Post Office have a stabilization fund similar to the Rates Equalization Fund in order to protect the subscribers, the business world and to cushion tariff escalations from time to time?

The next attack the hon. member made on me was in connection with the tariff increases to which the Rand Daily Mail referred, and he also attacked my amendment. He said—

Where did he get this “That is a He”, referring to the tariff increases? Firstly, the hon. member made a mistake in saying that it was a He. Secondly, he has not read the report. Thirdly, he has not read the Minister’s statement and, fourthly, I do not think he really knows what is going on. I shall quote from page 5 of the Postmaster-General’s report—

At the end of the paragraph he goes on to say—

The hon. the Minister referred to this in the debate when he said that it goes without saying that sooner or later more tariff adjustments will have to be made. So there we have it from two sources.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question?

No, we are in a hurry. From two sources statements are made and we are warned that there will have to be tariff increases, so is it any wonder that I sound a warning about tariff increases being announced without coming to Parliament? Is it any wonder that commerce and industry are worried by statements such as these? They realize that they may suddenly be confronted by powers which the hon. the Minister has under section 2(b) of the Act, and that he can announce tariff increases. In fact, he did announce that he intended doing so.

The hon. member for Sunnyside went further and referred to tariff increases on 1 February 1980, and with no motivation whatsoever he suddenly says—

What does this have to do with the issue? Where is the motivation for a statement like that? What kind of argument is that? Having referred to the tariffs applicable on 1 February 1980, and saying that tariffs had not been increased for five years prior to that, how can he come along with this amazing statement he made?

This brings me to the next statement, and remember this was made by an accountant. I quote—

Now I am not an accountant—I am just a layman—but an increase from 3 cents to 5 cents is an increase of 66%. So just look at how inconsistent the hon. member is. In one breath he tells the House that tariff increases were 12,78% and in the next breath he gives an example to show that the increase in postal tariffs was 66%. What kind of an accountant is that?

Do not wrest the matter out of context. That is immoral.

In his speech the hon. member asked me two questions. Suddenly he is referring to The Citizen. Up to that stage he had not quoted The Citizen, and there was no reference to The Citizen anywhere. The only newspaper he had mentioned was the Rand Daily Mail, but all of a sudden he is talking about The Citizen. How is one to follow the argument of such a speaker?

*He asked me two questions. I quote—

Yes, it was a calculated action on my part, but no, it was not malicious. I stand by what I say. What I said had been calculated and what I said was right. He said that was his first question. He then asked whether I did not perhaps think that I might have been just a little reckless in my remarks. I reject his second question with the contempt it deserves. I leave it to hon. members of this House and to the people outside to decide who acted unwisely. He should go and lecture somewhere else.

†In his speech he also spoke about Soweto.

We do not have that Hansard before us.

He said that in referring to the telephone services I had made no reference to the 5 449 telephones that had been installed in Soweto. I did, however, but he was not listening. I made the following statement—

Does that not cover Soweto? Surely that covers all the telephones that have been installed? This highlights a very important ideological difference. That hon. member only sees either Black or White or Coloured or Indian or Italian or Greek or Jew or Englishman or Afrikaner. Everybody has to fit into his little box. We do not see it that way on this side. We see one country, one entity, not little ideological boxes like that hon. member who has to classify each person according to his own race, into his individual racial bloc.

Racist.

One man, one vote.

He is brainwashed and schooled in apartheid. He therefore made no sense when he said I had not referred to Soweto. The hon. member also referred to Ecclesiastes 10, verse 2.

What BB is that?

I quote—

It is not only his heart that is at his right hand, it is his whole being, body and mind, and his ideology. Unfortunately he sits where he is sitting now, in the right wing of the hon. the Prime Minister’s party. [Interjections.] Since he is so fond of the Bible, I shall reply to him as follows (Proverbs 26, verse 9)—

If he is not satisfied with that, and wishes to refer to Ecclesiastes again, he should refer to Ecclesiastes 7, verse 16, and I quote—

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to insinuate that the hon. member for Sunnyside is a fool?

I hope that with that I have disposed of the hon. member for Sunnyside. If he wants to go and catch his aeroplane now, he is welcome to do so.

Sir, I should now like to return to the hon. the Minister and to some of the arguments he raised. In talking about the staff, the hon. the Minister has blandly told us that 540 Coloureds, 288 Indians and 150 Blacks have been trained since 1972. Sir, that is over a period of nine years and when one breaks the figures down into annual figures, what does one find? One finds that the number of people trained amount to 60 Coloureds per year, 32 . . .

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member for Johannesburg North has said that the hon. member for Sunnyside is a fool. Is that permissible?

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “fool”.

I withdraw it Sir.

May I proceed, Sir?

The hon. member may proceed.

The hon. the Minister gave the House the figures in regard to the training of Coloureds, Indians and Blacks since 1972. I have analysed these figures for the period of nine years and it boils down to only 60 Coloureds, 32 Indians and 16 Blacks per year.

You are not analysing, you are dividing.

Yes, I am dividing the figures by nine.

If you want to analyse, you must ask me for particulars for each successive year.

The hon. the Minister has given us the gross figures since 1972, and I am giving the average over the period of nine years and it does not amount to a bag of beans.

The hon. the Minister then dealt with the question of the wage gap. When the hon. the Minister blandly said: “We are narrowing the wage gap”, I asked him: “When? When will the wage gap be eliminated?” The hon. the Minister must tell us when this will happen. He must tell us, just as he must tell the 76 000 Post Office workers who are waiting to know what their cheques will be on 1 April. He is their Minister, but he will not tell them.

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

No, Sir, I do not have much time.

As far as the signing of contracts is concerned, we are discussing something for the future. The mere fact that a contract is signed which will be effective for 10 years does not, with great respect, . . .

No, it is already effective now.

. . . mean that it will be effective for 10 years. It does not mean that he has a 10 year-plan. Delivery may take place in 10 years’ time, but it does not mean that he has a ten year plan. We want a positive plan, even for three years, saying: This is where we are going; this is what we are going to do; this is the expenditure; this is the plan for what we have in mind. In this way we and everybody else will know where we are going.

The hon. the Minister then dealt with the amendment. The most specious argument I have ever heard in my life is that, because we propose an amendment in which we ask the hon. the Minister to undertake to do those four things and to see that they are done, the hon. the Minister is now trying to tell the people outside that our amendment seeks to deny them their wages. Sir, can you believe that a Minister with his experience in this House says we are trying to deny the workers their wages while we are trying to protect their interests and the interests of the people of South Africa? We are trying to make the hon. the Minister do his own job and he says we want to deprive the workers of their wages. All he has to do, is to accept the amendment and give us the undertakings. But he will not give us the undertakings and therefore we shall have to vote on it. The hon. the Minister does not know what he is doing as far as his announcements are concerned. For example, he does not know what turnover the mail order industry in South Africa represents. It represents a turnover of approximately R180 million per year and if the interests of that industry are not protected, they will be in big trouble. Individual organizations rely upon them. A university with 53 000 students will, for example, send in excess of 4 million items through the post. The increase in revenue from university post will then be at least R250 000 per annum. That is the sort of impact that the hon. the Minister is making.

We in the PFP have a 12-point plan which is the following: (1) We want an efficient and speedy communication system which is essential in the field of telephone and postal services; (2) the most modern electronic equipment available in scientific technology should be installed in order to provide instant communication to any part of the world; (3) the backlog of telephones must be wiped out in a three-year programme; (4) adequate telephone services must be provided in every inhabited area of South Africa; (5) automatic exchanges must replace all manual exchanges without delay and must contain the most modern equipment; (6) the cost of the use of telephone services must be kept to a minimum and a tariff stabilization or equalization fund should be established; (7) telephones should be installed along national roads at certain intervals; (8) as far as mail is concerned, a speedy sorting and delivery service must ensure that letters reach their destination within 48 hours in South Africa; (9) it is essential that international communications be maintained; (10) the most modern methods of communication must be employed; (11) Post Office staff should be paid equally, irrespective of colour and sex; (12) future planning must be projected for at least three years.

How are you going to pay for all that?

Let me end on a more amitable note. Looking for the chimney in this House, I want to appeal once more that Santa Claus be given consideration by the postal services. Let us amend section 28 of the Post Office Act so that all the dear children who write to Santa Clause and do not get any reply can in future be treated the same as children are treated in other countries. There is an organization in South Africa which is prepared to assist the postmaster to get over his difficulties in this regard, to help sort out that mail and answer it and to make thousands of little children in South Africa happy in that way. Will the hon. the Minister stop thousands of tiny little children from being happy over Christmas? Is he such a hard-hearted Minister? All we need to do is simply amend section 28. There are certain difficulties but they can easily be overcome. I believe that with the right motivation and the right will they can be overcome. I request the hon. the Minister to take the necessary steps at his earliest convenience.

As we are approaching the end of this debate, let me say that I trust that in the not too distant future we shall be able to renew our arguments and keep before the House the affairs of the Post Office.

On this occasion, Mr. Speaker, before going into what was said in this debate today and yesterday, I wish to congratulate the department on its splendid report and on the splendid work done by it over the past year.

†Before I go on to what I wish to say, I should like to respond very briefly to some of the most recent remarks made by the hon. member for Hillbrow who has just sat down. He called for a three-year, a five-year or a 10-year plan. He wants a glimpse into the future planning of the Post Office. The hon. the Minister replied to him very adequately that of course the department has short, medium and long term plans. However, if that hon. member cannot even read and understand the annual report of the Post Office, which was tabled in Parliament and which, by his own admission, is very well set out, then I do not know how he is going to interpret the “guesstimates” of the department. I say that because he made the fantastic allegation here, after using his calculator, that the staff turnover is 22,5% and that, because that is so and the total staff of the Post Office has expanded by 3,56%, subtracting the one from the other we therefore have a net loss of 18% in the Post Office. If that is not the most fantastic, unbelievable interpretation of an annual report I have ever heard, I do not know what is.

What then is the net loss?

The turnover relates to the number of people who have left and have been replaced.

Tell us what the percentage net loss is.

The increase in staff is 3,56%. It is there as clear as daylight. “Turnover” means precisely what it says: Someone leaves and someone takes his place. The overall increase is 3,56%. I think that hon. member must stick to law and stay away from mathematics. He is not very good at that. I think the hon. the Minister must help the hon. member with that little calculator. That is the first point.

The second point I want to make—a point which shows how faulty the financial machinations of the mind of the hon. member for Hillbrow are—is in regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member of a tariff stabilization fund. He quoted from an article which appeared in the Rand Daily Mail—from which he has been trying to run for the last half hour—and makes two simple statements. His one statement is that losses have been incurred on postal tariffs. This refers to letters and telegrams and we all admit it because it appears in the annual report. He then goes on to say that profits were made on the telephone service. He then makes the statement that this indicates to him that tariff increases are imminent and that we therefore need a tariff stabilization fund. Mr. Speaker, obviously the surplus revenue flowing from the telecommunication services is used to offset the losses on postal and telegraph services. He had no need to make that revelation to us because those facts are in the accounts for everyone to see. The hon. the Minister has replied very adequately to him on the whole question of a tariff stabilization fund and I hope that hon. member will not raise the matter in this House again. We have that from him every year and it is like a running sore.

The other point the hon. member makes is one which is fundamental to all the arguments that are advanced by hon. members on that side of the House, not only in this debate but also in other debates. I refer to the old story—which, of course, is also of major concern to this side of the House—of inflation. They go on and on about the impact of inflation and how it is eroding people’s salaries.

Of course we share that concern but he cannot use that argument and then come along and say—as did the hon. member for Umhlanga—that tariffs may be too high. If we look at the tariffs over the past five years viz. from 1975 to the present, we find, for example, that the cost of a postage stamp for local mail and a local telephone call increased from four cents to five cents. How ever, if we look at the consumer price index and assume that the level of that index was 100 in 1975, we find that it was 111,1 in 1976 and 189,9 in 1980. This means that a rand is worth only 53% of what it was worth in 1975 and this is what the hon. members have been arguing about. At the same time, the hon. member for Umhlanga asks whether the tariffs are not too high. In fact, the Post Office has been reducing inflation. It has had the effect of reducing the tariffs of the Post Office over the past five years very appreciably. If we look at the tariffs we will find that that four cents in 1975 is now worth only 2,5 cents. That does not only apply to a letter; it also applies to a telephone call. Therefore, while salaries have been rising the cost of postal services has for all practical purposes been static. The nett effect has been that the Post Office has in real terms been expanding and providing marvellous services to South Africa at a lower price.

I want to say this about the official Opposition: There is a new Government on this side of the House in a sense that there is a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet. That Prime Minister and Cabinet have come to South Africa over the past few years with a new and dynamic message. However, there is a new dispensation on that side of the House as well because there is a new Leader of the Opposition. When the present Leader of the Opposition became the Leader of the Opposition he gave, among several undertakings in regard to his programme of principles, the undertaking that he would compliment and support the Government when it did the right thing and that he would oppose it when it did the wrong thing and, even if the Government did things which were not exactly to his way of thinking but were roughly in the interests of South Africa, they, this effective and vigorous Opposition, were not going to oppose the Government but were going to support it.

