Mr. Speaker, by your leave, I wish to announce that it has been decided to rationalize the Government’s involvement in tourism. Pursuant to an investigation by the Commission for Administration into the public sector’s concern in tourism and the development of the industry, it has been decided to combine the present functions and activities of the tourism branch of the Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism, the S.A. Tourist Corporation—Satour—and the Hotel Board and to centralize these activities and functions in one new body. [Interjections.] This decision was taken after consultation with private sector trade organizations involved in tourism.

This new body, which will probably be called the South African Tourism Board, is to be established by law, and the existing functions and responsibilities of the three organizations which are to be abolished, will be taken over in toto by the new body.

This step should be seen as a continuation of the Government’s policy of rationalization, with a view to the promotion of good administration in the public sector and with a view to achieving greater private sector involvement in the various fields of economic activity.

The private sector will therefore play a prominent role in the operations and in the conduct of the affairs of the new board which is to be established as soon as possible.

The proposed new dispensation will provide a much more functional arrangement than the existing structure. The new board will be able to operate more effectively and in a more co-ordinated way than the present fragmented system which has developed over a period of time.

The establishment of the new board will be followed by a programme of internal rationalization aimed at determining what the fields of operation of the body should eventually be. The Government is aware of the tremendous importance of tourism as a component of the South African economy. I am convinced that the new board will serve to improve co-ordination to the best advantage of promoting tourism. The private sector has indicated its enthusiastic support for the new board, and with their assistance and co-operation the tourism industry will continue to grow and flourish.

I wish to give the assurance that the new arrangement will be phased in to accommodate the personnel of the various organizations in a manner which will not adversely affect their existing conditions of service.

Mr. Speaker, I move the following amendment—

1. (1) to appoint a financial study group to examine and revise the financial policy of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications in order to establish a sound basis that will generate sufficient funds so as to increase the efficiency and productivity of the Department as well as eliminate inflationary and unnecessary tariff increases;
2. (2) to ensure that all proposals for tariff increases in future are announced in Parliament, and that adequate notice thereof will simultaneously be given to the public before such tariff increases come into effect;
3. (3) to uphold the principles of the free market system at all times; and
4. (4) to revise the tariffs announced on 11 February 1983 so as to relieve the intolerable burden which has been placed on the consumer.”.

As far as the second leg of my amendment is concerned, I note with pleasure the present hon. Minister’s attitude with regard to announcements made outside of Parliament. I detect a change in attitude on his part in that he will resort to announcements being made in Parliament. This is to be welcomed. However, I do think he owes the House an explanation as to why the latest announcement was made outside Parliament. He should also give us his motivation for the tariff increases as well as the amount of the increases. He should also tell us why he did not deal with any alternatives.

I now come to the first leg of my amendment. Let me start off by saying that we all know that post and telecommunications is a business. It is a viable business on its own: it is self-sufficient and generates its own funds. In fact last year the then hon. Minister said (Hansard col. 2964)—

He then went on to the question of the benefits of low tariff increases, which unfortunately we have not had. Why did we have no tariff increases at all between 1975 and 1980 while, we were saddled with large increases from 1 February 1980, and 1 April 1982 and from 1 April 1983. When is this going to stop? The hon. the Minister has said in his Second Reading speech that regular tariff increases as opposed to sporadic increases are unavoidable. We operate, as we all know, according to the guidelines of the Franzsen Committee, guidelines laid down since 1972. That we fund our capital expenditure to the extend of 50% from the operating revenue and 50% from loans, within the limit of a 10% margin. This is not the law of the Medes and Persians, as I have said on many occasions before in this House. It is not a holy cow. I do not think that this is necessarily the only way in which the Post Office can be financed. One can also examine long-term loans, particularly off-shore loans in a buoyant market, with a little help from the hon. the Minister of Finance. Loans which are below the inflation rate can be obtained. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in regard to the loan of R440 million referred to in his budget speech what the rate is and why in fact the loan has been restricted to R440 million. Perhaps this is the time to take a new look at the policy of financing the Post Office. Last year, in column 2965 of Hansard, the hon. the Minister made reference to these guidelines when he said that it was not always possible to adhere strictly to the norm of 50% self-financing. At a later stage he went on to say that he was nevertheless of the opinion that the level of development of the Post Office now justified the higher percentage of self-financing. Further on, in column 2967, the hon. the Minister said—

The hon. member for Umlazi, who is the chief spokesman on postal affairs of the NP, on 17 April last year at column 3057 stated—

What, may I ask, has now happened to the guidelines laid down by the Franzsen Comittee? It would therefore seem that the way is now open for a review of the entire policy.

I listened to a television broadcast by the chairman of the National Consultative Committee of Post Office Affairs after the announcement by the hon. the Minister of the tariff increases. Not only did this gentleman criticize those increases because they were inflationary but also, according to him, because there were alternative methods of financing and, in fact he referred to outside borrowing to finance the Post Office. After all, I think he has a point because the creditworthiness of South Africa is accepted throughout the world. I think our success in regard to the IMF proves this. I feel that offshore borrowing at this stage could be favourable if it were undertaken. Therefore, I say that there is a need to establish a financial study group in order to investigate the financial structure and methods of financing of the Post Office. I should like to recommend to the hon. the Minister that he give consideration to the appointment of such a study group which could consist of a financial officer of the Post Office appointed by himself; a member of the Reserve Bank recommended by the Governor; two economists from universities of his choice; and one economist representing the private sector who could be nominated by the National Consultative Committee on Post Office Affairs. All of these aspects could be examined by the financial study group. For example, the Franzsen Committee’s formula should be examined in regard to how applicable it is at this stage. Secondly, there is the question of cross-subsidization in regard to funds allocated to postal services where losses are being shown. The hon. the Minister himself referred to a possible loss R107 million which has now been reduced to R74 million as a result of the tariff increases. Because of this fact, the postal services of the Post Office are a source of great concern and the losses shown in respect of these services are a source of great worry to the department from the financial point of view. The Post Office is in fact trying to restrict these losses to 10% of the operating expenditure. That is the aim of the department. I should like to know why this should be so. On the other hand we are told that it is a business and that the Post Office is one entity.

When we look at the very excellent report of the Postmaster-General that we have received we see from Table 2 that the Post Office is dealt with as one entity. What we are dealing with in regard to the figures that are shown in this table is in fact the total income for the year. The loan figure is not all that important. This figure shows the total expenditure for the year and it also shows the total operating revenue over expenditure and in this regard the amount available for appropriation was R128,7 million. This means that the Post Office was looked at as a whole and that the telecommunications and other sources of revenue in the Post Office were not separated from the postal services at all. I do not know that any private business which has shown a loss in respect of certain activities is going to concern itself with cross-subsidization or any other formula if that business is providing a service to the community and is attracting the necessary customers. After all, as I have said, the Post Office is a business.

The postal services dealt with in Table 4 are dealt with separately and these show a loss. I do not see the necessity for this at all. Immediately thereunder, in table 5, however, mention is made of an agency service. This agency service is staffed by the Post Office and it shows a profit. Why is that profit which the agency service shows not credited to the Post Office? After all, it is the Post Office that runs that agency services.

Reference is often made by the hon. the Minister and other hon. Ministers to the fact that tariffs in different parts of the world are much higher than ours. I do not think South African businessmen are really interested in what tariffs are overseas; they are interested in what tariffs are here. It should also be borne in mind that overseas countries do not have Franzsen Committee recommendations for guidelines. They have neither cross-subsidization nor a Telecommunication Department. I therefore do not think it is fair to make such comparisons.

The postage of five cents for a standard letter has gone up by 100% in merely 12 months. If too large amounts are to be paid on postage, we may be killing the goose that lays the golden egg because there may be a drop in the volume of mail. This will be counterproductive to the department.

Surely it is in the interest of the Government as such to provide this as a service. There are certain amenities which are provided by local authorities. A swimming pool may cost a local authority R30 000 a year. Local authorities run libraries out of which no income is derived. Local authorities maintain transport services on which they suffer losses of up to R10 million a year. There is also the Department of Defence which does not show a profit. The Department of Industries, Commerce and Tourism surely does not show a profit on its activities in regard to tourism. It is patently clear that all services provided by the Government cannot show a profit.

Our posts and telecommunications service is run as a monopoly and as long as the Department of Posts and Telecommunications wants to maintain a monopoly, it must pay for that monopoly, otherwise the Government must allow private enterprise to enter this field. We are here dealing with an amenity that has to be provided to the public of South Africa. Therefore, if it shows a loss, one should not get too excited; one should not get too upset about it.

When it comes to the agency I think we should have a look at the charges which are levied. Perhaps this will result in a revision of the charges for agency services.

The study group could also look at the capital expenditure, particularly at expenditure on new telecommunication techniques and modern equipment. One should balance the priorities of the purchase of this equipment as against the purchase of equipment sufficient only for larger telephone exchanges. We should rather install new telephones and essentials.

We have a backlog of 21 000 odd telephones; why do we not concentrate on that backlog? There are customers waiting to be served. In reply to a question the hon. the Minister told me that it costs the department R150 to install a telephone, but we are now going to charge R75 to install that telephone. We put up the rental by R2 a month which will bring in an additional R36 per year. We are therefore recovering the R150. All the revenue which is derived fron such a telephone thereafter will swell the coffers. I know that we must supply exchanges and cables, but all this is profit waiting to be made by the department.

Another aspect which should be investigated is housing. We are all in favour of granting housing facilities to the staff. They should also be granted loans on favourable terms. This is to be welcomed. We welcome the hon. the Minister’s announcement in regard to havens in so far as pensioners are concerned. I think this is a very nice gesture and I am sure it will be appreciated. When we talk about acquiring large blocks of flats which require vast capital expenditure and we then let them at subeconomic rentals we know that the taxpayer will have to subsidize them by way of paying higher tariffs. Therefore I think this needs to be looked at. This should particularly be looked at in view of the proposed tax on fringe benefits.

Another aspect at which they should look is the Stabilization Fund. I have often pleaded that the Post Office should have a stabilization fund similar to that of the SATS. I really think this aspect should be investigated with a view to balancing tariffs so as to obviate increases from time to time. The fund can be based on the return on investments percentage-wise, the percentage can be worked out by the study group.

Another point that can be investigated by the study group is the policy of capital expansion. One should establish whether new equipment is a self-generating source of revenue that could either cut the present cost of the service or cover the costs of installing and maintaining such equipment. This should be investigated with a view to keeping tariffs as low as possible.

Excessive depreciation is another aspect which can be investigated. I understand that depreciation is calculated at a rate of 10% per annum. I should like to ask whether there is in fact a policy decision to add 50% to the acquisition cost in order to anticipate additional agreement costs. If this is the case, why is it 50%? How is that figure obtained and why can it not be varied? I trust that I have sufficiently motivated the need for a financial study group and have indicated the work it can undertake. I believe the time has come for a financial study group to undertake such a task and to report back on what we can do to obviate annual increases and to allow expansion to take place at the same time.

I want to return to the question of tariff increases, to which I have expressed the strongest objections from this side of the House. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he in fact received a telex from the National Consultative Committee on Post Office Affairs, which represents the AHI, Assocom, FCI, Seifsa, TCI, JCC and JAS— a broad spectrum of industry and business in South Africa. I received information from the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce with regard to this telex. This was also referred to on television last night by a member of this committee. The telex confirms that commerce and industry are concerned at the overall magnitude of the rise in the tariffs under the present economic circumstances. Reference is made to the Prime Minister’s statement on “administered prices” in relation to Escom tariffs and the price of petrol. It is said that there is no doubt that reducing inflation is the main priority in policy today. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance will agree with that. I want to quote a specific paragraph from the telex. It reads as follows—

The committee then appeals to the Minister to consider a postponement of the increase in postal tariffs or to modify it to a level more appropriate to the stringent economic circumstances. The committee even suggests a meeting.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he received that telex. I think he did. According to the television announcement last night he did. I should also like to know what his reply to it was, whether in the teeth of the opposition here and throughout the country he is prepared in fact to postpone or modify the increase in postal tariffs and whether he is in fact prepared to grant the committee an interview, which I do not think will serve any purpose unless he is prepared to approach this matter with an open mind. I do hope that in the circumstances he will give this consideration. He must also bear in mind that, as he introduces a budget here, companies in the private sector have to draw up their own budgets and should be given adequate warning. There should be the closest liaison between the Post Office as a business enterprise and business enterprises throughout South Africa.

I now wish to turn to the third leg of my amendment, namely the need to uphold the principles of the free market system at all times. In question No. 269 placed before the House I asked the hon. the Minister whether he intended supplying the public with private automatic branch exchanges, i.e. PABX systems, and, if so, on what date and whether the Post Office would install and maintain them. To my great surprise the hon. the Minister answered affirmatively. In fact, he said installation of such exchanges would commence on 1 April, initially in Pretoria and the Witwatersrand complex. The system he referred to is the new BTS 60 which is a very attractive one. However, I have a lot of criticism to make in this regard. I need not go into the cost involved, which is reflected in part 3(a) of the answer supplied. I am however prepared to submit at this stage that the Post Office will in fact be able to supply these exchanges at a far cheaper rate than is presently charged where the PABX systems are being supplied by the private sector. Five manufacturers have been appointed to do this and the hon. the Minister knows full well who those five companies are. I need not mention them. Those companies were in fact approached by the Post Office to invest approximately R35 million in order to supply a product which would have a local content of 70%. This figure represents production costs, equipment, line equipment, test gear, spares and training. The amount has in fact already been invested and production is already taking place. The total PABX market in South Africa represents a turnover of R100 million per annum. The small PABX suppliers i.e. those with 30 lines and less, represent 50% of this private enterprise with a turnover of R50 million per annum.

Again, I must call to my assistance none other than the hon. the Prime Minister, who on 22 November 1979 at the Carlton conference assured the private sector of their right to the free enterprise system. I want to know what attention is being given to this assurance because contrary to this the Post Office is now taking the bread out of the mouths of private enterprise and is going into direct competition with them. I want to ask whether this is fair. But why should the Post Office do this when an enormous backlog exists for which they need all their own resources to catch up with and a lot of other things that they can get on with by themselves? The hon. the Minister referred to these in his speech. I wonder what the hon. the Minister of Manpower would have to say about this sick joke because not only are these firms going to lose the capital that they have invested, but I am informed that after a survey that has been taken 1 000 people will have to be retrenched. I therefore ask: Is this right? There is plenty that the Post Office can get on with by itself. I must object on the grounds that the Post Office is already a monopoly. It tolerates no interference with regard to private enterprise. It has Parliament and the force of a statute to protect it. I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the intention of the Post Office to recover the cost over a long period at a low interest rate or will it market the product at a loss?

Finally, allow me to say that 1 April is just around the corner. There is little time left. I want to ask the hon. the Minister now whether he in fact called for tenders for the supply of PABX exchanges, who the tenderers were and to whom the tender was granted. If he did not call for tenders, then I believe he owes this House and the country an explanation. However, I earnestly appeal to the hon. the Minister not to proceed in competition with private PABX suppliers and to call off this enterprise.

I shall listen to the balance of the debate with great interest and to those hon. members who wish to refer to me if I am not present in the House I can give them the assurance that I shall be listening on my loudspeaker.

Sir, I believe I have fully motivated my amendment and I stand by it.

Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members on all sides of the House will join with me in expressing our pleasure at seeing the hon. member for Hillbrow back in the House. We hope his recovery will be speedy and complete.

*This is also the first opportunity we on this side of the have had to welcome the hon. the Minister in his new capacity and to congratulate him on his first budget. Yesterday he presented a budget speech which attested to such a knowledge of and interest in the affairs of the Post Office that we are convinced that his term of office will be most fruitful. While we are congratulating him on his first budget, we also want to thank him on behalf of the members of the Post Office study groups of the various parties for enabling us to pay a visit to various Post Office installations during the latter half of last year. I have already had an opportunity to thank him for the early announcement of the tariff increases, something which is probably going to be a major point of discussion in this debate. During this tour we had the opportunity to become more closely acquainted with, inter alia, the Postmaster-General and his senior officials, and it was quite clear to members of the Post Office study groups that we were dealing with a team of extremely competent people who were most enthusiastic about their work. In these exciting days, as the hon. the Minister also mentioned yesterday in his budget speech, there is an electronic revolution in progress and we are therefore glad to learn that these people are well-equipped to play their part in this regard.

Yesterday the hon. member for Hillbrow categorized a number of points of criticism and I want to react to them briefly. I do not want to say much about his first point of criticism, viz. the extra-parliamentary announcement of tariff increases because the hon. the Minister reacted to this in advance in his budget speech and because this entire matter was debated last year in this House. However, it seems as if both sides of this House have to a great extent reached consensus on this point.

The hon. member said that the tariff increases were misleading because reference was made to an increase of 14,6% whereas some increases were larger. I want to point out that in his announcement the hon. the Minister referred to an increase in revenue of 14,6% and that no mention was made of specific tariff increases of 14,6%. Certainly some tariffs have been increased by more than 14,6%, but other tariffs have been left unchanged. In this regard we can refer to postage which has been increased by 20% whereas the telegram service has not been affected by the tariff increases at all.

There are various reasons why all items cannot be afforded equal treatment. In the first place the price increases for all items are not the same. For example, labour intensive services show a larger increase than other facets of the service. This has caused disparity between the various service costs, a disparity which has to be rectified.

Last year with the consent of the Minister the hon. member for Hillbrow quoted the then Minister as saying that he did not want to allow cross-subsidization of services to exceed 10%. He quoted the hon. the Minister as follows—

When one therefore has the situation that the costs of certain services rise more rapidly than others, thus causing a disparity, this also means that tariff adjustments must vary in order to keep cross-subsidization within reasonable bounds.

The hon. member also alleged that the increases were inflationary. In this regard he was associating himself with the National Advisory Committee on Post Office Affairs, which, by the way, was so kind as to send me a copy of its telegram to the Minister. The hon. member for Hillbrow cannot complain about further tariff increases being made now because last year he himself asked that regular adjustments be made in tariffs. In consequence of the fact that tariffs remained the same between 1975 and 1980 the hon. member asked as a result of last year’s increases, why the increases had to be so drastic and then went on to say—

In other words, he himself asked for regular increases last year. If one accepts regular increases, as the hon. member would seem to have done last year, the inflation rate is the only criterion one can follow. This is the only criterion to ascertain to what extent the buying power of one’s monetary unit is diminishing.

In its telegram the Advisory Committee on Post Office Affairs mentioned the fact that the average increase was higher than the present inflation rate. I readily admit that the inflation rate for December was 13,8%, which was when that comment was probably prepared. The annual rate for January to December 1982 was 14,4%, however, which is almost exactly the same as the revenue increase of the Post Office.

14,6%.

The inflation rate during the years to which the hon. member for Hillbrow referred—from 1975 to November 1981—averaged 12,6% per annum. The increases over that same period of six years, including last year’s increases, averaged 6% per annum. Over a long period, therefore, the public enjoyed the advantage of increases that were lower than the inflation rate. In actual fact we are therefore eliminating the backlog.

I now want to discuss the hon. member’s proposal in connection with alternative methods of financing. This again ties up with the telegram of the Advisory Committee, in which, as the hon. member for Hillbrow also mentioned, it asked whether the increase in self-financing by the Post Office from 27,5% to 41,5% in a single step was justified. In his budget speech last year the previous Minister of Posts and Telecommunications carefully spelled out the Post Office’s self-financing policy. I think it is important for us to refresh our memories by observing that the previous Minister made it quite clear that capital expenditure was of a dual nature, and that it was linked to the level of development of a country. Capital expenditure can be either of a replacement nature, as one finds in developed countries, where in the main existing services are modernized or replaced, or, as is the case in developing countries, it can be of a supplementing as well as replacing nature. Our country, in which there are both developed and developing aspects, must therefore represent a combination of these two methods.

Where it is of a replacing nature, the country’s service must generate its own replacements, and self-financing must therefore be emphasized to a greater extent. As a matter of fact the Minister pointed out last year that in some developed countries up to 100% of capital requirements are financed by operating costs. However, in a country like ours, where one also needs supplementary capital services, where new services must constantly be created, where there is a particularly strong growth in the demand for telecommunication services in Black residential areas, where assistance has to be given to national States, where our decentralization programme requires new programmes, one can obtain finance from one’s loan funds for those aspects and gradually pay the loans back as those services come into operation.

What is important, however, is that as many as ten years ago the Franzsen Commission, when it considered these developing components of our society, recommended that 50% self-financing as against 50% loan funds should be used as a basis. For many years now—since 1972—we have barely achieved that basis of 50-50. During the years 1972 to 1979 self-financing averaged 48%. After that it reached 60% for two years, but then dropped again. I think that the important aspect we must take into account in this case, is the fact that even after an increase of 15% in the self-financing component of the Post Office, it will still only be 41,5%, which is 8,5% lower than the level of self-financing accepted as a basis by the Post Office ten years ago. The hon. member made mention here of alternative methods which could be investigated by a study group, but in this entire analysis he did not mention any other source of finance for the Post Office, except those we already know of namely tariffs and loan capital. [Interjections.] All the other ideas he said the study group could investigate, were merely part of the internal affairs of the Post Office. There are no other sources of revenue except the two I have just mentioned. We also have a very well-founded basis in terms of which these two sources must balance each other out, and we feel that this budget will bring us quite a bit closer—admittedly, though, not far enough yet—to the optimum situation.

It therefore gives me great pleasure to support this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon. the Minister sincerely on his first budget in his capacity as Minister of this department. I am convinced that the hon. the Minister will have many happy years in this department, and the reason is that he is working together with people of the kind that go to make up the staff of the Post Office throughout South Africa, people who do good work, loyal people, reasonable people, well-balanced people in all respects, and because the hon. the Minister is also a well-balanced person at all times, I am convinced that this will be a very good combination, and therefore a good appointment for this department. I am also convinced that if there has to be criticism, the hon. the Minister will not—as I know him—regard it as personal criticism but as criticism for the sake of a very important cause, the Post Office, which belongs to all of us and of which we are all very proud. I am saying this because if there may no longer be any criticism, we have moved very far from the principles of democracy and it is high time we took a good, hard look at ourselves.

Three weeks ago, when the Additional Appropriation was before this House, we took cognizance of certain increases which would come into operation with effect from 1 April 1983. These were announcements which were made to notify people who had to have the information in good time. We realize that big business enterprises cannot simply readjust all their office machines overnight in order to make the necessary changes. All of us who worked for business undertakings know that one cannot simply convert the franking machine which addresses one’s letter for example overnight to adjust to an increased tariff, or perhaps to lower tariff, if we had been so fortunate as to have had a lower tariff. These are all things which take time, because the machines have to be adjusted.

If hon. members would take a look at last year’s Hansard, they will observe that we supported last year’s budget wholeheartedly through all its stages—the Second Reading, the Committee Stage and the Third Reading—and we did so because the increases announced last year were in my opinion very reasonable, in view of the fact that in 1981 there had been no increases at all. We took cognizance of that.

We on this side of the House will always in future give credit where credit is due. The Post Office is an institution which is very dear to us. It is not only the consumer who ought to enjoy protection, but also the officials of the Post Office whom we are deeply concerned about.

I should just like to point out a few things which I think are essential. Let us take letter post as an example. In 1979 the tariff was 4c, on 1 February 1980 it was 5c, on 1 April 1982 it was 8c—an increase of three cents in two and a quarter years — and in April 1983 it will be 10 cents, an increase of two cents in one year. The telephone unit call costs were 4c in 1979; 5c on 1 February 1980; 6c on 1 April 1982—an increase of 1c in 2¼ years— and on 1 April 1983 it will be 7c, in other words an increase of 1c in one year. In 1979 rentals were R3,50 per month; on 1 February 1980 R3,00—this was a slight decrease—on 1 April 1982 R4,00—an increase of R1,00 in 1¾ years—and on 1 April 1983 they will be R6,00, i.e. an increase of R2,00 in one year. Installation costs were R30 per telephone in 1979; on 1 February 1980 they were still R30; on 1 April 1982, R50—an increase of R20 in 2¼ years—and on 1 April 1983 the increase will be a further R25 in one year.

Last year tariffs were considerably increased, and one would have expected the present increases not to have been as drastic as they in fact were. I am also pleased that pensioners are receiving a concession in regard to the installation costs of telephones. I am very grateful to the hon. the Minister for that, because these are the people who are in future going to need telephones to an ever-increasing extent. We did not fail to notice this. Those are the only points of criticism I have against the budget.

We received a telex from the secretary of the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce. It reads as follows—

It may now be asked what we propose as an alternative to cope with the great deficit which exists. I know that the hon. the Minister—he said to himself the other day—is also opposed to loans. Personally I am also opposed to loans, but sometimes one cannot do anything else, and it is sometimes beneficial to borrow. One must borrow in such a way that one does not get into a fix. We are constantly reading in the Press about interest rates that are gradually coming down and about banks which are lowering their interest rates. This is an encouraging sign. It is a sign which I think will be welcomed by everyone. This recession, which was nothing but a depression, will pass. After all, we know these things come in cycles and ultimately blow over again. For example if interest rates decline, we may perhaps be very favourably affected. It might perhaps be more beneficial for us than to borrow the necessary money at a rate lower than the inflation rate rather than announce tariff increases which could hit people hard. Consequently I want to make a respectful plea to the hon. the Minister today, because I know that he will have a receptive ear, for such sincerely meant requests. The hon. the Minister must know that we have a great deal of understanding for the problem of the Post Office. That is why I believe that he will listen to my plea very seriously. I am not doing this from a political point of view; I am doing this because it is an important matter. Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister’s people are also my people. My people who are having a hard time are also his people. I know his heart, and he is one of the most reasonable Ministers in the Cabinet. That is why I feel I am at liberty to address this request to him and ask him, if it is in any way possible, to half these increases. A telephone is no longer a luxury item in South Africa. Everyone needs it very badly. Here one can merely think of the aged and the poor. If we open our newspapers today, we read about the terrible assaults on aged people. We also know that poor and elderly people are today the people who are most dependent on the telephone services because most of them do not have the necessary transport facilities and because in the provision which is made for housing for the aged today, no provision is made for a garage. Those people have to place their orders and arrange their affairs telephonically. They cannot do otherwise, and in the nature of things they will be the people who will be hit the hardest.

