Mr Speaker, I have great pleasure in announcing that a nuclear reaction was started in the first unit of the Koeberg nuclear power station at 09h25 this morning. This achievement is the culmination of a long road of investigation, planning, construction, safety measures and procedures and it is and will be of great significance to South Africa. These events of today herald the era of nuclear power generation in South Africa. For South Africa, a country with only two indigenous energy resources, namely coal and uranium, this is a milestone of the utmost importance. Whereas South Africa exported its production in the past, these two energy resources will in future be utilized in conjunction with one another, in the best interests of our country.

It is particularly reassuring to know that, as far as the safe design and operation of Koeberg is concerned, South Africa is also a leader in this field and compares with the best in the world. The community can also rest assured that the AEC and Escom enjoy international recognition in this regard and that their safety standards will be maintained with the utmost vigilance.

I therefore, have great pleasure in congratulating the organizations and our engineers, scientists and other experts concerned with the project, on this notable achievement. We are truly proud of them!

You will permit me, Mr Speaker, to single out the names of two persons. They are Dr Wynand de Villiers of the Atomic Energy Corporation, and Mr Dave van der Walt of the Electricity Supply Commission, who made major contributions in regard to the licensing programme, particularly during the past few weeks.

I am convinced that South Africa’s energy future is assured by the combination of oil-from-coal plants, coal-fired power stations and now the utilization of our abundant uranium resources for electricity generation.

I should like to call on everyone to accept this valuable asset for the Western Cape, its industries and its people, and indeed for all South Africa, as component of a balanced energy supply structure which will primarily cut the Western Cape loose from the provision of electricity from the north. The Government is convinced that nuclear energy, together with all the other conventional and alternative energy carriers, needs to play a specific and rightful role in our energy economy, in order to give expression to a successful energy policy.

Mr Speaker, it is my wish that the whole of South Africa will share with me in this exciting and momentous occasion.

Mr Speaker, I just want to point out that there was an understanding that a statement would not be issued, otherwise we should have associated ourselves wholeheartedly with the pride expressed on the occasion of this achievement.

Mr Speaker, the Government is to be congratulated on the country’s entry into the nuclear power era. Hopefully we can look forward to cheaper power in the long-term through nuclear energy and improved technology. In so far as safety is concerned, we are furtunate that we have been able to learn from other nuclear power installations world-wide. Over and above that, however, the NRP has every confidence in the high standards set by the licensing branch of the Atomic Energy Corporation.

Mr Speaker, I was quite prepared to make a statement but there was an understanding that a statement was not going to be made. However, I should just like to say that we welcome the additional power that will be added to South Africa’s national power grid. Naturally the additional power is to the benefit of the whole of South Africa. I do believe, however, it is important to keep a close watch on the potentially high cost of power to be generated by Koeberg, and that any further establishment and location of nuclear power plants in South Africa will be very carefully evaluated.

One must accept that the question of nuclear power is one that generates fears and a good deal of heated debate amongst the general public. This must be taken into account, and everything should be done to ensure that every possible precaution is taken to protect the public from any danger which could arise from a nuclear power plant, and also to keep the public as informed as possible about these matters.

Having said this, Mr Speaker, I should like to add the congratulations of my party to those already expressed to those people who worked so hard to bring about this event today.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, yesterday I voiced our strongest opposition and disappointment to the increases in tariffs announced by the hon the Minister, to his failure to balance the Budget and to the overspending under the last Budget. But before I go any further I would like to move the following amendment:

1. (1) to confine total expenditure to the limits set in the Budget;
2. (2) to revise the tariff increases announced yesterday in order to—
   1. (a) avoid the intolerable burden that will be placed upon the consumer; and
   2. (b) combat the inflation in the economy;
3. (3) to give priority in the expenditure of capital to eliminating the backlog in respect of applications for telephones in areas occupied by all population groups; and
4. (4) to guarantee privacy to individual telephone subscribers.”.

The official Opposition does not consider these tariff increases either to be justified or necessary. The public is reeling under the blows rained on it by the Government with all the price increases it has been subjected to. As I mentioned yesterday there were increases in GST, the bread price, the sugar price and rail tariffs. There seems to be no end to it. Now we see water increases, hospital tariff increases and of course the postal increases with which we are dealing now.

I feel it is my duty, as an Opposition speaker, to point out the dangers that lie in the powers that are vested in the hon the Minister to run an organization such as the Post Office, where he is given the powers by an Act of Parliament to increase tariffs, and at the same time is protected by giving him a monopoly so that no other organization can perform the task of the Post Office. He has absolute power to raise or reduce tariffs, to borrow money and to spend unlimited capital as he wishes. The Minister can, if he so desires, first determine what the capital expenditure is and then he can finance it by obtaining funds from tariff increases, from loans raised internally, from savings and from offshore borrowing. Therefore it is the duty of Parliament to see to it that such powers are subject to the most careful scrutiny in order to prevent such monopoly from developing into a rampant bureaucracy which, due to the nature of humanity, must be guarded against. The Minister has the powers and advantage which no other person has. These are vested in section 12A of the Post Office Act which determines that the affairs of the department shall be administered on business principles. Section 7 reads:

Then there is also a penalty for anyone who transgresses. Whilst the Minister can delegate powers to the Postmaster-General to raise tariffs from time to time, the only link he has with this Parliament is in terms of section 12F of the Post Office Act, which states that the Minister shall for every financial year, in the form determined by him, submit to Parliament an estimate of expenditure, which in fact is done and which is before us today in respect of the coming financial year. However, the hon the Minister is of course a member of the Cabinet which governs the country and if Parliament for example were to reject the Budget, then I believe that in terms of the conventions of Parliament, the Government would have to resign, although there is little danger of that at the moment. But it is possible for this House to approve of the Budget without the proposed tariff increases. That is the aim of the amendment that I have moved this afternoon.