The annual report that has been tabled and the part appropriation that has been presented by the hon. the Minister can by no stretch of imagination be described in any other way than to say that the report is a brilliant document and the budget is a marvellous budget, and in an inflationary time this is a magnificent achievement. However, that hon. member, with tongue in cheek, comes along and moves an amendment which the hon. the Minister has tom to shreds. I do not think that I need do so again. It just shows how insincere hon. members on that side of the House are. If one looks at the effects of this budget, and that is what we should be looking at now in the Third Reading, one sees that the effects of the budget will be to increase the quality of life of all the people of South Africa. That is fundamental to this part appropriation and to what we have read of the achievements of the Post Office.

The hon. member for Yeoville in speaking during the Second Reading debate—and I must compliment him on what I think was a very fine speech—said that the people of Yeoville discovered how dependent they were on communications, on their telephone etc. He quoted the example of what one is to do when a baby is about to be born and one does not have a telephone. He asked what was one to do when one wanted to call a doctor. That is very true. The fact that the postal services have expanded so enormously in terms of the number of telephone connections that have been made, also in the Black areas to people of colour, will have the effect of improving the quality of life of those people enormously. It is true that in the townships, in places such as Soweto and elsewhere, if one does not have a telephone one does not have immediate access to the police, an ambulance, a fire brigade, let alone to being able to enjoy the other social functions and commercial functions that a telephone provides. Therefore the effect of what the Post Office has done is that it will improve the quality of life and the whole capacity of business to trade more efficiently. It will also improve the quality of life of the lower income groups and of people of colour in South Africa.

The third effect of this Bill and the actions of the Post Office will be that the Post Office will succeed in appreciably enlarging the size of the skilled labour pool in South Africa, and particularly in the electronics industry which is such a vital part of our modern society. It is true that the Post Office will train some people whom it will lose but they will not be a total loss to South Africa. They will in fact remain productive people in the economy and to that extent the Post Office will have rendered a great service to our country. In order to understand the scope of what the Post Office is doing, one need only look at the training facilities’ building programme. The hon. the Minister has alluded the fact that in Umbilo in Natal a training centre is being built, in the Eastern Cape, in the Free State, in the Transvaal the extensions at Silverton, on the Witwatersrand the extensions at Booysens and the hostel and recreational facilities at Sheshongwe. At the Post Office training college there are the digital training centre, lecture rooms, laboratories, hostels etc. One can see the enormous concentration upon training. One welcomes the impact of that training, not only on the Post Office but also on the economy in general. Talking about training centres, I would like to thank the department for the modern training centre that has been built at Milnerton. The hon. the Minister will know that we at Milnerton have over a long period been interested in making Milnerton an educational centre. We have fine schools of various kinds and also special schools. Now we have this training centre which was built at a cost of R1,4 million. I understand that there are 224 students there doing functional and practical courses at the moment. We are very grateful for that and we are delighted. In the light of that I also want to say that this complex has been built on a very large piece of land which is owned by the Post Office. This large piece of land has been further utilized by the Post Office for soccer fields, cricket fields etc. and now two squash courts are to be built there. I also want to say thank you for that. I think this is excellent. These are excellent facilities that have been provided for the employees of the Post Office. There is still a lot of land left, however.

In the annual report tabled by the hon. the Minister, the Postmaster-General states that it is his intention to look at decentralization. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for him to have a close look at the Post Office teletronic institute, which is currently based in Pretoria, and to investigate the possibility of decentralizing that service of the Post Office by moving part of the institute to a new location somewhere in the Western Cape, for instance. If the hon. the Minister is looking for a site, I suggest he turn his attention to Milnerton where extensive land is still available. I suggest that Milnerton will be a very suitable location to house the activities of this institute. The Western Cape is not a very intensively industrialized area. We do not have all the opportunities here that people in the Transvaal have and this, I believe, is the type of clean and skilled industry or activity we should like to attract to our part of the world. While I am talking about Milnerton, I also want to refer to the Marconi radio site there. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention of the Post Office also to build houses and flats in this part of the country for Post Office personnel. If it is the intention, I suggest such houses and flats be built there because, since the training facilities and the people are there, it would be a very suitable place for the erection of housing if it is going to be built anyway. Another consideration in this respect is the sporting facilities that will also be available there for Post Office employees.

The Post Office offers me much for which to be grateful. I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister for the new post office that was opened in Milnerton last year. The hon. the Minister will be aware of the fact that we had negotiated with the Post Office for many years about the erection of a new post office in the centre of Milnerton. The fact that post office facilities were not available in the centre of Milnerton used to be a source of great inconvenience to pensioners and others. Since we now have a post office there, we should like to express our thanks for it to the hon. the Minister.

I should also like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department on a number of other things. If we have read the annual report and if we listened to the speech of the hon. the Minister, it really seems like science fiction come true. One hon. member said the Post Office was old fashioned. How he reached that conclusion after reading the annual report of the Post-master-General, I cannot understand.

We are talking about video conferences, videotex access to data banks, pushbutton telephones, digital exchanges, electronic deposits and withdrawals of money etc. One can go on and on about the technological advances in the Post Office. All these things are available at effectively low tariffs, for the reasons I have already mentioned. We also see the upliftment of people of colour by the improvement of the quality of their environment and by extending telephone facilities to them. We also see the contribution the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is making towards the constellation of states in Southern Africa through the assistance given to our neighbouring states and national states who are our neighbours. We see the zeal with which the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is responding to the ideals of this nation.

In conclusion I should like to point out the fact that just as this debate has reflected the dynamic nature of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and of the Government, it has also shown how bankrupt hon. members of the Opposition are in this field as well.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Opposition Whip was talking about high postal rates of five cents, it made me think of how wonderful it is to conduct a long conversation for a mere five cents. I thought of the businessman who posts his accounts. It cost him five cents per account, but when the account is paid, he may receive R1 000, R5 000 or even R10 000. I also thought of fathers like myself who often write to their sons. One isolates oneself in one’s study and for the whole evening one speaks to them alone. One speaks one’s heart out for a mere five cents. In a lighter vein I thought of the young man in the Transvaal whose girl friend has gone to Stellenbosch to study there. He too can conduct a fine conversation with beautiful words for a mere five cents. I then quickly wrote down what he could say amongst other things—

Did you also think of the candidate who had to post his party pamphlets at a cost of R750?

I can say what I am going to tell my voters during elections. This is how I am going to conclude my election campaign two evenings before the election—

[Interjections.]

I have a great deal of appreciation for the department, its Minister and its people who are under discussion here. I am referring in particular to the ability of the department and its people because in this time of abnormal economic growth in our country they have succeeded to a large extent in complying with the demand for services, viz., post offices and telephones, where dwelling houses and business complexes have shot up like the proverbial mushrooms. One must think of the fact that the department installed 250 000 telephones last year. They are also struggling with the serious shortage of manpower which is symptomatic of our whole country. If one bears all of this in mind, one becomes aware of the phenomenal services that the department and its people are providing to our country and our people. I have just heard from the hon. the Minister that over the next three years 750 000 telephones, and everything that accompanies this, will be installed in South Africa. That takes some doing!

After the Secunda area in the Eastern Transvaal, the largest, strongest growth point is situated in my constituency, viz. the Brackenhurst and Brackendowns area. It is a great pleasure for me—and I want to put it on record too—to express the gratitude and appreciation of myself and my people towards the hon. the Minister and his department this afternoon. After requests which I made years ago, requests that were always met with the greatest friendliness, understanding, desire to serve and experience when I made them, assisted too by my good colleague the hon. member for Alberton—he was always helpful—we have received the good news that that area of Brackenhurst and Brackendowns will be supplied with services this year. We say thank you very much for this.

Now there is a problem. The telephone is the bearer of a message, but in order to get this message to them—they do not have telephones, but they do have a radio service because they are enthusiastic about listening to the radio and listen to it regularly—I am convinced that, because they listen to the radio so regularly, tomorrow morning at 07h30 during the Parliamentary news, they will be able to hear the good news that the Brackenhurst and Brackendowns area, situated in the Meyerton constituency, will receive a telephone service within this year.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Meyerton in his usual manner entertained the House with various stories and lyrics, while the hon. member for Maitland dealt with various matters concerning the staff shortage etc.

I believe that the Third Reading debate of the Post Office part appropriation is important because the Post Office renders a vital service to the economy of the country and provides employment for a large number of people. It has, however, come to our notice that there is a serious staff shortage particularly of male clerks and technicians. Over the years I have always felt that a great source of labour has been lost to the economy by virtue of the fact that we do not sufficiently utilize some of the older experienced workers who could be re-employed on a temporary basis, particularly as male clerks. From time to time I have made representations to the department in an effort to find employment for retired people who were very anxious to obtain some form of employment. I know that the Post Office has accommodated physically handicapped people, particularly the blind, and has provided them with avenues of employment. I do, however, feel that it is appropriate that the hon. the Minister should give further consideration to using retired people who are highly qualified and experienced in their various fields.

The shortage of staff comes to the fore from time to time, particularly in regard to the philatelic and Intersapa services that are provided and where long delays are experienced. People make application for special and commemorative issues, they enclose a postal order or a cheque for the required amount and then invariably have to wait two and a half months before they actually receive the stamps they have ordered.

And sometimes they lose the order.

As my hon. leader says, they sometimes also lose the order. In view of the delay in executing these orders it is obvious that that department requires additional staff and assistance.

Whilst dealing with the aspect of special and commemorative issues of stamps, I should like to point out that 1982 is the International Year for the Ageing and the S.A. National Council for the Aged is affiliated to the world body. This council is most anxious to ensure that in the Republic of South Africa due cognizance is given to this International Year for the Ageing. With that in view they approached the hon. the Minister and his department to launch a special stamp issue to commemorate the International Year for the Ageing. On Wednesday, 11 February I put a question to the hon. the Minister in this regard, and he replied that he had received representations but unfortunately he was unable to accede to the request for a special issue in 1982. In the course of his reply he mentioned that a large number of applications had been received for special stamps for 1982 and that it had not been possible to accede to the request of the S.A. National Council for the Aged.

Requests are still pouring in.

The hon. the Minister says requests are still pouring in and one can appreciate that fact. But I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give due consideration to this particular aspect because I believe there are various fields in which the hon. the Minister can play a role to make the International Year for the Ageing a success in South Africa and one of these is the issue of a special stamp that these people are most anxious to see in 1982.

The hon. the Minister also mentioned, I think in his reply to the Second Reading debate, that he was formerly Deputy Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I know that as far as social welfare and pensions are concerned, that hon. Minister has his heart in the right place. Perhaps the only fault I can find with him is that on 29 April he will put his cross in the wrong place but certainly he has his heart in the right place as far as this aspect is concerned. It is our senior citizens who require assistance in times of infiation. It is they who suffer tremendously at such times and have to look to the Government for relief from time to time.

The hon. the Minister can also afford to grant relief in various ways. One aspect of such relief involves the rentals paid for telephones. The hon. member for Umhlanga mentioned this in his Second Reading speech. I know that this issue has been raised on a number of occasions. Various other hon. Ministers have turned down similar requests but I do hope that the question of some rental concession to these people could be given consideration especially as it is the International Year of the Ageing in 1982. The question of the cost of telephone installations also causes concern among many of the older folk who are unable to afford those costs. The matter of transfer costs is another aspect that can cause financial hardship. I have in the past received correspondence from people who have requested transfers. Sometimes it is a transfer within the same complex, e.g. from one cottage to another when one spouse has perhaps passed on and the remaining spouse has moved to another cottage to share that cottage with somebody else. In such instances, transfer costs of R20 are considered exorbitant, in the circumstances in which they find themselves, for the transfer of a telephone over what sometimes is a very short distance.

The hon. the Minister also said that we on this side of the House welcome the fact that the Post Office is run on business lines and not on welfare lines. However, I do want to mention that there are many businesses that make special concessions to that deserving group of people. Indeed, there are supermarkets . . .

They do not have an Auditor-General though.

They do, however, have auditors and they also have shareholders but they see their way clear to granting special concessions to social pensioners who can show their pension cards. Such pensioners can receive discounts on the goods they are purchasing. My plea to the hon. the Minister is therefore that in 1982 he should also give consideration to a discount on the transfer costs and rentals of telephones. It means so much to those pensioners to be able to have a telephone close at hand in times of illness or in the event of any other problems that might arise. The telephone can keep them in contact with the outside world. Many of them cannot really afford a telephone and often have to go without other necessities of life in order to be able to have a telephone. I believe that in 1982 the hon. the Minister could do these old people a great service by making concessions available in respect of transfer costs and rentals.

The hon. the Minister will also be aware of the fact that in making radio listeners’ licences available to pensioners the SABC, for many years, rejected the pleas made to them. Indeed, past Ministers of Posts and Telecommunications, who used to administer the SABC, used to tell us in this House that it was impractical if not impossible to grant concessions in this regard. After a thorough investigation, however, ways were found of granting a concession in regard to radio listeners’ licences. This is greatly appreciated by these people who rely on the radio to a great extent to provide them with the news about what is taking place. For them that is a form of communication with the outside world. So I believe it is possible and practical to grant concessions in the manner in which I have suggested. In the past it has been possible to overcome the difficulties that have arisen.