On page 3 of the report of the Postmaster General we read the following—

In this connection the hon. the Minister gave us an assurance and we are grateful for that assurance, because one would like tariff increases to be announced during the course of the budget speech and interim increases to be eliminated if in any way possible. Those announcements should also be made at a stage which makes it possible for businessmen who must know about the changes in the tariffs to be notified about such changes in good time. I think the hon. the Minister’s grounds for doing this—as I said at the beginning of my speech—was to afford businessmen the opportunity to effect the necessary adjustments in respect of the administration of their post office expenses. In this connection the businessman is able to absorb increases far more easily than the private householder for example, the person who has no other income apart from his salary. A businessman and a company are able to write off those increased charges or at least a large portion thereof, as expenses, and they are then brought into account against income tax. Ultimately a large portion goes on to the account of the Receiver of Revenue, who has to credit them with those expenses. The consumer at home, however, cannot resort to such steps, with the result that he is hit the hardest.

These inflationary conditions and everything that follows in their wake, are assuming such proportions that I wonder whether we are always aware of how hard our people are being hit. If we are not being affected by inflation, we are very fortunate. The pensioner made provision for the old age years ago when a rand was still a rand, and today he can buy almost nothing with that rand. It is those people who are living below the breadline who have to scrimp and save and who are having a very hard time of it. The reason why those people are still able to survive today is the support they receive from their churches, their women’s organizations and the numerous charitable organizations which try to ensure that these people are given a helping hand. We pay tribute to those organizations for that.

I observe with much gratification that the overseas recruitment campaign for trained technicians has made very good progress. I am delighted about that. I read that recruitment was carried out in the United Kingdom and Belgium with very good results. If there are some of our other countries of origin— and I underline the words “countries of origin”—in which we can also launch recruiting campaigns, I shall be very pleased if we are able to announce next year that that recruitment was also carried out with success. Those people also have problems at the moment. Perhaps they would very much like to come to South Africa and the time is perhaps riper now for doing so than ever before. It is essential that recruiting be done, for we cannot allow this huge programme we are engaged on to be harmed in any way. What worries me of course—and I mentioned this last year too—is that there are certain organizations which give very little training in this highly specialized work. Just as soon as the contracts which these people have with the Post Office have expired, they are lured away from the Post Office with very high and attractive salaries. I know this is something which we cannot prevent completely because we cannot pin a person down for ever and prescribe to him what he should do with his future. What is of great importance, however, is that I believe there should be encouragement as far as private enterprise is concerned to train their own people to the best of their ability. I really do not believe it is the task of the taxpayer to keep on training people on a large scale for private enterprise. The taxpayer cannot be expected to keep on footing the bill, only to find that these people are lured away by private enterprise.

The Post Office is a credit to South Africa. I am aware that it is very difficult to plan in advance in the sphere of electronics. In fact it is extremely difficult to keep up to date because there are very few areas in life in which such tremendous and rapid progress is being made as in this particular area. We also find that instruments and certain components which a few years ago were still perfectly useful, soon become obsolete. This entails that the stocks which have to be kept in Post Office warehouses have to be enormous. Stocks of various types have to be kept because we are not always able to keep the same material in stock for all the exchanges. Here we have a tremendous problem as far as the Post Office is concerned. I also know that it is not a problem which can readily be solved, because it sometimes happens that the Post Office has to make provision for things they may perhaps never need. Later on such stocks have to be written off when they have become obsolete.

I observed with much gratification that provision is being made for retirement havens for Post Office pensioners. This is a sign of great civilization, because a country which thinks of its people who retire, is a country which looks after its people. It is also a good thing that consideration is constantly given to those people in other spheres as well.

I note that as far as salary adjustments are concerned, a promise has been made to the postal workers of South Africa that an adjustment will be made as soon as times improve. We hope and trust that it will soon be possible for the hon. the Minister to make that adjustment. This demonstrates to me once again that calibre of the officials of the Post Office, because they agreed that those salary improvements may stand over until the economy has improved in our country. That is why I am convinced that the Post Office staff are doing good work for South Africa.

I am also grateful for what is being done in the sphere of housing. Those are all good things. I conclude by reiterating that the officials of the Post Office are a credit to South Africa.

We hope and trust that this important nervous system, this sensitive nervous system which allows us to make contact with any place in South Africa within seconds, will be expanded. In fact, it is cheaper today for a person to pick up his telephone than to travel there in his car. I hope from the bottom of my heart that the Post Office Budget, as the hon. the Minister has envisaged, will give effect to the major development which is being planned. I know that it is not merely a question of a year and that everything will have been implemented. I know, too, that it will not take two or three years; it will take many years because it is an enormous task which is being envisaged. I believe that when it has ultimately been accomplished we will be able to compete with the best in the world.

Mr. Speaker, I found it interesting to listen to the hon. member for Nigel while he was referring to situations of inflation and depression which came in cycles. We in his party also have that kind of experience, i.e. that splintering off occurs in cycles. However, when those people have splintered off in cycles, it has also been our experience that they keep on walking around in circles. The senseless criticism which the hon. member for Nigel levelled at the tariff increases is something which I think we should simply see in the light of the political darkness in which his party finds itself at present. For that reason and because they are in such utter darkness, the hon. member has not been able to acquire much experience. Yesterday evening it was the first time since SABC-TV began to broadcast Opposition comment on budgets that I saw an Opposition spokesman read out his 20 second comment. I ask his fellow party members whether they regard that hon. member as a shadow Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. In that case I only have one piece of advice for them: Post him!

If one considers the observations of the official Opposition on the budget, and particularly those of the hon. member for Yeoville during the past two weeks, then I do not find it surprising that when we were conducting a debate on inflation across the floor of this House a week or so ago, the official Opposition did not give him a chance. They did not give him a chance to speak on that occasion. He declared in the Citizen of 11 February that the consumer would be shocked at the extent of the increased tariffs, and then he made the statement that the Minister was insensitive to the effect which inflation had on the consumer. Today this was repeated. I think it is unfair and I wish to say that it is untrue. When the hon. the Minister announced the increased tariffs in his statement, he said that although the guideline had been laid down that it was desirable to employ 50% of the income on the ensuing year’s expenditure, he would only employ 41% of the income for that purpose. I quote what the hon. the Minister said in his recent Press statement—

Yesterday the hon. the Minister repeated it here.

The Opposition should not for mere political gain depict this department and the hon. the Minister as being insensitive to the consumer. Who does the Post Office belong to? I would venture to say that the Post Office does not belong to the texpayer because it is not run with money derived from taxes. To whom does it belong then? I think it belongs to the consumer. When a Post Office, as ours does, already extends across several State borders, and will in future extend across even more State borders, and render services to consumers on both sides of those borders, it must be managed and administered like a business. On that score I agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow. We must allow the concept “business knows no boundaries” to become more widely accepted in South Africa.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member should listen. I am speaking to him. The functions and operations of the Post Office should therefore be understood very thoroughly. For that reason the hon. member and all of us must try at all times to keep politics out of this department. It is in the interest of all people south of the Limpopo and it affects the welfare of everyone south of the equator. It is a very successful department. If it can continue to operate successfully in this part of Africa, then it is to the benefit of everyone. It also plays a tremendously important part in the productivity of this region. As I see the primary functions of the Post Office, these are surely the conveyance of information and data from one person to another.

Because the House of Assembly has been charged with the function of controlling the Post Office, we must ensure collectively that it is managed, planned and utilized to the greatest benefit of its consumers. This is in the interests of Southern Africa. In my opinion the Post Office must be dynamic. The services it renders should keep pace with the latest developments in the world. It should not overtax the financial means of its consumers either. That is why we on this side of the House impose certain objectives on the Post Office which we believe are within the means of this country. Among those objectives are the maintenance and improvement of the network, the provision of data services which must be comparable with the best in the world, and more efficient communication with the outside world. Because we have to live under the constant threat of a boycott, we try to free the Post Office from suppliers who could let us down. That is why we are trying to become self-sufficient. We are trying to become self-reliant on our own resources, on our own manpower, our technology, our own raw materials, our own manufacturers and, last but not least, our own financing. Year after year the Post Office budgets to achieve these objectives, in spite of the poor economic climate prevailing throughout the world, in spite of the fluctuating gold price, in spite of war which is being waged against us and in spite of the oppressive drought which threatens to bring the southern hemisphere to it knees. Year after year, in one budget after another, in one debate after another, the Opposition comes forward with nothing but destructive criticism. They are not helping to build. All they are doing is to place obstacles in our way.

The hon. member for Yeoville declared in the Citizen that it was not necessary to increase tariffs, and this ties up with what the hon. member for Nigel said. He said we should not employ more funds of our own than we did last year. He suggested that we should borrow more money. What happens if one does that? One makes the person from whom one borrows the money a shareholder in one’s business undertaking, a shareholder who, year after year, demands his fixed return on the money he lent you. In this way we have during the past ten years paid out R850 million to these “shareholders”. We have the benefit of their money, right enough, but is it not perhaps profits which they made as a group of consumers, because our tariffs for services rendered to them were too low? Does the other consumer group not also expect us to say on their behalf, for a change, to commerce and industry: “We shall not increase the tariffs on the service, we are only going to pass the inflation percentage on to the commercial world”. For that reason we request the private sector, in the national interests, not to pass these increases on to the salary earners in turn. Surely that is the refrain the salary earners keep on hearing when increases are passed on to them.

The Opposition must admit that we received representations from only a sector of the consumers, and for that reason we must look after that small group of consumers whom we represent here, viz. the taxpayers and the salary earners. We must prevent a great burden of debt being placed on them and on posterity as a result of constantly borrowing money. The consumer of whom I think we should take special care is, as the hon. member for Nigel said, the pensioner. We have done this, and we are grateful for that to the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member for Nigel told the Press that it was shocking that the installation cost of a telephone had been increased to R75. He said it again here this afternoon. I made inquiries here in Cape Town as to what it would cost to have a telephone installed between my office and the office next door by the private sector. I could not receive a cheaper quote than R100, and while I am able to speak only to the person next door on that line, the hon. member for Sea Point can even talk to Mr. McHenry in the USA on the telephone installed by the Post Office. By concentrating on installing as many telephones as possible per year, the Post Office is not only succeeding in expanding its network; it is also succeeding in improving its existing services to its consumers so that they are better able to utilize the service. The report indicates clearly that every consumer is at present using his telephone at least two and a half times more than he did ten years ago when it was installed. I want to know from the hon. member for Nigel whether he agrees with me that the telephone services in Black residential areas should be expanded. What does the hon. member say?

Yes.

Thank you. I am pleased that he says that. We must in this way strive to attain the optimum utilization of the network. Sir, since he is agreeing with me now, I also want to know from him whether we should then allow that service to be subsidized, or should we allow the new consumers to pay the full costs for the provision of the service? If he and other members of the CP and the HNP once again go and tell the voters now that the NP is giving the Black people everything, they must also tell their voters that he and his party advocated that we should install telephones in Soweto for only R50, as against the R75 which it actually costs the consumer.

The Opposition also complained about the increased postal tariffs, and I have something to say about this as well. Here in my hand I have a package which was sent from Boksburg to Cape Town by means of a private carrier. The cost of transportation was R9,00. If that packet had, on the other hand, been sent to me by airmail by the Post Office, it would have cost only R1,75, R1,95 with effect from 1 April. Commerce and industry will have to admit that that is still a bargain, as the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs always says.

I come now to the timeous announcement of tariff increases by the hon. the Minister. I would say that it was a good thing for tariff increases to be announced in good time. This enables us to debate the matter thoroughly in this House, after having ascertained the reaction to it of the private sector. We must know how the consumer reacted to the increases so that we can debate the matter meaningfully in the light of that information. Apart from criticism from the Opposition, there was also criticism from organizations from whom I did not expect it, although I believe they have every right to speak on behalf of their members. Nevertheless, I want to ask the leaders of these organizations not to climb onto the political bandwagon of the political critics of the Post Office and create and unfavourable atmosphere vis-à-vis the Post Office on behalf of the consumer. The Post Office is an institution which belongs to the consumer and the Post Office is entitled, when it expands and improves services, to adjust tariffs in such a way that the businessman also bears his part of the maintenance costs. When I say this I am not denying that the industrialist and businessman are also shareholders. On the contrary, they are very important shareholders. But they, better than any other shareholders, will be able to understand why it is necessary to invest in one’s own equipment. That is why I believe that they should be afforded an opportunity to keep the promises they made during the Carlton and Good Hope conferences.

Mr. Speaker, with this I support the budget of the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to wish the hon. the Minister well with this his first budget. At the same time I should like to welcome the hon. member for Hillbrow back in this House after the difficult time he went through recently. We all hope that his recovery will be speedy and complete.

Now, Sir, the hon. member for Boksburg has made a fascinating speech here this afternoon. As a matter of fact I think he will fascinate himself when he sits down to read it. He says the Post Office belongs to the consumer. Sterling stuff, and I agree with him. He proceeded to tell us that we should keep politics out of the Post Office. Again sterling stuff, with which I can go along. However, immediately upon that the hon. member launched a political attack on the CP. Sir, the hon. member must make up his mind: If he wants to keep politics out of this, he must lead by example. We must accept that this is a political forum and we all are going to fall into the trap sometime or another.

Sir, the hon. member I think said he got a quote of R100 from private enterprise to install a telephone. Is that correct?

R50 per point.

Did you ask how much it would cost to install 100 telephones? You see, Sir, we are facing a situation where we have a telephone backlog of 225 000. Yet the hon. member is nit-picking with only one telephone. No, Sir, let us have some logical arguments in this place. Perhaps it would do all of us good.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has presented us with a budget which is not unlike the curate’s egg, and let me say that for 1983 this is a very large curate’s egg. It is very good in some parts, but at the same time it is very bad in other parts. The hon. the Minister, the hon. member for Hillbrow and the hon. member for Boksburg referred to the Post Office as a very large business undertaking that should be efficiently and ably managed in accordance with acceptable business standards. But I want to point to one glaring difference between the Post Office as a large business undertaking and other companies, both public and private. That difference is simply this: The Post Office has a captive clientèle, and it is easy to conduct business with such a clientèle. You see, Sir, the chairman, in the person of the hon. the Minister, and the directorate, in the form of its top management, can decide to adjust tariffs at will without any danger whatsoever of losing customers to a competitor. For that there is only one simple reason: There is no competitor. It goes without saying that this does not apply to the business world “outside”. Their pencils are continuously being sharpened in order to retain a position in the marketplace. Competition outside is fierce and the custom of the client takes pride of place in corporate decisions that could in any way affect market share. Sir, I am not suggesting that the Post Office should adopt a take-it-or-leave-it attitude. I am not saying that. But we must remember that the client of the Post Office has no redress whatsoever, and I sincerely believe that a lot of the problems facing the Post Office fall within the area which I have just demarcated.

Before dealing further with this area I would like to make a few general observations as to what I believe could or should be done in order to make this budget and future budgets more palatable to the captive clientèle I spoke about a little earlier. During the Part Appropriation debate earlier this session the hon. the Minister made a meaningful remark by saying that the time had come for us to embark on an electronic strategy for South Africa. I welcome that because there is no shadow of doubt that we are living in the era of the microchip and there is no shadow of doubt that technology in the communications field is advancing at a tremendous rate, almost akin to the speed of light, and in order to maintain our status in this world of galloping technology, if I may call it that, we must be on a par with the latest in communications. We must be able to communicate with each other and with the outside world as quickly and as effectively as they are able to communicate with us. This means keeping abreast of every new development. This, Sir, requires the one commodity that we can all understand, i.e. money. Electronics and electronic expertise and equipment of the nature we are discussing here today are not yet available on the shelves of supermarkets although I hasten to suggest that the time is not far off when it will be. But the expertise and the equipment that we require we have to pay dearly for.

I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister when he says we must stay competitive at all costs. What does concern me, however, is the source of finance in order to stay competitive. That is what perturbs me. Here, I believe, we find ourselves in a “Catch 22” situation. The Franzsen Commission made recommendations some years ago in respect of the self-financing component, and laid down certain guidelines and parameters which should be maintained in order to achieve optimum results. I have no arguments with those principles. I hope I will be forgiven if, for the sake of the record, I repeat them now. The financing capital requirements on the basis of 50% self-generated funds and 50% loan funds is what the Franzsen Commission recommended, with poles of 60% in years when tariffs are adjusted, and 40% when tariff adjustments are needed. However, although this may be a most desirable situation, one must question the advisability of trying to adhere to this formula while inflation remains a double figure threat and the country is in an economic trough. That is exactly where we stand now. That, I believe, describes our present situation. We do have double figure inflation. We are in a economic trough.

During his reply to the Third Reading of the Transport Services Appropriation Bill the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs said that we had to get inflation below 10%. Prof. Brian Kantor of the University of Cape Town, in an address the night before last, said that he believed that our inflation rate would drop shortly to single figures. He said he believed our inflation rate could very well emulate that of the USA. I believe this gentleman is being very bold because he is the first person who has come out with this. He is the first person who says he believes this is going to happen. I sincerely hope that this gentleman is proved right. I believe we all would be on record as hoping that that would in fact be the case.

I also believe that the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs has set a target in which every Government department and the whole of commerce and industry should join in order to achieve what should namely be our first priority: To get inflation below 10%. The hon. the Prime Minister himself intervened on occasions in respect of tariff increases. His intervention has been welcomed, and my only regret is that he has permitted this hon. Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to announce tariff increases that will mean that the bulk of the Post Office clientele—that captive clientele—will have to pay 25% more for what I would term bread and butter services. Telephone rentals are up by 25%. The postage for ordinary letters is up by 25%. Telephone installation charges—not for the pensioner; for the ordinary man—are up by 50%. Unit charges for telephone calls are up 1 cent—from 6 cents to 7 cents. So it goes on. It is obvious that the bulk of these tariff increases are to be channelled towards improving the self-financing component for capital expenditure; from the 27,5% of this year to something like 41% in one fell swoop. One can only question the wisdom of this because it will most certainly contribute to inflation, and not detract from it.

By how much will it increase the inflation rate?

Mr. Speaker, if I knew the answer to that question I would not be in this Place. I would then be selling my expertise for a lot more money. [Interjections.] However, there is no shadow of a doubt that the hon. the Minister cannot gainsay the fact that it does contribute towards inflation. Surely, Mr. Speaker, even if it goes against the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission, careful consideration should be given to the probability or the possibility of seeking more loan income. I am not suggesting this should be done on the long term, but in the short term. I believe it should be given consideration at least until such time as inflation has been brought down to an acceptable level.

It could even help the hon. the Minister of Finance with his liquidity problems.

Exactly. I cannot help the hon. the Minister by telling him how much difference it will make. I can only look at this from a practical point of view and say that I think it would have been better to do this in the short term, while our inflation rate is still up at about 14%. Would it not have been better to do this because it could, in the long term, have been a cheaper proposition? We all know that commerce is alarmed, that commerce questions the actions of the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is aware of a telegram that was sent to him, but I nevertheless quote their words—

I believe that the hon. the Minister should address himself to this problem, and I think he should address himself to the problem seriously. Although “die koeël deur die kerk is”—as they say in Afrikaans—I think he should bear these comments, and those from others, in mind.

“Die boks is op die grond.”

“Die boks is op die grond,” yes, that is something else again! [Interjections.]

†It is for the reasons I have set out up to this point in my address that I regret that we shall be unable to support this budget. We will, in fact, be voting against it.

Now I should like to turn my attention to a few further points in the somewhat limited time at my disposal. It is perturbing to note that as of the end of March of 1983 we will still have some 225 000 outstanding telephone applications. I do not want to be over-critical of this situation. I think it is something that has been hammered year after year after year. I believe that what we are facing at the moment is brought about, not only because of the sophistication of the equipment that is on offer, but also because of the growing sophistication of the department’s clientele. The market-place is becoming more sophisticated. Less affluent people, people of other races, are seeking the services that are provided by the department. What I think is important, however, is that the waiting time for an application should be reduced to a minimum.

[Inaudible.]

I think that we must accept that there will always be backlogs. That I think we must accept. I do not think we are going to reach the situation that I know my hon. colleague was referring to in the United States of America where one moves into a house and has representatives of three telephone companies knocking on one’s front door wanting to install one’s telephone right there and then. [Interjections.]

Hennie Smit promised a 48-hour service.

Hennie Smit promised a lot of things. [Interjections.] As I have said, I think we must accept that there are always going to be backlogs, but I do ask the hon. the Minister to tell us what he believes the maximum waiting time should be. I am not asking him to fall into the trap that his predecessor fell into. I just want him to tell us what his aim is. What is he aiming at? What, in his view, is the maximum waiting time between the time of application and the provision of the service?

That is like asking: Do you still beat your wife?

No, that is silly. I am only asking the hon. the Minister: How long is a piece of string? Just give me the answer to that one. He is a very clever chap; he can do it! [Interjections.]

It is good to see—and here we come to some of the better parts of the curate’s egg— that there is an on-going programme for the replacement of manual telephone exchanges. I can assure the hon. the Minister that the elimination of the antiquated party-line systems in rural areas is going to be welcomed. There is, unfortunately, an on-going problem to which I think he should address himself, and that is that when an exchange is due to switch over from manual to automatic, a staff problem inevitably arises, and for obvious reasons. The staff in the area know that the exchange is going to go automatic and that they are not going to have jobs. So one cannot get people. I have spoken before about training a team of people who could move from point to point. This is indeed a problem. The service deteriorates alarmingly for about a year prior to the finalization of the automation process in any particular town. Over the years that I have been in this House I have experienced this in almost every town in my constituency, firstly in Stanger and Mandini, subsequently in Umhlali, Tongaat and Verulam. They also suffered. At the present moment Eshowe, once the proud capital of Zululand, is suffering tremendously, and will probably continue to do so over the next few months, until such time as the automatic exchange is installed. As proof of this, let me ask any hon. member to try to dial Eshowe and see how long he waits before the phone is answered. It is a staff problem. I shall probably address a letter to the hon. the Minister in this connection or talk about the problem in the Committee Stage. It is, however, something that is happening throughout the country.

I am also pleased to see that we are constantly seeking to improve our international telephone service and that there are many new and exciting developments in the pipeline. One is the use of optical fibre cable systems. It is good to note that quality is being monitored and that a new business telephone system, together with a completely new coin-operated telephone, is coming on the market. I only trust that the coin-operated telephone will be as near vandal-proof as possible because this has been the major problem in the past with coin-operated public telephones.

The Post Office is to be congratulated on winning the Shell design award for its new Disa telephone. It is also to be congratulated on its encouragement of and involvement in the local manufacture of telephone communication equipment.

I shall be failing in my duty if I did not remark on telegraph services and note that they are becoming a loss leader in the Post Office. However, I sincerely believe that they must be maintained because the bulk of our less affluent people rely heavily on this service as a means of urgent communication. As a matter of fact, I suggest this is the only means of urgent communication that they have.

The staff position causes me some concern. The hon. the Minister has made reference to the fact that increased costs have been due partly to the fact that there has been an unexpected growth in staff as a result of people rejoining the Postal Service. He also said that although there has been an improvement in the supply of manpower there was still a shortage of trained staff in certain categories. This again raises the hoary old annual that the Post Office trains staff who leave to go into the outside world of commerce and industry because of better and greater incentives. This has been the pattern over the years. Obviously, if I can use the expression, the worm has turned. Staff who thought the grass was greener on the other side ot the street have now decided that there is nothing like the security of home. Home to them is the mother who trained them, the good old Post Office. We live in hard times and I think the Post Office has to examine every post in its structure, every new appointment and every reappointment minutely in order to ensure that such appointee is going to be employed at maximum productivity. Let me assure the hon. the Minister that those people—I am sorry to adopt this hard-line attitude, but we must face facts—who have returned to the Post Office would not have been back in the market place if it were not for the fact that commerce and industry, which originally took them away, have been looking very closely at their productivity levels and have been restructuring their staff requirements accordingly. Let me also say that I am not—I emphasize not—advocating that anybody be retrenched or dismissed. I am however saying that everything must be done now to ensure that everybody in the Postal Services is fully employed at maximum acceptable productivity levels. I regret in this connection to have to add that my own observations, those of my colleagues, as well as those of “die mense daar buite”, do not indicate that this is in fact the case.

Time precludes me from a further examination of the budget proposals. I do however hope that, in what I consider to be a critical examination of what we have before us, I have been constructive and that I have made a contribution. I regret that we cannot support the hon. the Minister’s budget. I look forward to his replies to the points which I raised with him this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I do not have too many problems with the speech made by the hon. member for Umhlanga. One could see that he was a person who was well-versed in Post Office matters and knew precisely what he was talking about. The hon. member spoke about inflation. I want to tell him that I do not think this debate is concerned all that much with inflation. These so-called shock tariff increases are not conducive to inflation. [Interjections.] If one analyses the monthly household expenditure of an average household, one will see that this tariff increases will amount to only approximately R4,80 per month. Yet we find such newspaper headlines as the following “shock postal rates”, “P.O. tariff boosts slated by Transvaal Chamber”—what is more, the figures are wrong—“Statements are totally misleading” etc., etc. We in this House owe it to the hon. the Minister not to try to bluff people as far as tariff increases are concerned. I cannot understand how scientists and people who are good at maths can arrive at a figure other than 14,6%. Basic elementary arithmatic tells me that if we take the estimated revenue for the year 1983-’84 without tariff increases, plus the expected additional revenue from the announced tariff increases for a full financial year into account, we have a full estimated revenue. Furthermore, if one looks at the expected additional revenue which arises out of the tariff increases and works it out as a percentage of the estimated revenue for 1983-’84, it amounts to 14,6%, which is the actual percentage.