Furthermore, it is our contention that the capital expenditure should be planned in such a way that priority is in the first place given to items that are essential and will produce immediate revenue for the Post Office. As hon members know there are really two sections. One, of course, deals with the postal services, which are normally run at a loss, and the other deals with telecommunications services, which are usually run at a substantial profit. The self-financing of capital expenditure is based on the formula that has been tried since 1972 and in terms of which 50% should come from the operating surplus and 50% from loan funds. The surplus of revenue over the operating expenditure is, however, made available after provision had been made for loan redemption, contributions towards staff housing and essential increases in standard stock. This approach is acceptable, but it is not a sacred cow and should be adjusted in accordance with the economy and with the times. In fact, an average self-financing percentage of 47% or 48% was maintained between 1972 and 1981, but the policy should be flexible.

Let us have a look at the financial side of this Budget as it has been presented. To start with, I would say that the result of the year 1983-84 was disastrous. The operating surplus, important for financing the capital expenditure to which I have just referred, is down to R35 million. In other words, it is down by 81%. This is very substantial and should be accounted for. The hon the Minister in his speech blamed this state of affairs on salary adjustments, but that only accounted for R20 million. He also blamed it on inflation and depreciation, but that is no excuse either because he should have foreseen depreciation and certainly an increase in the inflation rate. Indeed, the hon the Minister is actually very lucky as he was to some extent saved by savings funds which grew to R320 million against an estimated R150 million. Once again I maintain that this was a gross under-estimation and shows a lack of anticipation.

Total expenditure for the year 1983-84 was R106 million higher than the amount originally estimated, and in my view this is unforgivable. No excuses have been offered for this in the hon the Minister’s speech; in fact, no explanation has been given. If things were going badly during the year, capital expenditure should have been curbed and not increased. The Post Office has no right to overspend to such a large extent. For the year 1984-85 the total expenditure is estimated at R745 million, which is 23,84% higher than in 1983-84. We are therefore once again contemplating higher capital expenditure. This is a very substantial increase in capital expenditure, and I should like to hear from the hon the Minister whether he is trying to curb it. Is it not time that we should pull in our belts? Capital expenditure is now 25,7% higher than the revised figure for the last financial year; in fact, it is R260 million more. With respect, Sir, this is either irresponsible or bad budgeting. I do not believe that this programme has been scaled down to any minimum as has been submitted by the hon the Minister.

How much money is being spent in the efforts to reduce the backlog on telephones? There has been an increase of R20 million in regard to expenditure on data equipment. I should welcome an explanation in this regard, and would also like to hear whether the expenditure on additional computer equipment and the expansion of computer systems are really necessary.

Operating expenditure is 24,8% higher; yet the estimated revenue of R3 367 million against the operating expenditure of R2 386 million will result in an operating loss of R335 million. I do not think that has ever happened in the Post Office. It means, firstly, that no funds will be available for contributions towards capital expenditure. How is the Post Office running its affairs? This is the worst Budget I have ever heard a Minister announce in this House. The Minister feels compelled to increase tariffs, and warns us that during the coming year there could be further increases, depending on the state of the economy. This hardly inspires confidence in the economy of South Africa or with businessmen. The hon the Minister hopes to get R203 million more as a result of these increases. Again the net result will be an operating loss of R131 million, while external loan requirements are now estimated at R805 million. If this is not a gloomy picture, I do not know. For the first time since autonomy was granted to the Post Office in 1968, the Minister is budgeting for an operating loss, with 23,8% from self-financing and 76,2% from loan accounts. That is far above the 50% to which I referred recently.

I really do not think that the hon the Minister can be proud of his performance last year and certainly not of the anticipated expenses for the coming year. I challenge any member in this House to show me any Post Office Budget that was worse than this one. I stand by my statement that this is the worst Post Office Budget ever presented to this House. The solution lies, to some extent, in the programme for expenditure of capital requirements. In this regard priority must be given to the absolute essential expenditure. We have spent a lot of money on telecommunications and computers with the new technological advances that have been made, but replacement costs are becoming very high, for the reason that computers are being designed and advanced at such a rate that they have a very short life and rapidly go out of date. The result is that they become even more expensive to replace.

I would like the hon the Minister to comment on the 25% increase in the provision for the depreciation of assets and the provision for the higher replacement costs of assets, which total R62 million.