There are several other matters that one could raise at this stage of the Third Reading debate of the Post Office Part Appropriation Bill. There is the question of the staff and the question of the service that is provided, and various other matters too. I have confined myself to this particular aspect, however, so that the hon. the Minister can show, in 1982, that the Government is in fact anxious and prepared to grant concessions to a deserving group of people.

This is the last occasion on which I shall be addressing this House as a member. When I look around the House I see that very few members who were here in 1958, when I came to this House, are still here now. We heard of staff turn-over earlier with regard to the staff of the Post Office but, certainly as far as the House is concerned, the membership here also shows a very considerable turn-over. However, I am pleased to say that the leader of my party, the NRP, and the member for Durban Point is one of those who came here in 1958 and is still surviving and I am sure he will be back when the next session starts in July, possibly even as Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Minister whose Part Appropriation Bill is being discussed this afternoon is also a member who came here in 1958 and it is pleasing to see that he has been appointed to the Cabinet. The hon. the Minister of Community Development and State Auxiliary Services, if I remember correctly, also came here in 1958.

Sir, I have had a long period of service and a long innings and I have seen many changes. I have seen four Prime Ministers and I am fully conscious of the fact that South Africa is now on the threshold of new constitutional developments and that the country looks to the hon. the Prime Minister and his Government to bring about those changes so as to ensure the survival of this wonderful country of ours and to see that we fulfil the great potential that lies ahead of this country. At this stage I can only say, as someone who has been a member of the House for many years, that I wish them well in the onerous task ahead of trying to solve the problems of this complex country of ours. I believe that none of us, as members of the House, should ever doubt the patriotism of a fellow-member of the House. All of us here, whether we sit in Opposition or in Government, have the interests of South Africa at heart to see that the country prospers as it should.

Sir, I should also like to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to you who, I know, will also be retiring as a member of the House. I should like to thank you for your courtesy at all times. You have certainly maintained discipline in the House and you have maintained the dignity and traditions of the House as all other Speakers have done, certainly during the period of time that I have had the honour and privilege to serve here as an ordinary member.

Sir, I should also like to thank the officials for their courtesy and their high degree of efficiency. It is important, when one sits in Opposition for a period of 23 years, to know that when one approaches officials they will communicate with one and go out of their way to give one assistance and guidance when one asks for it. I should like to thank all the officials of Parliament and express my sincere thanks and appreciation for all that they have done.

At this stage I should like to say that the friendship of my colleagues in my own party, the NRP, the friendship of the members of the PFP and the friendship of the members of the NP will forever be in my memory. I shall certainly at all times remember and treasure those memories of their friendship while I was serving in the House. With these words, I wish the members of the House every success in the future.

Mr. Speaker, since I am speaking after the hon. member for Umbilo, I should like to tell him that I have only recently become a member of the House whilst he has been here for 23 years, but in the short while that I have been here, he has made a good impression upon me. I think he is a good example of a worthy Opposition member. In a certain sense it is definitely a pity that he is leaving. I thought that he was going to take a rest at this stage, but now I believe that he may stand for election to the Provincial Council of Natal. Therefore it seems as if he may not be going to rest, but perhaps he will do so in any event. In any event, I should like to mention with gratitude and appreciation, the fine, dignified way in which he took leave of the House tonight.

Sir, we are now nearing the end of the debate, a debate that I feel dealt with a very good budget. I find it strange that the hon. member for Hillbrow raised the roof once again earlier on and made a great fuss about what is in fact a good budget. He did concede this in any event, but I think it is unnecessary that he should try to dig up a few things again each time. It is unfair when we have a good budget before us. I leave it at that. The hon. member is asking for a three year plan in his amendment. I find it ridiculous to plan for three years only. After all, one plans continuously and this is in fact being done.

With regard to the contribution by the Post Office in our set up in South Africa I want to say that in my opinion there are three reasons—I am saying this on the basis of the annual report and also on the basis of the hon. the Minister’s speech—why one can say that the Post Office is making a very worthwhile contribution, both here and abroad, in South Africa’s interest. In saying this I do not want to allege that these three reasons are the most important or the only reasons, but in my opinion they are basic reasons at this time in any event. With the economic growth phase that we are experiencing at present, a phase of tremendous prosperity, it is obvious in the first place that there will be a greater demand for services, both with regard to the quantity and quality thereof. In the nature of things, in a period like this there will be a greater demand for telephones, but also for a better, modernized apparatus. I think it is clear from the report and also from the address by the hon. the Minister that the Post Office has made a special contribution in this regard in the phase that we are experiencing at present. This is apparent amongst other things from the increase in the telephone services that have been provided, an increase of 21% in comparison with the previous year.

Furthermore, it is also apparent from the increase in the number of automatic exchanges. Fifty-five new automatic exchanges have been installed in one year with an additional 176 000 lines. I am just giving a few examples to support my point that in my opinion, the Post Office is making an excellent contribution towards the economic growth phase that we are experiencing at the moment and which is making tremendous demands of the department. I think it is a brilliant achievement. It is an example of productivity, taking into account the staff drain, trained people in particular, from the Post Office to the private sector. Despite the negative remarks made by the hon. member for Hillbrow, I believe that since the Post Office staff is providing this service, it is in fact an example of people who want to do the work and can do it too.

The provision of telephone services is a matter of merit. It is not something that is politically coloured. Anyone who applies for a telephone, should be able to get one. In principle there is nothing to prevent this. It is not something with regard to which discrimination applies in any respect. It is within the reach of the rich man and the poor man, White and Black. Anyone who applies for telephone services, is entitled to obtain them in principle. That is why it is a good example that we have here. The increase in the number of telephones provided last year, reflects the increasing standard of living of our people in South Africa. It is an image of the increasing standard of living in all the population groups in South Africa.

Is the junior Broederbond also secret?

Sir, we took our leave of the hon. member for Bryanston last night. I think he should rather go and see what he can still salvage in his constituency.

Answer my question. Is the junior Broederbond also secret. [Interjections.]

I want to say that the increase in the number of telephones installed in the past year, are evidence of an increasing standard of living. This increasing standard of living has in fact been ensured by the NP which is in power at the moment and governs well. I want to say that the increase in the demand for services is in fact due to the positive steps that were taken at various levels as a result of the economic boom that we experienced. The Post Office also made a contribution in its turn towards stimulating that boom by complying with demand and fulfilling the need. All of this is due to this National Government, a brilliant Government.

The second reason why I am saying that the Post Office is making an excellent contribution at this time in South Africa, is the technological development that this department is undertaking in the interest of the people of South Africa. Not only is it outstanding in world terms; it is also at our service in South Africa. In the century in which we are living, time is essential for almost anyone who is involved in an active profession. One must be able to communicate, make decisions and so on in the quickest, most efficient way. It is on this very level where the public and private sector have an equally great need for an efficient system of communications. During the course of this debate we have heard about various new developments being undertaken by the Post Office. We heard about the teletex service, the video conference service and the telefax service, which the hon. the Minister also mentioned in his budget speech. There are others too, but the fact of the matter is that here we have development in a sphere of communications that offers us in South Africa an excellent opportunity to do things in a better fashion. They are challenging developments in a challenging time. They give us busy people more time to do even more. In a country like South Africa, where in the nature of things we are crippled by insufficient trained manpower, this means a great deal. By means of these services we are saving the time of our top officials because fewer journeys have to be undertaken and in this way their time can be put to better use. I want to emphasize the point that I think it will be a good thing if the departments were to bring these new developments to the attention of the public as much as possible, when they become available, by way of a good marketing programme, so that they can be used to the full by the people to whom they are going to be made available.

The third point that I should like to make in emphasizing the useful role of the Post Office in the South Africa of today, is the fact that it makes a communications service available in the international sphere. This is not to the benefit of ourselves alone. I think the fact that we are playing a leading role in Africa in this sphere and will do so in future, is important. According to the latest figures that I was able to obtain in this regard, on 1 January 1979 there were 4,8 million telephones in Africa. At that moment 2,4 million of them were in the Republic. At the present moment there are nearly 2,9 million telephones in South Africa. This is more than 50% of the telephones that are in use in Africa. This makes us the leading country in this sphere in Africa. If one wants to take the matter further, I think that at this point one could say that in the sphere of Co-operation between states, South Africa can also play a very useful role with regard to telecommunications, in our own interest and to the benefit of our neighbours too. I should like to see the Post Office offering its services in this specific sphere too and making them available for the development of the sub-continent of Africa in which we find ourselves. In this way the technological knowledge of the Post Office as well as its ability to train people, can be put to good use to our own benefit as well as to that of our neighbouring states.

I should just like to mention two points with regard to the area that I represent, the Johannesburg area.

In his budget speech the hon. the Minister said that a tremendous shortage of staff is being experienced on the Witwatersrand. This is in fact true, but I also want to say—and I am saying this from experience— that in spite of the shortages that exist, we receive excellent service from our post offices in the Johannesburg area. The fact that there is not always sufficient staff, does not mean that the service is poorer. The quality remains high. In recent times I have had personal contact with some of the technicians in that area. I was impressed by the way in which these people serve the Post Office with dedication. Some of those people told me that they could earn more money in the private sector but that they were staying where they were because their conditions of service in the Post Office were good. As far as housing for staff is concerned, which is related to this, I want to say thank you on behalf of the Johannesburg Post Office community for the fact that the hon. the Minister is prepared to give preference to the PWV area for creating this staff housing scheme, and to direct attention to it, at least to begin with. I think it is a good thing that we should in fact give preference to that area, where the need is great at the moment and where housing is in a serious position at the moment. Therefore I want to say thank you to the hon. the Minister on behalf of these people.

In conclusion I should just like to say the following: I also want to associate myself with the hon. member for Yeoville in the thanks that he expressed last night for the speedy way in which the Yeoville Post Office was repaired after the interruption of the services. I think it was a brilliant achievement. It showed how we can act in an emergency situation, with a very efficient staff.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, here amidst the death throes of the sixth Parliament and on the occasion of the birth of the seventh Parliament, to say thank you very, very much to you for the time that you have spent there in the Chair and for the guidance that you gave. We wish you everything of the best. I also want to extend my hearty thanks to the last two speakers for the peaceful tone that they brought back to this debate. The hon. member for Johannesburg West indicated clearly that he has a very good understanding of what the Post Office is doing at the moment. Then to the peaceful, calm hon. member for Umbilo, who unfortunately had to leave, we also want to say thank you very much for the wonderful way in which he brought the matter of welfare services and the poor people in particular to the fore.

I cannot give a better testimonial for Posts and Telecommunications to the hon. the Minister than the Star did this afternoon. In today’s edition of that newspaper Graham Linscott says—

I cannot give a better testimonial than the one which this English-language newspaper has given tonight, it is a clear reply to the Opposition members on the other side, who are finding fault with this matter.

I also want to extend my very hearty congratulations to the hon. the Minister for the way in which he had the cable ship demonstrated to us last year, and gave us a clear impression of what is happening with regard to the cable services. I also thank him for the tours that he is in the process of arranging.

Then I also want to avail myself of this opportunity to wish Mr. Bester everything of the best in his new post as Postmaster-General. He was a schoolboy in the Nieu-woudtville, Calvinia and Prince Albert area; bom in Sutherland. On 1 April 1940 he started work in the telegraph section in the Johannesburg Post Office. He was just a boy of 15 years then. Today he is an example for us of what happens in the Post Office. Here we have a person who raised himself from the lowest level by hard work to such an extent that he became Director of Staff in 1973. In 1978 he became Regional Director of the Witwatersrand, and on 1 January 1980 he became Deputy Postmaster-General, Finance and Data Processing. Since 1 September 1980 he has been Postmaster-General. We wish him everything of the best.

Then I also want to thank Mr. Raath for what he did as Deputy Postmaster-General, Telecommunications. We could say a great deal about all these matters, and we could also say that these people in the Post Office are the pride of the Republic today.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to refer to a few matters in the Rosettenville constituency, where 16 500 voters now have to carry the responsibility of keeping the postal services going too, and are also dependent upon these services.

In the first place I want to talk about Rosettenville’s Post Office. A new post office for Rosettenville has already been planned, and in due course the building will be commenced. The site that has been chosen, may be obtained by the Post Office either by way of negotiation or by way of expropriation—if necessary. However, I want to mention that I have just been given some information with regard to Rosettenville which, I believe, the hon. the Minister and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications would like to follow up. We have just heard that the junior school in Rosettenville is going to be closed. The site of that school is ideally situated for the purposes of the post office, and I believe that negotiations are under way with the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal at the moment with regard to the possibility of the Post Office obtaining this property. It will be a tremendous gain for the constituency of Rosettenville.

Then I also want to refer to the Townsview Post Office, which is also situated in my constituency. The owner of the existing rented building is prepared to erect a suitable new building and to rent it to us provided that he can obtain approval to rezone certain plots close by, which belong to him too, into one large plot. He intends submitting a new application in this regard soon, and I have already been asked to assist him in his requests to the town council. Therefore, I hope that the department will support me in this too. At the Hillex Post Office, which is situated near the South Rand Hospital, no problems have been experienced, and very good services are being provided to the hospital staff.