Hon. members who have participated in the debate up to now have pleaded for better Post Office facilities, better service, better telephone installations, etc. I wonder whether we are aware of the cost of these services. What does a telephone cost? In this connection my information—and I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister would refer to this in his reply—is that the mere installation cost of a telephone in any residential area is already R150.

Where does the hon. member get that figure from?

From the CNA. Mr. Speaker, how are we to obtain all the services which we are visualizing? We are living in a dynamic century. During the recess we had the privilege of visiting large units in the Cape and in the Transvaal and one was astounded to see what is being achieved in these spheres in South Africa and that we are in fact self-sufficient in this connection. However, it is all very well to be able to boast of this, but we should also ask ourselves: Where is the money coming from? The money to finance these projects comes either from loan capital—that is, loans raised abroad—or from other sources. If we are not going to generate money in some other way, then we have to make use of overseas capital. I think a person’s commonsense will tell him that those loans need not be called in. In the second place there are the services that have to be rendered, and this is where the tariff increases come in. The Post Office also receives an income from the money which is invested in the Post Office savings bank. However, let there be no illusions about this; that amount of money is extremely small. I want to give hon. members an indication of investment balances expressed in millions, as a percentage, and the percentage influx of savings investments. For the 1980-’81 financial year banking institutions received 60,9% of the savings of the public and building societies 34,9%. The Post Office received only 4,28%. From 1 April 1982 to 3 September 1982 banking institutions received 64%, building societies 32,4% and the Post Office 3,6%. Sir, this is a clear demonstration to us both that the main source of revenue for the Post Office is tariffs. The public has to pay for the service which the Post Office renders to the public.

The Franzsen Commission was also discussed today. When one discusses the Franzsen Commission, one must distinguish clearly between the Franzsen Commission and the Franzsen Committee. By way of information I should like to point out that the Franzsen Committee was appointed on 7 December 1971 by the then Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to institute a special investigation into the financing of specifically the Post Office. The recommendations were then made in March 1972 and the guideline was that the Post Office should limit loan financing from its capital expenditure to approximately 50%, and should finance the rest itself from revenue.

I said earlier that in this debate it is not really possible to conduct a discussion of inflation, because from a financial point of view, what is considered to be the ideal and what we are trying to do are two poles which can come together. The two elements contained in the Franzsen Committee recommendation can come together. We can move ahead more readily and more powerfully with a better equipped Post Office. That is what we should endeavour to achieve.

Let us consider the comparable position in previous years. In 1972-’73 67% was financed from borrowed funds and 33% internal funds. In 1977-’78 borrowed funds amounted to 50,1% and internal funds 49,9%. In 1978-79 the figures were 54,3% for internal funds and 45,7% for borrowed funds. Having illustrated these figures now, it is clear that the ideal can in fact be attained.

With the help of his loyal officials the hon. the Minister is continuing to do his best. I do not think we should allow the public to labour under any illusions. There are simply no telephones. One can apply, but one is going to wait a long time; one will have to be prepared to wait a long time. If we turn this into a debating point, we can point out to people the practical problems which we are having to contend with.

I think the Post Office has realized that if a telephone is not easily obtainable, an alternative should be sought. Consequently mail collection points have been created in New Castle, Pretoria, Vereeniging, Brakpan, Alberton for example, and I can continue in this vein. One pays a rand and receives a key so that one can collect one’s post on the way home.

The subject I now wish to dwell on, also came up for discussion in another debate. As a result of problems experienced owing to a lack of space on trains between Johannesburg and Pretoria, faulty loading and offloading of mail-bags and the resultant delays compelled the department to investigate the possibility of conveying mailbags departmentally by road. Since the beginning of July 1982 post is conveyed twice a day in both directions and numerous operational problems and delays have been eliminated in this way. I believe that the other Government Departments are able to level relevant criticism at this, but in this case as well the Post Office rendered a service and seem from the point of view of the Post Office, one could expand this operation and support it further owing to the fact that a great benefit of this service is that postal articles intended for postal sorting and street delivery are conveyed in glass fibre containers and transferred directly to the two sections involved to go through the ordinary post sorting channels. A mail-bag conveying service with departmental vehicles between Germiston and Johannesburg has also been introduced in the meantime and is operating smoothly. I think the Post Office realizes that “efficiency” is one of the key words for the future. Consequently an investigation is at present in progress in the hope that, in 1983, it will be possible to introduce such a departmental service in Pietermaritzburg and in Durban.

Mr. Speaker, my time is running out. Another very important matter is that South Africa perceives that it is a strategic part of Africa, so strategic that it must and wishes to maintain contact and communication with all countries in the outside world.

In order to provide a special service for the despatch of urgent goods to the outside world, a preferential postal service to Great Britain and Hong Kong was introduced on 1 October 1979. On 1 May 1980 it was expanded to include the Republic of China, Taiwan and on 1 January 1982 the USA. The service is becoming increasingly popular. During 1982 almost 1 300 preferential postal articles were despatched abroad. This was approximately 8% more than during 1981. If one considers the negotiations which are in progress to expand the preferential postal service to Australia, France, Japan and Switzerland, one realizes the important role which South Africa and in particular in posts and telecommunications still has to play. Let this be our endeavour.

There has been a continued increase in the demand for telecommunication services in particular, and consideration has to be given to price and cost increases in materials and services. We must avoid wastage. We must build in this process. Let more telephones be provided. We can say that there is a limited source today, but let it be a challenge to us to provide a telephone as quickly as possible wherever it is needed. Let us, when we debate these matters in the House next year, be able to point to good growth in the capital investment, an exceptionally high growth-rate in data services, the further installation of videotex, and gradual phasing in of selective telephone exchanges and more optical fibre cable systems.

One sometimes becomes afraid of this century. One thinks that ET of the film is walking around outside if one looks at the picture presented by the annual report. Then one realizes what mankind has fabricated for himself on earth. Let him deal with it earnestly and in a responsible way.

Mr. Speaker, since I shall have to make my next speech as the member for Waterkloof I should now like to conclude as the indirectly elected member for the Transvaal.

Hear, hear!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition challenged me to resign. Now I should like to know from him whether the leave which I am taking to go and promote the democratic process in Waterkloof, is less important than when the hon. member for Houghton goes to Moscow. It is interesting that in Waterkloof it is said that when members of the PFP visit there and there are complaints about the hon. member for Houghton, they say: “No, after her visit to Moscow, she is as right as rain.” Unfortunately, the new PFP candidate in Waterkloof did not believe that. He said that he had problems and …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Can the hon. member explain the relevance of what he is saying? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member did say that this was his last speech as a nominated member in this house. But I am listening to him carefully. The hon. member may proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I have no choice. I am being challenged, and surely I have to say something about that challenge, and this is the last opportunity I have. He calls himself “a pragmatic Prog, a swinging Prog and a vaguely centrist.”

An Elvis Presley.

I call him the Andries Treurnicht of Waterkloof. He says that he will not take the Prog members of Houghton.

He is a verkrampte Prog.

Before I commence dealing with Post Office matters, I wish to reply to the challenge of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. I shall resign, but I challenge him to send the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Sandton to Waterkloof to hold a public meeting there. [Interjections.] I ask those two hon. members to go and say there what they have to say about the Group Areas Act, mixed schools, influx control, “one man, one vote”, the ANC and communism, the police and the Defence Force.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: What has that to do with the subject under discussion?

Order! The hon. member must now come back to the matter under discussion, viz. the Post Office budget.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that my challenge will be accepted!

One must consider the Post Office budget in terms of certain principles. I commence with the principles pertaining to the fixing of tariffs. Thus far in the debate not one of the hon. members has explained how tariffs are fixed. There are two methods of doing so. The one is on the basis of “what the traffic can bear”, and the other is on the basis of total cost. In this regard it is often asked why the Post Office does not operate in precisely the same way as the business world. We in this House have to consider Government bodies such as the Post Office and Escom, since constantly attacks are made on the increase in administered prices. We are told: “Come on, be like the private sector.” Let us consider the private sector. When there is inflation and prosperity, the businessman exploits the market to the full. He puts up his prices so that he can make the maximum profit. He goes further. He tries to recover the total cost of every product. When there are increases in cost, for example increases in salaries, he immediately puts up his prices. If he has any problem with a product of which the total cost cannot be recovered, he withdraws that product from the market. When there is a recession, his prices begin to stabilize. His profits decline. However, he goes ahead and completes his capital projects, often with the aid of loans. During prosperous times he utilises his reserves which he has built up out of his large profits. During times of recession, he finances those projects out of the profits he made and by way of loans. Then, after completion, the need for capital declines tremendously.

Let us look at posts and telecommunications. During prosperous times we say: Be careful; do not increase tariffs. Do not increase tariffs to the maximum the consumer can bear. This means that the Post Office is never in a position to build up a reserve and achieve a position in which it can finance all its activities to the full. Then again, during times of prosperity, when bodies such as State corporations want to increase their prices, objections are raised and it is claimed that they are depriving the private sector of resources and that they are causing the rise in inflation. In the meanwhile, the Post Office loses its best people because it cannot adjust to the higher salaries which the private sector offers people. Therefore, because it cannot build up reserves, the Post Office is increasingly compelled to make use of loan capital. This is also evident from the budget under review. If, for example, we look at borrowed funds as a percentage of capital expenditure, we find that during the period 1981 to 1982 they amounted to 57,1%. During 1982-’83 they increased to altogether 72,5%, and in the present budget they dropped to 58%.

We could proceed to consider the net profit of the Post Office as a percentage of its total net assets. It has fluctuated continually between 3% and 5%. In prosperous times it has even reached 3,8%.

Of course, I agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow when he said that the Post Office should be afforded the opportunity, during prosperous times, to build up a reserve fund by way of continual adjustments to its tariffs. I hope that hon. members of the Opposition are going to support this from now on, since I think this is a particularly sound policy to follow in the process of fixing tariffs.

However, we now come to a further problem. During a period of recession, when the private sector’s need for money begins to decline, we have here a department which has to continue to operate, for technological reasons. This technology is of the utmost importance to South Africa, particularly in the next economic upswing. We are experiencing a technological revolution in this sphere. Unlike the private sector, the Post Office cannot cut down on its non-profitable activities. Now it is being said that the activities of posts and telecommunications should be transferred to the private sector. It is extremely interesting to note that in the USA a major controversy is in progress about this very matter. The inference that is being made now that the Federal Trade Commission is lifting a certain amount of control over their posts and telecommunication activities, is that their tariffs are expected to increase dramatically. Most interesting of all is that the poor and the agricultural sector are going to be the first to be adversely affected by this.

However, let us now consider the principle of financing. As yet, no one has given any attention to this. The three principles we should take note of, are solvency, profitability and liquidity. These are three principles familiar to all businessmen. Let us now consider the first, viz. solvency. This means that when one wishes to exchange one’s assets for cash, one has to be in a position to pay one’s debts. The approach has always been that when it comes to indirect Government bodies, financing takes place by way of loans because the Government underwrites those loans. This means that there is no great risk factor involved.

However, what is happening now? This position has changed a great deal, since we have to contend with a tremendously high inflation rate. The public is no longer so willing to invest in fixed interest-bearing investments. Where, then, are these bodies to find their money? They simply have to make their interest rates much higher. They are now competing in the open market and, as long as the inflation rate remains high, people take note of the inflation rate and they compare it with the interest being paid. That is why we find that this unbearable burden is also developing in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. During the 1981-’82 financial year, the interest on loans amounted to R117 million. During the 1982-’83 financial year it was R217 million, and for the 1983-’84 financial year it is estimated at R284 million. This is the problem created by inflation in loan financing. Yet it is being said that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications must make more use of loans. Surely that is not solvency. That is steering towards bankruptcy. What we also have to take into account when we turn to the open market for loans, is that at present we are experiencing tremendous fluctuations in our capital and money markets. One day money is available, and the next day it is not. When the gold price drops, one struggles, and when the gold price rises, things are easier. Can one, therefore, make one’s major projects, which are up to 70% dependent on that money, subject to loans? Surely that is ridiculous. However, let us go further.

As a result of political factors, there are also problems when one tries to obtain money in the capital or money market. After the problems in Soweto in 1976, an organization such as Escom was unable to obtain money from overseas. Can one entrust this kind of project to political fluctuations of that kind? No, one cannot. One has to consider stability.

This brings me to the question of profitability, and that, in turn, brings us to the question: Is 3,8% sufficient? Therefore a stabilization fund must be built up, and we must try to make this possible. As far as liquidity is concerned, the State and the Reserve Bank can play a large part. Therefore that is not a major problem in this respect.

However, there is a further aspect which is often mentioned in this regard, and that is productivity. If one looks at the figures in the reports before us and compares the number of telephones which have been installed, the quantitative improvements which have taken place and the increase in the number of people employed, one simply has to draw the conclusion that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications has improved tremendously.

It is no use, Org.

I just want to digress for a moment. In Waterkloof they say: If you want to vote for P. W. Botha, vote for Koos Botha! If you are also opposed to Jaap Marais, do not vote for Org Marais! [Interjections.]

Horace is the clever one!

Something which has also been criticized, is the role which the Department of Posts and Telecommunications plays when it comes to local content. I think that this department can be proud of what it has achieved over the past 15 to 16 years in the promotion of local content in this country; the system which the department follows is to get a number of companies to sign long-term contracts on condition that they increase the level of local content. I think we can safely say that one can ascribe the development in the electronics industry to the system followed by this department, and I wish other departments—I do not wish to mention names now—would come and look at how the Department of Posts and Telecommunications deals with this whole question of local content.

There is a further aspect of importance in this report. If this were the private sector, it would be said: I only consider the purely economic aspect of the establishment of my industry. However, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is in the process of decentralizing. The department is concentrating on an area such as Port Elizabeth. That hon. member—he comes from East London—should really be very grateful.

What is wrong with Pofadder?

Port Elizabeth, which offers tremendous growth potential, but where there is an insufficient number of industries, is being assisted by the Post Office, in that the Post office is now establishing some of its activities there. Other branches are also going to be established in other areas. In my opinion, if the private sector could follow this example, it would solve many of our regional development problems.

It is said that by the year 2000 we will no longer be driving motorcars, but will stay at home and make use of computers which will connect us not only with the office, but also with many other institutions. They say that if things go that far, the only problem will be: What becomes of all the secretaries?

I support this budget. I think that it is a particularly sound budget and I think that if one weighs it up against all the principles of financing, one can hardly disagree.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech made by the hon. member Dr. Marais who is standing in a constituency called Waterkloof. I appreciate the fact that he has said that this is the last speech he will be making in this House. Many a true word is spoken in jest. I disliked the way in which he attacked people, and I would remind him of the Sesotho saying, because he is going to get this back with interest: “Don’t point a finger at anybody because you are always pointing three at yourself". The hon. member will get it back with interest, compounded more often than he thinks too. Let me remind the hon. member that politics is a tough game. This is not a university where one can lecture and tell people what you think you can tell them. He will find out in due course. He should not make political speeches in the House for an election still to come.

I want to deal now with the Post Office budget. I want to support in particular the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow. Before I do that, may I first of all thank all the hon. members who were kind enough to welcome the hon. member for Hillbrow back again. We appreciate it very-much indeed. I should also like to thank the hon. the Minister for the courtesy and kindness shown to those of us who went on a very interesting tour where we had the opportunity of seeing the modern and high technology which the hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech today. We were particularly interested in being able to see the actual manufacturing of the electronic systems of the future. We were also able to even see how the micro-chips were made. I will deal with that later.

Finally, I should also like to say that I appreciate all the assistance and help which I get from the staff, even though I intend to attack them during the course of my discussion on this budget.

I should first of all like to refer to the Franzsen Commission’s report itself, which has been mentioned in this House very often. The first item on the Franzsen Commission’s report was that the R199 million of the loan debt, which was a liability which the Post Office owed the Treasury, should become capital. This after 10 years remained so and the Post Office is very lucky that it is only paying 7% interest on that. The second recommendation I should like to refer to is the question of the Post Office’s five year plan, which it is necessary for the Post Office to investigate together with the Treasury. I believe it would be in the interest of the House if the Post Office from time to time were able to give us a White Paper showing what their five year plan is. It is very difficult indeed with a business of this magnitude to be able to understand what is going on unless one has an idea of what the Post Office really intends doing over the next five or even 10 years. However, five years in itself is enough.

The third point was that the Treasury should use its best endeavours to provide the Post Office with supplementary loan funds. I do not know how much has been provided but I do want to criticize the Treasury’s attitude towards the Post Office in respect of the Post Office’s savings funds. I will deal with that later. This is really one of the major problems which affects our loan funds.

The Post Office was also empowered to obtain extended credit on imported equipment. I have no idea how much extended credit the Post Office is receiving and what is involved as far as loans are concerned. According to the budget R440 million is going to be borrowed by way of loans. What extended credit is the Post Office going to get from overseas firms? In addition, the Post Office has permission to obtain foreign loans and I am certain that it has no problems with the obtaining of foreign currency from the Reserve Bank.

The other point raised was the question that the Post Office should involve itself in lease back from various manufacturers. I should like to know whether the Post Office has involved itself in lease back at all and whether this cannot be a method of financing. I cannot understand why the Post Office only has a paltry overdraft facility with the Reserve Bank of some R10 million. It seems that an overdraft facility with the Reserve Bank of R10 million is really paltry for a business with a budget of almost R3 000 million. This should be increased considerably.

The Post Office is retaining a reasonable surplus as a reserve. I shall deal with the question of the 50:50 basis.

I am very worried about something with which the hon. the Minister has dealt in his budget speech and I quote—

And yet, when one looks at the budget itself, one sees that the hon. the Minister is intending to purchase something like R800 million worth of new equipment during the coming year. It does not seem to make sense to me, because I would believe that it is in times of recession that organizations like the Post Office which have access to capital, can help to get themselves back to prosperity by investing. It seems an awful problem that the Post Office is going to create less infrastructure than the country really needs. I am very pleased to see that the optical fibre cable system will be introduced, but I have reason to believe that South African technology has not as yet reached the stage where this can be done on a very large scale. I trust that this is one of the matters the hon. the Minister will go into to try to expand it as quickly as possible and to prove it.

I think the automation of rural areas is going to constitute a very serious social problem, because the “Fun on the veld” is going to stop forever. One of the things the average person in the rural and platteland areas enjoyed, was to listen in to the party lines from seven o’clock in the evenings till six o’clock the next morning. That was considered to be the open hunting season.

There are also going to be more telexes. It is obvious that if one is going to have more telexes, one is going to have fewer telegrams. One cannot have both. Businesses were the ones who used to send most of the telegrams. Now practically every business large and small, has a telex.

The thing that disturbs me next is the question of the videotex. One of the statements made in the hon. the Minister’s speech, with which I should like to deal, is that all the present facilities available have been taken up. I am perturbed about this, because vidoetex is going to play a very important role in the operation of businesses in South Africa. I should like to know who are the bodies that have taken up this time. Are they all big companies? Will the opportunity be given to the small man to get in? This is one of the problems we have with advertising, both on Springbok Radio and on TV. It presents quite a problem, although I must say that the TV has played the game to some extent.

The hon. the Minister has also raised the question of more expensive modems. During the Committee Stage we shall deal with the question whether we cannot save a large amount of money by allowing private enterprise to install their own modems.

I am very surprised to see that no allowance is made at all in this budget for any salary increases. I have made an estimate and I have come to the conclusion that an allowance should have been made in this budget for a sum of at least R50 million to provide for the possibility of salary increases. When one considers the tremendous amount of money that is being appropriated, I think that an amount of an additional R50 million would have been adequate to cover increased salaries and wages. There is an amount of R520 million to be appropriated for this purpose but it should have been closer to R600 million in order to meet the increases in salaries to Post Office staff during the year.

There is another point that disturbs me greatly and that is the question of housing. While I do not seek to preclude employees of the Post Office from obtaining houses, I am very worried that once they start receiving 100% loans—it sounds nice enough— with the tax on fringe benefits that is going to be introduced either this year or next year, much of the benefit which the Post Office intends giving to its employees is going to be lost. I think that serious consideration should be given by the Postmaster-General and his staff to the possible effect of a fringe benefits tax on officials of the Post Office.

In dealing with postal services, when we look at the budget we see that it is estimated that the loss on postal services will amount to approximately R74 million. On the other hand, Sir, the Post Office has a monopoly of telecommunications services. The Post Office anticipates a surplus in respect of telephone services of R225 million, on telex services, R28 million, on Gentex, R25 million and on leased circuits, R27 million. The total estimated surplus is therefore in the neighbourhood of R300 million as against an estimated loss of R74 million. However, the problem is—and this point was raised by the hon. member for Boksburg—that much of the cream in respect of the higher rated postal services that can be rendered by the Post Office is taken away from them in open competition by the courier services. When one inspects the sorting facilities at large post offices, one sees that there are 30 000 letters that are processed each minute. However, most of these are not ordinary letters but are bills or, shall I say, the low-priced postal articles. It is the high-priced postal articles about which I am concerned. The hon. member for Boksburg told us that it costs R9 to send a parcel from Johannesburg to Cape Town. Why canot the Post Office introduce a courier service of its own? Why should this service be taken away from it? Let the Post Office compete on this basis with those courier services that are rendering this service. This is the third occasion on which I have brought this matter up in this House.

We have already dealt with the question of mail for the troops on the border and particularly in the operational area but once again I should like to make an appeal for telephone services for the troops in the operational area. It is all very well for them to receive mail but I am sure that nothing would be more welcome to the troops than to be able to make telephone calls direct to their own homes to speak either to their girlfriends or to their families. I should like the hon. the Minister and the Post Office to investigate the possibility of instituting some sort of telephone service for which the serviceman will pay 50 cents or R1 to enable him to communicate with any place in South Africa for a period of three minutes. He must pay for this service. He must not get it for nothing. However, some form of communication of this nature should be introduced even if it is only over weekends when things are quieter. However, I think it is very, very important for morale. The Israeli Army has instituted a system whereby virtually from the front line a man can telephone his family and tell them that all is well. Now that we have a successful postal service in operation as far as these men are concerned, let us see whether we cannot also do something about a telephone service for them.

I should now like to deal with Telebank and the Post Office services in that connection. This is something very disturbing to which I drew attention every single year in the past. If one looks at the sources of finance for capital expenditure—one finds this on page 2 of the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure—one will see that the operating surplus is R185 million. In 1982-’83 it was the same. Provision for depreciation is only some R20 million higher. The provision for higher replacement costs of assets is about R15 million higher than it was in 1982-’83. The vast difference occurs in the source “Post Office Savings Bank and National Savings Certificate money”. The hon. the Minister is now budgeting for only R50 million, but last year the Administration budgeted for R140 million. In the year before the amount budgeted for was R240 million. I pleaded in the House last year that something should be done about increasing the rate of interest on tax-free shares. I listened to the hon. member Dr. Marais talking about fixed rates of interest. It is true that fixed rates of interest do play a role, but we are not talking …

But where is the hon. member Dr. Marais at the moment?

He has just gone to resign. [Interjections.]

The situation is that there are large numbers of people who wish to invest in tax free shares or other tax-free investments It is from these people that large amounts of money have been obtained in the past. The outflow of R140 million in the first half of last year was entirely due to the fact that the Post Office did not raise the percentage interest that could be earned on tax-free shares. The rates was 8,5% but it should have been round about 10%. That was the reason for the outflow and not that there was a fixed rate of interest. The rate of interest on tax-free shares is in relation to a man’s income and the tax that he wishes to pay.

Here is another matter on which I think the hon. the Minister should speak to the hon. the Minister of Finance: Why should the Post Office be limited to only 5% as far as the money is concerned which it can borrow for itself? Why should the building societies be able to get 35% of their funds on a tax-free basis? It is very true that it is said that private enterprise should not be affected, but we are now not dealing anymore with a State institution like it was 20 years ago when the Post Office was part of the Treasury. The Post Office is now a business on its own. I think earnest consideration should be given to allowing the Post Office the same facilities, because if the Post Office through its Savings Bank could get a higher percentage of income, the problem of borrowing would be obviated.

I do not know why everybody seems to be complaining that the Post Office should be borrowing more money. It is borrowing R440 million this year.

But the hon. member for Hillbrow said we should borrow more.

Yes, he said it was not enough, and that is what I am trying to say too. The Post Office is borrowing a large amount this year, but last year it only wanted to borrow R75 million.

Finally I should like to deal with just one further point. This concerns item 1.2.8. which deals with the South African micro-electronic system at Koedoespoort and it must be read in conjunction with item 2.1.5—“Transmission Equipment”. I want to know why suddenly last year we had to give them an extra R2 million—an increase from about R4 million to R6 million—while this year all that is necessary is a subsidy of R1 million. It seems strange that it has now dropped from R6 million.

The last point I want to raise refers to item 2.1.5, “Transmission Equipment”. In that regard expenditure has gone up from R84 million to R173 million. I am unable to understand that. Neither can I understand why under item 2.2.2 the expenditure has gone up from R32 million to R57 million. I should like an explanation on those points so that we can deal with them in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, towards the end of my speech I shall refer to several of the arguments of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I first want to deal with another matter.