I would urge that with regard to capital expenditure priority should be given to the services operating at the moment and to expenditure that generates revenue. In this regard I refer specifically to the main and vital function of telecommunications, namely the provision of telephones. We have taken this item for granted for too long and I do not believe that we are concentrating sufficiently on this service which forms the backbone of the department. There is no doubt that this is a profitable service. Last year the excess of revenue over expenditure in respect of telephone services alone was R267,2 million. The year before it was R212,6 million. In analyzing the telephone system according to Table 3 of the Postmaster-General’s report, the revenue increased from R988 million to R1 249 million, or R261 million more, an increase of 26,4%. This is profitable and that is why I say that we should concentrate on this service. In other words, we should fish in waters where the fish are running. According to Question No 1 on the Question Paper on 7 March 1984 it costs R165 to install a telephone. The installation fee is now R75 and the rental is R72, making a total of R147, or R18 short of the R165. This will of course increase if the tariff increases are approved. At a rough average the householder pays about R30 per month and the businessman about R160 per month for telephone calls, so the revenue is quite substantial. To get a more accurate picture, we can look at it in another way. According to the annual report on this particular subject, the revenue of R1 249 million is derived from 3 471 519 telephones. This is a revenue of R367 per telephone on metered calls only. That figure is obtained by simple division. The monthly rental of R6, or R72 per annum, must be added to the R367, making a total of R439 per annum earned per telephone. So, each telephone earns the department R439 per year.

Let us now take a look at the backlog. Last year the figure was 214 015 and now, according to the reply to Question 185 of 15 February, it is 231 439. Firstly, let me point out that this is an increase of 17 424, or 8,14%. The Minister expects 240 000 at the end of March 1984. That is 14 600 or 6,4% more added to the backlog. In other words, the backlog is growing; it is not being diminished. However, the installation of those 231 439 telephones, multiplied by the R394 earned per telephone, gives one a figure of R101,6 million. To that must be added the installation fee of R75 which accounts for a further R17 million, giving one an additional amount of R118 million. What is then the bottom line? If we could wipe out this backlog, the revenue of the department could be increased by a further R118 million. Apart from the financial benefit of this, it need hardly be said that this is a vital service both in the home and in one’s business. The country, of course, cannot function without telephone services. This backlog has been accumulating year after year. It is time that we made a concerted effort to wipe it out and that we concentrated on it.

I want to point out that 71% of the outstanding applications are from the non-White areas. Let us take a look at Soweto. According to the reply to Question 184 of 13 February, there were 31 000, in round figures, outstanding while in December of the year before there were 27 000 outstanding. In other words, the number outstanding has grown by another 3 900 or 14%. If one takes that together with the figure for the Witwatersrand, the increase over the two respective years was from 70 000 to 84 000 or an additional 14 000. In the Natal region there was an increase from 41 800 to 47 900. That is an extra backlog of 6 000 or 14%. The increase in the Orange Free State was 10%. The increase in the Cape, although there was an improvement, was still 12%. The position in the Cape Peninsula remains more or less the same with a backlog of 22 000 telephones.

I am making a plea for a blitz programme, a sort of Operation Soweto such as we had some years ago. However, what we are calling for now is an Operation South Africa. Reading between the lines of the hon the Minister’s speech, I find it somewhat encouraging that he appears to have got the message that we should now concentrate on the telephones. I am disappointed to note, however, that, although 262 000-odd additional telephones were provided last year, that was 4,7% fewer than in the previous year. If I understood correctly what has been said, only 180 000 were provided last year. That is most disappointing. It reflects a substantial drop. In making my suggestion, I am not unmindful of the fact that there are other requirements when it comes to installing telephones. One thinks, for example, of the exchanges, switchgear, transition lines and other equipment required to cater for the additional telephones. This is, however, included in my list of priorities for capital expenditure. I believe that this is where the priority should lie. So much for telephones.

The annual report also refers to the quality of programmes on television. In this connection I merely want to find out whether it is pertinent to ask at this stage whether the television satellite will be able to pick up broadcasts from the Olympic Games so that the public of South Africa will be able to enjoy some of the benefits of these transmissions.

I must now turn to that poor institution, the postal services. The losses in this department will amount to some R102 million according to the revised figures. The estimated loss was R82 million. The cost of delivery of a postal article is 4,1c according to an answer obtained to a question. This means that the difference of 70% between 4,1c and the new tariff of 11c—or the 10c of the old tariff—must be in respect of expenditure on staff required for this service. I do not think, however, that we should be unduly disturbed by this, because this service is a monopoly and, if one wants to maintain this as a monopoly, one has to provide that essential service for South Africa. In the same way, the telecommunications services are a monopoly. Even if that should run at a loss, it could still be provided as a service to South Africa.

Another hon member of my party shall deal more fully with the question of staff. I merely want to draw the attention to the 6,3% increase in the female staff component. The role played by females in the Post Office is a vital one. Furthermore, I should also like to commend the work study contained in the Paterson Report. I hope this will bring about a lot of satisfaction among members of the Post Office staff. Furthermore I should repeat my appeal to the hon the Minister to eliminate the wage gap between White and non-White workers in the Post Office. In answer to a question I put to him in February this year, the hon the Minister admitted that the wage gap did exist. He added, however, that it was being narrowed from time to time but that it was not yet possible to furnish a date on which full parity was likely to be reached. I should urge the hon the Minister to set a target date so that we can all know when—and I trust it will not be in the too distant future—parity will indeed be reached in respect of all staff members of the Post Office. Although Whites, Coloureds and Asians are treated on the same level there is no justification for any distinction to be made in respect of Black workers.