Then I also want to refer to the post office in Linmeyer, which has been established in a satisfactory rented building. We are very grateful for this post office, but clearing the terrain surrounding the post office, particularly the vacant plot adjacent to it, does in fact require urgent attention. Then there is also the new area Suidheuwels, with more than 3 000 voters, which also falls in my constituency now. The post office there is accommodated in a beautiful new Government building, and services of a brilliant quality has already been provided there for the past eight years. I thank the hon. the Minister for the fine services that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is providing to Rosettenville. We are very proud of this department.

When I was in America recently, together with the hon. member for Umhlanga, the hon. member for Bloemfontein-North and the hon. member for East London City, this same hon. member for Rosettenville became completely confused with regard to the time. I made terrible blunders on that occasion. Of course, these are blunders that I cannot blame on the Post Office. On a cold, miserable morning at 2 o’clock—imagine; 2 o’clock in the morning in that icy weather—I decided to telephone from New York to Johannesburg. Of course, at that time it was 9 o’clock in the morning in sunny South Africa. Immediately I heard a voice that I knew very well. That voice told me that Mr. Van Rensburg was not at home and that I should please leave a message so that he could contact me later. Little did I realize that I was talking to a machine. However, this caused me a great deal of embarrassment. I did not know what to say, and I was also quite angry with myself. Under the circumstances, of course, I could not be angry with the Post Office. In my embarrassment I shouted: “It is a machine! It is a machine! I refuse to speak to a machine.” However, that call cost me nearly $12. [Interjections.]

But I cannot blame the Department of Posts and Telecommunications for my own shortsightedness.

The other day, when I was driving to the Main Post Office in Johannesburg, I did not read all the notices once again. Sometimes the hon. member for Rosettenville does not know what is happening in the world. [Interjections.] I was going to the post office to collect the mail. When I arrived, I discovered that the doors were locked. They were carrying out renovations to the building. Should I now blame the Post Office for this? Should I blame the Post Office because bricks have been placed near the post boxes for people to stand on? In any event, I could not reach the postbox, even when I stood upon the bricks. I am far too short for that. Should I now blame the Post Office for that? Then a Black man came and helped me to remove the mail from the postbox. A completely strange Black man helped me. This is the type of thing that happens at that Post Office. However, we cannot always blame the Post Office for it.

Now, of course, the hon. member for Hillbrow has also come up with his own 12-point plan. If I remember correctly, he apparently also wants to bring Santa Claus into the picture. It seems to me as if he is now wanting to compete with the hon. the Prime Minister. However, I want to ask the hon. member rather to be realistic. We are going to the polls with a Department of Posts and Telecommunications that has achieved a great deal.

Of course, there is the question of staff. However, the hon. the Minister gave a very effective reply to this. The shortage of staff is chiefly in the technical sphere. Where in the world does one find a handful of Whites having to do as much with regard to the infrastructure as in South Africa? Is there not also a shortage of technical staff elsewhere in the world? Recently I learned how many women there are in Europe who have to work. With our type of family life in South Africa, it is of course not necessary for women to work at night, as is the case in Europe. We are making use of people of colour too to sort our post. That is why we must not be angry if the wrong letters land up in our postboxes. It is the human element that is at issue here.

As the hon. the Minister also correctly emphasized, surely it is not possible for chaos to prevail when the fulltime staff of the Post Office has increased by 2 600. Is it not true—as the hon. the Minister also mentioned—that in other businesses there are also people who retire on pension? Are women not a variable factor? Do those women not also marry? Are their husbands not transferred? Are their domestic circumstances not such that they have to leave work? Is it not true that the private sector is also taking people with higher qualifications and experience? Do people not die as well? Therefore, there is a variable element over which we have no control.

Why then is the Opposition so terribly shocked? They are shocked because there was no increase in tariffs. They thought that they would be able to go to the voters and tell them about an increase in tariffs. They were shocked because the revenue is 4% higher than the amount that was budgeted for. They are shocked because, after provision was made for loan redemption and the increase of standard stock, the working surplus was nearly 17% higher than that last year. They are shocked because the loss on the postal service is R10 million less. They are shocked because the telegraph service had to spend R2 million less. They are shocked because the telephone rental was decreased by R0,50 per month in August last year. This is why chaos prevails in the ranks of the Opposition and not here in our ranks.

One can imagine how they announced the following condolences with regret, because now they have to say that the interest rates on savings bank certificates have been increased from 7% to 8%. They are shocked at this. Now they are afraid that those people are going to earn too much money. That new series of certificates is now going to show a growth of 8,5% to 10% per annum. The Opposition is afraid that as a result of this they will not receive sufficient funds to be able to wage their election campaign. That money will now be held back so that investments can be made at the Post Office. This is the difficult position with which the Opposition is faced.

This is why they are becoming increasingly helpless and why they are disturbed to learn that in a single year no less than 250 000 telephones were installed. They are quite dumbstruck when it penetrates to their senses that the increase is 21% higher than in the previous year. They are speechless when the figure of nearly 3 million telephones appears before their blinded eyes. The growth that this represents, amounts to 9,4%.

The economic boom amongst our Coloured, Indian and Black people in particular, is causing such an explosion in the Opposition ranks that they are now hiding behind meaningless arguments that no one believes any longer. They are receiving merciless electrical shocks from the electronic exchanges and when the first digital electronic exchange appears in our capital cities with a capacity of nearly 74 000 lines, the one Opposition stronghold after the other will fall. There is tremendous concern in those ranks at the appearance of the push button telephones a month before the election. How I should like to see a photo image of them on those telephones when the first results are released—a confused Opposition, caught in its own noose of confusion: An Opposition that is critically condemned and swallowed up by magnificent data services, telex services and the telecommunications of the powerful NP Government!

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to be able to participate in the debate after the last two speakers. I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Rosettenville who pointed out to us once again that we receive excellent services from the Post Office. I want to congratulate the hon. Minister on an excellent organization. In doing so I also convey my congratulations to the Postmaster-General.

The hon. the Minister referred to Laingsburg in his speech and I should also like to express my sympathy for the fact that the Postmaster and his family there were killed. Since the hon. the Minister is now voting additional funds for that post office, I say thank you very much to him once again. What one can never emphasize enough, is that these people went completely out of their way. There was a manual exchange at Laingsburg and I was told that the official who was manning the post office on the night of the flood, was up to his waist in water. The last thing that he said over the telephone to a colleague of his, was: “Now the water is rising above my seat. I am going to leave the post office.” It is to these people that we pay tribute. I live in a vast rural area where the manual exchanges provide 99% of our services, and I want to say thank you very much to this staff tonight. Automation has tremendous advantages, but I still find personal contact one of the most admirable things. Where people are still dependent upon the manual exchange, they are now receiving a very excellent service. Mention is made in the report of the fact that it is difficult to find telephonists, not only in the cities, but also in the rural areas. Therefore, I want to ask tonight that if it should appear necessary to give extra remuneration to the telephonist in the rural areas, we should give very serious thought to doing so. The telephone is our doctor on the isolated farm. Those people can dial and ask for advice. The telephonist in the rural areas is almost like the story about the traffic cop and the thunderstorm: When you see the “bliksem” it is too late! In this case one can be wherever one likes, but the telephonist knows where one is. How many calls have I not had where the telephonist was able to say where I was. [Interjections.]

This is of immeasurable value in our isolated areas. Mr. Minister, tonight I want to tell those people . . .

Order! I just want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that he must address the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, through you I want to tell the Minister that with a postal service like we have at the moment, the National Party will come back to this House much stronger than it is after 29 April.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, since I have formed the impression that the hon. member for Hillbrow counts backwards and calculates backwards, you will forgive me if I begin by answering the last speakers first.

You are leaving the best for last!

Yes, I am leaving the best for last. We are going to have a lot of fun with the last. I want to thank the hon. member for Beaufort West sincerely for his contribution and his special message of praise to the people who still have to man the manual exchanges. I wonder how many hon. members know what circumstances those people have to work in due to the pressure of calls. To anyone with a complaint about those staff I should like to say: Go and look at an exchange. Accordingly I am pleased that the hon. member praised the operators of manual exchanges, particularly those at Laingsburg, who did their work to the end.

I should also like to thank the hon. member for Rosettenville for his outstanding contribution and for the way in which he poked fun at the Opposition. Very fittingly, he poked fun at himself as well. He showed a good sense of humour.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West made an outstanding contribution. He pointed out how the Post Office not only keeps abreast of economic growth, but indeed stimulates it. He pointed out how the Post Office stimulates technological development and how it also stimulates the electronics industry in the interests of South Africa. The hon. member also mentioned that the Post Office also renders services and training services to neighbouring States. This is indeed true and I am very proud of it. In the long term that influence could bear fruit for us. I was particularly impressed by the hon. member’s remark concerning the need for the marketing of new services offered by the Post Office. I am pleased that the hon. member adopts this view. We have decided to develop our own marketing system for the various facets of our services. Last year during a visit to Europe I was impressed by how important the task of marketing had become, also with regard to Post Office administration. This is a competitive industry, and the public must be informed with regard to available services. I therefore want to thank the hon. member for his contribution.

I should like to refer to a few speakers whose appeals I was unable to reply to during the Second Reading debate due to a lack of time. I should like to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that even if the city council were to develop cold feet as regards the purchase of the present post office building, which is a historic building, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications will nevertheless go ahead with the development of the new post office for Port Elizabeth and of the regional head office. We may be able to use the old building, too, with a view to the transfer of certain main post office functions to Port Elizabeth. However, I want to say on this occasion to the city council of Port Elizabeth that if they are having difficulties purchasing the old building for the amount agreed on, we do not want money from them immediately, but only when we vacate the building. I think that if problems crop up, they will have a good case to put to the Administrator of the Cape, too, in the interests of Port Elizabeth. This is a building which must definitely be preserved for Port Elizabeth, although it is no longer serviceable as a main post office.

I want to thank the hon. member for Springs once again for his contribution with regard to the training which the private sector, too, must give attention to.

We have taken cognisance of the standpoint of the hon. member for Randburg with regard to the planning of the post office there. I should like to assure him that we shall see how we can adapt it and also give attention to his proposal that our architects negotiate with those of the city council with regard to the pedestrian mall. We should like to give effect to his ideas.

I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Witwatersberg on the automation of the exchange at Broederstroom. I want to thank him for his expression of gratitude to the operators of the manual exchange. I only hope that the few dissatisfied voters that there may be who asked us to provide them with private automatic lines from Pretoria, will be content and grateful to their member of Parliament for expediting this matter, since the automation of the Broederstroom exchange is to begin shortly.

I also wish to thank the hon. member for Kempton Park for his contribution yesterday with reference to the large number of services, viz. a number of automatic exchanges and post offices, in his constituency.

The hon. member for Meyerton waxed poetic to describe what good services telephones render. I want to thank him for doing so. He made an appeal on behalf of the developing area in his constituency. I should like to tell him that he may inform his voters that we are going to install an additional 1 000-line containerized exchange in Brackendowns as an interim measure. In 1982 we shall make provision for an additional 400 lines when the exchange is to be expanded. The two existing temporary exchanges will then be replaced by a new exchange which capable of handling 2 240 lines. In 1983 we shall construct a permanent exchange there.

†I must congratulate the hon. member for Maitland for the way in which he most effectively dealt with the arguments, or the non-arguments, of the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Do you really think so?

Yes, I really think so. I shall come back to the hon. member later. Apart from that the hon. member for Maitland referred to the new training centre of the Post Office at Milnerton, which is in his constituency and which I officially opened last Friday morning. The hon. member is quite correct when saying that there is a very large piece of land, adjacent to the training college and its sport facilities, available and which belongs to the Post Office. I am not in a position to tell the hon. member immediately whether we shall actually be able to start a housing scheme on that site. However, the site is available. It is fairly large in extent and, in view of our policy of building residences and quarters for our staff when the need therefore arises, we have this land available for that purpose.

The hon. member also referred to the possibility of shifting part of the activities of the Post Office Teletronics Institute—it can be compared with or can almost be called the CSIR of the Post Office—to the Western Cape. There is a precedent in this respect, Mr. Speaker. The CSIR has also shifted part of its activities to the Western Cape several years ago. It is situated at Stellenbosch and is in close proximity to the engineering faculty of the university with which it works in close relationship. This gives me an idea of what we can perhaps do in diverting some of the activities of our head office in Pretoria to other parts of the country. I wish to thank the hon. member for this thought.

I am very glad that the hon. member for Umbilo took part in the debate today. We are old friends, having both started way back in 1958 as two youngsters. He was the youngster on the side of the Opposition and I was the youngster on the side of the Government.

Look at them now!

The years have treated him better.

Are you quite sure? We got to know each other through the years and we have had a good relationship. In my previous portfolios I had a lot to do with the hon. member for Umbilo, and I wish to thank him for his co-operation at all times. I cannot today give what he has asked for. I have already informed him as far as the International Year of the Aged is concerned. We are limited to only a few special stamps per year and there will be a major issue in 1982 relating to all the historic homes in South Africa. I had to say “no” to the hon. the Deputy Speaker this morning by way of a letter, and he is aware of it. It relates to a request from his home town, Vryburg, which will be 100 years old in 1982.