The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the staff. It seemed to me by implication as though the hon. member for Umhlanga was not very happy that so many people were returning to the Post Office establishment. Then he said straight out and called on people outside to support his allegation, that the staff was not as productive as it should be. Actually this is rather an odd statement. One must take into consideration that South Africa is a developing country and then compare the operating results with those of countries that have already developed. We must also bear in mind that our tariffs are the lowest in the world. I am not merely saying this. A telephone call over 100 km lasting three minutes costs 42 cents in South Africa. One can compare this with the overseas cost. On the basis of such comparisons I can prove that, as I have said, our tariffs are the lowest in the world. To what must one ascribe the fact that our tariffs are low in comparison with the tariffs of other countries while the industry is still showing a surplus? Surely one can only ascribe this, in the first place, to a personnel that produces good work. This very important component of the entire industry consisted of 80 087 people at the end of last year on whom the huge sum of R757 million was spent.

If one considers the entire staff position, a few trends become clearly apparent. The first trend is, as the hon. member for Umhlanga mentioned, that people who were previously employed by the Post Office, are returning to the service. During this financial year 3 275 returned and the total establishment increased by 4 365 in comparison with the previous year. One is grateful for this.

There are also problems. There is a problem in the telephone division and there is a problem as regards technical staff. What is however more important—and this speaks volumes for the top management—is that no service has been suspended or curtailed. Knowing full well that we must keep abreast of a developing world and a society which is undoubtedly developing day by day and making greater demands on the staff, one can ask oneself how this is possible, what the top management is doing to be able to meet the requirements properly? How can they continue to maintain an effective and adequate work force in the Post Office? The answer is, in the first place, by thorough recruiting, both at home and abroad. One is particularly grateful for the wonderful achievements in regard to recruiting abroad. As a result of a recent recruiting campaign no less than 292 additional people are now in the employ of the Post Office in South Africa and a further 71 have already signed contracts and will begin their service in the near future. Over the years since 1947-’48 we have already recruited 1 000 excellent staff members in this way. Other efforts are also being made in this regard. For example, married staff members are being appointed. Why is all this being done? In order to meet the demands of the times, the top management have over the years launched massive training campaigns in terms of which the staff would be properly trained so that they could meet the high demands of efficiency. One thinks, for example, of the functional training of clerks, the centres in Bloemfontein, Cape Town, Pretoria, Port Elizabeth, East London, Kimberley, Johannesburg and Durban where Whites are trained, the well-known training centre at Belhar for Coloureds and the training centres at East London, Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg for Blacks. In this regard it is important to note that 2 100 skilled clerks have already been trained in this way. One thinks, for example, of the training programmes in the work situation in terms of the man-to-man schemes, of postmen and telephonists, and the 425 postmen and 1 795 telephonists that have been trained in this way. Tremendous progress has been made with the training programmes of the department. One also thinks, for example, of the training of technicians. In this connection one can surely never say enough about Olifantsfontein. It is probably unique in the world. One thinks of the tremendous achievements in the training of our technicians. One thinks of Belhar where Coloureds are trained. One thinks of Soshanguve where Blacks are trained. If one adds to this the study aid and bursaries, one can understand how the top management has constantly succeeded not only in training an adequate number of staff members, but also in making them efficient. However, this is not enough of course. If we were merely to concentrate on numbers and on training, we could be deficient in productivity. That is why it is also important to consider to what extent productivity is being increased through motivation in this important component of the department. In this regard I should like hon. members to take note of certain programmes in connection with staff research, which is so important in the times in which we are living. The hon. member for Umhlanga expressed the fear that the staff might be deficient as far as productivity was concerned. Perhaps one should just consider the well-founded and scientific screening systems that have been introduced to select staff. One can also take note of the fact that attention is being given to the human aspect of the staff. One can also think of the tremendous work being done in connection with research on alcoholism. We also feel that managerial development is being promoted by means of programmes. Then there is also further staff development. One thinks of the innumerable courses that staff are able to attend. It is interesting to consider a few of these, viz. there are courses for supervisors and courses on business etiquette. All these things are important aspects of the entire industry without which a successful institution cannot flourish. The top management has not neglected this either. They say that in order to ensure that the staff is happy and properly motivated, they must have decent working conditions. One can also think of the huge sums of money that have been spent over the years to ensure that the staff are always able to carry out their great task under better working conditions. For example they are at present engaged in 30 large projects that will have cost R54,5 million by the time they are completed. The most important project is the modernizing of the main post office at Pretoria and the building of a new post office at Port Elizabeth at a cost of R30 million. I can go on in this way showing how the top management is continuing to replace old out-dated buildings with modern buildings so that the staff can work under pleasant conditions. One can also rely on what scientists have asserted in this connection, namely that poor working conditions lead to frustration, and that frustration in its turn leads to resignations and lower productivity. In the same breath we must mention that it is the ideal of this department, just like other departments, to ensure that the staff are properly accommodated. After all, housing ensures stability, not only in the family, but also in the community. It also ensures labour peace and over and above that it ensures a happy labour force. The new home loan scheme, which was introduced at the end of 1980, is extremely popular, and more than 5 000 applications for loans have already been received, of which more than 1 300 have been granted. An amount of more than R55,5 million in loans is already involved in this scheme. In view of this one can be grateful that this department began to give positive attention to this very important aspect of the welfare of its staff in good time.

I can continue in this vein, but I feel that all I still need to say is that the top management of the Post Office plans to keep an adequate and efficient staff in its administration thus ensuring that this very important institution in the South African community continues to flourish.

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to move as a further amendment—

1. (1) the backlog in the provision of telephone services will be speedily eliminated;
2. (2) the necessary post office facilities will be provided in the group and rural areas of the non-Whites in order to prevent crowding-out in White areas; and
3. (3) the security of White workers in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications will be accorded priority at all times.”.

That is a sick amendment, Jan! [Interjections.]

It is my amendment, Mr. Speaker, and this is how I am moving it. In the course of my speech I shall refer to each separate subdivision of my amendment.

The hon. member for Newton Park had a great deal of praise for the officials of the Post Office. In spite of everything, I do not think there is a single person in this House, regardless of what party he belongs to, who has not seen, experienced and conceded over the years that the top structure and all the officials of the Post Office represent an extremely motivated team of workers. On behalf of the CP I also want to pay tribute to them in the same spirit. They are a motivated team of workers, as we have already seen. For example, people worked overtime without asking to be paid for it. They did this for the sake of promoting the interests of the Post Office.

I also want to refer to the annual report of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. I think it is also a good thing for us to place on record our thanks—and the thanks of the CP—for this excellent annual report we receive every year. It is a good piece of work, thorough and well compiled, and properly set out. It contains innumerable particulars. We also want to express our thanks for this.

However, to return to the staff matter, I want to make it quite clear that there is a shortage in this field. The hon. the Minister also told us about this. He said that in 1981 a total of 11 489 people resigned, while 3 165 new people were appointed. However, the position for 1982 was considerably better. During that year 8 992 people resigned and 3 275 new people were appointed. The hon. the Minister made it quite clear that in certain categories of trained staff there are still tremendous shortages. However, I should now like to know from the hon. the Minister why it is that there are still such tremendous shortages in those specific categories. This is the situation in spite of the training which is being offered to people. The hon. member for Newton Park gave a detailed description of how people are trained. We know that the top structure is doing a great deal in this regard, but in the times in which we live it is in the field requiring people with high technical qualifications that there is a tremendous shortage. I hope I am stating this correctly. What has been done to recruit such people abroad? Since there is a depression abroad— or a recession; call it what you will—we have recruited a number of people, but I do not know exactly how many people were recruited abroad. I should very much like the hon. the Minister to tell us how many people were recruited, what has been done to recruit people, and if, people were not recruited, why this was not done. If there were reasons for not doing so, we should very much like to know what those reasons were. We are also grateful for the three-day visit to post offices in the Northern Transvaal and Johannesburg, as well as the visit to the factories. They gave all of us an insight into the work of the Post Office. Since we have television these days, I want to ask that television should not be misused by the party to make political propaganda, but should rather be used to introduce the Post Office to everyone. There should be a specific evening on which the activities of the Post Office are depicted. I know there has already been a programme on the Post Office, but we should bring the Post Office to the attention of members of the public more often so that they can see how things work.

I also want to object to the fact that increases in tariffs were announced while Parliament was not in session. We may not circumvent Parliament. [Interjections.] It can be said that although the announcement was made earlier, the matter may be debated now, but it would have been better to announce the tariff increases during the no-confidence debate so that we could have discussed them then. A way must be found to do this so that complaints cannot be made about this sort of thing, otherwise all we are going to hear is unnecessary criticism. The hon. the Minister is the political head of the department and he must not make things more difficult for the department and his officials. I trust that this problem will be rectified.

This brings me to another problem. We must be careful not to price ourselves out of the market, and I should like to refer more specifically to the matter of telegrams. Telegrams cost 5c per word for a minimum of ten words. Even if one only uses two words, one must still pay for ten words, with R1 for what is called “delivery charges”. One therefore pays a minimum of R1,50 for a telegram, but people are not very willing to pay R1,50 just to send a telegram. If the price had, for example, been R1 per telegram, people would have been willing to send two telegrams for R2, but not one telegram for R1,50.

I should also like to refer to the video conference facility. The hon. the Minister said that a free service had been provided for certain Government departments and business undertakings in South Africa since November 1981. He also said that this service had become extremely popular and was becoming more so, to such an extent that by the end of 1982 there were an average of two conferences per working day. However, I want to know why the Post Office must provide this service free of charge to Government departments on two days of the week.

Publicity.

Do the departments not want to pay for publicity? Government departments must pay. Money is voted for them as well. The entire country can pay for it. Why should the Post Office carry the entire burden? I think it is wrong and I think this matter must be put right. This also applies to business undertakings. I should like to know what business undertakings are involved here. If the hon. the Minister does not have the information available at this stage, I should like to place this question on the Question Paper, because I should like to know which departments and business undertakings have made use of this service during the past three months. The Post Office cannot provide such a service free of charge. I think it is quite wrong and I am therefore making an appeal for this matter to be put right. It has been said that a tariff will be laid down in the near future. What will that tariff be? Can the hon. the Minister give us an indication of what the tariff will be? Then we can work out what the Post Office has lost during the past 12 months. When is that tariff going to be introduced? I think it is absolutely essential to go into this matter. This is one of its sources of revenue, but the Post Office is losing that revenue. This matter must be rectified. Over the years I have always crossed swords with the official Opposition on the capital programme, on how much must be financed from own capital and how much from loan capital. I want to make it quite clear that we in the CP are of the opinion that this should be done on a 50:50 basis. I am glad that there is going to be an improvement. Financing will not be done on a 50:50 basis this year, but, when one has problems … [Interjections.] … it is now 41,5%. When we reach the stage where financing is on a 50:50 basis it will be a good thing. I agree with my hon. colleague that there are certain times when one has problems and one’s revenue is such that one must raise loans. I want to make it quite clear that the infrastructure cannot lag behind. We are at present experiencing a recession, but when there is an improvement in the future the infrastructure must be right.

I should like to say something about telephones. The installation costs of a telephone have been increased from R50 to R75. This is one of the ways in which telephones are being placed beyond the reach of the average man. However, this could be a way of eliminating the backlog in telephones. There could be people who would not be prepared to pay the R75 installation costs and would throw in the towel. We are very grateful that certain concessions have been made with regard to pensioners. In his speech the hon. the Minister said that the recipients of old-age pensions, pensions for the blind, disability pensions and war veterans’ pensions need only pay R25 for the installation or transfer, both indoors and outdoors, of a telephone service. We want to express our appreciation for this. We criticize the hon. the Minister when we must, but we praise and thank him when this is justified.

The hon. the Minister referred to the fact that he had visited the border and had investigated certain matters. He found that there were certain good services. The hon. the Minister mentioned inter alia that he was delighted to see what these improvements meant to our men on the border. According to the hon. the Minister families and friends or girl friends may rest assured that if they write to the young men in the operational area, or send them parcels, the Post Office will ensure that these items are speedily delivered. The hon. the Minister went on to say that this is a contribution the Post Office would like to make to keep those people happy and motivated. That is a wonderful thing. We must motivate our people, our nation. The enemy has a numerical superiority and we must not make our people pessimistic or break down their morale. I am glad the hon. the Minister is motivating our people and is not doing what the hon. the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal did at Hartebeeshoek. The hon. the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal said that when one recruits people, one must first make them feel despondent about the superior numbers and bring it home to them that the rise of Blacks and Coloureds is inevitable. One must make them despondent and undermine their courage. After that one must tell them that we have to accept a partnership with the Coloureds and the Indians. No, Sir, we must fight for what is ours. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister is doing this. We must also motivate our people.

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

No. Unfortunately my time has expired. The hon. member may ask me a question later on in another debate. When the public and the voters become pessimistic, when one undermines their morale and they begin to lose confidence in the Government, the economy also slumps. This is one of the first signs. It is one of the first signs that there is no longer confidence in the Government. That is why I want to say that when these people want to undermine the morale of our people by seeing whether they will accept things, the electorate becomes mistrustful of the Government. There is a strong move in that direction. In Waterberg and Soutpansberg, as well as Waterkloof—this afternoon the hon. member Dr. Marais made his last speech in this House—we shall do splendidly.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react at any length now to what the hon. member for Sunnyside said, but with reference to his amendment, I just want to tell him that if he were to undertake a survey at urban post offices, he would find that 11 out of every 12 Blacks at those post offices had been sent there by their employers.

In this debate a great deal has been said about the increases in Post Office tariffs. I also want to say a few words about this on the basis of a story told by Pres. Reagan in connection with the parable of the good Samaritan. The hon. members for Bezuidenhout and Hillbrow do not know about this. Pres. Reagan said that when the Samaritan found the man lying half dead under a bush, he did not telephone the police, the ambulance or the welfare, but he loaded the man onto his donkey, took him to the inn, took care of him and paid the costs for everything himself. The point Pres. Reagan wanted to make was that the Samaritan did something himself and did not ask for assistance from the State.

In 1968, when the Post Office became independent, it was decided that it would never again ask the State for assistance; it would do its own thing. And it is doing just that! In order to succeed, in order to render the services it does render, tariffs, which constitute its sole source of revenue, must of necessity be increased from time to time. I want to point out a few factors which have compelled the Post Office to increase its tariffs. When the general sales tax rises from 4% to 5% to 6%—the Post Office is also subject to this tax—it has to absorb this increase through its tariffs. Rail transport tariffs have increased by 423% from 4,456 cents per kilogram in 1970 to 23,314 cents per kilogram in 1983. In January of this year the cost of transporting postal items by rail rose by 20%.

Ask the Minister why.

No, we are not discussing the Railways now; we are discussing the Post Office, the tariffs of the Post Office. Air freight increased from 38 cents per kilogram in 1976 to 82 cents per kilogram in 1983, an increase of 116%. [Interjections.] Domestic air freight costs now total R6 million, and the total costs domestic and foreign, are R12,5 million.

Mention has been made of salaries and wages. In recent years it has become necessary for the Post Office to make provision for an annual salary adjustment of 15% over and above the annual salary increase. The expenditure on salaries and wages has risen from R272 million in 1976-77 to R585 million in 1982-’83, although the staff only increased by 15%. And now, during the recession, staff that we lost in the process, are returning to the Post Office. This will make greater demands on expenditure.

Post Office expenditure on accommodation has also risen tremendously during the past five years. The costs incurred in providing accommodation needed to meet the requirements set by normal growth and the automation and mechanization of services, has risen by 100% in 5 years. In addition, there has been a drastic increase in rentals during the past few years. There has also been an increase in maintenance costs. All these increases had to be covered by the revenue of the Post Office and could only be covered by revenue from that source.

The revenue of the Post Office is under great pressure from the demand for new services. The process of automation and mechanization of the Post Office costs a great deal of money. This money is being spent to render wonderful services to our people. We know about Beltel, videotex, teletex, the Disa telephone, the digital exchanges and the automatic exchanges, as well as the sudden tremendous demand for telephone services from the Black community. All these services and decentralization in particular are going to make heavy demands on the Post Office. They are going to cost a great deal of money. That money must come from somewhere and it can only come from the revenue the Post Office itself generates.

It is true that no one likes tariff increases. It is also true that the tariff increases announced by the hon. the Minister that are to come into effect on 1 April of this year are fairly drastic increases. That is true. However, the Press Services has also announced that the price of a newspaper will soon be increased by 25% and we have not heard a word of criticism about that.

The exchange rate is also a factor that adversely affects the Post Office. We pay a great deal for imported equipment, far more than we paid when the exchange rate was more favourable. We also import inflation along with that equipment.

The Post Office has to incur great expenses to render services to those people, as the hon. member for Boksburg told us, to whom the Post Office belongs. The Post Office belongs to the consumer of the services it renders.

Mention was also made of the installation costs of a telephone. It costs R150. The hon. member for Durban North asked the hon. member for Overvaal where he got that figure of R150 from. I want to point out to the hon. member for Durban North that it was from a reply by the hon. the Minister to a question asked by the hon. member for Hillbrow on 25 February.

From 1 April of this year it will cost 2 cents more to send a letter from Cape Town to Pretoria. I made inquiries at the Post Office to find out what processes a letter posted here at the parliamentary post office has to go through before it can be delivered to my street address in Pretoria. For that 10 cents 43 human actions are carried out. That is the number of people who handle that letter. There are eight automatic machines through which that letter must go. Five vehicles and one aircraft are used to transport that letter. All that for 10 cents. Let us compare this with the position in 1860 when the “Pony Express” transported letters from St. Joseph in Missouri to Sacramento in California. On a staging basis between points approximately 24 km apart there were 119 stations, 400 horses were used, 400 members of staff were employed and 80 riders were used. The post was conveyed over a distance of 1 966 miles. It usually took 14 days, but sometimes it took 12 or even as few as 10 days. It cost $5 to transport a postal item weighing half an ounce from St. Joseph to Sacramento.

I think we get far better value for our 10 cents today, which is what we pay to get a letter from Cape Town to my street address in Pretoria in two days. We definitely get better value than the people who had to pay $5 to get a postal item weighing half an ounce from Sacramento to St. Joseph in 14 days. Having said that 10 cents is good value for the delivery of a postal item, I think that 25 cents is not too much to pay for a newspaper either.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on the previous speaker, except to say that I think he made an excellent speech.

Since we have come to the end of the Second Reading debate, I should like to convey a word of sincere thanks to the hon. the Minister for the way in which he presented the budget. I predict that under the leadership of the hon. the Minister, with his characteristic courtesy and approachability, the department will achieve new heights. I should also like to thank the Postmaster-General, his deputies and the senior staff most sincerely for the thorough planning and management of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. We greatly appreciate the contribution they are making there.

Having listened to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister, I am convinced that it would be irresponsible to disregard or be indifferent to the demands which a growing and prosperous country makes on its most sensitive department. The Department of Posts and Telecommunications, which is undoubtedly—I think the hon. member for Nigel also used this word— the nervous system of the country, finds itself in such a position that the demands which are made have to be met. The fact is that if the Post Office cannot keep pace with the progress of the country we shall build up a backlog in a short space of time which will be difficult and very costly to eliminate. That is why it is our duty to support this department with a positive approach and even to encourage it to face the demands of our modern times, with the challenges that entails.

As far as demands are concerned, it is true that in the first place, the Post Office should see to it that it has sufficient staff, staff who are all equipped to carry out the task assigned to them to the best of their ability. It is therefore gratifying to hear that the staff has increased by approximately 3 000 in the year under review. Motivated, able and dedicated staff are still the greatest asset of the Post Office. Mention should also be made of the fact that a number of experts have already been recruited abroad. Some of them have already taken up their posts. We trust that they will have a very happy and prosperous stay in the Republic of South Africa.

The telephone services comprise the largest source of revenue for the Post Office. Secondly, then, I also wish to refer briefly to them. At present—and I think this is an achievement—approximately 1 000 telephones are being installed daily as opposed to the 400 of five years ago. The rate at which this service is performed sets its own demands, but it is also proof of a dynamic growth, particularly in view of the present economic climate. Installing a telephone is probably not the most difficult of tasks, but the interaction this involves, the cables, the connections with exchanges and the linking up with trunk exchanges and microwave exchanges, and the fact that this process has to be repeated in order to get through to the other side, makes it a tremendous task. In order to accommodate this demand, 19 new exchanges have been established over the past financial year, whereas 150 exchanges have been extended and replaced by larger units. New automatic trunk exchanges were established in 12 towns during the same period. In this case electronic exchanges such as the French 128 and the German EWSD have been installed, and these are two of the best and most modern available in the world. Moreover, provision has also been made for provison of the ever-increasing number of telephones. I can say this because I believe that the Post Office will give its earnest attention to every application for a new telephone.

Then there is the miracle of the telephone itself. The hon. the Minister spoke at some length about this yesterday. I wanted to speak about telephonic links with Sophia Loren and Leon Schuster today, but time does not permit. [Interjections.] The fact is simply that the telephones which are manufactured in South Africa, compare favourably with the very best in the world.

They are manufactured in my constituency.

Every component is subject to the strictest inspection and supervision. I visited such a factory and I experienced this myself. I saw how an automatic machine lifted and set down the handpiece 250 000 times. This means that if one makes an average of 2 500 calls annually, one ought to get very good service out of one’s telephone for 100 years. The other components, even the tiniest buttons and springs, are also tested hundreds of thousands of times to ensure that they operate efficiently. That is why I believe that we shall not have problems with telephones, neither now, nor in the future.

Then surely the maintenance costs will decrease.

I do not know. That is possible. The Post Office also uses optical fibre cables in areas where lightning has a disruptive effect and causes breaks in the service. Efforts are being made to eliminate this. Once again this is proof of the efficiency of the Post Office. Telephones and the extension of telephone services are merely one facet of the activities of the Post Office, and it will have to plan with a great deal of foresight in the future. The future use of thousands of kilometres of cable, the building and equipping of numerous new exchanges and the purchase of modern electronic apparatus to replace the old ones can only be done if the Post Office has the necessary funds.

Statistics show that during the past financial year, 10 355 million call units were registered by 3,5 million telephones. That is 3 186 per annum, or 265 per month. Therefore, if there is a tariff increase of 1c per call unit, it means that the increase for normal use will be approximately R2 per month. That is on average. For many it will be less. Briefly, what this amounts to is that for most subscribers it will cost less than R4 per month to make their 265 calls and to pay their telephone rental. Besides that, they can post 10 letters, using a 10c stamp on each, and they will be delivered safely and quickly.

This brings me to another aspect of the postal services, an aspect which is a tremendous, a gigantic undertaking in itself. The sorting, despatch and distribution of letters is increasing in volume. In the larger centres this simply cannot be done by hand any longer. That is why the sorting machines have been taken into use. These machines cost millions of rands, amounting to approximately R5 million per machine. The distribution of domestic air mail alone amounts to approximately 1 million kilograms per month. This amounts to approximately 3 million letters daily. This is a tremendous number. Although the Post Office has dealt with this matter effectively, it has nevertheless shown a loss of approximately R80 million. That is why I should like to ask the hon. the Minister at this stage whether alternative methods of postal delivery could not be considered, since due to the way in which the population in our cities is increasing, house-to-house delivery has become almost impracticable.

We wish to thank the Post Office for the special post office boxes which have been introduced to deliver letters to those on our borders. I think this is an extremely positive step by the Post Office and we are grateful for it. I think that thousands of parents, family and friends will be extremely happy about this service.

Every letter placed in a post box, is a philately specimen, and I wish to add that philately, or the stamp collecting, is not a hobby for kings only. On the contrary, there is no hobby in the world which is practised on such a large scale and by so many people throughout the world. The Republic of South Africa is no exception in this regard. It is estimated that there are approximately 100 000 philatelists in South Africa. Stamp collection is not merely a matter of accumulating stamps. It is educational and presents one with an image of one’s country. It is a showcase in which one can show what one’s country has to offer; its culture, its people, its achievements, its minerals, its flowers, its artists and all kinds of important characteristics of a country. I wanted to speak about stamps with regard to Princess Diana, but I simply do not have sufficient time.

For the average person philately is not too expensive a hobby. In due course it can grow into a reasonable investment. I am aware that the more advanced people have already paid thousands of rands per stamp. One can deduce from this that it is, in fact, a rewarding hobby. The sale of stamps to collectors is also profitable for the Post Office. Over the past financial year Philatelic Services have sold stamps and yielded a revenue of approximately R4 million domestically and R411 000 from abroad. This service is showing a dynamic growth and we should like to congratulate the Director, Mr. Steyn, most sincerely on this achievement. However, stamps should be appealing. They should be attractive and striking. South Africa has in the past achieved world renown and been accorded recognition for the finest stamp in the world which appeared in a certain year. Therefore I hesitate to say this today, but the present definitive series of stamps cannot and never will be considered among the most colourful stamps ever issued in South Africa.

The theme of cultural-historic buildings on the stamps is extremely praiseworthy, but aesthetically they are unsatisfactory, particularly those stamps which are used most often. I approached an expert for his opinion, and his blunt reaction was: “It is dull.” I have no more to say about this, except that if the smaller stamps up to and including the 20 cent stamp were the same size as the 50 cent to R2 stamps, and if they were more colourful, I think we would have done greater justice to our beautiful historic buildings.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 75.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to reply to the full debate this evening. Nevertheless, I should like to make a few remarks before moving the adjournment of the debate.

In the first place I should like to thank all hon. members who participated in the discussion, and particularly those hon. members who addressed kind words of praise not only to me but also to the department and the officials. I am pleased to see the hon. member for Hillbrow, the main speaker of the official Opposition in this debate, up and about again. He pointed out that he would not be able to remain sitting in the House for very long periods at a time. I am sure, however, that he is sitting in his office at this moment, watching me on his TV set and listening to what I shall have to say to him. I am delighted that he has recovered from his illness to such an extent that he can be back in this House, and I hope that he will go from strength to strength in future and regain his old vitality soon.

Tomorrow I shall deal with the proposals and criticisms of hon. members. In the meantime I should just like to make a few general observations. They actually concern the two amendments which were moved here. The debating of hon. members of the Opposition is in direct conflict with the requests they made. Surely they cannot say, on the one hand, that I should reduce tariffs while, on the other hand, they request me to install more telephones in the coming financial year.