In this respect I should like to quote one example. A Black postman begins with a salary of R2 985 a year whereas a White postman begins with an annual salary of R3 822. The maximum annual wage for Black postman is R5 900 whereas the maximum annual salary for a White, Coloured or Indian postman is R7 600. It is true that higher salaries are paid to postmen on the Witwatersrand, in Pretoria and in Durban. I do believe, however, that this whole matter should receive urgent and immediate attention.

I want to refer now, Mr Speaker, to the question of telephone tapping. In reply to a question here in the House on 2 March this year the hon the Minister admitted that telephones were indeed being tapped. In the first instance I should thank him for his frank admission. Secondly, I asked him whether there was a list available of the names of people whose telephones were being tapped, to which the hon the Minister said he did not have such a list available. We have already had an argument in respect of the procedures followed in this respect in terms of section 118A of the Post Office Act, 1958. In terms of those procedures the functionary concerned can receive a request in writing from certain persons or bodies stipulated in the Act, after which a telephone can be tapped. What does perturb me, however, is the fact that it is clearly stipulated that such tapping should not exceed a period of six months. It is also alarming when one realizes that it may not be necessary to tap a particular telephone in the interests of the security of the State. Of course this stipulation does not only relate to the tapping of telephones, but also to the interception of postal articles as well. I should therefore like to know from the hon the Minister who is in possession of the list referred to, what the purpose of that list is and whether the validity of that list extends over a period in excess of six months. I do believe everybody is entitled to the privacy of his communication.

Finally I want to refer the question of the new dispensation. I think it is the last time that this hon Minister will be presenting his Budget to an exclusively White Parliament. Once the new constitutional dispensation becomes operative, I should suggest, all three Houses should meet simultaneously so that when the Post Office Budget is presented it could be done so simultaneously to the members of all three Houses. That will of course enable each and every Opposition spokesman to react to the Budget immediately. It is of course also possible that the next Minister of Posts and Telecommunications may not be a White. [Interjections.] I trust though that provision will be made for that Minister, whoever he may be, to be able to present his Budget without any undue difficulties.

Finally I wish to express by thanks and that of the hon members of my party to Mr Bester, the Postmaster-General, to Mr Raath and to the top management for their friendliness, their co-operation and their help. I know that the top management of the Post Office are experiencing difficult times but with a little change of direction I also believe that everything we desire can be accomplished. On behalf of myself and all hon members of my party I also want to congratulate Mr Raath on his recent promotion. We also want to congratulate Mr Van Rensburg on his promotion. We wish them well for the future.

Mr Speaker, right at the outset I should like to express my appreciation on behalf of all hon members of my party to Mr De Klerk and Mr Raath for their years of sterling service. I also want to wish them a long and peaceful retirement. Furthermore I also want to congratulate Mr Van Rensburg and Mr Raath on their promotion. The Post Office is indeed fortunate to have men of their calibre at its disposal.

If I may be forgiven for speaking as a Natalian, Mr Speaker, allow me also briefly to thank the staff of the Post Office for the hours and the efforts they spent—far beyond the normal call of duty—in order to repair flood damage in my province and to restore lines of communication to those communities that were cut off from the outside world. My colleagues in the affected areas have informed me that Post Office staff were working under appalling conditions into the small hours of the morning. Such devotion to duty, Sir, can only serve to enhance the already high standing the Post Office staff enjoy in South Africa.

Turning now, Sir, to the criticism of this Budget expressed by the hon member for Hillbrow, I want to say that I believe that he has shown once again that the official Opposition have no clear-cut policy guidelines for the running of the Post Office and its financial management but that they are merely seizing any short-term party political advantage they feel may be gained from successive budgets. The result is that they react differently to the various economic conditions under which the Post Office operates. By so doing, they have one set of arguments for one Budget and a completely opposite set for the next Budget.

Let us examine briefly some of the extraordinary charges of the hon member for Hillbrow. He complained because the operating surplus was R35 million as against a budgeted operating surplus of R185 million. Can he or any other hon member here imagine the position in which the Post Office would have found themselves had tariffs not been increased by 14,6% last year? Last year, however, that hon member fought those increases tooth and nail. Even this afternoon the hon member for Hillbrow has come along here and told us that it is invalid to argue that inflation has contributed towards the rising costs of the Post Office and that inflation should have been worked into the Budget last year. He argues now that higher expenditure should have been foreseen in the previous Budget with consequent even higher tariff increases in 1983. The two simply do not match.

The hon member also asked how it was that no increases were required in the five years prior to 1979 while several increases had been announced since 1979. However, on 17 March 1982, after one of the first major tariff increases after the tariff holiday, the hon member asked why the increases had been so drastic and why the Minister had not introduced gradual increases. Those were his comments after the five-year period to which I have just referred.

The hon member also charged that the hon the Minister’s overspending was a major cause of inflation. In this regard he referred in his brief remarks yesterday to the additional amount of R175 million provided for in the Additional Estimates, A few weeks ago, however, when we debated those estimates and the hon member had to agree that the amount was almost entirely to cover salary increases, he supported it.

No. An amount of only R20 million was in respect of salary increases.