He is a member of the Broedersbond.

I mention this just to say to the hon. member that if I cannot accede to his request, it is because we have our particular problems.

I now want to refer to the hon. member for Hillbrow. He stood up at the beginning of the Third Reading debate and shouted at the hon. member for Sunnyside. He said how disappointed he was that petty subjects were brought forward and discussed. Did I not already point out to the hon. member that every leg of his amendment just did not make sense, because we were doing exactly what he asked for? We have been attending to it for years; yet now he comes with a request that unless we do it, he will not support the Second Reading.

The hon. member again proved to me that apart from his inability to make a proper study of documents, like this report, he cannot even calculate. I asked the hon. member why in his Press statement, in which he followed the Rand Daily Mail, he quoted the last sentence of a particular paragraph and left out the first sentence.

The last paragraph can stand on its own.

He said that during the financial year 17 204 full-time officials left the service. This represents 22,5% of the total staff establishment and is 2 167 more than the previous year. I asked the hon. member why he did not start off by quoting the very first sentence of that paragraph, the sentence which reads as follows—

The hon. member omitted that, and when he was queried afterwards by hon. members here, he made a calculation which will not enable him to pass Sub. A. Do you know what he did, Mr. Speaker? He took 22,5% and subtracted from that the percentage increase, which is not comparable with the former as one is dealing with completely different figures. However, he subtracted those two figures and then arrived at 18%. If the hon. member cannot understand simple arithmetic, he should never again be the chief spokesman of the official Opposition on a matter such as this. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Speaker, he took me to task for not having announced the total amount of the increases of the salaries of Post Office officials. He almost burst into tears about the fact that Post Office officials did not know what they were going to get.

†I wish to inform the hon. member that the Post Office officials by now know exactly what they will get. They know it through their staff associations, which we have informed. I have informed hon. members that Post Office officials will get more or less the same as other employees of the public sector.

Is it more or is it less?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to play a political game with his eye on what is going to happen on 29 April. However, it will not help the hon. member, because the amendment that he has moved today will prove to the staff of the Post Office exactly what the game of the hon. member for Hillbrow is called.

*However, I want to say to the hon. member that R72,5 million is the total amount involved. Percentages will differ because we apply job differentiation as well as area differentiation in the Post Office.

†As I spelt out in my speech yesterday this also includes the extra expenditure in respect of the service bonus which will be related to the new salaries, as well as overtime and contributions to the pension fund, etc.

*Mr. Speaker, I should now like to say something which will not make the hon. member happy, but which the country must know. I want to mention with sincere appreciation the responsibility and the balance displayed by the staff associations of the Post Office during the negotiations in connection with salary improvements. It is for that reason, and due to the fact that a fine understanding exists in the department, that the staff request that they be informed in detail by their associations of what the hon. member for Hillbrow would not even be able to calculate with the aid of a pocket computer.

Mr. Speaker, I do not even know whether I should refer to this, but the hon. member came along with his Father Christmas story again.

†The hon. member wishes to play the role of Santa Claus, because he comes here with this as regularly as Santa Claus comes annually. After the budget debate last year he even wrote me a letter. I sent him a reply comprising almost two pages, and still the hon. member cannot understand why we cannot change the Act in the way he wishes it to be changed. You see, Mr. Speaker, I have had problems this afternoon in trying to teach some arithmetic to the hon. member, so how can I manage to convince him of anything as far as his Santa Claus story is concerned?

*Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up much more time, but in view of the lack on the part of the Opposition of a balanced view of the situation of the Post Office and its fine budget, I should like to quote a letter which I received from a English-speaking lady in Durban. In this letter, which was sent to me unsolicited, the services of the Post Office are praised point by point. I should like to quote this letter as an example of a positive approach, but time does not permit me to do so. However, I just want to say that I am amazed—or, as the hon. member for Hillbrow said in his Press statement, I am tempted to say “I am shocked”—at his reaction and the guidance he gave and the faulty calculations he made. I am amazed at his incapacity to understand this budget. I say that I am amazed, because the country is satisfied, as we heard this afternoon.

Before I resume my seat, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say something more to the hon. member for Umbilo.

†I wish to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his co-operation over the years. I can only express the wish that he will enjoy his other responsibilities which will follow fairly soon. My best wishes go with him and his family.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned last night I was saying that there will always be those who will be dissatisfied with planning. I do not intend to take up a great deal of the time of this House, but I do want to point out that every effort is being made to involve as many people as is necessary in this planning. After all, that is what is important, so that everyone who has an interest in planning will be aware of it, and, if necessary, will participate in it. This Bill makes special provision for wide publicity to be given to the intention to undertake such planning. For instance, it is required that notice be given that the planning is going to be carried out. When the provisional plan has been compiled, it is required that such a plan be available for inspection at various offices. I do not believe it is necessary to go into the matter of the places at which it should be available for inspection, but there is adequate opportunity for all interested parties to scrutinize such a provisional plan. The Bill goes further and requires that two advertisements, in both official languages, shall be placed in the newspapers circulating in that specific area.

This indicates to us that every effort is being made here to ensure that all interested persons will be aware of what is going on, but in order to afford a further opportunity for representations, and, if necessary, submissions, once that plan has been compiled, an independent investigating committee is now being constituted which will be able to go into the matter once again. Those who are not yet satisfied with the provisional planning are then afforded a further opportunity of putting their case before this committee. Only then will the final plan be submitted to the Minister for approval.

Then, finally, there is an important aspect to which I want to refer. It is a fact that this legislation is now being made binding on the State as well. The hon. the Minister said yesterday that this was a drastic step, but I think it is a step in the right direction, as there have been occasions in the past when developments by a Government department have been a source of dissatisfaction because those developments were not in line with the planning of the area concerned. Accordingly it is to be welcomed that this Bill now provides that the State, as well as provincial administrations involved in development, will have to comply with the requirements of a guide plan. This means that there will be greater satisfaction if everyone involved in development has the opportunity of participating in the planning of an area.

In conclusion, I want to say by way of summary that this Bill makes provision for the procedure and the opportunity to deliberate about our resources on the widest possible level, and to bring about the greatest possible unanimity in respect of plans which have been compiled, so that future development can take place without unnecessary delays.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central will forgive me if I do not react directly to what he said. The hon. member will understand, of course, that environmental planning is a matter of great importance to us all. Therefore I shall confine myself to the legislation which is before the House tonight.

†Mr. Speaker, the whole question of environmental planning is obviously one of the most important factors in the 21st century in any continent. Whether it is the United States, Europe or South Africa, environmental planning is of the utmost importance, because as a national heritage it is one of the finest assets of a nation. Any destruction which takes place more often than not has the result that the area concerned cannot be reconstituted into its original form. Therefore we in this party are extremely concerned about the Environment Planning Amendment Bill, which is before the House this evening. We generally welcome the Bill, though I have some specific comments to make to the hon. the Minister with specific reference to the amendments which stand in his name on the Order Paper. In the first instance we would like to point out that we welcome the greater participation of the public. I think this is absolutely essential.

It is quite surprising that in the past we have not involved the public to a greater extent in discussions on environmental planning. We believe this is absolutely essential and we certainly welcome this provision in the Bill. When, of course, the greater public participation is anticipated, it is fairly obvious that one would have to work through institutions because one cannot have random public participation. It will be interesting to know from the hon. the Minister what institutions his department has in mind when he says that it will encourage greater public participation. One only has to look at the recent case of the dolphins, which we were hoping that the Province of the Cape of Good Hope would provide to Natal to realize the amount of emotional appeal which the natural resources of a country have for the immediate public.

Are you referring to clause 5?

I will come to that shortly. I am still dealing with the earlier parts of the Bill and talking about public participation. We in Natal were hoping that the Cape Province would see its way clear to donating to that wonderful province of Natal a number of dusky dolphins. However, obviously, public opinion is not for this at the moment. This only illustrates the tremendous concern which the public has for the preservation of its natural resources. We welcome the greater participation of the public envisaged in this amending Bill.

Secondly we certainly welcome it because it is the policy of my party that there will be a greater devolution of power from Central Government to the Provinces. We particularly welcome the devolution of power provided for in this amending Bill in so far as the powers of the Administrator of a particular province are increased. Then we should like to go further and state that the rights acquired in terms of this amending Bill will be acquired in certain circumstances after the relevant legislation has been complied with. That is obviously a great improvement as well.

In general the Bill is very acceptable to us. These items which I have mentioned here are of particular importance to us because we believe that the change in principle here is fundamental to the improvement in the environmental planning situation. I should, however, like to move on to two areas which are of considerable concern to us in this party, and to mention them to the hon. the Minister. Depending on his reply to us we will decide whether we will be supporting these clauses in the Committee Stage.

In the first instance I just wish to refer to the hon. the Minister’s amendment regarding clause 3, as it appears on the Order Paper. It reads as follows—

In this respect we feel that the hon. the Minister has in fact taken a retrogressive step compared with the wording of the Bill as published in its original form. I do appreciate the fact that in this particular clause mention is made of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Conservation. By changing the words “with the concurrence of’ into “after consultation with” a change of quite some significance is brought about. The question which arises now is this. Why would a Minister in charge of a department differ with the recommendations of any particular sector or committee? If there is this difference, then it must surely be very significant indeed, and the emphasis here would be on the fact that the body concerned could go ahead with the proposed changes, if the words “after consultation with” is contained in the Bill. Then the difference or the disagreement with the Minister will be ignored, whereas the words “with the concurrence of’ make it very specific that there can be no difference of opinion, and, in other words, that consensus of opinion has been reached among the various Ministers concerned and the corporate body identified in this Bill. We should actually prefer the retention of the words “with the concurrence of’. I think it is very important in principle, because we can imagine the situation in South Africa in which a Minister—a Minister as referred to in this clause—actually disagrees with certain recommendations. That specific Minister must have a very strong case for wanting to differ in opinion. We should therefore prefer to see the words “with the concurrence of’ retained instead of being changed into “after consultation with”.

When we refer to clause 6, the insertion of the words “or brick making” after the word “brickworks” is something with which we are quite happy. Technological development as such has made it necessary to identify both “brickworks” and “brick making”. Therefore, we have no difficulty with this proposed amendment by the hon. the Minister.

Finally I should just like to refer the hon. the Minister to a practical problem which may arise in terms of this Environmental Planning Amendment Bill. I am speaking here specifically of those organizations which are concerned with the mining of clay. This merely illustrates the sort of practical difficulties which we have between the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Department of Environmental Conservation. It is well known that an organization which mines clay will now come within the jurisdiction of the Department of Environmental Conservation. Yet the people within the Department of Environmental Conservation obviously do not have the specific expertise and experience which we do have in the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs. I should therefore like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to consider the possibility of a future change—we can obviously not do it today—in order to bring about a greater deal of liaison between the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs and the Department of Environmental Conservation.

The reason why I say this is not out of any disrespect for the members of the Department of Environmental Conservation. We all are specialists in our own fields. When it comes, however, to something such as the mining or the quarrying of clay, it is obvious that the experts of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs—or the old Department of Mining, as it used to be— have a better knowledge of how one should go about the opening of new clay quarrying businesses. I know that in practice this does cause considerable difficulty. Therefore I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to see how we can amend this Bill in the future in order to allow the expertise of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs to be brought to bear on this specific issue.

With these few comments, we should like to tell the hon. the Minister that this party is always to be found for its support to environmental planning. In general we do welcome this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to thank hon. members for supporting this legislation in principle. I shall react very briefly to the various points which hon. members raised in the course of the debate.

Perhaps it would be a good thing if I made two observations at the outset which will serve as replies to a number of the questions. The first is that the amending legislation which we are now considering is in fact interim legislation. I hope it will be possible to revise the entire Act later this year, when we are again in session, because I think there is a great need for us to revise this Act in its totality on the basis of the whole concept of the rationalization of the Public Service and the reallocation of functions among other departments. All that I am trying to achieve with the legislation we are now considering is to ensure proper and functional implementation of the Act.

The second observation is very important. In terms of clause 12, section 15 of the principal Act is being amended in a very important respect, for the title is being changed. Whereas it was previously known as the Environmental Planning Act it will in future be called the Physical Planning Act. There is a very important reason for this change: The hon. the Minister of Water Affairs, Forestry and Environmental Planning will subsequently introduce a Bill dealing specifically with aspects of the protection of the environment to which hon. members referred. I think this is a very good thing and that there should be co-ordinating legislation in respect of the protection of nature in general.

What we wish to achieve with this legislation is basically to be found in the provisions of the existing sections. It is in the first place to allocate the use of land for the various purposes for which it may be used. In the second place we wish to protect the natural resources of this country. These are the tasks which are primarily going to be entrusted to the Physical Planning Division of the Office of the Prime Minister.

For the reasons I have advanced, I do not intend spending any length of time this evening discussing the conservation of the environment.