The hon. member for Umhlanga, I must say, was honest enough to admit the truth of this. The whole thing hinges on finance. Everything depends on the availability of money. Any monkey can introduce a very favourable budget here in the House, for which he will be very popular outside. That poor monkey, however, will really be in trouble when, in a few years time he hands his portfolio over to his successor, who then finds he inherits a beautiful organization that has gone virtually bankrupt. I believe that should I follow the advice of the official Opposition I would find myself on the surest way towards ruining the Department of Posts and Telecommunications in a very short time.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. member when he delivered his speech. I should therefore expect him to show me the same courtesy. The hon. member put so many questions to me that I can only react by saying he should have done his homework better and given me some good ideas on how to run this department. [Interjections.]

*One of the hon. members of the CP said that the backlog in the provision of telephone services should be eliminated as soon as possible. The main speaker of the CP, the hon. member for Nigel, expressed his regret at our having to increase tariffs. Surely the one statement contradicts the other. One cannot run a business undertaking by, on the one hand, investing capital while, on the other hand, one has to cut down on one’s operating expenditure. There was only one procedure for me to adopt if I wanted to avoid an increase in tariffs. Now I am going to explain this very clearly; so clearly that even the hon. member for Langlaagte will understand it. [Interjections.] Had we not increased tariffs, our loss on operating expenditure would have amounted to R113 million. This is over and above the amount of R185 million we had budgeted for as a surplus to be transferred to the capital budget. Consequently we would not only have shown a deficit of R113 million on our operating expenditure but also a deficit of R185 million on the capital budget. This would have meant that we would have been able to provide fewer services.

Not a single hon. member on Opposition side told me in what way I would have succeeded in doing so. However, one hon. member after another said I should borrow more money. They want me to borrow money in a time of economic recession. The hon. member for Overvaal, I think, furnished the figures. We are already borrowing so much money that we are paying hundreds of millions of rands in interest each year. Yet, hon. members of the Opposition want me to borrow more money. The hon. member for Hillbrow said we should raise more loans. According to them this is a better time for raising loans. The hon. member for Umhlanga, too, said that this was not a bad time for borrowing money. One of the hon. member’s of the CP said the same thing. Do they want me to cover operating expenditure by means of loans? Not one hon. member said that. If I do not do so, I shall have to retrench staff. I shall have to retrench staff since I cannot suffer a loss on operating expenditure. In what way am I going to succeed in this? Therefore, I have to cut operating expenditure in such away that I shall, in the first place, have to retrench a lot of staff. In the meantime we have just built up our establishment to a level which enables us to deal with matters. We can provide telephones. Consequently, if I have to cover operating expenditure by means of loans, what about the capital amount I still require; the amount of R185 million which I still require simply for achieving those things I mentioned in my budget? Am I to borrow money for that as well?

†Then I asked the hon. member for Umhlanga how this budget would affect inflation. His answer was: Who knows? Well, how can anybody argue with me and say this is an inflationary budget when the chief NRP speaker says: Who knows what inflation is? Of course everybody knows!

You asked me to be specific.

Yes, I can give the hon. member some specific figures. Let me quote the hon. member a definition of inflation:—

Various indexes are then used to illustrate this. It is interesting to note that some people …

Then I misunderstood your question.

It is interesting to note what some people say about inflation. Don Paarlberg, Director of Agricultural Economics in the US Department of Agriculture, said in an address once—

Of course the people who lend us money will love inflation.

*It is not only price increases, however, which affect inflation. Loan money also affects inflation. Actually, loan money can affect inflation to a larger extent than tariff increases do. If one uses loan money for operating expenditure, if one has to use ever larger amounts to supplement capital, to extend services, it is as inflationary as when one increases tariffs. In South Africa inflation has become a word one uses when one does not know what to say. As soon as one does not know where to lay the blame, one blames inflation.

It is a virus.

If one wants to attack a budget, one simply says it is inflationary. Certain sectors of the business community are guilty of doing this. However, I am referring to only a few sectors, not to all of them. I want to say at once that I get the largest degree of co-operation from the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut as well as from a large section of the business community, because we have been keeping them informed for several months now. It is not true, as was said on TV last night, that they did not know. The newly elected chairman said they did not know of the tariff increases and sent me a telegram. They did send a telegram, but they received a reply on 9 March. The gentleman who said last night that I had not replied was informed by telephone of that reply. So he could not say on television last night that I was not doing my work and not replying to them. As the person in charge of a business undertaking I, together with my staff, want to forge the strongest ties of friendship with the consumer. The consumer must know, however, that this department will not return to the days when it had to go and ask the hon. the Minister of Finance for a subsidy. I do not think there is any hon. member in this House who wants that.

†Is there anyone in the Opposition benches who wants me to return to the days when we asked the hon. the Minister of Finance for a subsidy? I ask that question, because if one does that, what is one doing? One is taking money out of one’s own pocket to pay for somebody else’s use of the telephone. The one is also paying more for one’s own telephone call, because the money one pays the hon. the Minister of Finance, he merely reroutes to the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. We have to stand on our own two feet as a business.

*To enable me to do this, I need the assistance of all hon. members. We must keep politics out of the Post Office and telecommunications.

Do you hear that, Sakkie?

I am speaking in my capacity as Minister now. What hon. members do, is their own affair. [Interjections.] As long as hon. members do this, I too, shall do so.

†Let me come back to the hon. member for Umhlanga. I have asked experts—economists and advisers to the hon. the Prime Minister—what affect our total budget would have on inflation. After looking at the whole matter, and giving it a great deal of thought, they have told me that the whole budget would only affect the inflation rate by about 0,8%. That would be the effect on the total budget, and the proposed rise in tariffs could affect the inflation rate by about 0,15% to 0,18% in the short term, with a long-term effect of about 0,3%. We must weigh this up against one of the biggest developments the country has ever seen in telecommunications. We have 3,5 million telephones installed, 275 000 in the past year and another 200 000 in the coming year. We have hit the era of the electronic revolution, and if we do not keep up, our economy will dwindle, because nobody in the country or outside the country will put up any business unless he can have his telephone, telex or whatever other data-transmission system he needs to get. We are simply living in that age. If we only budgeted to keep our heads above water, we would certainly find that that was not what the country wanted from a Minister of Posts and Telecommunications and his dedicated staff who have not merely been planning from year to year, because we have got planning going to cover the next five to ten years. I shall give the hon. member the details, but I just wanted to make this point before resuming my seat this evening.

*The hon. member for Nigel said he would hold me to my promise that we would increase salaries as soon as we could. I shall keep that promise, but hon. members must know that that is one of the biggest factors which fuel inflation. [Interjections.] If one takes only inflation into consideration, we must do nothing. In that case I must simply cut down, retrench staff, borrow to cover operating expenditure and to obtain money for expansions. If I were to follow the advice of hon. members of the Opposition at this stage, that would lead to the biggest bankruptcy in this department that we have ever experienced. I shall continue to deal with this matter tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, at this stage I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by apologizing for the absence of our spokesman on this Bill, the hon. member for Berea. Unfortunately, unavoidable circumstances have made it impossible for him to be present, and he specifically requested me to tender his apologies to the hon. the Deputy Minister and to the House for the fact that he is unable to take part in the Third Reading.

The hon. member for Berea indicated in his Second Reading speech what the attitude of this party is. He also motivated our attitude and indicated why we could not support the Bill. Nothing has happened during the Second Reading debate and in the Committee Stage to cause this party to change its mind. Allow me to recapitulate our party’s standpoint. I also want to say at once that from the nature of the case, these are sensitive matters. These are matters in which people are often faced with difficult choices. The land question and the acquisition of land, and the 1930 and 1936 legislation in this connection, are certainly aspects of very great importance. They are also highly emotional aspects. It is understandable that this should be so.

The standpoint stated by the hon. member for Berea on behalf of our party is that this party has consistently opposed the fragmentation of South Africa into independent States. This has consistently been the attitude of this party. We believe that the fundamental problems of White-Black relations in South Africa cannot be solved in this way. Hon. members on the other side of the House have replied to that argument by saying that this is the way in which we have given peoples their freedom and that the peoples have chosen that freedom. I do not wish to reply to that argument, because it would take us far beyond the scope of the Bill. I want to repeat the standpoint of this party. I can readily accept that hon. members on the other side will disagree with it. We do not believe that we can solve the problems of our country in this way.

In conversations I have had with several of the leaders of the States that are independent today, it frequently appeared that the reasons why they had opted for independence were of a twofold nature. The first reason was that by doing so, they were getting away from discrimination to which they had been subject in South Africa.

That is simply propaganda.

We are talking about the hon. Presidents of those States. These are the last people whom hon. members on the other side of the House can accuse of propaganda. This is what they told me time after time. It has also been reported in this House. They also wanted to get away from the tyranny of the bureaucracy in Pretoria. I do not wish to pass judgment on the matter; I am simply saying that these were two fundamental considerations which led some of those leaders to opt for independence. The fact that they did so, however, does not impose any obligation on this House or this party to support that point of view. What is making matters even more difficult for us is the fact that we certainly do not object to land being made available to Blacks for their use. In this regard, this party has consistently adopted the standpoint that it considers itself bound to adhere to the principles of the 1936 legislation, and it has never indicated that it wishes to depart from those principles. This party has never said that it opposes the implementation of the 1936 legislation with regard to the provision of land for the use of Blacks. When the legislation was passed in 1913 and 1936, however, there was no question of independent States. What this party is opposed to is the giving away of land to independent States. We are not the ones who created those independent States. This party resisted it. The point at issue here is not the 1936 legislation—and I say this because it has been mentioned by hon. members opposite—but the giving away of land to independent States, States outside South Africa. That is the standpoint of this party, as I understand it. A further point—and we debated this repeatedly when the legislation on the status of these independent States was before this House—is the fact that in terms of that policy of granting independence to territories, large numbers of Black South Africans lost their citizenship without having had any choice in the matter. I am referring to those people who are permanently resident outside those territories. We repeatedly pleaded in this House that those people should be given the option of retaining their South African citizenship or accepting the citizenship of those territories. That choice was not allowed them. A further fact—and now hon. members must understand why we are opposed to independence—is that in each of those elections or referendums which were held with regard to independence, a very small percentage of the citizens living outside those territories voted, i.e. declared themselves in favour of independence. In the other case of Transkei, no more than 3% of the citizens living outside Transkei voted in the election which preceded independence. How those people can be penalized for a decision which was taken over their heads, therefore, we shall never be able to understand. I am merely saying this by way of explanation. In doing so, Sir, I am explaining why we cannot support this legislation.

May I point out to the hon. member that since the coming into operation of Act No. 2 of 1982, the official spokesman of the hon. member’s party has said that they support this Act in spite of the fact that certain States have subsequently become independent. How does the hon. member reconcile that with what he has just said?

I have said that as regards our standpoint on the fragmentation of the territory of South Africa, this party has been consistent, and this remains our standpoint. We have adopted this standpoint and we shall adhere to it.

May I ask the hon. member another question?

I am sorry, but my time is limited and I cannot reply to another question at this stage. [Interjections.]

A lot of things have emerged in this debate which need to be clarified. The hon. member for Albany will participate in the discussion again, but he has touched on two important points, one of which, I believe, was dealt with during as well as after the debate. This is the question of those farmers who were paid for their land in Government stock. The hon. the Deputy Minister has already indicated that this matter is receiving the attention of the Cabinet, and I just wish to express the hope that the Cabinet will ensure that those farmers who have really been prejudiced are compensated as soon as possible. I trust that he will indeed give attention to this matter, in terms of his own explanations in the past.

A second important matter which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Albany, and to which the hon. the Deputy Minister has not replied, as far as I know, is the position of the Coloureds in the Katrivier settlement. The hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated that there are technical problems in this connection. He said this when he was asked whether, if those people were compensated for their land, they would also have the right, like the Whites whose land is expropriated, to buy land elsewhere. Then an hon. member said by way of interjection: “Yes, but in one of the Coloured settlements.” This basically brings us back to a truly fundamental problem. As the hon. member for Albany indicated, that land was made available to these people as far back as 1828. Whatever the position may be in terms of the Group Areas Act and in view of the fact that South Africa is a controlled territory, I just want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that morally we have no other choice than to allow those people to buy land elsewhere in South Africa, and not only land in one of those so-called Coloured reservations. The hon. members opposite know just as well as I do that the land in those areas is simply not of the same quality as the land in the Kat River area. Therefore it cannot meet the needs of those people who are being removed from the Kat River settlement.

I now wish to endorse the appeal made by the hon. member for King William’s Town in this House concerning the need for land reform. Naturally, we have no control over what happens to land in the States which are independent today. We even have a limited say over the land which is transferred to the national States. However, there are large tracks of land that are in fact owned by the Trust. One of the fundamental recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission was that we should move away from the concept of communal ownership of land—the tribal ownership of land by Blacks. The commission also recommended that it should be possible in those areas, just as it is among us, to dispose of land. If we really want to create a farming class on that land, it is imperative that we move in the direction of private ownership of land. Although I am deeply aware of the great land hunger among Blacks, I believe it is high time we had the utilization of land investigated by experts in order to see whether we cannot find an acceptable alternative to the communal use of land in accordance with the traditional tribal system.

I also wish to comment briefly on the remarks made by the hon. member for Turffontein about the PFP’s policy with regard to delimitation, etc. I do not know whether the hon. member for Turffontein, who quoted from the PFP’s formal policy, was confusing the concept of “States” used in our statement of policy with independent States. We are very clearly opposed to the fragmentation of South Africa, but we add that as far as South Africa’s constitutional future is concerned, we advocate a federal State, consisting of units which we call States, as in the case of the USA. In our statement of policy we speak of those States as federal units; not as independent States. We also indicate which criteria should be used by an independent commission in the delimitation of those federal units in South Africa. I gained the impression, after having studied the Hansard as well, that the hon. member for Turffontein was actually quoting these things out of context. That is my impression.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member, since they are also going to draw boundaries, how they are going to do it without removing people?

I have already said that it is quite clear that the hon. member does not understand our policy. We are not going to remove people because we do not believe in a racial approach. The federal States we are going to create will not be racial States, therefore. We are not going to remove people from one State to another, because every inhabitant, whether he be White, Black or Brown, will have the full political rights, in the State in which he lives, which every other inhabitant of that State has. In our policy exposition, therefore, no provision is made for the removal of people. I think the hon. member did not understand our policy correctly as far as this is concerned.

I want to come back to a matter which has dominated these debates. I am referring to the problem surrounding the Senthimula and Kutama area on the Venda border. I am probably speaking for most hon. members on this side of the House when I say that the entire debate has been conducted in a spirit which seemed to us to be rather unpleasant, because I got the impression—if I am wrong, I apologize—that to a large extent the discussion revolved around the person of the hon. the Minister of Manpower and that it formed part of this kind of personal struggle or vendetta or dispute between the hon. members of the CP and the hon. the Minister of Manpower.

Are you taking him under your protection? He needs protection.

No, the hon. the Minister has the ability to protect and defend himself.

I got the impression that to a very large extent, this was what it revolved around, but we do not wish to enter into that type of debate and we take no interest in it. [Interjections.]

As far as the Senthimula and Kutama area is concerned, there are two points I want to mention. Whatever the merit of the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Manpower with regard to this matter and of the announcement subsequently made by the Government, there are two aspects which I find disturbing. The one is that it seems to me that the dominant role played by the Commission for Co-operation and Development in the past with regard to the allocation and acquisition of land is in danger, in this kind of situation, of being superseded by other considerations and, perhaps, personalities.

We know the Commission for Co-operation and Development and we have often disagreed with the methods employed by the commission. Hon. members will know that during the deliberations on the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development we voiced our doubt concerning information given to us to the effect that the Blacks and sometimes even White farmers had been properly consulted and had agreed to removal. I also want to say that I find it regrettable that the Select Committee did not give us the opportunity to have people give evidence before us, since we had bona fide evidence available to us that the information we had been given was not correct. However, I shall leave the matter at that.

Over the years, we have come to know the commission as a body which is primarily concerned with the implementation of this legislation. It would be regrettable if a situation were to be created in which this commission were perhaps to be by-passed, in whatever way, as far as these matters are concerned. There is a second point as well. According to my interpretation of the legislation, any material change concerning the setting aside of land has to be effected by means of a resolution of Parliament, and Parliament will act on the basis of a report of the Select Committee on Co-operation and Development. I regret to say that I get the impression that this procedure has not been followed in respect of some of these recommendations. I shall leave the matter with the hon. the Deputy Minister, but I feel that it is an important principle which is at stake here, namely that before such recommendations as some of these come before this House, they should be referred to the Select Committee. I should be very glad to have the hon. the Deputy Minister’s comment on this. I regret that under these circumstances, we cannot support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I was very sorry to hear some of the sentiments voiced by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. In a sense one can understand it, but I do think he said some things which were not altogether in agreement with his personal views. The hon. member for Newton Park asked him a question which he evaded. I want to repeat the question. The first major criticism which he voiced—it was mentioned by the hon. member for Berea in the Second Reading debate as well—is the question of fragmentation. Now the hon. members of the official Opposition must tell us what difference there is in principle between this Bill and the principal Act of 1980, since this Bill only changes the schedules. For what reason will they be voting against this Bill on the basis of fragmentation, while they supported the principal Act, which actually did exactly the same thing as this Bill is doing, only on a larger sacle? The hon. members owe us a reply to that. We shall not be angry with them if they have changed their minds, but then they must say that they have changed their minds. Then they must not simply discuss the matter in a vacuum here without going back to the origins of the principal Act.

A second idea expressed by the hon. member—I just want to comment briefly on a few matters, because I still have three important points I want to make myself—was that the Black States were taking independence because they wanted to get away from discrimination. In a certain sense this may be part of the truth, but then we must not be angry about it. After all, this is also the motive of the Government and of this side of the House, in all honesty and sincerity, i.e. that we want to get away from discrimination, and this is part of the method of getting away from it, therefore. This is the motive on this side as well. Then surely we are ad idem. Surely we both want to get rid of discrimination in this connection. I am not saying that this is a final solution to all problems. That I am not suggesting.

A third point mentioned by the hon. member was that his party did not object to the transfer of land to Blacks, and that in fact they supported the 1936 Act and wanted to implement it, but that they could not implement it when it was associated with the idea of independence, with the idea of the creation of new independent national States. Once again I concede to him, from the point of view of his philosophy, that the model he advocates is a unitary State. However, there are many other points in respect of which the hon. member will have to concede that they contain positive aspects which the hon. member does not want to give us credit for. When he speaks about fragmentation and about the transfer of land upon the attainment of independence, surely it implies the idea of a devolution of power, the idea of decentralization, which actually forms part of those hon. members’ philosophy, too, when they label their own policy as being one of federation. In terms of their own policy—and I do not wish to discuss it in detail, because I do not think it would be correct to do so in this debate—they actually believe in a unitary system, and the same principles are simply passed on to a system of decentralization. The federation in terms of that party’s standpoint is not a prerequisite for the functioning of the model they advocate. The hon. member also made the point here—this is part of their objection—that people lose their citizenship in terms of this legislation. That is not correct. This legislation has got nothing to do with citizenship as such. Therefore I do not consider it justified that he should mention this as a separate criticism.

The hon. member raised a very interesting fifth point, namely the recommendation of the Tomlinson Commission and the idea that communal ownership should be phased out in favour of private ownership. He said that we should have the matter examined by experts. I also want to urge that the matter be investigated by experts, and I shall come back to this when I discuss the effect of this legislation. I do not wish to go into the details and to get involved in a Committee Stage debate on Senthimula and Kutama again. However, I think it is necessary to point out to the hon. member that when the decisions are taken here in Parliament, the actual removal should be undertaken by the executive. I submit that the executive approaches these removals with very great circumspection and compassion. This is a tendency which has not always been as strong as it has been of late. I shall come back to this.

To me, the significance of the Bill which is before the House is to be found in three key points which I think we may all take cognizance of. The first one is that we are engaged in a process of creating greater certainty and reaffirming it, in three spheres. In the first place, we are still carrying out the promises made by Parliament in 1936. We are still pursuing that course and we shall continue to pursue it. A second sphere in which we are creating certainty is in giving effect to international agreements. I am referring specifically to Ciskei. We have before us a Bill submitted by the Cabinet in order to give effect to our undertaking to Ciskei. In the third place, we are creating certainty by giving effect to a process of decentralization of management, decentralization on an optimum basis and not on a absolute basis.

A second key point concerning the effect of this legislation relates to the transfer of wealth from White to Black. I think this is something to which we are not giving our full attention. This is an extremely important point which we shall have to discuss in detail in due course. Here again I want to endorse what was said by the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

The hon. member for Berea said in his Second Reading speech that if we carried on in this way—he categorized it as fragmentation—there would be an on-going process of demands for land. Surely this is not a novel idea. When I say that we should investigate the matter in detail, it concerns more than just land. It concerns an on-going process of demands for the transfer of wealth. It is an on-going process aimed at escaping from poverty. We shall have to take cognizance of this to a far greater extent than we have up to now. The hon. member for Berea also said in his speech that to Black people, land was associated with numerical strength and political power. I believe that he is wrong. I honestly do not think these are the primary considerations. That they may in a certain sense be by-products in terms of the tribal idea is most probably true. But primarily, they associate land with wealth, and then—I want to emphasize this point very strongly— not wealth in the way in which we experience it. Land is part of their culture. It is the basis of their existence. To them, wealth includes not only the material things, but all aspects of our existence, including the extended family concept, the caring for one another. We shall have to reflect very seriously on the meaning which land has for them.

The there is the idea of the hon. member Prof. Olivier, an idea which has also been mentioned by the hon. member for King William’s Town, namely that we must give serious consideration to the ownership of land. Here, I think, the hon. member for King William’s Town, whom I hold in very high esteem, used an unfortunate choice of words which has not received much publicity. The hon. member argued that we should move in the direction of a single value system. I want to warn against this approach. In the first place, it is a form of cultural imperialism. If we do not try to reconcile different value systems in this country, we have no hope of succeeding. If we try to move in the direction of a single value system, we are going to lose. I want to advocate—in fact, I believe this is in line with modern approaches to economic development—that we should indeed institute that indepth inquiry, that we should appoint commissions, and that we should do whatever is necessary for the optimum utilization of land, and that this should be done on a basis of economic development. In doing so, however, we should not go all the way and force or try to force upon them a system of private ownership which would destroy the very foundations of their culture. As I have already said, land is the basis of their entire existence and culture.

The third key point which I consider to be significant in this legislation is the fact that there is a new tendency, to which I have already referred briefly. This is the tendency to be much more compassionate in our approach to the implementation of these measures, the removal of people; the tendency in which the approach is followed—and we see this in the repeal of decisions as well; precious decisions by the commission and by the Cabinet—that we should no longer take into consideration only the interests of the Whites. White interests are not paramount in this country. In fact, White interests in South Africa will be of no significance if they have not been reconciled with the interests of everyone in this country. I believe that we should take cognisance of the fact that the Cabinet is trying more and more—and this side of the House is giving its full support to the attempt—to obtain consensus, to come to an agreement about what would best serve the interests of Blacks as well as Whites. I am worried about the language we hear from the hon. members of the CP. Here I am thinking in particular of concepts used by the hon. members for Pietersburg and Barberton. They talk, for example, about badly situated Black spots. In talking about this, we should ask ourselves in what respect they are badly situated. Are they badly situated simply because they do not suit the Whites, or are they badly situated because they are not in the best interests of the Blacks? We must also take cognisance of several other factors associated with this. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred, for example, to the cost aspect, to the fact that money can be much better utilised in the interests of people by not moving people over a distance of 11 km, for example, but by causing an infrastructure to be developed there instead.

This brings me to another idea. The hon. member for Lichtenburg spoke about consolidation. During the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein he said by way of interjection that we would have to consolidate wherever we could. He actually said that we should consolidate wherever we could. I want to know from him what criterion he is using when he says that we should consolidate wherever we can. Does he look at money? Does he look at the physical possibilities? At the back of his mind, is he perhaps toying with the idea of violence as a way of restricting removal? What is the hon. member working with? [Interjections.]

A good speech, Wynand!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sunnyside should just keep quiet for a while. Perhaps I am indeed making a good speech, as the hon. member for Jeppe has just remarked. Perhaps that is why they are making such a noise at the moment. We really must proceed with the process of consolidation, in the interests of economic development, but also in the interests of human development, however, we should not do this on the basis of what is physically possible, taking that to be our norm. We should take for our norm the interests of all who are involved—White and Black. In any event, that criterion is not an absolute one. That criterion is going to vary according to circumstances, and also according to the situation surrounding the specific case.

There is one final point I want to emphasize very strongly. The really significant thing, as has been apparent from this debate, and as the hon. the Deputy Minister has very clearly indicated, is that there is a movement towards ascertaining what is really in the best interests of South Africa, of all its people, White and Black, when we are dealing with matters of this nature.

Mr. Speaker, the CP will support the Third Reading of this Bill because we are in favour of consolidation and of separate territories for the various peoples, and also because we believe that land is the foundation or cornerstone of separate freedoms in Southern Africa. Therefore we are in favour of measures which are taken to bring about consolidation, as has been done in the past. It is the standpoint of this party that there are a few criteria in connection with consolidation by which one’s actions can be judged.