Most astounding of all, however, is the fact that now that the operating surplus is so small that the loan component of capital expenditure will rise to almost 73%—a situation which we say quite frankly that we regret—the hon member complained yesterday that this was far above the normal 50% laid down as a guide. Last year, however, when he wanted the hon the Minister to keep tariffs down by utilizing surplus operating funds, he said of the 50% limit for loan money aimed at in respect of capital projects:

Last year the hon member argued the merits of financing capital expenditure from loan moneys while this year he bemoans the fact that a larger proportion of loan capital will be needed.

*No, Sir, if one wishes to escape public ridicule as chief spokesman, one must at least be consistent. Then one must be guided by a particular policy and one must evaluate a public administration in the light of this, instead of seeing how much political advantage one can extract from the situation every year.

We on this side of the House admit quite frankly that there have been economic circumstances which have made 1984 an extremely difficult budgeting year. Let us examine a few of those circumstances. The hon the Minister has already referred to the fact that the revenue from postal and telegraph services and even from telephone traffic has been lower than the amount budgeted for, something which is directly attributable to the economic recession. As against this, operating expenditure has risen sharply. Inflation has taken its toll in the form of higher salaries and more expensive equipment. Imported equipment and components have suffered from the weaker exchange rate of the rand, and increased sales tax and transport tariffs have also had to be absorbed.

All these factors have made themselves felt and the Post Office has not been able to exercise any control over them. These are all factors which will be with us in the new year as well. Vague allegations by the hon member for Hillbrow with regard to overspending will not cause any of those factors to disappear. They are all eating away at the operating surplus, a surplus which we need in the Post Office to achieve a balance in our capital financing.

When one is confronted with such a situation which is not of one’s own making, there are a number of courses one may consider.

Firstly, one may discontinue the cross-subsidizing of uneconomic services by the more profitable services. This is the kind of solution that is often propagated by the hon members of the PFP. Let us take the postal services, for example. Without tariff adjustments, the loss on the postal service would have been R112 million this year, as against an estimated loss of R73 million. Even after tariff adjustments, the loss will still be R112 million, and this in spite of the attempts which have been made, and which are mentioned in the report, by means of the establishment of mail concentration offices, the introduction of additional direct mail dispatches, the rerouting of mail matter and mail bags, and so forth.

The simplistic solution would be to follow the example of our ten major trading partners. Those 10 countries—they are all important countries with which we have a great deal of contact—are Argentina, Australia, Germany, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the USA. These 10 countries have an average postage rate of 24,9 cents for the ordinary letter. The year before last, the hon member for Hillbrow said that people in South Africa were not interested to know what the postage rate was in other countries; they wanted to know what it was in this country. However, it is no use dismissing that comparison out of hand; those countries are faced with exactly the same labour situation with regard to postal services as we are. If we were simply to follow their example, we would be fully justified in more than doubling the postage rate. However, we cannot use this simple solution, not only because it would be highly inflationary—that as well—but because we are partly a developing country.

When one uses the term “developing country”, one is inclined to think of State aid in some remote area, of deconcentration points and growth points and so on, but one should also think of the items that are closer to home. When one looks at the means of communication available to South Africans, one finds that virtually every White person in South Africa has access to a telephone service. It is a fact that the Post Office is making strenuous attempts to satisfy the growing demand for telephone services among our Black and Coloured population. In spite of this, it remains the position that the vast majority of our non-White population do not have a telephone service available, while all Whites do. This means that the Whites are not dependent on the postal services to the same extent as the non-Whites, and while it might therefore have had less disastrous consequences for the Whites if we had followed the example of our trading partners and announced drastic increases in the postage rate, this would have been unfair to the Black and Brown population groups in our country. This means that when we talk about development aid in a developing country, aid given to a developing community in our country, this is not limited to State subsidies, but every time we pick up a telephone, we are in fact helping coloured South Africans in their development, as a result of cross-subsidizing.

But having said that it is not possible for us to levy economic postage rates, it also remains a fact that the relative increase in the cost of our postal services over the past 10 years has been such that we shall have to give serious consideration to increasing the contribution made by the users of our postal services. Ten years ago, the loss on our postal services was R14,49 million. This year it has grown to R102 million. When we express the cost of this service as a percentage of the total operating expenditure, then it was 14,5% 10 years ago, compared with 27,64% this year. It has even been 37,3% on occasion. It is clear, therefore, that although a sudden increase to an economic tariff is not possible, it will increasingly be necessary to levy higher postal tariffs, otherwise the postal services will become an albatross to the administration of the Post Office as a whole. Nevertheless, the possibility of overcoming this problem by putting a sudden stop to cross-subsidizing or drastically reducing it is too simplistic for us to follow.

A second method which could be used is to curtail the capital programme drastically. But this would be short-sighted. One finds it amazing, therefore, that the hon member for Hillbrow should question the replacement of outdated electronic equipment. The hon member suggested that the Post Office should adjust its capital programme in such a way that priority is given to those capital undertakings that will generate an immediate return. But then the hon member went on to mention exchanges, telephone connections, buildings, etc., as examples. He mentioned virtually the whole sphere of the capital services. Now I want to ask the hon member: Is there a single aspect of our capital programme which is not a priority? The hon member referred to the modernization of electronic equipment yesterday as something which was “perhaps more glamorous" but which “is proving too costly”. Does the hon member not realize that no matter how rapid the development is in the electronic field and no matter how expensive it is to modernize, it is counter-productive to fall behind, because components of outdated equipment become more and more expensive and, eventually, completely unobtainable? Once one has ventured into that sphere, one of the problems one has to put up with is the fact that the electronics industry develops so rapidly that one has to run to keep up with it.