†The hon. member for Bryanston, however, put certain questions to me and I should like to reply to them. He wanted to know to what extent the Office would see to it that the real fundamental requirements are taken care of and the environment fully and effectively protected. Let me emphasize that the activities of the Physical Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister will in future be directed—this is very important— towards the formulation and co-ordination of policy relating to land usage as such. In this regard the greatest importance will be attached to quality of the environment. Although the designation of the duties regarding detail aspects of planning to other state or provincial authorities as envisaged by the legislation, will naturally and inevitably relieve the Office of the Prime Minister of a great deal of its present control measures, the Branch will still act as the main co-ordinator to ensure that sound planning principles shall prevail. A good example of this can be found in the composition of guideplan committees to which the hon. member has also referred and on which all the departments concerned with development as well as nature conservation are in fact represented.

*I think the hon. member will understand from this that, in respect of the guide plan concept, we are in fact bringing together all the experts and all the expertise so that we can reconcile the use of the land and natural resources on the one hand with the need for conservation on the other. That is why we are bringing them together on the guide plan committees. I think there are certain other advantages as well in that the Minister may also appoint an investigating committee to help in the evaluation of representations. This brings us to the point which the hon. member for Durban Point raised, viz. that in the first place there is very wide consultation and in the second, very wide co-operation in respect of guide plans and the guide plan concept.

†The hon. member for Bryanston also referred to clause 2(2) and asked whether this referred to restrictions on people on the basis of colour or race. In this regard he referred to my Second Reading speech.

*I do not wish to debate this matter with the hon. member this evening. Taking into consideration the diversity of population groups in our country, physical planning can never take place in isolation, because the presence of this diversity of population groups is a reality in our country. In reality, too, it is not possible to undertake any meaningful planning without taking this fact into consideration. Surely the hon. member will understand that.

†This is not a new section in the sense that it is being introduced for the first time. It is, in fact, an existing section in the principal Act and therefore does not constitute any change in the present procedure regarding the imposition of conditions relating to the zoning of land for industrial purposes. I must also point out that the practical application of this section has not been entrusted to the Physical Planning Branch of the hon. the Prime Minister’s Office, but to the Minister of Community Development and Auxiliary Services. That section will therefore, for the purposes of its application and enforcement, be the responsibility of that Minister.

The hon. member referred to the importance of mining resources and asked me for an assurance that mining activities will not override environmental considerations. The hon. member will understand that we are trying to reconcile the various needs. For instance, we have to reconcile the very important need to preserve and protect the environment with the need to exploit the natural resources, and there is no exact yardstick by which to measure the weight of the one against the other. I can, however, stress again that we are living in an era where people are much more conscious of the need to protect the environment than they were before, and I appreciate their awareness in this particular regard.

As the hon. member pointed out, the duty of the Physical Planning Branch is to formulate a broad land-use policy for the whole of South Africa. The execution of this function is undertaken in close collaboration with the authorities concerned with the extraction of minerals, as well as those concerned with environmental conservation. This ensures a balance between the extraction of the mineral resources which we need for the development of our country, and the protection of the environment. I hope the hon. member will accept my assurances in this regard.

*I wish to thank the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central for his co-operation. He emphasized certain important aspects of the legislation. We wish to transfer many of the functions to other organizations which we think are better qualified to perform them. This is a functional approach which is also reflected in this legislation.

Secondly we are also transferring certain powers to the Administrators of the provinces because they are involved in the day-to-day planning of our cities and towns. In addition a very wide basis for consultation is being created.

†I come now to the hon. member for Durban North. I have referred to the conservation of the environment and I think we share the same view on this issue.

*The hon. member also referred to consultation which will take place and asked what organizations I had in mind. I think he also referred to the appointment of the guide plan committees, referred to in clause 5 of the Bill. The hon. member will note that we are involving all the Government departments on the guide committees, i.e. all the departments whose responsibility or function covers land use and the conservation of resources. In other words, we shall have all those various disciplines on those committees. The hon. member will also see that we plan to involve Administrators and local authorities in these matters, but there are other disciplines which are also affected by planning and who have an effect on it as a result of their own actions. Escom is one example; another example is Iscor. There are a multitude of disciplines. I am thinking for example of a body such as the Institute for Metallurgy, which has an input to make under certain circumstances. The same applies to the CSIR, which, as an institution with certain branches of discipline, is also making a specific contribution to the plan. That is why the provision concerned has been formulated so widely, i.e. so that we can accommodate them if it becomes necessary. I hope the hon. member is satisfied with my explanation in this specific regard.

The hon. member also referred to the amendment being proposed to clause 3 of the Bill where “with the concurrence of’ is being changed to “after consultation with”. This is a practical step which I am taking for a specific reason. What are the rules which will apply in practice in this case? Let me state the matter as I see it. When it is said that a specific Minister may do something after consulting another Ministry or another Minister, it presupposes in practice that the two Ministers must reach a consensus. If they do not, it presupposes that they go to the authority in charge in terms of the convention, and that is the Cabinet itself. I hope the hon. member is following my line of reasoning. However, if it should state “with the concurrence of’ and there is no concurrance between the two Ministers, that is not the end of the matter either. Then it is referred to the final authority in any event. I am doing what I was authorized to do, and so are my colleagues in the other Ministries, according to the convention, and not only in terms of the legislation granting powers to them. They do so according to the convention and subject to the authority of the Cabinet as such. I will concede, however, that there is a problem in the sense that unfortunately differing interpretations are attached to the words “after consultation with” and “with the concurrence of’. The hon. member will be able to understand this. I want to say at once that my colleagues and I have decided that, after Parliament has dissolved and before we meet again, we shall have to make a thorough study of the legal interpretations of various terms. If it is then necessary to effect amendments, I shall be the first to do so.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not true that “with the concurrence of’, by definition, is very clear? Surely it is a very clear concept, and one can specifically decide whether “with the concurrence of’ is right or not, cannot one? But I also wish to ask: How many times is a Minister wrong? If a Minister is wrong in the vast majority of cases, I can agree with him that “after consultation” is right, but if a Minister of the Cabinet is right in the majority of cases, we can change it.

Of course “with the concurrence of’ is very clear. There is no dispute on what it means. It is an absolute statement. One must obtain the consent of the other person. All I am saying is that it is not necessary to formulate it in such absolute terms. It creates the impression that one specific Minister—it could be me or it could be the next Minister; I am speaking in general now—can frustrate another Minister completely, without making himself subject to Cabinet authority. In practice it could happen that Ministers do not agree or cannot reach a consensus, because on technical matters they are advised by their technical experts. Then one goes to the Cabinet. This is the convention, it is also the practice. I should just like to bring this provision into line with that. If we find after our investigation that we should make use of the other term, “with the concurrence of’, I shall rectify the matter when the legislation is consolidated.

If the convention works, I accept it.

It works in practice. There is not one of my colleagues who says that the convention does not work in practice. The hon. member may rest assured of that.

Sir, I shall deal with the amendments during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the reply furnished by the hon. the Minister to the question concerning clause 2, which I asked during the Second Reading, I just want to place on record that our support for the legislation is subject to the proviso that we as a party can in no way pledge our support to legislation or to provisions of legislation which seek to introduce any apartheid measure under the guise of, for example, technical legislation of this nature. This does not mean that we shall not proceed with our support for this legislation, but I want to place on record very clearly that we regard this as misuse of the legislation for apartheid purposes. I want to make it clear that this party sets that proviso.

Mr. Chairman, I take cognizance of the hon. member’s standpoint in this connection, and in reply wish to point out that the existence of different population groups is a fact in this country. I cannot ignore that fact in any legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I also move the following amendment—

The object of this amendment is to correct a technical omission.

Mr. Chairman, we accept the hon. the Minister’s second amendment.

In regard to the hon. the Minister’s first amendment, viz. to omit the words “with the concurrence of’ and to substitute “after consultation with”, we accept at this stage, in the light of the Minister’s explanation, that this specific terminology will be reviewed which not only affects the hon. the Minister’s legislation, but also the legislation of many other hon. Ministers. On the basis of that promise of a review, we will not be voting against this particular amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 20, in line 7, after “prescribing” to insert:
   the powers and duties of a committee in connection with the performance of its functions, as well as
2. (2) on page 20, in lines 13 and 14, to omit “under this paragraph” and to substitute:
   relating to remuneration and allowances

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. the Minister on the proposed subsection (2)(a)(i)(cc).

You Spanish devil, you.

With regard to the composition of the committees and the organizations that will be included on those committees, paragraph (cc) provides—

Do the words “every local authority” include Black local authorities?

Si, si.

Or are Black local authorities not included? If only the Administration Boards referred to in the Black Affairs Administration Act are ineluded, it will mean that the local authorities representing other race groups will be excluded, which would be an unfortunate aspect of the legislation. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to ensure that authorities representative of all races will be included, specifically from the point of view that it is absolutely essential for representatives of other authorities to be involved from the very start when this sort of planning takes place so that they may get a grasp of it, an appreciation of it, and will co-operate to make it a success.

Mr. Chairman, if he examines the section relating to definitions, the hon. member will see that “local authority” refers to “any institution or body contemplated in section 84(1)(f) of the Constitution”. As the hon. member is aware, there is to be legislation before this House on systems of local authority for Black residential areas in future. When we consolidate this legislation, after it has been adopted, we shall of course have to consider whether it is necessary to extend the definition in question. At present it is merely a hypothetical case of academic interest.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

The proposed subsection (13)(a) stipulates that after a guide plan has been approved, the Administrator concerned shall compile a development plan in which the guidelines of the guide plan are indicated in greater detail. Consequently the Administrator has to give the guide plan more substance. Usually an existing town or city which already has a town planning scheme comprises the heart of an area in respect of which a guide plan is compiled. In such a case the words indicated in brackets in the proposed subsection (13)(a) exclude the town or city from the guide plan area. Consequently this means that a plan being compiled for such an area, will exclude the heart of that area. Accordingly I request the hon. the Minister to adopt my amendment.

The amendment is acceptable to me.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

By way of illustration, I just want to say that the manufacture of building blocks, in contrast to bricks such as cement bricks, are just as locality-bound and can cause as much pollution as the manufacture of ordinary bricks. I think hon. members will agree with me.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment is merely consequential as a result of the previous amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As far back as 5 December 1980 the Government’s intention of increasing the salaries of employees in the public sector as from 1 April 1981 was announced by the hon. the Minister of Finance. The remuneration of other office-bearers in the public sector is therefore also being adjusted. Accordingly I am now asking this House to adjust the salaries of judges, too, on the basis set out in the Bill, as from that date.

We are not often afforded the opportunity of doing so in public, and I should therefore like to take this opportunity of expressing once again the Government’s appreciation for the quality of the work being done by judges of the Supreme Court of South Africa. The standard of the legal system of every country is largely determined by the quality of those who man the judicial benches. Unimpeachable integrity and the ability to administer justice with fearless independence are indispensable attributes for any judicial officer. Over the years our Supreme Court has built up an enviable record in this regard and it is with satisfaction that one takes cognizance of the dedication of our judges from the law reports and other sources. The high esteem enjoyed by our Supreme Court within as well as outside South Africa is indeed heartening.

Mr. Speaker, firstly, I would like to associate my party with the words of praise which the hon. the Minister has uttered in regard to the work of the members of the South African Bench. I believe that the standard of justice is enhanced by the quality of people who do serve on the South African Bench and I think we are very grateful for the tradition which the Bench of our country upholds.

We welcome the Bill as it is placed before us, and we shall support it. The hon. the Minister will recall that over a number of years this side of the House has in fact called upon the Government to take a realistic look at the remuneration of members of the Bench, the reason being that we are aware that in a time of rapidly rising costs and at a time when highly qualified lawyers earn large remunerations, it is becoming increasingly difficult to attract senior people, people with the relevant training and standing at the Bar, to become members of the Bench, particularly if one takes into account that many of the people who are senior at the Bar also have to support families, just as any other ordinary person has to do. Therefore I think that the increases that are announced in this Bill are modest, and I wonder if they are not too modest because I think, if the hon. the Minister will look at the figures, he will find that at least a large proportion of the increase that is granted will be paid straight back to the Exchequer in the form of taxes. I wonder whether just pushing up the salaries of the hon. judges of the Supreme Court from time to time, as is done, is the complete answer and whether it is not possible at some stage to consider further other aspects which might be, as far as the judges are concerned, more tax efficient.

I should like to make one very small query in an openhearted spirit, and that is that it does seem to me that there is quite a big gap between the basic salaries of the puisne judges and that of the Chief Justice. I think the gap is some R16 000 to R17 000 between those two ranks of judges, and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister, in setting the figures that he has set, consulted with members of the Bench as to those figures, and I should like to know whether those consultations relating to the actual figures were satisfactory to all the judges and whether he had any representations from members of the Bench in regard to this very large gap between the remuneration of the puisne judges and that of the Chief Justice.