Let me mention the first and most important one. We believe that consolidation should be such that the maximum number of people of each population group should be able to live in their own country where they can then be governed by their own Government. I think this is the most important criterion of all. When one takes this criterion of numbers, one sees that it has a positive correlation with quite a number of other criteria. It has a positive correlation with economic development, for if there is no economic development, one cannot accommodate the maximum number of people. It has a positive correlation with the existence of jobs, for if there are no jobs for the people, one cannot accommodate the maximum number of people. In certain cases, this criterion of numbers has a negative correlation with the creation of geographic units, for in certain cases—for example, Bophuthatswana—the position is that if some of its areas which are not contiguous with others are exchanged for land elsewhere, one cannot accommodate the maximum number of people within that community. Therefore it is our standpoint that there should be a balance. Naturally, the ideal is the fullest possible consolidation, but there has to be a balance between this ideal and the practical reality of the numbers of people who have to be settled in such areas. That is why I think that the Government has made a mistake with Senthimula and Katuma. I am absolutely convinced of it. A few things are being abandoned here, and the first of these is the ideal of a Venda which has been consolidated into one geographic unit. This is being abandoned. Just before Venda became independent, negotiations were still proceeding, and additional land was obtained beyond Elim in order to consolidate Venda into one unit. However, that ideal is being abandoned now. This area does not adjoin the rest of Venda, however, and it will not be easy to consolidate it. It is actually impossible. Because this area is also at a distance from the railway connections which will eventually have to be provided in Venda at great expense, it is not in the interests of the development of Venda that this area should be separate from it. The commission has already indicated that if the compensatory land were added to Venda, that territory would then adjoin a railway line, which could then assist in its development and which would also affect the number of people who could be settled in Venda. In this case, numbers and consolidation would have coincided and one could have achieved both objectives.

I have only a minute or two left, and I should like to conclude my remarks. I do not wish to continue the brotherly exchange we had yesterday, but there is one thing which the hon. the Deputy Minister said to which I should like to refer. He said—

From this I infer that separate reports on Senthimula and Kutama were submitted to the Cabinet by the commission before 7 July.

On Venda.

On Venda, or on Senthimula and Kutama. Am I right in saying that there was a separate report? [Interjections] But then the hon. the Deputy Minister made a big mistake, because he said that the report in Beeld was the only accurate one. Let us see, however, what it says in the report in Beeld.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before we adjourned for dinner, I was dealing with the question of the investigation with regard to Senthimula and Kutama. I reminded the hon. the Deputy Minister of what he had said yesterday, i.e. that the commission had submitted the rest of the proposals for consolidation to the Cabinet on the 19th. In other words, the commission submitted the recommendations on Senthimula and Kutama to the Cabinet before the 19th, and the Cabinet took a final decision on the basis of those recommendations. On the 19th, when the hon. the Deputy Minister was interviewed by newspapers in his capacity as chairman of the commission at that time, he said the following, according to Beeld—according to him this is an accurate version—

He said that he did not expect the Cabinet to deal with the proposals in detail that very day. He went on to say—

He also said—

The proposals were not final. The hon. the Minister of Manpower, the former NP for that area, had announced final proposals on the 7th. However, the chairman of the commission said that the proposals of the 7th were not final. He also stated that the proposals relating to Kangwane and the situation of Kangwane would be accorded priority and the situation of Venda would not. The hon. the Deputy Minister says that the commission submitted the proposals. As chairman of the commission, surely he must have been aware of the fact that the commission had already submitted proposals, and that it was not only Kangwane that was being accorded priority, but Venda as well. However, he contradicted this in his statement. He said that the proposals in respect of Venda were not final and he also omitted to say that they had priority.

Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister said with regard to the role of the commission—

I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister who actually conducted this investigation.

But he is a senior Minister.

Yes, he is a senior Minister.

What is the problem, then?

The hon. member must contain himself. He will never understand the matter. I am talking to the hon. the Deputy Minister. The hon. member can go and ask the hon. the Deputy Minister afterwards what the problem is in this connection. The hon. the Deputy Minister said yesterday that the hon. the Minister of Manpower was a senior Minister, after all, and a person who knew that area very well. We asked who had conducted this investigation, to which the hon. the Deputy Minister replied that is was the hon. the Minister of Manpower. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister who conducted this investigation. Was it conducted by the commission and was the hon. member unaware of it, or did it slip his memory when he was making the statement, or was it the hon. the Minister of Manpower, a senior Minister, who had the right to conduct the investigation by virtue of his seniority? Is it the position that the commission no longer plays a role when it comes to the constituency of a senior Minister? What policy is being followed now? When it comes to a senior Minister, the commission is out of the picture. Then the Minister conducts the investigation himself.

It is for the Cabinet to decide about that.

Yes, very well. I am asking: How does the Cabinet decide? Who conducts the investigation in that case?

But you should know. You were there, after all.

No, when I was there, the commission conducted all these investigations, including those in the constituencies of senior Ministers. Since my departure, however, it is no longer being done by the commission in the constituency of a senior Minister. Now I want to know: In the constituencies of which Ministers, above which degree of seniority, are the investigations no longer being conducted by the commission? Can this junior Minister who is sitting here conduct investigations himself, or can he not? Must the commission do it for him? [Interjections.]

Order!

Can he conduct his own investigations, or can only senior Ministers do that? After all, the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that there is a farm in the Western Transvaal called Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein. It seems to me that here, too, an attempt is being made to shoot two buffaloes with one shot. The Minister and the commission cannot both undertake these investigations. Perhaps we should change it into Tweebuffelsmet eenskootmorsdoodgesksietfontein agterdierooilyn. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Deputy Minister should indicate to us the degree of seniority which a Minister has to possess in order to be able to undertake investigations in his constituency himself and to be able to make announcements himself. [Interjections.]

Order!

As a senior member of the CP, I now want to inquire of the hon. the Deputy Minister: Is he going to allow me to conduct investigations myself, too, and in so doing to by-pass the commission? [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he knows perfectly well that I know much more about these matters than any senior Minister in the Cabinet. Is he going to allow me to undertake the investigation myself? But we are not being serious now. The serious side of the matter is this: The commission is an unbiased body, an unprejudiced body which hears evidence from all interested parties. And the problem is that an MP— I am not questioning the integrity of any MP, including myself—has other interests in his constituency. He has people who vote for him and people who do not vote for him. For that reason, it is not a good thing that an investigation should be conducted by an MP who has an interest in the people whose evidence he has to hear. The evidence concerning consolidation that has to be heard must be unbiased, and all the people, whether or not they vote for the Government, and whether or not they are the MP’s friends, should have access to an objective body which does not have an interest in the people of that constituency and which is able to bring out an unbiased report. [Interjections.] The Deputy Minister said two things yesterday. He said that the Minister had conducted an investigation and he also said that the commission had conducted an investigation. When he was giving the interview, however, he was not aware of the commission’s investigation. At that stage he said that all the proposals had been submitted the day before and that no final decision had yet been taken about them.

And for this reason I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that this is a serious matter. The consolidation of the Black States is of crucial importance for the survival of all peoples of South Africa. Therefore we cannot allow the matter to be dealt with in this way. We cannot allow MPs or senior Ministers to be enabled to promote their own personal interests by undertaking investigations and then reporting to the Cabinet, which has to take a decision on the matter, while the body that has been appointed for this purpose is unaware of this and is also unaware of the nature of the proposals that have been made.

Mr. Speaker, we support this legislation, because it affects the most important aspect of politics in South Africa, namely homes for the various peoples, but I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that he must not expect the CP to condone such behaviour as this. We shall fight it and we shall expose it, and he must expect us to demand of him that the matter be dealt with objectively and through the proper channels and that all interested parties be consulted in the matter.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to certain aspects in connection with the finalization of critical areas involved in this legislation in respect of Ciskei and particularly in respect of valuations. In certain cases we are dealing with valuations and in others with revaluations. I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply to indicate what sort of target time he envisages in respect of valuations and revaluations as well as in regard to the speedy purchase of these properties.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister knows, the question of valuations in regard to this immense problem falls into two categories. The first of these is in respect of the time that elapses between valuation and purchase in the second is in respect of people who are not satisfied with their offers, who request revaluation and who then find themselves in an extremely difficult and invidious position. I should like to make a few points in this regard because there is in fact a great deal of dissatisfaction in regard to revaluations. A person literally puts himself out on a limb when he decides on revaluation. These people are very much in the minority and they find themselves influenced by various factors, one of which is the economic climate. It would appear that in a worsening economic climate the values, the offers and the stringency of the application of the values offered are applied more strictly than when there may perhaps be more money around. In the second instance, revaluations are very often undertaken in a most unsatisfactory manner in that very little time is spent in making that revaluation. One has to put oneself in the position of the landowner who had a thorough valuation of his land made in the first place. He turned the offer made to him down and is then faced in some cases with only an hour or even less in the execution of a second valuation. This certainly does not inculcate in his mind any sense of fairness in regard to the review of that valuation because he finds himself really backed into a corner. These are points that I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with in his reply. He is well aware that in this particular area the circumstances in which people find themselves are extremely difficult from an economic point of view in respect of the values of their properties, future purchases and, in fact, everything that goes with consolidation.

On this point I should just like to ask the hon. member for Albany whether in fact within the attitude adopted by his party he sees the people affected by the Ciskeian element in this Bill being able to remain where they are. I think that the impact of this legislation is such that it will bring about a situation in which some degree of finalization will have to be effected in respect of people who find themselves in extremely difficult circumstances. The PFP have in fact voted against help being given to those people and yet the position is such that as a result of their representations those hon. members will have to approach the Government to expedite the purchase of these properties. I understand that it is the duty of that party to act as it sees fit and that it has taken the stand it has on principle. However, what about the other principals involved in this legislation in regard to which the hon. members of that party and ourselves have taken a stand viz. in respect of removal for socio-economic reasons on a far different basis to that on which the Government is today conducting those removals? Here we have a situation where removals have been stopped and are not taking place and, in fact, that party did not vote for it. I think it involves the Venda area. Here is an area where there are no longer going to be removals and yet the PFP have seen fit to vote against the very thing that they have been fighting for for a long time. [Interjections.] Whilst we are dealing with this matter, I think the explanation in respect of the national States and homelands given by the official Opposition this evening is not the full story. When they were asked how they would finalize boundaries, the answer was that they do not work on a racial basis. I would ask the PFP whether they can foresee any State in South Africa willingly changing its boundaries unless such a change is to its advantage in a situation of the national convention which they indicate. Can they see a national State saying: Oh yes, that is quite all right; we shall change the boundaries to suit the new federal arrangement. Does the PFP not think that those national States will stick to what they have and try to bargain for more? If one answers logically then obviously they will definitely stand by what they have, and then one is talking about States populated on an ethnic basis.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he admits that the change of boundaries between the Cape Province and Natal in regard to East Griqualand was perfectly amiably done?

We are talking about the fact that those federal States envisaged by the PFP—they must acknowledge it, recognize it and indicate it to the public outside this House—will be populated by ethnic groups. There is no possibility of those people in a geographic federation giving up the boundaries which they have presently.

But they are all citizens of South Africa. [Interjections.]

The population content of those areas will be the different groups which they comprise now. There is no way those people are going to bargain away anything they have; they will bargain for more. [Interjections.]

What I want to lead on to from that point, is that we have a situation with which one has to deal from where we are now. The NRP finds itself in the position that we can agree with many of the remarks and much of the sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South in respect of the usage of land, but the position in those areas is such that there is no alternative but to proceed with the acquisition of this land because the circumstances surrounding those farms are absolutely untenable. They cannot possibly stop the process now. That is an argument which I should like the hon. member when he speaks on behalf of his party to put clearly to this House. He should tell us clearly how he sees that those people who are in that position, brought about by the Government, can be extricated from that situation by the PFP voting against the legislation. He knows that it is absolutely a fait accompli. [Interjections.] Yes, one has to deal with a practical problem in a practical way. The situation is that the PFP votes against extricating farmers from a situation created by the Government. I must say there is nothing for the Government to get excited about—it is a Verwoerdian nightmare. It is a can of worms which they wish they have never opened. They find themselves in a circumstance where they have to continue to bring it to some form of finality.

With your help.

With practical help in order to bring about a situation which is livable with. The hon. member being a gentleman involved in engineering and commerce, should know that the possibility of bringing industry and investments to that area to provide employment opportunities is stultified and brought to a halt until the finalization of boundaries. The hon. member for Albany knows very well that one of the reasons why there is a tremendous problem with the establishment of industries in those areas is the lack of finality about boundaries.

It is a lack of infrastructure.

We are trying to create infrastructure. The fact is that people-people will not move in there and invest until they have finality about boundaries. That party is impeding the process of bringing finality and security to the area by standing on a principle that holds no water in the current circumstances.

It is all one country …

One can get to that later if one thinks it is going to work but the situation involved in this legislation entails mopping up a big mess made by the Government.

I do hope the hon. the Minister will give a pertinent reply to the question of the period between valuation and purchase. It is terribly important. As the hon. member for Randburg remarked, the question of the removal and relocation of people is also being aproached in a new spirit. I hope that the questions of valuation and the buying out of these people will equally be approached in a far better and more planned way, particularly in the closing stages when finality has been reached about certain areas.

Lastly I should like to say that this legislation is about land usage and future constitutional arrangements between the peoples of South Africa and their plurality. It is also about urbanization and a great many terribly important matters. We certainly do not believe that consolidation solves these. Nor do we believe that access to the common economy of South Africa as a whole is brought about by this legislation. We do believe, however, that we have to get on with the job and get this behind us so that we can get to the next step of putting South Africa together again in a meaningful and proper confederation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for King William’s Town ended his speech by referring to what this legislation is all about.

*That is where I want to begin my speech. I wish to commence by saying what this Bill is in fact about. This Bill concerns the addition of land to, or the adjustment of the borders of, independent States. When we speak of independent States we must realize that we must speak with respect of the imperium, the sovereignty, of these independent States. When agreements are entered into with independent States, we must carry out these agreements not only to the letter but also in the spirit of that agreement. I say this because that concept is the basis of international law. That is the only basis on which the comity of nations can in fact exist. I therefore repeat that when agreements are entered into with independent states like Britain and France, hon. members will agree that breaking such an agreement may have the gravest consequences for a nation. When I say this with reference to the independent States, I say that we must see to it that the creation of the independent States and the extension of borders will form part of the process which the NP has initiated, which will culminate in bilateral agreements, a confederation and also a constellation. The creation of this constellation, which is one of the highest ideals of this party, demands the utmost bona fides in our conduct vis-à-vis the future partners in that constellation, The attitude adopted to the independent States must therefore be such that one will be able to maintain good relations with them in future, and in that way be in a position to create a peaceful Southern Africa with a potential for development and peace.

Having said this, I should now like to refer to the official Opposition. In col. 581 of last year’s Hansard the hon. member for Berea said that the PFP was opposed to independent states. If words have meaning and the PFP state that they are opposed to independent States, one asks oneself what is the attitude of the PFP towards these independent States. How does the PFP, as a possible alternative Government, imagine that it will be able to preserve peace in this Southern African continent if they are per se opposed to independent States? To judge by the facts it seems that they curse the day these States became independent. The point at issue here is in fact the extension of borders. It is not the process whereby territories become independent. It is not fragmentation, because we are not speaking of independence. We are speaking of the extension of borders. Now one asks oneself: Why is the PFP opposed to this? The argument of fragmentation does not hold water. They may be opposed to this legislation on humanist or moral grounds. One moral ground may be that the State itself did not want independence. However, the facts show that that assumption is incorrect. Or on the basis of moral standards, they could say that the Black States cannot govern themselves in the best interests of their own citizens. That is understandable, but the problem in that regard is that they have never yet accused any independent State of not being able to do so. Therefore the issue becomes a little more difficult. If it is neither on moral nor on humanist grounds, on what grounds are they opposed to it? Is it not perhaps a matter of the control of the wealth of the independent Black national States? This attitude on the part of the official Opposition, this paternalistic superciliousness is the greatest insult that one … [Interjections.]

Order!

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I find it a little difficult sometimes, with all these interjections. The fact of the matter is that the Black leaders regard it as a tremendous insult when it is said that they are not sufficiently competent to govern themselves. Due to the basis on which the PFP argues about this legislation, they are placing South Africa in the greatest danger imaginable and I think it is time that their voters take cognizance of this attitude.

The second point advanced by the official Oppositfon is that basically, these States will in any event remain economically dependent. This is nothing new to us on this side. The standpoint of this party, the NP, has been over the years that we believe in political independence and economic interdependence. This is nothing strange to us. If those hon. members have only realized this now, then it is time for them to wake up. However, the policy of the NP is different in the following respect: While the policy of the PFP will ensure that they will not grant political independence to States and those States will accordingly not obtain autonomy over their own economies, the policy of the NP will ensure that States become politically independent and that they become as autonomous as possible economically. That is the policy of the NP.

I have now referred to hon. members of the official Opposition. I now wish to refer briefly to hon. members of the CP as well. [Interjections] The hon. member for Pietersburg contends that he is sceptical about every border adjustment between Whites and Blacks in the Northern Transvaal. He is therefore sceptical about all border adjustments with Venda, Lebowa, the Ndebele, and Gazankulu. He is sceptical about all those border adjustments. Therefore this means that he is also sceptical about the concept of consolidation. Surely that is what that amounts to, if words have any meaning. If it is true … [Interjections.]

You are looking for trouble.

The hon. member can say that I am looking for trouble. [Interjections.] I am only saying that if … [Interjections.]

Order!

All I can say to this, Mr. Speaker, is that the hon. member for Pietersburg has never really been a Nationalist at heart. [Interjections.] After all, we in the NP are not sceptical about consolidation. We are positive about it. I want us to understand one another fully in this regard. On top of that, hon. members of the CP have the absolute audacity to contend that they have taken the policy of the NP with them. In the meantime, however, they are sceptical about consolidation.

However, I want to advance a second point. In this regard I want to refer to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. In fact the hon. member for Lichtenburg based his major argument on procedure. He is therefore a man for procedure. I want to put it to him that the matter relating to Kutama and Senthimula has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Venda is divided in two in accordance with that hon. member’s own philosophy. However, I want to refer to what the hon. member for Lichtenburg said in 1975. Perhaps he has changed his opinion in the mean time. In 1975 he said in this House that it was not a prerequisite that a country should consist of one unified territory to be viable and a true and contented fatherland for its citizens. That is what the hon. member for Lichtenburg himself said in this House. In the first place, therefore, viability is definitely not an issue here.

But man, I explained carefully to you what I meant.

Thank you for nothing. The hon. member for Lichtenburg would do well to listen to me now. While he was talking I sat quietly and listened to him. Therefore the issue, in the case of Kutama and Senthimula, is not one of viability. Nor is it the true and happy fatherland which the hon. member spoke of in 1975. It has nothing to do with that whatsoever. I wonder, then, whether one should not perhaps ask the right question at this point? Is the following not perhaps the correct question to ask with regard to Kutama and Senthimula? Is it in conflict with the interests of the Black people that they should remain in Kutama and Senthimula? Is it in conflict with their interests?

The second question is whether it is in conflict with the interests of the Whites that the Soekmekaar region be made a White area.

No.

Now, therefore, the hon. member no longer says yes.

In any event, that area has already been purchased.

Mr. Speaker, I am asking the hon. member a question. I ask him whether it is in the interests of the Whites that that area be made a White area. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the hon. member whether it is in their interests. If the hon. member does not wish to reply to me now, then I do not want to compel him to do so. However, the point at issue is whether these are not the two questions that we should indeed ask. After all, it is the effect of this action that should be considered. However, the hon. member for Lichtenburg is concerned about the procedure.

I now wish to go further. I wish to put a question to the hon. member relating to the procedure that was followed. In passing, the hon. member had a great deal to say about the procedure. I want to know from him whether the provisions of any Act were infringed by the procedure followed. I merely ask the question. All I want to know is whether the answer is yes or no. It seems to me as if the hon. member does not know, Mr. Speaker. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am merely putting a question to the hon. member for Lichtenburg. The hon. member’s reply must, of course, be that no law was broken. No law was broken.

I now come to my second question. Was the Cabinet empowered to take the decision that they did in fact take?

In any event, they took the wrong decision.

That is not the answer to my question. I asked whether the Cabinet was empowered to take that decision.

Yes.

Of course the Cabinet was empowered to take that decision. Or does the hon. member wish to argue that they did something illegal, something immoral? No, that is surely not so. [Interjections.] The third question is: Is any Minister—including the hon. the Minister sitting there—entitled to make an announcement on behalf of the Cabinet. [Interjections.] We must not now come and say that the hon. the Minister is not the MP either. We know that. My question relates to a Minister … [Interjections.] … and not necessarily a senior Minister. Forget about that argument, because it is a specious argument. [Interjections.] My question is: Can an hon. Minister make an announcement on behalf of the Cabinet? [Interjections.] Of course, it is an old tactic in law that if one has a poor case one attacks the procedure. [Interjections.] We looked at the result.

What do the surveyors say?

I asked two questions about this piece of legislation. Firstly: Is it in the interest of the Blacks? My second question is: Is it in the interest of the Whites?

Only in the interests of one.

I now just wish to ask briefly: What does this Bill do? Let us briefly consider the actual purpose of the legislation. It gives effect to solemn agreements entered into between independent States for whose imperium we must have respect. [Interjections.] The legislation only gives effect to the agreements. As far as Bophuthatswana is concerned, for example, we say that certain farms were left out by mistake. [Interjections.] What is wrong with that? [Interjections.] Let us argue a little. In the opening words of the Second Reading speech by the hon. the Deputy Minister it is stated that joint negotiations with Venda took place concerning Senthimula and Kutama. Are we now no longer to honour those negotiations? Is that what those hon. members is saying? Let us, then, discuss the Ciskei. We have added land to the Ciskei as part of meaningful consolidation based on agreements.

What, then, does a vote against this legislation mean? I ask the official Opposition that. What does an opposing vote mean? It means that we hold the independent States in such contempt that we say that the agreements entered into are not worth the paper they are written on. That is contempt.

[Inaudible ]

In the second place, we show contempt for the integrity of this Government with regard to the fact that it has to keep its word. [Interjections.] That is the second aspect. The agreements entered into must be upheld and honoured. [Interjections.] I therefore wish to conclude by saying that by way of this legislation the NP is promoting security. We say that these are the schedules that any person may peruse to determine where the borders lie. That is a tremendous advantage. However, that is not all. We are also engaged in promoting the process that leads to confederation, to bilateral agreement …

To integration.

That hon. member has never understood where the NP is heading. [Interjections.] Therefore the people who feel that the Whites and Black people have a future in this country, both jointly and individually—in other words, that we are politically separate from one another but that we are economically interdependent— must take the hand of the NP and, as we say, go forward without fear!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pretoria West launched an attack on this party, and the main thrust of his attack was that the hon. member for Berea, in his speech, was alleged to have said that he was against independent States. The hon. member for Pretoria West knows that he is quoting the hon. member for Berea out of context, because what the hon. member for Berea said was that he was against fragmentation of South Africa into independent States, and those are two very different things.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member entitled to say that I know that I quoted the hon. member for Berea incorrectly? I referred him to Hansard, col. 581.

Order! What did the hon. member say?

I said he quoted it out of context.

The hon. member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. The reason why we are opposed to the fragmentation of South Africa into these independent States is because it does not solve our political problems. It never has and it never will. The reason for that is that land is a zero sum commodity. The more we have, the less they have and the more they have the less we have. Therefore there is a built-in conflict situation. The hon. member should then go further and tell us the logical conclusion of the policy of partition. He must then tell us who ultimately will control the wealth of South Africa. If the wealth of South Africa continues to be controlled by the Whites, then this conflict will continue.

The NP will.

The hon. member says the NP will continue to control the wealth of South Africa. That is why we will continue in a conflict situation and why we will never solve our problems.

The hon. member for Randburg raised certain questions in his speech to which I would like to respond. He asked if it was consistent of us to support the original 1980 Act and then to oppose this one. However, what the hon. member for Randburg did not add was that in the 1980 Act reference was made to specific land in a schedule attached to that Act. I have looked at the Bill before us and I cannot find any reference in the 1980 Act to this land to which we are now being referred.

But it is all quota land.

We have made it clear that we are prepared to support our obligations in terms of the 1936 Act, but we cannot approve of legislation which continues to fragment the country ad infinitum. I want to ask the hon. member for Randburg where this process is going to stop. Can the hon. member for Randburg tell us that next year the Government will not come to the House with more legislation asking for more bits and pieces of the country to be lopped off and added to independent States? [Interjections.] It all goes back to the same question which was raised by the hon. member for Pretoria West, namely that land is a zero sum commodity. As long as we persist in trying to solve our political problems by cutting off bits and pieces of land, we will never get to the real basis of the problem in this country which is a political one.

The hon. member for Randburg also spoke of consistency and raised the question of discrimination in South Africa—I hope I am quoting him correctly. He claimed that part of the result of this legislation would be that discrimination would ultimately be removed. When we talk of consistency I want to ask the hon. member if creating independent States and thereby creating foreign citizens out of the inhabitants of those States, is going to remove discrimination? If I were to bring into the Parliamentary building an American, a foreigner, I would be allowed to do so, not so? He is a foreigner, I may bring him in and I may take him to lunch. I should like to ask the hon. member for Randburg if my guest happened to be a Black American whether I would still be allowed to take him for lunch. The hon. member nods his head. I am glad about that. I now want to ask him, if that guest of mine happens to be a Black Ciskeian, would I still be allowed to take him for lunch?

No.

How then will this legislation help to remove discrimination? The reason why the Black Ciskeian will not be allowed into the dining room of Parliament is because he is Black. There is no other reason. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for King William’s Town seeks to hold this party responsible for the mess in which we find ourselves and he asked us what we are going to do to mop up the mess. It is not the duty of this party to mop up the mess in which the Government has landed us. What we are arguing about here, is a question of principle. We are not arguing about matters in particular, but about matters of principle. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to address the House.

If the hon. member for King William’s Town is here next year and this Government introduces another Bill, couched in precisely the same terms as this Bill, in terms of which King William’s Town is to be made part of the Ciskei, would he then still support it?

Of course not. [Interjections.]