However, this is not the only consideration. Apart from this, most of the new exchange buildings, sorting machines and optical meters in the postal service are in fact cost and labour saving. What is more, the Post Office plays such a crucial role in the preparation for any economic revival that it dare not fall behind. If we did not provide the telephone, postal and data services, any economic revival which we were looking forward to would be delayed and hampered.

There is a third method which could be followed to overcome this situation, and that is to increase tariffs, and in this connection one has a choice.

One could annouce drastic increases, for example, which would be sufficient to make the services economically profitable. I must concede that this would be an unpopular step, and if such increases were higher than the prevailing interest rate, the criticism expressed by the hon member for Hillbrow yesterday and today would be justified. However, the Post Office could then be sure that it would be able to paint a rosy picture to Parliament next year, at the end of the financial year.

On the other hand, the hon the Minister could be content with moderate tariff increases. This, we believe, is what is being proposed in this budged. This also has a price, and the hon the Minister spelt it out here yesterday. The price is, among other things, that one has to budget for a deficit, and it is not easy for the Post Office to do this. The hon the Minister pointed out that this was the first time since the Post Office became autonomous—16 years ago—that a deficit was being budgeted for. Another price that will have to be paid is the fact that the Post Office will have to expand its essential infrastructure with borrowed money. This is the price which will have to be paid for moderate increases. However, that price also means that the hon the Minister must demonstrate his belief that our national economy will recover to such an extent that it will be possible to utilize the full capacity of the Post Office and that the expected loss in the coming year will be wiped out and even reversed by increased volume and increased traffic. It requires courage to take such a step, and we on this side of the House are grateful for the fact that the hon the Minister and his top management have shown that courage. We believe that the future will prove that his confidence was not misplaced.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who has just resumed his seat will excuse me if I do not follow up on what he said, because I have a great deal to say in the short time at my disposal.

Hon members are acquainted with this party’s standpoints and policy in this regard. I have said several times in this House that the Conservative Party is very sincere in its approach. If a Bill is deserving of praise or appreciation we shall say so; where we can recommend improvements we shall try to do so and if we have criticism to express we shall do that, too, without hesitation. We shall not criticize destructively; far from it. However, we have to keep the Government on its toes, and a Government is only good to the extent that the Opposition does its duty.

Other speakers on this side of the House will also deal with facets of the budget and accordingly I shall confine myself to some of them only, in the knowledge that my colleagues who will elaborate further on the matter will do so very thoroughly.

In the first place I wish to convey my thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister and the Postmaster-General and his staff for the opportunity they have provided us to view the modern developments in the field of telecommunications in order to bring us up to date with what they are doing. This was praiseworthy. It meant a great deal to us and we took cognizance of what was being done. I also wish to thank the more junior staff for their helpfulness in that regard. I believe that hon members of the Opposition parties who were present appreciated it a great deal. We also thank the hon the Minister for the exhibition at the Hendrik Verwoerd Building. This is a different situation to the one which applies in the Department of Defence, where only certain elect members of the NP are invited. In this instance all the parties were invited and we want to say to the hon the Minister of Post and Telecommunications that we appreciate it. [Interjections.]

Tariffs have in fact been increased tremendously. Hon members who have been in this House for a long time say that this was the worst increase in years. The unit cost for automatic, local and mainline calls has been increased by approximately 14%; telephone rental by R1 per month and postage from 10 cents to 11 cents, etc. Another hon member of my party will go into this further. I think it is wrong to increase tariffs so drastically. These increases may make the public hesitant to make full use of the services. The Post Office is a business, purely and simply a business. I want to mention an example in this regard. It speaks volumes. I repeat: The Post Office is purely and simply a business. Because the other day, when I mentioned the same example, the hon member for Hercules did not understand it, I am going to put it so simply that even he can understand it. [Interjections ] For example, if one makes 10c on an article and one sells three of them, one makes more than if one makes 20c on an article and sells one. Is it not, then, better to sell three at the half price than to sell one at 20c? This is a very simple example. I ask that this, too, be borne in mind in this regard.

I now turn to the question of the cost of the Post Office services in comparison with those in overseas countries. To interpret the figures given to us as comparisons, is difficult, because one does not always know exactly what the rate of exchange is. Converting our money to their money values does not always give us a clear indication either. Accordingly it is difficult to determine whether our Post Office services are cheaper or more expensive than those in countries overseas.

I am convinced that the economy of our country will come right again. It is a simple truth that if we all do our duty everything will come right, as Jan Brand said, but then everyone must do his duty. I believe that it is within the power of the extremely capable and dedicated top structure and the officials in every facet of the Post Office to effect savings where possible.

We are only sorry that the increases have come now, at a time when South Africa is caught in the deadly stranglehold of inflation. I know that the Post Office does not have sole control over this but it seems as if the Government of the day has totally lost its grip on inflation. What makes me nervous is the possibility that tariffs may be increased again later this year. I hope that this will not happen. We can do many things. We can draw water from a pitcher until it is empty and there is nothing left. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister not to announce further increases later this year if at all possible. We believe that the competent staff of the Post Office will do everything in their power to make up the deficits by way of economy measures This is a vast department and therefore it ought to be possible to effect savings here and there.