With those few words I should like to welcome the Bill and to say to the hon. the Minister that when he takes steps to strengthen the Bench and takes steps to attract top men to the Bench he will always find the support of this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, it has become a convention in this House that when legislation pertaining to the salaries of judges is moved here, it is not really debated. Accordingly I am gratified that the hon. member for Sandton, as is fitting, agreed that this increase be approved. It is general knowledge that the judiciary in South Africa is beyond reproach, even abroad, and even by the enemies of South Africa, and that the integrity and objectivity of the judiciary of South Africa are unquestioned. I think that one of the best examples of the high esteem in which the judiciary of South Africa is held—and here the hon. member will agree—is the fact that so many of the members of our judiciary are appointed to commissions, in particular as chairmen of commissions. This confidence that is placed in our judiciary indeed symbolizes Justitia—the law as such. That is why I think it is appropriate that we in this House, too, should say to the judiciary and our legal practitioners that we have respect for the way in which the law is implemented in South Africa. It is true—and I think that of us know this—that a senior advocate who is really worth his salt earns not less than R60 000 or more per annum—and that is the minimum. However, we are now increasing the salary of a puisne judge to R36 000 per annum. This makes one realize that there are people who have a love of the law as such and are prepared, not for the status, but for the sake of law, to serve in that high office. We therefore gladly support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sandton mentioned the fact that the increases in judges’ salaries were attributable to the efforts of his party. I wish to say to him that over the years in which I was in this House my party made approaches to the Government in order to have the salaries of our judges increased.

We all know that the road to success in the profession of a barrister begins at the lowly road of a junior barrister living on bread and water on many occasions until such time as he reaches the stage where he can possibly be given some briefs by his friends the attorneys. Then he progresses to the status of senior counsel. On reaching that pinnacle there is sometimes a very real difference between a successful junior and a hopefully successful senior because he sometimes finds that most of his work he loses. Nevertheless, if he is really industrious and is able to pick up the threads again, he proceeds and, as the hon. member for Pretoria East said, can as a successful senior earn a very very high salary indeed. It is important that we should remember that the appointment of judges to our benches from the ranks of the senior counsel is something that we have inherited from the days of the Union of South Africa. It is a system which, I believe, is exemplary in many respects. It can be compared favourably and, in fact, to our advantage with many other systems of appointing judges. However, improvements can be made to the system of appointing our judges. Our system has stood the test of time and as long as our Government remembers that whatever happens the principle of appointment of judges to our Benches should be based on merit . . .

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member said “the principle of appointment of judges to our Benches should be based on merit”. Is the hon. member entitled to insinuate that judges who are appointed are not appointed on merit? If that is the case, I want to point out . . . (Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Pretoria Central has raised a fairly valid point. The hon. member for East London North may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, the principle of appointment is merit. I never said that merit had not been applied. The Government should always remember that the principle of appointment is merit. There is nothing deprecatory about that at all. The hon. member is sitting there and all he is doing is disturbing me on this peaceful night when everybody wants to go home. He sits there and makes a noise about it. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I might say that that hon. member must go back to the Bar and see whether he can get an appointment on merit. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want to complete my speech quickly. I think the Government must adopt a realistic approach to the payment of salaries of judges. We have to balance the desire of the members of the Bar to reach the pinnacle of their profession and that is naturally to sit on the Bench in the face of today’s realism of rising prices and the realism of the day to day existence, hopefully, of the young members of the Bar who go to the Bench. They want to be rewarded for their expertise. When we look at the salaries that are being increased here, it is interesting to note what has been happening over the years. I have taken out a few figures in this regard. It is interesting to note that in 1974, which was some seven years ago, a puisne judge was receiving the princely salary of R18 500 and that today we are about to pass a Bill that seeks to give him an amount of R36 000—just under 100% increase over seven years. When one looks at the increase in the inflation rate over these years since 1974, one will find that this increase has been just below 12% per annum compounded, so therefore the increase that these judges are receiving now is not excessive. When one looks at the increases in the salaries of the judges over this period of years, one notices that their increases have been of the order of 10% per annum. We could therefore increase their salaries even more. Nevertheless the point is that although this would appear to be a drastic increase over a period of seven years, it is well worth it to have those judges coming on to our Bench. Let them receive a good remuneration for the work that they have to do and, in fact, that they are obliged to do.

In regard to the statement made by the hon. member for Sandton in connection with the difference between the salary of the Chief Justice and those of puisne judges, I see that it was in 1980 when I was not here that this drastic increase took place. I am sure that the hon. member for Sandton must have had something to say on that occasion when those salaries were increased. [Interjections.] When we look at the increases in the salaries which are being granted today, we see that they have been scaled down from the salary of the Chief Justice who receives a 9,14% increase, a judge of appeal, 9,82%, a judge president, 10,48%, a deputy judge president, 11,07% and a judge, 12,04%. I believe that these increases are realistic and that they are right. We will support them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for East London North for having done his homework. I may say too that this is also the reply to the hon. member for Sandton in regard to his query as to the gap between the salary of a puisne judge and that of the Chief Justice. However, I also want to emphasize that these amounts are not the only remuneration that is paid. We must also bear in mind that judges receive a tax-free allowance of R3 000 which, when compounded, should be in the vicinity of between R5 000 and R6 000 in addition to their salary. I think that the total figure in this respect is fairly satisfactory.

In regard to the question as to whether I consulted the judges, I do not think that I should disclose to the House my dealings with the judges, whether they be judges or judges-president. I think it would be improper to do so. However, if the hon. member would care to call at my office at some time in the future I shall take him into my confidence in this regard. Nevertheless, I do want to assure him that judges welcome these increases. I am satisfied that I have done what has been possible for them under the present circumstances.

*Mr. Speaker, I also wish to thank the hon. member for Pretoria East for his contribution and his wholehearted support. I think he made the hon. member for Pretoria Central so enthusiastic that he will indeed accept the challenge of the hon. member for East London North. I think he will definitely succeed in doing so.

I shall come back to this House on merit but not he.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to stress and confirm that this hon. House is taking this step in order to confirm the independence of the judiciary from the executive, and that is the basis of the principle that the salaries of the judiciary are determined by Parliament. It is a delicate subject to debate on and I appreciate the spirit in which it has been done. In my further negotiations with the Opposition this fact will certainly be taken into account.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In its report, the Select Committee on Public Accounts (on Unauthorized Expenditure), 1981, recommended that an amount of R20 134 747,06 be regarded as unauthorized expenditure and that specific parliamentary authorization be requested therefore. The recommendation of the committee in question has already been accepted by this House and the purpose of this Bill is merely to obtain the necessary parliamentary authorization for the expenditure of the funds. The full details of the circumstances which gave rise to the unauthorized expenditure have already been furnished in the annual report of the Auditor-General and in the report of the Select Committee. It is therefore unnecessary for me to elaborate on this matter further.

Mr. Speaker, we will support this measure. It was debated, as the hon. the Deputy Minister has pointed out, when the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts was received and therefore I shall be comparatively brief. This is, of course, subject to the fact that the hon. member for Hillbrow’s smoking Bill may still be considered. He lives in the hope of that. Subject to that, this will be the last measure that this Parliament will consider. It is interesting that the very last Bill that this Parliament in this session will consider, is a Bill dealing with unauthorized expenditure. That perhaps is significant in the life of this particular Parliament.

These three cases are all really due to the nature of the budgeting that takes place and that has taken place, and I think it is necessary that we should draw attention to a number of important features relating to this. Firstly, as far as Defence budgeting is concerned, it is obvious that it is not possible to anticipate accurately the degree of military activity that will take place in any particular year. One lives in hope that the activity will be of a low intensity, that there will be a necessity for very little activity, but in these times one cannot anticipate that accurately and obviously one has to be prepared for every contingency. It does appear, however, that new budgeting procedures for defence expenditure should be considered. We have made this suggestion before. It also seems desirable to have the distinction that exists between a cash-flow situation and a contingency situation enshrined in statute, and we should, in fact, establish an all-party committee to deal with any expenditure in excess of the cash-flow level, because that is really what has happened here. If we were to have a committee which could sit to determine whether expenditure, if in excess of the cash-flow levels, is still within contingency limits, this would obviate opprobrium of unauthorized expenditure for defence when it is, in fact, not really unauthorized, because even though the expenditure is labelled as being unauthorized, in the true sense of the word it is not unauthorized expenditure. I think that is the important point that arises from this.

This brings me to the question of health. Here the position is much more serious. The hon. member for Edenvale dealt with this matter when the report of the Select Committee was considered, but the reality of the situation is that if an inadequate amount of money is provided for this department, the health of the nation is jeopardized, and the health of the nation is, in fact, jeopardized when doctors are not allowed to prescribe the best possible drugs for the treatment of particular diseases because of financial considerations, when there are inadequate numbers of skilled staff available and when one has to cut down on essential services, both in the field of preventive medicine and in the field of curative medicine. That is certainly what is happening here. Nobody can blame the Department of Health for spending this excess money, an amount of almost R10 million, when that money was spent on protecting the health of the nation. Even the money spent here was not enough to provide for the necessary drugs and treatment. We only have to look at the evidence that was given. The head of that department gave evidence to indicate that he was short of money for drugs and that he was experiencing a staff shortage. So he found himself in a position in which he could not really see any solution to the problem. When the head of a department gives that kind of evidence to a Select Committee, indicating that the health of the nation is being threatened, I believe that we have to pay attention to it. So in the dying moments of this session let me make an appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance. When the new Parliament meets, would he not please see to it that an adequate amount of money is provided so that no head of a Department of Health need go to any committee and say that drugs that are not the right drugs or the best drugs have to be prescribed because there is insufficient money. Sufficient money would also allow him to have the staff he requires. Then he would be able to tell South Africa that he is adequately taking care of the people’s health. That is not, however, the situation at the present moment. That is why, although we vote to ratify this money, we also issue a word of warning. There are two things in this particular Bill that are important to South Africa. First there is the question of the defence of South Africa, and secondly the question of the health of South Africa. In both cases we recommend to the hon. the Minister that sufficient money should be provided in future.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much fault to find with what the hon. member for Yeoville had to say at the start of his speech. It is true that we are dealing here with a technical problem, but the problem was outlined very clearly in the evidence submitted to the Select Committee on Public Accounts. When one reads through this evidence, which is available to each hon. member in this House, the problem very soon becomes clear. We in the Select Committee asked whether the Treasury would consider the problem in consultation with the Auditor-General, and the reply was in the affirmative. The Department of Defence also said that it welcomed this proposal, because it did not like the stigma attaching to unauthorized expenditure.

†It was also asked that the obligational authority be printed clearly as part of the budget and not in a footnote.

*In other words, the whole problem that arose here was obviated in the discussions of the Select Committee. As I explained on a previous occasion, we permitted a relatively wide-ranging discussion, specifically in order to give the accounting officer, too, an opportunity to bring to our attention those matters which created difficulties for them in the system. They was brought to the attention of the committee and we requested the Treasury to consider those matters.

As regards the second point raised by the hon. member for Yeoville, we experienced certain problems in that regard too, due to a new development in the form of budgeting. However, that aspect has already been discussed in the course of the previous debate on the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts, and therefore I should not like to argue that point again. Due to circumstances, the hon. member for Yeoville was not present at that stage but I can tell him that we have already debated that point that he raised, and I think that the House is satisfied with that.

Mr. Speaker, as you are taking leave of us this evening, I feel that I should make the type of speech you probably wish you have heard more often in the House. Sir, I should like to leave you with some significant words, words that I trust you will take with you into your retirement as being a memorable speech. I merely want to say: Mr. Speaker, we will support the Bill through all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Yeoville and the hon. member for Umhlanga for the support they have given this Bill. I also wish to thank the hon. member for Malmesbury for having replied so clearly to the questions asked by the hon. member for Yeoville. The questions have already been discussed in detail and the two aspects raised by the hon. member for Yeoville are already being attended to at this stage.

Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Sir, the end of the fifth session of the sixth Parliament of the Republic of South Africa also, in many respects, brings an era in our history to a close. This was the last session prior to a general election and the first session after the abolition of the Senate. For the first time a session of this House coincided with a session of the President’s Council, which is the first constitutional body in our history to be created by this House on which various population groups may deliberate together on the future of the country. With the dissolution of this Parliament we take leave of quite a number of hon. members who have already indicated that they are retiring and will disappear from active politics. Some have not yet indicated that they are going to choose that course. They are waiting until 29 April before they do so!

Mr. Speaker, if there is one person we should single out among those of whom we must take leave, then it is you, because we have come to know you as an unassuming person. You were exceptionally fortunate to grow up and go to school in a small country town. Prieska, situated along the Orange River in the North-West has a climate of extremes, and its children are as a result hardy people who know from an early age that if one wants to achieve something, one must persevere. Since your university days you have built up a large circle of friends. Your university career equipped you for the subsequent task which public life would impose on you.

Through this motion we wish to thank you today for your services to Parliament. We know that you are not unskilled in the cut and thrust of politics. In fact, it was the general election in 1961 which gave you the opportunity to enter public life, although it was not the first attempt on your part. You will probably not take it amiss of me if I remind you of the last big meeting at Queenstown before your election. It was really a fine meeting, not that I want to boast that the two of us held that meeting together! At the time Queenstown was a marginal seat and your election campaign during that general election gripped the imaginations of many people in this country. Not only did you poll a majority of the votes, but the percentage poll of 97,2% is a record which has never since been equalled.

Hear, hear!

The progress which you subsequently made in public life is known to us. You were chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts from 1966 to 1968 and Deputy Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs from 1968 to 1970. In 1970 you were appointed Minister of Planning, of Coloured Affairs, of Rehoboth Matters and of Statistics. From 1972 to 1973 you were in charge of the portfolios Planning and Statistics, and from 1972 to 1976 of the portfolios Planning and the Environment and Statistics.