What is the difference? It is a matter of principle. Does the hon. member think that the people of Kidd’s Beach, who are being asked to give up their farms, feel any less about their farms and about having to get out than the people of King William’s Town would?

How would you like to stay there now?

I am sure they would all like to stay there, but not now, since certain processes have been set in motion. That is, however, not our present problem. We are talking about a question of principle, and the hon. member for King William’s Town knows it.

Are you prepared to give the farm Sukses to Ciskei? [Interjections.]

Can the hon. gentleman explain what farm he is referring to?

Your fellow-party member wanted to give it to Ciskei. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I honestly cannot make out what the hon. the Deputy Minister is talking about.

One of the legs of our argument in not supporting this particular Bill was the destruction of natural resources, which would be the consequence of this particular policy. It is a consequence which this country can ill afford. We have limited agricultural resources and we can not afford this kind of destruction of our assets.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North raised the matter of the Kidd’s Beach/ Chalumna area and he referred to the thousands, the tens of thousands, of Blacks from Mooiplaas, from Kwelega and from Newlands who were destined to be resettled there. He then went on to speak of the inevitable destruction of good productive farmland which these closed settlements will bring about. He objected to this in the strongest terms. The hon. the Deputy Minister then attacked both the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South and myself most angrily. He claimed that neither of us knew what we were talking about, that we were talking nonsense and that we were wasting the time of the House by raising this matter. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister was having a bad day. What I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is this: Does that mean that the people of Mooiplaas, Kwelega and Newlands are no longer going to be moved to the Kidd’s Beach/Chalumna area? Before he answers that, I want to refer him to something in order to make it easier for him.

Neither Mooiplaas nor Kwelega were discussed; Kidd’s Beach was discussed. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister should check his Hansard. I want to refer him to questions 618, 619 and 620 of last year, in which I asked specifically whether or not these communities were going to be moved and, if they were going to be moved, into which area they were going to be moved. I was given the specific answer that Kidd’s Beach/Chalumna was to be the new area for their settlement. Now, when we raise this matter, we are told that we are speaking rubbish. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain why we were then given that particular answer.

The hon. the Deputy Minister then went on to talk about the existing squatter camp at Kidd’s Beach. I can only presume that he is talking about the camp known as Tswele-Tswele, which is situated on the farm Rosendal. The hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the 800 families which were living in Tswele-Tswele, and he became very angry, because he seemed to think that we had claimed that these people had come from Mooiplaas. That is not so. We never claimed that these people had come from Mooiplaas. But, Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister then went on to stir up a real hornet’s nest, because what he said was that these people had been forced off White farms because they had supported the referendum. Mr. Speaker, what rubbish! Let me tell the hon. the Deputy Minister where they came from. They are the consequence of 20 years of this Government’s policy of forcing unemployed families off White farms and out of White towns. I want to refer the hon. member to a very comprehensive survey of Tswele-Tswele that has been done by the ISER at Rhodes University. In that 90-page survey there was reference to not one single case of a Black person in Tswele-Tswele who was forced off a White farm because of his having supported the referendum.

Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not know that the Ciskeian Government is claiming R10 million from the South African Government to move Tswele-Tswele?

Where do you get that from?

I have my sources, Sir.

I challenge the hon. member to lay his proof on the Table of this House.

They are demanding this money because they claim that Tswele-Tswele developed as a direct result of the actions of the Deputy Minister’s own official at East London. [Interjections.] They claim that the Commissioner at East London was the one who allegedly sent these people to Tswele-Tswele. Therefore, according to the Ciskei Government, it was not the White fanners of that area who caused the people to go to Tswele-Tswele but the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own officials.

According to the ISER report, at least 400 families had settled at Tswele-Tswele before independence, before the White farmers could have had the opportunity of kicking these people off the farms. Whom therefore are we to believe? Are we to believe the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Ciskei Government?

The importance of all this is, of course, the consequences of the policy of the close settlement of land which is due to be handed over under the consolidation proposals. People from Black spots and elsewhere are settled on this productive farmland creating a rural slum before the land is handed over. The homeland then inherits a liability not an asset and is faced with the enormous task either of removing the slum—which the Ciskeian Government now wishes to do in regard to Tswele-Tswele—or developing it. When these slums are situated in an area such as Whittlesea where there is no possible way in which they can develop, then the homeland is faced with the equally impossible task of moving those people yet again to another area. I should like to put this question to the hon. the Deputy Minister: What is going to happen to the rural slums which are bound to develop when the people of Mooiplaas, Newlands and Kwelega are moved into these areas? Will the South African taxpayer once again be presented with a claim by Ciskei to clean up the mess? No one wins under this policy. The community is disrupted, the land is ruined and the taxpayer’s pocket is emptied.

The final point I wish to make concerns the hon. the Deputy Minister’s boast in regard to the richness of the land to which the people are being removed. In this regard he referred particularly to the Stockenström and Victoria East districts. He said that the richness of this land warranted the moving of these crowds of people into these areas. He also named the carrying capacity of the two districts in question. He mentioned one large stock unit for Stockenström and six large stock units or 36 small stock units for Victoria East. I took the trouble to contact the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and was told that for Stockenström, in terms of small stock units there is the possibility of running only one and a half small stock units or one-quarter of what the hon. the Deputy Minister claimed. As far as Victoria East is concerned, instead of 36 small stock units, the figure is only one and a quarter small stock units. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister must really be a little more careful about getting his own facts and figures correct before coming in here with wild accusations and claims directed against this side of the House. This kind of bluster will not serve to hide the consequences of the legislation that we are being asked to pass and which we on this side of the House will oppose.

Mr. Speaker, before replying to the hon. member for Albany, I want to refer to two points raised by the hon. member for Pretoria West.

*The hon. member for Pretoria West had a little difficulty with the terminology. He talked about “constellation” and also about “confederation” and then again about “constellation”. I want to set the hon. member right a little. “Constellation” is the old concept of the NP. That was the old idea. The NP learned for the NRP and now the hon. the Prime Minister talks about confederation … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member for Durban Point the opportunity to make his speech.

The hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development as well as the hon. Deputy Minister also talk about confederation. I have now set the hon. member right. If he always follows our lead he will always be right. The hon. member also talked about certainty in respect of borders. I will deal with this is a few moments because it forms part of what I want to say.

†The hon. member for Albany made certain firm statements. He said that his party and he himself support the 1936 Act and the undertaking given there. He said they would abide by it. He said they had voted for the 1980 legislation because the farms and the areas were detailed in a schedule. I do not know what he means by that because in this Bill every farm is named—there are pages of them. In each clause the specific description of the farms involved is given. If he could read it in the schedule in 1980, why can he not read it in the Bill in 1982? I do not follow his argument there.

Apart from that, he said that he did not want to deal with detail. After having been around with his luncheon guests, he attacked the hon. member for King William’s Town. This is what he said: You are dealing with detail; I want to deal with the principle involved. He then proceeded for the rest of his speech to deal with detailed farms, detailed localities, datailed groups of people and the effect the legislation would have on them. The difference between that hon. member and the hon. member for King William’s Town is that the hon. member for King William’s Town was concerned with the effect of the uncertainty on persons who farm within the areas detailed in the Bill, the areas to be handed over. Those persons’ livelihood is gone and they live in uncertainty. They are waiting to be bought out. They are living in an impossible situation. The hon. member for King William’s Town was concerned about the interests of those farmers. The hon. member for Albany laughs at that because those are White farmers; he was concerned about the Black people who would be affected.

Not true.

Yes, that is what the hon. member was concerned about: Blacks and Coloured people. [Interjections.]

Order!

Let me deal then with the principle. The hon. member Prof. Olivier also spoke of this. He said that his party was “konsekwent”. He said the party was “gebonde aan die beginsels van 1936”. He also talked about the origin of his party—the origin of the party to which he belongs, and the principles on which it was founded. I am very glad that the hon. member for Sea Point is here because I want to deal with the origin of that party and the principles on which it was founded. This is very important: A party which sticks to principles, a party that never changes its principles establishes a moral superiority. It walks round with a halo on its head, the “holier than thou”, the moral party, the party of moral principles. I give full-credit to a party which sticks to its principles right or wrong. I want to refer to the principles this party honours and on which it was established in 1959. The hon. member for Sea Point, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Berea will remember—they were all there— that they attended a congress on 11, 12 and 13 August 1959. They will remember it well because they sat together in a block in the middle of the Bloemfontein City Hall.

That is absolute nonsense.

There were other witnesses. I, for instance, saw a certain gentleman who subsequently became the editor of a newspaper—although he lost the job—hiding behind a pillar in the foyer eavesdropping on members who were speaking. It was an interesting congress, a significant congress.

Which block did you occupy?

I happened to be on the steering committee, watching the intrigue from a point of vantage—and the intrigue came from that side.

Of course you were not a part of it, were you?

A motion was moved at that congress and that motion read as follows—

We heard from both the hon. member Prof. Olivier and the hon. member for Albany about their support for the 1936 legislation.

Finish that resolution.

I will finish it. I am dealing with all three paragraphs of it. Let me deal with this while it is fresh, because by the end of it those hon. members might have new principles. This was the principle of adhering to the 1936 pledge and the 1936 quota. Now, the Bill before us names certain tracts of land and every single square inch— or square metre, if you like, in modern terminology—of that land is part of the 1936 quota. I challenge the hon. members to name one single farm which in terms of this Bill is due to be transferred and which is not part of the 1936 quota …

“To be maintained as an integral part of the Union.”

… but that party votes against it. Now this is high moral principle! They vote against land which falls foursquare within the 1936 quota and object here to that land being transferred.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he would indicate where in the 1936 schedule the district of Stockenström is included?

Surely that hon. member is not that naïve? What I stated was that every single square inch of this was a part of the 1936 quota land. I did not say it was part of the scheduled area or of the released area; I said it was part of the quota. To the released area and the scheduled area land has been added year after year to bring it up to the seven-and-a-quarter million morgen. All these parts of land have been added—or they were already in the original schedule— to arrive at the quota. My point is that it is part of the 1936 quota land. And those hon. members say they believe in and are committed to the 1936 Act. The hon. member Prof. Olivier said “Ons is gebonde aan” and the hon. member for Albany said “We support” the 1936 Act. But they vote against the land being transferred.

Did the United Party vote for independent States?

Let us look at the second high moral principle. It reads as follows—

At that congress the members who now form that party voted against this resolution—and I shall come to how that happened—and they left the United Party. They walked out of the United Party and they formed the Progressive Party because they accused the United Party of dishonouring the 1936 pledge of the White man to give 7,25 million morgen of land to the Blacks. On the strength of that resolution they broke from the United Party. They named that resolution as their reason for breaking from the United Party. This is history.

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

No, let me first finish what I am saying. You can ask your question later. Today the PFP are opposing this legislation for exactly the same reason, because this land is going to become part of foreign States. For the very reason they walked out of the United Party they are today voting against this legislation, and here I want to quote the words of the hon. member for Berea where he said (Hansard, 8 February 1983, col. 580)—

In 1959 he voted against a resolution that said—

In 1959 he voted against that. However, in 1983 he uses the identical words, only he says “excise” instead of “alienate”. [Interjections.] Talk about high moral principles! What a high priest of morality! [Interjections.]

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

No, I first want to deal with the third portion of the resolution. The third portion of this resolution called upon the Prime Minister forthwith to define the boundaries for the information of South Africa. The founders of the PFP voted against that resolution which called upon the Prime Minister forthwith to define the boundaries for the information of South Africa. In column 581 of Hansard of 8 February 1983 the same hon. member who voted against that said—

He goes on to ask for final boundaries so that people will no longer have any doubt. Talk about high moral principles! These are the high priests of morality with haloes around their heads. The hon. member for Sandton may now ask his question. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I should like to know from that hon. member how he voted on that occasion in 1959. If he voted in favour of the resolution I should like to ask him how he can then support this legislation in 1983. [Interjections.]

That is a very fair question. We do stand by principles and the principle … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Sandton asked the hon. member for Durban Point a question. Hon. members must now give him the opportunity to reply to it.

This is history. I voted for this resolution, Mr. Speaker. I voted against each of the status Bills aimed at creating independent States. Moreover, I have logically and consistently voted throughout against the principle of the alienation of the land concerned. Those Bills against which I voted, were in each case passed by this Parliament. Land which was promised, which was purchased or in the process of being purchased in terms of that commitment is now hanging in limbo like Mohammed’s coffin, somewhere between heaven and earth, creating mayhem and hell for people who are affected, people for whom finality is an urgent, urgent necessity. Here, we are dealing with the conclusion of a process which we opposed. Common humanity and common sense, common decency and high moral principle dictate that once an agreement has been made one is committed to see it through. We are prepared to see that commitment through. [Interjections.]

The PFP say the commitment was made, the land is purchased or in the process of being purchased, people are living in uncertainty, but those hon. members did not like the process and therefore they are going to let those people hang there in mid air, somewhere between heaven and earth; they are going to let them hang there because they are not prepared to see that dilemma, the hardship in which those people live, resolved. We have always supported, and we still support, the principle of one South Africa. That is why our policy is one of a confederation. [Interjections.] The PFP, however, takes a principle and votes directly contrary to it, and then begins to quibble about a minor detail which is part of an overall battle that has already been fought.

However, I want to continue the story of this resolution. I want to ask the hon. member for Sea Point whether he remembers a hotel bedroom at the Maitland Hotel … [Interjections.]

Order!

Does he remember a hotel bedroom at the Maitland Hotel, late one evening in 1959? Does he remember this resolution being discussed? I am no longer sure in whose room this discussion took place. It was either Dr. Steytler’s room or the room of the hon. member for Houghton. They were both present, however. The first leader of the Progressive Party, Dr. Steytler, was present, as was the hon. member for Houghton, and, according to my information, the hon. member for Sea Point too. Is that correct?

Just carry on.

Yes, it seems I am correct. There was also a certain pressman of the Sunday Times, and another pressman whose house has just been searched, a pressman from the Rand Daily Mail, Alister Sparks. There were also other people present, about eight or ten altogether at that meeting, in a bedroom at the Maitland Hotel on that evening in 1959. That evening they decided—and I challenge the hon. member for Sea Point to deny it—that this resolution, which had been passed by the Party Congress by an overwhelming majority, this resolution which they had opposed, was of such a fundamental nature that they could no longer remain in the United Party. Thereupon they decided to form the Progressive Party. These members with their high moral principles—11 of them; 11 sitting members of Parliament—stuck to their principles, voted against the resolution, crossed the floor of the House, formed their own party and stuck to their own seats, which they had won under the banner of the United Party. Only one of them, however, survived the 1961 election. That was the hon. member for Houghton. The rest were all thrown out. [Interjections.]

Order!

For three years, however, they sat in this House having been elected under the banner of the United Party. And tonight they are fighting here in this House in favour of the very thing against which they fought so violently then. That is why they are fighting against this measure tonight. [Interjections.] That night—and it is an interesting little story—when the smoke cleared, the dilemma in which some of those hon. members found themselves was strange to behold. I walked downstairs to breakfast the next morning with a certain member of that party. He changed his mind twice between the second floor and the breakfast room. He changed it again once at breakfast and he changed it again on his way out from breakfast. Then he came back to Cape Town and saw Sir de Villiers Graaff and changed it again three times in two days, and eventually he joined that consistently high-principled party! [Interjections.] I do not want to mention by name hon. members who are no longer here, but he used to be an old cricketer who shared a bench with me. There were, however, other hon. members who grabbed hold of this. When they came to this House—I have the Hansard here—as the Progressive Party, however, they did not give this resolution as their reason. They had used this throughout the 1959 provincial election as their reason for walking out of the United Party, but when they came here they had a new policy of a common voters’ roll for all races, one unitary, common-roll political system. So the wheel has turned and turned … [Interjections.] … and we find tonight that that party, the holiest of the holy, is finally recording its vote against a basic principle on which the party itself was founded. [Interjections.] I think that it is necessary that some of that history should be recorded. This party voted against the Status Acts of all those countries, and now that the situation is such that those States do, in fact, exist, we are not prepared to isolate individual farmers and say: Because you are the victims of that legislation, you must now swallow the mess that has been dished up to you. We are prepared to try to help get them out of that situation and let them start their lives afresh. Ultimately we see the confederation—to which my hon. colleague referred—bringing these areas back within the orbit of the new Republic of South Africa.

We shall vote for this Bill.

Mr. Speaker … [Interjections.] Sir, an hon. member over there says “Sit!”, but I think a very important point has been raised by way of an historical anecdote by the hon. member for Durban Point. Whilst it is interesting, I think it is also highly inaccurate. [Interjections.] What the hon. member did not indicate were the circumstances and the reality of that situation. [Interjections.]

Order!

If one is talking of consistency—and I do not want to claim him as any special hero of mine—it was we in the PFP who voted on the same side as Sir de Villiers Graaff against Mr. Vause Raw. [Interjections.] Those were the circumstances. After the meeting, the then hon. Leader of the Opposition said that the morality of that resolution was in doubt.

That was the nature of the decision. As I said, I think it is important to get the record straight, because the hon. member who was then in charge of the United Party organizers and organization—the hatchet-men to get rid of the Progressives at that particular congress—knows full well that Dr. Verwoerd had arrived on the scene. Until then with Mr. Strijdon around as Prime Minister the United Party was under attack from the NP. The United Party, it was said, were the “Kafferboeties”, the liberalists in South Africa. That was the situation, until Dr. Verwoerd decided that he was going to create independent States. Then the right wing of the United Party seized its opportunity, and so Mr. Vause Raw, Sannie van Niekerk, Louis Steenkamp, Douglas Mitchell and Jack Basson rushed around the country saying: No more land for the Blacks now, because Dr. Verwoerd is the “Kafferboetie”. Dr. Verwoerd, it was said, was going to give the land to the Black people. [Interjections.] Now they in the UP could get off the hook … [Interjections.] … It was no longer necessary to give any more land to the Black people. [Interjections.] There is no point in those hon. gentlemen trying to make some cheap politics out of that situation. The proof of the immorality of that resolution was that the resolution was the beginning of the end of the United Party. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must kindly not converse so loudly.

That resolution epitomizes the double talk and expediency of the old United Party. From that moment onwards the skids were under it until in the end it committed hara-kiri at an ice-skating rink in Johannesburg. That is the proof of the fact who was right and who was wrong. That is history. What is much more important is the question whether this Bill is necessary in order to fulfil the 1936 quota. I want to say it has nothing to do with the 1936 quota. The hon. the Deputy Minister in introducing this Bill did not talk about the 1936 quota. What did he say was the reason for this? I quote from his Hansard—

It had nothing to do with the 1936 settlement. It is in fact quite correct, as stated by hon. members of the CP, that it is part of the process of consolidation. This Bill is not necessary in order to fulfil the quota. The quota can be fulfilled whether this Bill is passed or not. The hon. the Deputy Minister also said—

He has actually said in his own speech that this land has already been included in the quota. It has already been purchased by the Trust and therefore this Bill is not necessary. All this Bill is saying, is that the land which has been purchased in terms of the Development Trust and Land Act—in other words, the commitment has been fulfilled—is now to be excized from South Africa and given to an independent State. The question whether this Bill is essential in order to fulfil a quota was explained by the hon. the Deputy Minister in his opening speech. There are two aspects involved. The first is that this Bill was the result of negotiations with the Ciskei in 1981—not 1936—and, secondly, that the land has already been purchased and is already part of the quota. Therefore this legislation is not necessary in order to fulfil that quota.

This Bill is therefore nothing more than a transfer of land from South Africa to an independent State.

But it is in terms of the quota legislation.

It was not in terms of the quota legislation. It was never to be transferred; it was to be purchased by the Trust. If this land were to be added to Black land in South Africa, if it were necessary to add more land, let us give them all the land they need. In fact, we in these benches believe the whole of South Africa should be available to all the people of South Africa. We are not using this in order to say we must be mean and stingy as far as land for Blacks is concerned. The hon. the Deputy Minister says this land is already owned by the Trust, that it is already in the possession of Blacks in that sense, and that it is already part of the quota. What he is now saying, is that we should transfer that land which is owned by the Trust to an independent State.

We will help to fulfil quotas. We will get land for Black people. However, do not ask us when the Trust already possesses that land that we must excize the land …

If the Trust owns the land then surely the Blacks possess it.

We do not have to transfer from South Africa to an independent State. The hon. member for Durban Point mentioned an interesting bit of history, although it was inaccurate and tailored to suit his own particular purpose. Howevever, the crux of the matter is that this Bill is not necessary in order to fulfil the 1936 quota. In fact, on the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own admission the land has already been purchased in terms of the 1936 quota and therefore there is no need to support its transfer to another independent State.

Mr. Speaker, I had better begin with the hon. member for Sea Point since he is the one who spoke the most nonsense of all. We shall deal at a later stage with the private argument he had with the hon. member for Durban Point. It was quite enjoyable. I grew up on a farm and I know what it means when a bull enters my kraal and decides he is going to be boss in that place. That is very clear. I just wish to ask the hon. member for Sea Point: If land is held in trust, does that land belong to the Black people or not?

To Black South Africans.

No, let me make it easier for the hon. member. If he is trustee of an estate and land is transferred to him, does the land belong to the heir or to the trust?

In effect or …

No, wait a moment. Surely there is a very simple answer. The hon. member is the trustee and …

They are two separate issues.

No, they are not two separate issues. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is a simple question. In terms of the Development Trust and Land Act the State President is the trustee of all land purchased for Black people. The State President transferred his authority to the Minister of Co-operation and Development. Now the trust purchases land that it holds for the Black people.

The 1936 dispensation was that the land should be purchased for the Trust.

Of course. In terms of the Development Trust and Land Act, 7¼ million morgen of land had to be purchased for the Black people.

For South African Blacks.

Of course. [Interjections.]

Order!

For South African Black people. That is true. [Interjections.]

Order! I think the hon. member for Sea Point is quite capable of replying to the questions himself.

After all, we have gone through that process. All that legislation that grants citizenship and regulates the borders of Black States has been passed by this House. What happens now? What we are doing now is merely effecting an adjustment and making rectifications, but nothing beyond the quota. The hon. members can prevaricate to their hearts’ content. Those hon. members can do one decent thing in South Africa today and that is to say what the hon. member for Yeoville said as far back as 1974, viz. that we should rather support these Black States that have become independent. Incidentally, he added something praiseworthy. He said “After all, we do not have the power in this country.” Yes, it is stated in Hansard. The hon. member Prof. Olivier can go and have a look if he likes. The hon. member for Lichtenburg quoted the Sunday Times of 22 May 1974, according to which the hon. member for Yeoville said that. Just go and have a look. The hon. member for Yeoville said: Recognize the Transkei, rather help the Transkei along, now that it is independent. In December last year the hon. member for Yeoville and I attended the celebrations in Mmabatho to commemorate the independence of Bophuthatswana. The hon. member for Yeoville is on the right road. The hon. member Prof. Olivier is also on the right road this evening, but the hon. member for Groote Schuur gave him two such dirty looks that he had to adjust his story a little. However, the hon. member Prof. Olivier agrees with the hon. member for Durban Point. Ever since the time he was with Sabra he has agreed with the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to leave those hon. members at that for the moment, but I do just want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Durban Point. If two men of his and my stature climb into a kraal … [Interjections.] There is no place for lightweights in this story.

I want to say to the hon. member for Albany that there was a time when I admired him. That was before he entered politics and when he could do one thing which I also took an interest in in my time, although it may not look like it, and that is when he played good rugby. At that time I was quite interested in the hon. member. I also saw one or two of his matches and I do not think he fared badly. I now wish to say to the hon. member that he should rather go back to that game, because in the political game he is really suffering such a beating that one of these days he will no longer even be able to catch a ball with two hands, let alone with one hand, as he was able to do in his time.

This evening the hon. member saw fit to bring up the situation at Kidd’s Beach, Newlands, Kwelega and Mooiplaas. At Kidd’s Beach there has been no resettlement either from Newlands, Mooiplaas or from Kwelega.

Is it going to be done?

Certainly not. Nothing has been done and that is just the point. Perhaps the hon. members can convince me that there really was a misunderstanding in this regard. I said to those hon. members previously that none of those people were there, and then the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South came along here and ranted and raved about the squatters at Kidd’s Beach and Chalumna, describing them as people from Mooiplaas, Newlands and Kwelega.

No, he did not say that. Look at the hon. member’s Hansard.

The hon. member said that, and he has said it before too.

Certainly not.

Let us leave it at that. I told those hon. members that those people did not come from those areas but from other places. I told hon. members that there were 802 families. I now wish to tell hon. members where those people come from. There are 287 families from the Ciskei and 556 families from the RSA, comprised as follows: East London District, 226; King William’s Town, 31; Kidd’s Beach, 82; Komga, 84; others, 91 and unknown, 48. The Ciskeian Government submitted irrefutable proof that these 556 families they found in the Kidd’s Beach area were people who had been chased out of the “corridor” as I mentioned to hon. members. Where is Komga situated, where is King William’s Town situated, where is the East London district situated, if not in the “corridor”? We are very sympathetic towards those people. I have already told the hon. member that we have made R75 000 available for laying on water for those people. We carried out a thorough inspection there. I was again in telephonic contact with the Ciskeian Government today and I told them that we would supervise these people because at the moment they are squatting in the region set aside for the resettlement of the people of Mooiplaas, Kwelega and Newlands. At the moment they are also squatting on the area that has been set aside as the territory of Pres. Sebe. The situation there is an uneasy one. I admitted to Ciskei that the situation arose when that land was still being managed by the Trust. That is when the squatting there started. We are today negotiating with those people and there is no question of a promise of R10 million to resolve that situation at Kidd’s Beach. We are negotiating, and no promises have been made in this process. We are busy negotiating at the moment. I just wish to say that we must approach this kind of matter very sympathetically, and I personally am inclined to regard it with sympathy. People of this kind find themselves in situations for which they are not personally responsible. In this kind of situation no one who may have been responsible for this should try to run away from it. I do not like that.