I note that in one month, 14 000 telephones were replaced by the new Disa telephones. One wonders what happened to the older type of telephone and whether they can be used again. Perhaps the Post Office could lease those telephones to lessees who need them. By this time there ought to be several thousands of the older type of telephone available. We have never issued poor quality telephones, not as far as I know, at any rate, and therefore we must be proud of the manufacturers of telephones in South Africa.

My party is grateful for the increase in the salaries of the staff. They certainly deserve it. I have said before in this House that we are very concerned about the phenomenon that the private sector lures Post Office staff away. I believe that this will happen to a lesser extent in future because the improved salaries will contribute towards keeping the staff in the employ of the Post Office. We take our hats off to the workers of South Africa in all sectors of the service of the State and in the private sector as well, and as far as the Post Office is concerned this includes everyone, from the Postmaster-General down to the lowliest official working in the Post Office.

Before I go further I should like to move the following further amendment:

To omit all the words after “That” and to substitute “this House declines to pass the Second Reading of the Post Office Appropriation Bill unless and until the Minister gives the assurance that he—

1. (1) will reduce the inflationary tariff increases resulting from the Government’s total inability to combat inflation effectively and will announce no further tariff increases during the financial year;
2. (2) will counteract the crowding-out of Whites in Post Office buildings in White areas as a result of inadequate facilities for Non-whites in their own areas; and
3. (3) will not allow the integration of crèche, restaurant and sporting facilities for the staff of the Department of Posts and Telecomunications.”.

The crowding-out of Whites in the White area is disturbing. No one knows our policy better than hon members opposite because until two years plus a few days ago they still had the same policy as we have. It is they and not we who ran away from that policy. It is not we who ran away; it is they who ran away from their policy. [Interjections.] We do not begrudge the people of colour anything we want for ourselves, and this applies in the field of posts and telecommunications as well. I therefore call upon the hon the Minister to give the inhabitants of residential areas for people of colour, equal postal services, for example, sufficient public telephones, post offices and Post Office Savings Bank and Telebank facilities. I realize that this cannot happen overnight and that it is a process that takes time. But we have to begin somewhere, and the hon the Minister has already made the necessary facilities available at various places. However, there are still many places that have to be given attention so that the inhabitants in question need not cast covetous eyes at our facilities or make use of them and in doing so crowd us out.

I realize that the Post Office cannot solve this problem on its own because this is a country-wide problem. The Post Office cannot on its own solve the problem of crowding-out. But all I ask is that everything possible be done to avoid crowding-out in the White areas. I believe that we can do so by giving the people of colour the necessary facilities. As soon as full-fledged post offices can be built for non-Whites and Black people in their own areas, together with the associated services such as the Post Office Savings Bank, Telebank, payment facilities for telephone accounts and so on, other undertakings, eg banks, will also offer their services in those areas. As I have already said the Post Office cannot solve the problem of crowding-out on its own, but it can play a role in this regard, even if it is only 50% at the White post offices.

It is argued that crowding-out will not take place, but I say that only a Rip van Winkle would say anything of the kind because there is no doubt at all that it takes place. [Interjections.] Our people are being crowded out of the post offices. [Interjections.] I just want to say to the hon members on the other side of the House who are protesting so loudly now that since my childhood days, since coalition days, I have been a Nationalist. I was branded a Malanite. We were reviled as such at the time by the liberals. From my childhood days I always cherished that party until they drove us away. I say that we cherished and worked very hard for the NP over the years, until it changed its policy. It is with sorrow that I say that I could never have imagined that the day would come when I would have to come and appeal to that party in this House, hat in hand for the continued existence of my people’s facilities. I never imagined that I should ever have to ask that of the NP. My appeal today is that my people, our people, should not be crowded out.

I wish to conclude by saying that Blacks and people of colour should be trained to an increasing extent to serve their own people in their own areas. Give them a place to establish themselves, because they need it. However, I ask in Heaven’s name that the Whites, too, be assured of an oasis, a place for themselves, in their own beloved father-land.

Mr Speaker, it is interesting listening to the hon member for Nigel. It seems that where he comes from, there is tremendous crowding-out by Black people and that he simply cannot take it. The hon member briefly sketched his political background for us. One also knows that he was a businessman who at one stage had quite a large staff under him. I want to ask him which of those staff members he sent to fetch the post everyday. Did he himself not contribute to the crowding-out he is now referring to in the area where he lives? Surely he did not go and fetch the post himself. The CP will always complain about people of colour entering State institutions, but when that man enters his office, or works on his factory floor, as was the case with the hon member, then that does not constitute crowding-out. One wonders when members of the CP are going to drop this attitude of theirs. On a previous occasion I said that in my opinion we had now reached the stage at which we should move away from this kind of political speech that we encounter in debates of this nature. This debate is concerned with a department which renders a service to everyone. However, hon members of the CP will not stop doing this. Probably one of these days they will begin to complain about the language as well.

Of course, yes.

The hon member for Rissik must know that we shall carry on and that we shall see to it that the Post Office renders a better service every year. However, if members of the CP carry on as they are doing at present, I do not believe that we shall get there.