In Parliament, however, there were many people who thought that owing to your nature and training you were actually destined to become Speaker. It is true that there is a strong element of truth in the saying that Speakers are bom, not made. The ideal incumbent of the post has a great deal in common with a member of the Bench, because he must display composure, impartiality and even a measure of reticence. In addition he must also have those other indefinable qualities which cause people to listen to him and obey him when he gives a ruling. You adapted easily to the new office, and emerged as a dignified figure.

Every day we listened attentively to the parliamentary prayer, which you read out with so much feeling. I, as Prime Minister, members of the Cabinet, as well as members of this House, are extremely indebted to you for the improved facilities which were established under your guidance here in the House of Assembly building. It was under your chairmanship that the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements caused the quite exceptional Gate House, the conference chamber of the Prime Minister and the auditorium for members of the House of Assembly to be constructed, alterations which blend in very successfully with the style of the original building and establish excellent facilities for the smooth functioning of activities here.

†You also contributed your share towards the creation of improved facilities for members of Parliament, such as your contribution as chairman of the management committee of Parmed. The activities of the Parliamentary Association under your guidance led to several contacts with foreign members of Parliament. You, yourself, Mr. Speaker, paid official visits to Israel and the Republic of China.

*All of us in Parliament know that the success every individual achieves in public life is primarily due to the woman who stands at his side. There are only two hon. members in this House who have not had that experience, and they are the hon. members for Houghton and Germiston District. In their cases the opposite applies. In taking leave of you today, we think of the assistance you have received from your good wife. We thank you both sincerely for your services to the country and to Parliament and wish you and your children many restful holidays at Onrus, as well as pleasant days on the farm which still remains your first love, and your wife’s as well. We thank you for your guidance and your help in making this House a dignified place of assembly.

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to second the motion moved by the hon. the Prime Minister, and it is with ease that I can concur in the words he addressed to you. You are nearing the end of your parliamentary career, and as the hon. the Prime Minister indicated, there are quite a few other colleagues in this House who are doing the same. I know that some of their colleagues have already addressed a few words of parting to them. I wish to do so in my capacity as well, and wish them everything of the best.

In your case, Mr. Speaker, your retirement is of special interest to me and for that reason I just wish to address a few personal words to you. I have been in Parliament for only a short while, but one of the pleasant experiences which I remember is that you were—without perhaps being aware of it— the first Cabinet Minister whom I, as a member of Parliament, was able to meet personally in his office. I still remember the courtesy and the cordiality with which you received me then as a young member of this House, and the way in which you listened to my problems.

The hon. the Prime Minister referred to your long parliamentary career, but I must say in passing that the percentage poll of 97,2% reminds me—and I am saying this in all amiableness—of a dear Irish friend who helped to get his brother elected in Dublin and to that end used the following as a slogan: “Vote early, vote often.” Be that as it may, it was a remarkable achievement.

But what I am thinking of now, more than your exceptional career as Cabinet Minister, is the office which you have occupied until now, namely that of Mr. Speaker. In this connection I must honestly say that I frequently watched you trying to maintain order in this House and there was a Biblical saying which frequently came to mind, and that is the first verse of the fifteenth chapter of Proverbs, which reads—

Mr. Speaker, I think you will agree with me that if there was ever an arena in which anger was frequently stirred up, then it is this House, precisely as a result of grievous words spoken. What struck me in the time you were Speaker was the way in which you always tried with a soft answer to turn away wrath. I think that is the memory of you which we shall treasure.

I now want to say, on behalf of this side of the House and in particular the members of my party, that we wish you everything of the best, and particularly Mrs. Loots, that we are grateful that you are able to retire with a clarity of spirit and that you are retiring from Parliament in such a way. We wish you and Mrs. Loots a long and happy life.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate this party with the words that have been so ably spoken by both the hon. the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition and to say that in every respect I feel the same sentiments, and perhaps a little more, because I remember that you, Mr. Speaker, had some very fine political origins before the hon. the Prime Minister led you astray in 1961. However, I say in all sincerity that we have been happy to lend Queenstown to you for your personal occupation and that we shall take it back on 29 April with gratitude to you for having cared for it so well during your stewardship.

I have had the privilege, like my colleague who is retiring, and I might add the only member of this party who will not be back, of serving under five Speakers in this House, and before that under that magnificent gentlemen, the natural gentleman, Oom Chris, who was President of the Senate and who served South Africa with distinction for 50 years. If I were to compare, I would say it has been a privilege to serve under a Speaker who upholds and has upheld the standard and the spirit which Oom Chris set in the Senate as presiding officer. I can think of no higher tribute than that tribute.

You have had difficult times in which to control this House, times when tempers have flared and when it has not been easy. More than anyone, as a minor party, small as we are, we have particularly appreciated your protection of the minority and, having served in Opposition, we understand what it is to serve under a just and fair chairman who gives one the democratic right to represent minorities in the highest body of the land. To yourself, to your good lady, go our best wishes for the road ahead. We wish you a happy retirement and a full and long life ahead of you. On behalf of this party I echo the sentiments of all who have spoken in saying it has been a wonderful experience, an experience that makes one feel humble, to have had the honour of learning and serving under your leadership in this House. I support the motion.

Before I come to what I really want to say, I just wish to point out to hon. members that what I shall say I am saying on behalf of all the hon. members who are sitting in this House for the last time tonight, although all of them have already addressed a word of farewell to this House.

Having listened to all of them, I still think that the words of Psalm 37, verse 37 are quite true. Hon. members may go and read these words for themselves tonight: “Mark the perfect man and behold the upright: for the end of that man is peace,” and it may truly be said that there is a future for the man of peace.

I should very much like to thank the hon. the Prime Minister, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, the hon. member for Durban Point and all hon. members for the words spoken here tonight. They were wonderful words, which I did not expect and do not deserve. However, I appreciate those words of thanks and appreciation very highly indeed. I wish to assure hon. members of that. It may even give me a reason to go and read the Hansard of the last day of this short session.

I wish to thank the hon. the Prime Minister very much indeed. What he said touched me deeply. They were admirable words. My thanks also go to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Durban Point.

As far as the business of this House is concerned, I wish to thank the hon. the Leader of this House, the hon. Chief Whips and the hon. Whips for their help and co-operation in ensuring the smooth functioning of the business of this House at all times. Our co-operation was pleasant. Only once did I catch out the hon. Whip on the Government side for having added up a division list incorrectly. I also caught out one of the hon. Whips of the Opposition once for not having counted himself. [Interjections.]

I also wish to refer with appreciation to the pleasant co-operation which I received at all times from the Deputy Speaker and the Deputy Chairman of Committees. I thank them for their assistance and for the cordial relationship which existed between us.

To all hon. members, from the hon. the Prime Minister down to the most junior hon. member of this House, I wish to express my sincere thanks for their friendship, for goodwill, for support and at times—and I think it was often—for tolerance and for the fact that they always treated the Chair with respect and were at all times prepared to accept and obey my rulings.

When one is seated in this Chair, and looks out over the hon. members, one gets to know one’s customers. [Interjections.] There are the non-stop talkers, the loud talkers, the pranksters and the jokers. When a person has been sitting here for a few years one gains an insight into the hon. members one sees sitting in front of one every day. However, I developed a great appreciation for every hon. member here. In a certain sense they all became my friends, a part of my life. Outside this House, too, it was always pleasant to give an hon. member a handshake and to exchange a few words with him.

In their absence I also wish to convey my thanks tonight to the two Presidents of the Senate with whom I served, His Excellency the State President and the hon. Mr. J. T. Kruger. Our relationship and teamwork was always of the very best. To my friends—our good friends—the Senators as well, who are no longer with us, go my thanks and appreciation.

I also wish to thank the committees of which I was chairman—the Committee on Standing Orders, the Committee on Internal Arrangements, the Library Committee, Parmed and the Parliamentary Association. I think we did very good work. As examples of this I could mention the alterations to the parliamentary building, which the hon. the Prime Minister also mentioned, more and enhanced privileges for hon. members, the restoration project of valuable Africana and books which has now commenced, the visit to overseas Parliaments, which I also undertook, and to which the hon. the Prime Minister also referred; visits which I believe were of great value. Then there are the Catering Service and the Police which, like all the others gave and are still giving us excellent service of an inestimable value, as well as the First Aid Room the Post Office and the Telephone Exchange. To those who have been in charge of all these services, as well as all the other people working there, go my sincere thanks. Without them Parliament cannot function.

To the Press and the management of the Press Gallery and the SABC we say thank you for the sound inter-relationships which existed in my time and for their Co-operation. In a democratic system, so I believe, the Press Gallery has become an indispensable and integral part of Parliament. We cannot get along without the publicity they and the SABC give to our parliamentary proceedings. On the other hand I do not think they can get along without Parliament and the politicians.

Last, but almost the most important of all, there is the parliamentary staff whom I wish to thank for their loyalty, support and assistance. Parliament is one of South Africa’s show-pieces. Here everything must always be in order. Work of the highest calibre is required in this institution, and is indeed being produced. I want to thank them all, from the highest to the lowest, for their contributions: The heads and staff of all departments, the service officers, the cleaners—all of those who have served and are still serving in this building. Specifically I want to thank the Secretary, the Deputy Secretary, the Under Secretary and the other senior staff. Parliament can be proud of these men.

The Speaker lives an isolated life and in our system there exists between the Speaker and the Secretary a special relationship, one which must always be right. The Secretary and I have eaten the proverbial bushel of salt together; each of us were able to discern the mettle of the other. I thank him very much for his help and support, and for his service to Parliament. I never found him to have any other criterion except: What is in the best interests of Parliament?

To the hon. the Prime Minister I wish to say that I really appreciate his mentioning my wife. She is not here this evening, and in her absence I just wish to thank her in a sentence for her assistance, sacrifice and support over the years.

Hear, hear!

Allow me to say a few words about the parliamentary prayer. It was a very great privilege for me to open the daily proceedings with a prayer. I do not know whether you have ever noticed in your green book, containing, inter alia, the Standing Orders, that the Afrikaans version of the prayer reads—

while the English version reads—

There is a great difference in meaning and feeling between these two versions. After I had been in office for about a month, and until this very day—for almost five years—I prayed every day—

Not “this land”. I do not know whether you ever noticed this. I hope that the wording will in due course be changed.

When I have left and my portrait hangs in the Lobby, you will observe that in my left hand I am holding a book with a green cover. This is the prayer. That is how I was painted. To me this has a strong symbolic significance, and I should like it to become more generally known. I could just mention in passing that the donator is Dr. Effie Fisher, a former member of this House.

†I have enjoyed and am grateful for my 20 years of parliamentary service. After four sessions in Parliament I became chairman of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. I was actually elected as chairman at the very first meeting I attended. I was privileged to work with a remarkable Auditor-General, Mr. Izak Meyer, from whom I learned a great deal. Together we served Parliament and South Africa well.

I wish to emphasize that the Select Committee on Public Accounts is the most important parliamentary institution that I am aware of, and as long as South Africa has a chairman and members of that committee and an auditor-general who are persons of absolute integrity and who will bow to no one and protect nobody but fearlessly follow the dictates of their consciences and do the work of Parhament, too much cannot go wrong with our country.

Our State rests on three pillars: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Although we do not have the principle of the division of powers as, for instance, attempted by the USA, the three arms of our State are as independent as our constitution makes them in its written form and by its conventions. In this context Parliament stands in its own right supreme and independent, the embodiment of authority and sovereignty and always, I hope, of respect.

The Speaker, once elected, has only two masters: Parliament itself and the constitution. His duty is to create, with the assistance of his staff, machinery and orderly conditions for the executive to govern and for the Opposition to scrutinize and criticize. Parliament is the highest forum in South Africa, and there is nothing which this House is not entitled to take cognizance of and to debate.

*Mention was made here of difficult times. We have indeed had difficult times, and hon. members know what I am talking about, because Parliament was entitled to take cognizance of and to debate everything.

†I have jealously guarded the powers and privileges of Parliament and have at all times tried to uphold its unique position of authority and independence. The office of Speaker must at all times be synonymous with impartiality and independence.

*It fell to me to become the first Speaker of the unicameral Parliament of the Republic of South Africa, and I feel proud that it was able to uphold the traditions and the customs of the past. It is the traditions and practices which are an extremely important guarantee of stability and sound parliamentary government in South Africa. It is my sincere wish and desire that whatever constitutional dispensation may fall to our lot in future, the parliamentary traditions, procedures and practices which form the foundation stones of sound democratic government and which have withstood the test of many years and even of centuries, and which became rooted in this soil and became our precious heritage, will continue to be upheld with determination and evolved further. It is consequently my earnest prayer that these high standards will be honoured for the sake of the authority and steadfastness of Parliament as an institution.

I wish all hon. members everything of the best in their personal and public lives. I thank you and I bid you farewell.

Hear, hear!

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I just wish to inform hon. members that Parliament will be dissolved tomorrow. Later this year a proclamation will be issued in terms of which Parliament will be summoned to meet again on 31 July this year.

Agreed to.