The hon. member told me that I was exaggerating when I mentioned what the land in Stockenström and at Victoria East was worth. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is prepared today … Sir, look how that hon. member is laughing. He is really sly! [Interjections.] Just see how that hon. member is laughing.

Order!

I withdraw the word “sly”, Sir. I was merely being facetious. I want to tell that hon. member that I will give him six names of farmers in the Victoria East district. The hon. member must go with me to those farmers and say: Give half your money back because you were given too much for your land.

Then he would not come back to this House.

Is the hon. member prepared to do that? [Interjections.] Very well, then we shall leave it at that. The fact remains that those calculations were made. I had not thought there was any place in this country—the hon. member for Lichtenburg will confirm this—where one could obtain grazing land for which one would pay R900 per hectare. One does find such areas in Victoria East, for example. Those people received more than R900 per hectare for their land, and that was for grazing. Are we now to go back to those people today on the basis of the PFP’s argument and tell them that they must repay that money? [Interjections.]

This matter was also touched on by the hon. member Prof. Olivier, but once again he raised it in the wrong sense. It is very clear that he was either not in this House or was not listening when I dealt with the situation of the Coloureds in Stockenström. It is on record that the property of the Coloureds will be valued on the same basis as that of the Whites. We shall do everything in our power to support those Coloureds, morally and otherwise, in obtaining land if they want land. We have conducted interviews with the Coloureds. Some of them work in King William’s Town and some of them work in Fort Beaufort. Some work on the Rand or elsewhere. Some of them are not interested in land. We must bear in mind—and I have said this to the hon. member for Albany— that some of the Coloureds live on land belonging to the Church. Those Coloureds believe that they own that land.

Look, it is a very difficult matter. We shall show the utmost compassion in our dealings with those people. We are not simply going to expropriate those people’s land or simply place them under the jurisdiction of Ciskei. If it is impossible for us to determine who the titleholders are, we shall expropriate these people and keep the money in trust. We shall try to appoint a section 8 commissioner to determine exactly who the people are. However, we shall not inconvenience them in the process. There are also estates that have not been reported, but I do not wish to go into the technical situation further.

I do want to tell hon. members—the hon. member for King William’s Town also referred to this—that we are very concerned that the land should be utilized productively. I can refer the hon. member to one example. We have just decided that we are going to transfer 100 000 ha which belongs to the Trust and is earmarked for Bophuthatswana, to Agricor, the agricultural company of Bophuthatswana. Agricor will then see to it that that land is properly utilized, well equipped and so on. I know something about farming and I therefore realize that I cannot sit in Pretoria and try to farm 1,5 million ha of land. I can forget about that. One cannot do it. We must do something else, and accordingly we are making arrangements so as to be able to transfer certain land to the EDC and to be able to hand over certain other land to the national corporations to enable them to go ahead and find Black farmers and establish the necessary organization to utilize that land as it should be utilized. I do not think we differ at all with regard to this matter. In that sense the land to which reference is made here can be a tremendous asset for the three independent States in question.

I should not like to reply in detail to the hon. member for Durban Point. I think it was a private fight between him and the hon. member for Sea Point. I must say to the hon. member, however, that I enjoyed it. [Interjections.] It was a positive contribution to the debate but I think that you, Sir, probably wondered whether we were engaged in a Second Reading or a Third Reading debate. I think that in the spirit prevailing that evening you decided to assume that it was a Third Reading debate. [Interjections.]

I should like to say to the hon. members for Pretoria West and Randburg that I appreciated their contributions. The hon. member’s insight into the points at issue is good. I think that the hon. member for Randburg would like to elaborate on his speech at a later stage when there is an opportunity to discuss matters with the PFP again and the hon. member for Pretoria West would like to discuss consolidation again at some later stage with our friends in the CP.

I am now obliged to react to matters touched on by the hon. member for Lichtenburg. Yesterday we had a private argument with regard to this matter and this evening he reacted very responsibly by saying that they would support the Third Reading.

We supported the Second Reading as well.

Yes, they supported that as well. I am not arguing about that. However, that hon. member must allow the hon. member for Lictenburg and I—two adults—to speak to one another now. I can assure hon. members in this House that there are not another two other members in this House who know more about consolidation than the hon. member for Lichtenburg and I.

Hear, hear!

I therefore request that hon. member to be quiet. I am now speaking to an expert.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg said that they would support this legislation and I appreciate that. It is very clear to me that there is something troubling the hon. member for Lichtenburg in connection with the situation as regards Kutama and Senthimula. I want to tell the hon. member that there is no difference in sentiment in our approach that consolidation, geographically speaking, should as far as possible include people from the nation for whom the land has been earmarked. One could add that in that case it does not really matter where that land is situated as long as one gives it to that nation and transfers it to that nation. Then one still has national consolidation, even though one does not necessarily have geographical consolidation. I think that the concept of national consolidation is very important, and it is important for the future development of ethnic relations in South Africa. National consolidation is a cornerstone of consolidation. Geographic consolidation is another cornerstone. There I agree with the hon. member: This is an aim to be pursued as far as possible. The hon. member himself said in 1975 that it was not always possible to bring about geographic unification. Therefore, if one has the situation that one can effect national consolidation without necessarily bringing about geographical unification, then I think we are still on the same wavelength. I see that the hon. member for Rissik is now sitting there with a wide smile. If he thinks that he can deal with the 522 Coloured group areas on that basis I want to tell him: “Forget it!” [Interjections.] The hon. member for Lichtenburg and I are now engaged in a serious discussion.

But then you must not talk nonsense.

The hon. member for Lichtenburg also said that in one respect, consolidation should be carried out with development in mind. I agree with him entirely. We do not differ in regard to this matter. Nor do I want there to be any lack of clarity in regard to the matter: That is the point of departure of the Government as well.

Now, the hon. member has a problem with Kutama and Senthimula. This is going to form a separate area. The hon. member will recall that after 1975, Venda still comprised three parts. Then, in 1978, without an investigation by the commission—at that stage the hon. member was still Deputy Minister, but I do not take all this amiss of him—a departmental investigation was launched with a view to the independence of Venda, and at that time it was decided—as far as I am concerned, 100% correctly—that the Elim area should be linked so that the two parts of Venda could form a unit. At that stage Venda still consisted of two parts, with Kutama and Senthimula. Then came the independence agreement, in terms of which Kutama and Senthimula did not form part of Venda …

That is correct.

… but Venda would administer Kutama and Senthimula.

Yes.

This is simply a fact I should like to stress: Venda was to administer Kutama and Senthimula. Now I want to say to the hon. member that as it happened, we referred in more than one report to the consolidation of Venda and Kutama and Senthimula, because it is impossible to deal with the consolidation of Venda without affecting the consolidation of Lebowa or Gazankulu. That is simply impossible. Therefore, as far as Venda is concerned, we issued a specific supplementary report of which the hon. member is apparently unaware, viz. the 21st report.

It now seems to me as if the date on which the Cabinet took certain decisions is bothering the hon. member. Let me therefore just get dates in order. The contention of the hon. member for Pietersburg, viz. that we held a meeting in Pretoria in October 1981, is not correct. The meeting was arranged for October 1981, but it did not take place in October 1981. It took place on 5 November 1981. The hon. member was present there himself. At that meeting we said that in its 15th report the commission recommended that Matoks and Ramagoep should not be transferred. Hon. members will recall that the 15th report concerned so-called Black spots and nothing else. In that report it was decided that Matoks and Ramagoep would not be transferred.

We now come to the question of whether the Agricultural Union concerned was consulted in this regard. The Soutpansberg Agricultural Union met on 12 November, six days later, and on 8 December they wrote as follows to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—

I do not wish to take up the time of this House with an account of the whole situation. What we had here, then, was a request on the part of the agricultural union that the transfer should take place. The Cabinet dealt with this matter and the recommendations concerning Venda. I would say that what the hon. member quoted from Beeld is quite correct. However, I just wish to rectify the sequence. In the first place, the Cabinet decided on the consolidation of Venda on 8 June 1982, after having perused all the reports on Venda. On that occasion the Cabinet decided that Kutama and Senthimula would not be made White areas and that that matter would be taken up with the agricultural union and with Venda by the hon. the Minister of Manpower and the then Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs. The matter was taken up with Venda and the agricultural unions and they all agreed that Kutama and Senthimula should remain. At a later stage this matter was also taken up with the Government of Venda by the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Government of Venda indicated that they were not satisfied with the decision of the Cabinet. The Cabinet—perhaps to my shame—did not accept a single recommendation of the commission relating to Venda. As a result, no new land was added to Venda, except the two farms Lukin and Salaita, belonging to Iscor. Therefore, as the Cabinet saw it, there was no need to consult further with anyone because, except for the fact that Kutama and Senthimula would become Black areas and White land would be excised from the Soekmekaar-Bandolierkop area, large-scale consolidation did not take place. The de facto situation is that no large-scale consolidation took place. We have already said that it was the standpoint of the Cabinet that large-scale consolidation would not be to Venda’s benefit.

In all fairness to the commission I just want to add that the commission also did not recommend large-scale consolidation for Venda. However, the commission did recommend that it would be as well if Kutama and Senthimula could be transferred and that the corridor between Matoks and Ramagoep and also—as the proposal was formulated in 1975—Soekmekaar, should be closed, while Matoks and Ramagoep remained, and should also be linked with Seshego 2, while the rest of Venda would then continue to exist as a unit. However, the Cabinet decided differently. I do not wish to go into the reasons for this. I do not believe it is relevant. I think that some of the reasons had to do with security. Therefore I believe it is unnecessary to discuss them here. So much for the procedure.

On 19 July I made my statement. In passing, I still stand by that statement today, and no one on earth will convince me that I was wrong. No border is final before legislation has been passed here by Parliament. The matter must take its course, and should be taken through the full procedure in this Parliament.

I believe that I have now furnished a sufficient explanation as to why the Cabinet did not consider it necessary that the commission should devote further attention to that matter. Land was not really involved in the process. However, I believe that I owe it both to myself and to the hon. member for Lichtenburg to say something at this point about the following matter. We were discussing numbers here yesterday and the hon. member contended that I had sucked out of my thumb the figure of R30 million for the settlement and transfer for Kutama and Senthimula. I wish to put it clearly to the hon. member that I do not like to discuss facts of which I am uncertain. However, I can now inform him that there are 8 000 families at Kutama and Senthimula.

Yes.

The hon. member therefore agrees with me. It costs R3 000 per family to resettle those people. Therefore that means an amount of R24 million. The land purchased for the settlement of those people costs R6,2 million. Therefore this brings us to the figure of R30,2 million. I therefore just wish to state clearly that I did not suck this figure out of my thumb. The estimates on which this figure is based date from as far back as 1973. Indeed, I have explained all this here. It is therefore very clear and appears in every report. The hon. member’s figure of R12 million which he supposedly took from the report of June 1981, is therefore incorrect. We are speaking about 7 000 families at R2 000 per family. That amounts to R14 million. I should just like us to rectify those figures. It is not so important which of us, the hon. member or I, wins a debating point across the floor of this House. However, these things are important for the purposes of the record. Therefore mistakes must not slip in in this regard.

Sir, we have now reached the end of a long debate. We can still try to score political points off one another in regard to this matter. In conclusion I just wish to repeat that I am convinced—and I am also very grateful for the support we are receiving from the NRP and the CP in order to finalize this matter—that land utilized for consolidation and for development on behalf of the Black peoples of this country serves to emphasize the fact that we are prepared to recognize the ethnic differences among people in this country. However, hon. members of the official Opposition are not prepared to recognize this fact. The fact is that kwaNdebele is also going to ask for independence. Before this year is out we shall hold a debate in this House on the territory earmarked for kwaNdebele. Then we shall have guided five States along the road to independence.

I therefore wish to make another appeal to hon. members of the PFP this evening to think about South Africa in realistic terms. The hon. member Prof. Olivier will be the first who will be prepared to concede that point to me, viz. that not one of those hon. members would dare to ask that Pres. Mangope should forfeit his sovereignty. Nor would any of them dare to ask Pres. Matanzima to forfeit his sovereignty.

If you told them to come here, they would come. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. We are dealing with realities; absolute realities. Today those hon. members are asking all kinds of pious questions about the Coloureds in the Ciskei, but after all, those hon. members are the boycotters. They want nothing to do with the Coloureds in the constitutional sphere. [Interjections.] However, they come here and ask pious questions about the Coloureds in Ciskei. [Interjections.] We shall not “drop” the Coloureds in Ciskei. We shall look after them. However, in the interests of South Africa those hon. members must decide whether they are going to continue to boycott these things absolutely as they are doing now, or they must say to one another that they should read the signs of the times and work within the system, even though they may differ, like these hon. members, and I am not trying to appease them. They had their point concerning Kutama and Senthimula, and they stated their point, but during the Second Reading and also during the Third Reading they supported the principle. In that way we can get somewhere with one another. When I said that these hon. members supported us, the hon. member Prof. Olivier smiled widely. I am not courting these hon. members, but these hon. members did support us readily. It is only that party that is not prepared to recognize the realities.

I hope the hon. members are now going to vote the right way.

Question agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening I put forward a few ideas on the object of this Bill, namely the fostering of culture, and just before the adjournment of the House, I was discussing the ways in which specific cultures influence or enrich one another without being harmed in the process. In this connection I also wish to say that it is right that cultural groups should take an interest in and should appreciate and enjoy one another’s culture, without any need for one’s own culture to be illtreated or harmed in the process. For example, to read, appreciate and enjoy English works, or to look at and appreciate Dutch works of art, or to enjoy Italian music, need never be at the expense of my own Afrikaans culture. One can always appreciate, take an interest in and enjoy other cultures.

During the course of the debate hon. members furnished certain definitions of culture. Without judging or criticizing any of those definitions, I should like to define culture as I see it myself as follows—

I should like to ask the hon. member for Durban North, without picking a quarrel with him, whether he does not think that that is a good definition. [Interjections.] It is broad and comprehensive, and I think that it is correct. With it I dismiss the narrow view which people have of culture, because too many see culture only through the spectacles of art—for example the fine arts—and consequently narrow down the reality of culture. For many others it is concerned only with reading-matter, various art forms, folk songs or specific folk dances and games and similar things. In this way many cultural treasures are disregarded and neglected. I think it is for this very reason that a limited interest is taken in many cultural associations. People in general see the fostering of culture as a function of a limited segment within a specific cultural group. This must be counteracted because the fostering of culture must seek to arouse the interest of people in general in their own culture, and also in other cultures. Therefore I do not go along with the statement made by the hon. member for Durban North that culture is the one aspect which distinguishes the civilized from an uncivilized person. It probably depends on what one considers to be a civilized and an uncivilized person, and when one considers a person to be civilized and non-civilized. However, I think there is sufficient evidence in the world and in history that the uncivilized also have specific cultural products, even if they are primitive in our eyes, as civilized people. For example I think that the Bushmen, in the days of the Bushmen paintings as an expression of their artistic products, were still completely uncivilized. However this is an example of his particular culture, however primitive it may be, in which the civilized person, and in particular the Whites of this country who came into contact with that culture, took an exceptional interest and which they did everything to preserve and protect.

Nor can I concede that the hon. member Prof Olivier is correct when he says that there is a specific population group in this country which does not have a culture of its own. I differ from the hon. member in respect of his statements on the culture of the Coloureds. He sees the Coloureds, according to his specific ideology, as an absolutely unitary group within which no diversity exists. He then argues that the Coloureds of this country do not have a culture of their own. Unfortunately my time does not allow me to spell out to the hon. member this evening what cultural expressions and cultural creations exist within the Coloured community as such. I think it is a very onesided view and a misappreciation of cultural functioning and cultural creation within that specific community.

What about the Portuguese, Greeks, Italians and Afrikaners?

Likewise. Each particular group has its own culture and is continuing to develop it. Cultural creation and culture as such is not static. Owing to the fragmenttion of the world in which we live, however, and the overemphasis on materalism, it is necessary for us to give attention to the fostering of culture and, in particular, to the non-material products of mankind. Those things in particular should be emphasized in the fostering of culture. A good balance should be struck between culture in the form of the material and culture in the form of the non-material. I think I have with this given the House an idea of the cultural views of the CP.

Next I want to come to the functional realization of the object as contained in the Bill. This Bill now makes provision for the disappearance of the National Cultural Council. The hon. the Minister said that the National Cultural Council instituted an investigation itself and in effect recommended its own demise. I want to tell you this evening that we have great appreciation for the work which the National Cultural Council did. I believe that under specific restrictive circumstances it tried to carry out its function to the best of its ability. If this National Cultural Council had continued to exist as a result of this specific Bill, as we now have it here before us, we would inevitably have had to make provision for this council to become a mixed race cultural council in order to have been able to implement the objectives of this Bill. For that very reason I am not shedding a single tear this evening over the fact that this National Cultural Council is going to disappear from the scene.

This Bill provides that the functional fostering of culture will take place by way of regional councils which are going to be established. Clause 4 also provides that this specific task my be entrusted to a Minister, or partly to one Minister or to a number of Ministers. Within the present dispensation, as we have it today, where there are various Ministers who are responsible for the various population groups of this country, this legislation would be able to function well because—I can foresee this—in recognizing the various population groups and in distinguishing between their various cultures it would inevitably have resulted in the establishment and appointment of a separate regional board for each population group, or perhaps even more than one regional board for the same population group in various areas of the country. I would also foresee that, even within specific groupings, and here I am referring in particular to the White grouping, various regional councils could have been created for various parts of the country for the Afrikaans sector in order to promote the Afrikaans culture. I would also have foreseen that regional councils could have been created for the English-speaking sector of the population in order to foster the English culture, etc, etc. Now I find it very interesting that the hon. Minister of Transport Affairs said earlier during a debate that his Bill, which he was piloting through this House at the time, was not to be seen in terms of a possible future constitutional dispensation. This hon. Minister, however, said in his Second Reading speech—

In other words, this hon. Minister comes here and tells us honestly that this legislation will be carried through to and will also function within a possible future constitutional dispensation in which there will be a Parliament with three chambers, the White, Coloured and Indian Chambers. However, it is at this very point that I have substantial problems as far as the functioning of the legislation in such a new dispensation is concerned. In this new dispensation, as it has been elucidated to us, provision is being made for a racially mixed Cabinet. The members of that Cabinet will be able to manage encompassing or collective portfolios. They will be responsible for the handling of those specific portfolios. That is exactly the problem I have. Provision is also being made in this new dispensation for Cabinet committees of the various population groups which are involved to deal with the so-called group-specific matters—and it is into this category that the hon. the Minister is now placing these cultural matters—by the specific group in its specific chamber. In this connection I want to ask: Who is the Minister who is going to be responsible for this? Surely it cannot be that Cabinet committee which is going to be responsible for this because that Cabinet committee is an entity which is responsible to the Cabinet and which receives its powers to act from the Cabinet. This promotion of culture, however, will have to rest in some department or other. My question is this: Is it going to be the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of National Education or will there be three Ministers of National Education, while each population group will have its own Minister in that Cabinet? [Interjections.] Sir, there are hon. members in this House who should rather confine themselves to those things in which they have an interest. [Interjections.] What we are concerned with here is the functioning of this legislation in the new dispenstion. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister this: In this new dispensation are there also going to be three Ministers in that Cabinet …

Order! I should like to give the hon. member every opportunity to state his case to the House, but I must point out to him that he is deviating considerably from the Bill if he talks about Ministers who may serve in the Cabinet in future.

Mr. Speaker, I accept your ruling. In view of this I just want to ask—because we must have absolute clarity on this point—if there are three Ministers of National Education who are dealing with cultural matters, are they also going to have three ministers who are going to deal with their own community affairs? I also want to know how many Ministers that Cabinet will then have to contain in order to make provision for every matter which is dealt with by each chamber?

Probably far fewer than those implied in the 1977 proposals, which you people did in fact support.

The hon. Minister knows that that is not correct, but he will be given an opportunity to explain his constitutional plan in such a way that we will be able to understand it. [Interjections.] I want to tell that hon. member at the back there that he should rather tell me that I am drunk, but he should not tell me that I cannot understand this. There are few things in the world which the members of the CP cannot understand, but hon. members opposite use this argument time and again. As soon as one drives them into a corner in regard to certain matters they cry out: You cannot understand.

Or one is telling lies.

In conclusion I want to say that in view of this problem which we have, this side of the House will not be able to support this specific Bill.

Mr. Speaker, it was very interesting to listen to the hon. member for Koedoespoort’s views on culture and on what culture is. I do not think that the objection he gave as reason for the CP’s not supporting the legislation is a valid one, because this debate is not concerned with the new constitutional dispensation. There is no such Bill under discussion. What is under discussion is the promotion of culture. There will be sufficient time to argue about the new constitutional dispensation when the legislation in question is introduced.

I should like to come back to the speech made by the hon. member Prof. Olivier. I should just like to quote what the hon. member said in respect of the promotion of culture among Black people—

I maintain that this is a disgraceful statement. It is absolutely disgraceful, and I have no doubt about that. I could not believe my ears, or that the hon. member could descend to such a level. May I refer the hon. member, pursuant to this deplorable statement— to the definition which the Oxford English Dictionary gives of “culture”?

Arising out of the large number of questions and the irresponsible statements of the hon. member Prof. Olivier, I wish to state quite categorically that in the first place the hon. member was not fully conversant with precisely how the Division for the Advancement of Culture of the Department of National Education functions. In the second place, the hon. member completely overlooked, in his entire speech, the all-important principle on which the entire task of cultural promotion rests. This is the principle that the State cannot, in the process of promoting culture, engage in cultural activities, but merely wishes to become involved by activating, motivating and, if necessary, subsidizing what the voluntary organizations in the community itself are doing.

That is what the Minister said.

In the rest of my argument I shall come back to what the hon. member had to say and the statements he made.

The provisions of the Bill call to mind the findings and recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Adult Education in South Africa, which was appointed on 1 March 1943 under the chairmanship of Dr. G. W. Eybers. The report was published in 1945. In order to implement recommendation 14(f) of the said Commission, six adult education organizers started work in the then Union Education Department on 1 July 1948. I was exceptionally privileged to have been one of those six new officials. We had no, or perhaps a very vague, conception of the how and the what and the magnitude of our new task. We were well aware of the comprehensiveness of our task. Zeal and enthusiasm ran high, because it was all unexplored territory. The possibilities were unlimited. It was a wonderful challenge to be able to dig, plough and sow the fallow cultural soil of our own national life and the lives of other people in our fatherland. How well I remember the words of welcome addressed to us by the then Secretary for Education, Mr. J. J. Roberts, on the fourth floor of the new Standard Bank Building adjoining Church Square: “Gentlemen, this is the dawn of a new era in the history of South Africa.”

To what extent those six converted, or helped to convert, the dawn into day is not for me to judge. However, there is no doubt that that was indeed, and remained, the dawn of a new era in our cultural history, because for the first time in our history the State became involved in the cultural activities of the community and the entire population, not by itself engaging in cultural activities but by motivating and activating by way of financial support where necessary the voluntary organizations who were engaged in such activities. As in the past from the time of the inception of a system of culture promotion, this principle has consistently been maintained, in the provisions of the Bill at present being dealt with as well. The State does not engage in cultural activities— this may and can never happen, because then they will be stillborn—but activates, motivates and subsidizes if necessary, as has already been said. Therefore it is a complete failure to grasp what is meant if the hon. member Prof. Olivier asks whether a commission of Ministers will be appointed in respect of certain tasks. It is not the task of a Minister. It has never been the task of the hon. the Minister to engage in cultural activities. The hon. the Minister is involved only in so far as there has to be funding of certain activities initiated by local enterprise and local voluntary organizations. For example, the total amount allocated for 1982-’83 was R89 000 and was paid out as follows: Subsidies on the part of the Department of National Education to the Natal Youth Choir, R35 000; to the Hoër Meisieskool, R19 000; to the Ad Libitum Choir, R25 000; to the Zululand University Choir (Black), R10 000, and a further R6 000 to the Pretoria Adult Choir (Black Choir). However, this latter amount was never paid out since the planned overseas tour by the choir never took place.

The hon. the Minister is therefore involved because the subsidization of special activities is necessary. However, it was never the intention, never at any stage, that there should be ministerial engagement in cultural activities.

A further recommendation of the Commission of Inquiry into Adult Education was that a special subdepartment under the Department of Education should be established and that this department should be controlled by the National Adult Education Council, which would be directly responsible to the Minister. The National Adult Education Council was indeed established at the time and was replaced in 1969 by the National Cultural Council. The National Cultural Council is at present being dissolved in terms of the provisions of this Bill and is being replaced by regional councils. On this occasion let me also express my thanks for the services which the National Cultural Council has rendered.

It is interesting to find that the establishment of regional councils is directly in line with recommendation 3 of the report of the Eybers Commission of 1945. One of the objections which the hon. member Prof. Olivier had was that he had no confidence in regional councils. Here, however, we had a commission of inquiry which carried out an intense investigation into the entire aspect of cultural promotion and adult education. In recommendation 3 we read—

This is the answer to the objection of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. Decentralization is already being applied in practice in so far that several regional offices have been established with a regional director in charge. If the hon. member Prof. Olivier is now talking about a regional council for the Cape Province, I want to point out that no mention is made anywhere in the Bill of regional councils on a provincial level. Why then comment on and object to something for which provision is not being made in the Bill? Why conjure up spectres now?

My problem remains exactly the same. Which region is it going to be?

May I add here that the regional offices which already exist, of which a regional director for cultural promotion is in charge, are of inestimable value. The services which the regional directors are rendering with their several staffs, are of incalculable value to the cultural activities of the region. If the regional director is now to be assisted by a regional council, I indeed foresee a period of growth and progress for our cultural activities.