The hon member for Nigel said that the Budget was inflationary and that he had moved an amendment for that reason. If he wants to tell us that we must establish separate facilities in White areas then I want to ask him whether the additional buildings that will have to be built in the White areas will not cost money. Would that not be inflationary? After all, only a small number of people will make use of these facilities. Why should these facilities be duplicated in the White areas, whereas the owner of the shop next to the Post Office is not going to duplicate his shop. One cannot understand the logic of hon members of the CP and therefore I refuse to take any further attention of them.

I want to come back to what the hon member for Hillbrow said. I want to refer in particular to what he said yesterday afternoon. I venture to say that yesterday afternoon was one of those days when the hon member for Hillbrow spoke and nothing he said meant anything at all. I want to quote from the hon member’s unrevised Hansard and ask him what he meant by it. I quote:

That is clear enough for anybody to understand.

I shall get to that hon member in a moment. Let me quote further:

That is what the hon member said. Now I should like to know from the hon member what computers that the department has in use at present are technologically obsolete and have to be replaced. I do not know of one. Inquiries addressed to the department have brought me to the same conclusion, viz that there are no such computers. Those that are being replaced are obsolete and have to be supplemented, and they are small in number. If the hon member is perhaps referring to the telephone exchanges, I want to ask him what other equipment is obsolete and must be replaced. Or must we put an end to purchases? That is what he said in his speech here. My information is that none of this equipment is so obsolete. I think that the hon member is so over-anxious to create the impression in the minds of the public that the cost increases are of a political nature that he is prepared to convey total distortions to this House.

I do not believe it is in the interests of the Post Office to make political capital out of a debate of this nature. [Interjections.] The other day I warned that we should not drag this debate into the political arena and that we should guard against that from now on. Therefore it is a pity that the hon member for Nigel has just done so again because in the years ahead we are going to have more political parties than at present in this Post Office debate. Moreover, the governments of the future cannot always try to reply to political points when trying to run a department of this kind. I think that we in this country must get away from these pettinesses if it is our aim to place a department like the Post Office squarely on its own two feet and keep it there. We must bear in mind—the hon member for Nigel has just described this very clearly—that the service rendered by the Post Office is rendered to everyone in the country. We cannot get away from that. Therefore we must try to politicize it as little as possible. This is understandable coming from the hon members of the CP, because they will never be able to adopt to this system. They said so shortly after the referendum and they will carry on like that. They were told yesterday that they were engaged in museum politics, and I agree with that. They will become museum pieces and that is what they will remain.

All of a sudden the hon member for Hillbrow has developed cold feet about the electronic age. One might have expected that from hon members of the CP, but not from the hon members of the PFP. The hon member contends that electronic equipment may be too expensive and that we should reconsider the old equipment at this point. He challenged me on this and I now wish to deal with it. I think this would be fatal, because this is the very time that we must accelerate the installation of electronic equipment with regard to telecommunications. I take it that that is what the hon member was referring to. In his speech the hon the Minister said that we should try to complete this changeover by 1987. Has the hon member, then, forgotten the economy effected by the electronic exchanges with regard to manpower, the upkeep of equipment, the floor space required and the capital that needs to be expended for spare parts one has to keep in stock for the equipment we have at present? With the new electronic equipment it is possible to eliminate every possible fault that could arise in an exchange by simply pressing a button which causes the defective parts to be temporarily eliminated, while the current is rerouted along a different channel, until there are sufficient parts to be replaced, when someone is sent to repair everything simultaneously. All these savings are things that await us in future. Then, however, we must be able to change over to the use of the latest systems as soon as possible.

In the past the hon member for Hillbrow has often praised the Post Office in debates in this House on the electronic systems that have come into operation. Since South Africa is now on the threshold of the new electronic era, we must not put a spoke in the wheel of progress in South Africa at this stage. Together with the Post Office, South Africa’s electronic industry, too, has now come of age. South African electronic companies have succeeded this year, for the first time in the history of the country, in competing in the multinational market as far as the electronics of the telephone exchange is concerned. This was only achieved because the Post Office helped to make it possible to manufacture this equipment in South Africa. It is equipment that we had to manufacture internally in the years when we were boycotted in this sphere that will help this country in the future and will make it easier for us in South Africa to be self-sufficient in this sphere. It will also create more job opportunities for South Africans and in addition it will ensure for us our competition in the outside world as regards that equipment that we shall not manufacture ourselves.

We are now also entering the era of optical fibre conductors: a technology that eliminates the conducting of signals by copper wire and replaces copper wire by fibre glass conductors, without copper. This is an equally important technological achievement, one which South Africa dare not overlook. In this new electronic era even the most inventive peoples are going to have a share in the development of electronic components. Those who do not enter the field of electronics now are going to struggle to enter this era and they are also going to struggle to break away from electronic components, because they are cheap and long-lasting. The Post Office can ensure that in future South Africa will remain one of the space-age countries by insisting that our suppliers provide us with the most effective and modern equipment. Accordingly I wholly reject the allegation made by the hon member for Hillbrow, viz that we should review our policy once again at this point and consider whether we should not perhaps continue to use the old kind of exchange and equipment. Perhaps the hon member wants to revert to the days of “Nommer asseblief" and the old crankhandle telephones. [Interjections.]

I now wish to confine myself to the principles contained in the Budget which the hon the Minister submitted to us. Basically, what they amount to are that this House must decide whether it agrees, in the first place, with the tariff increase of 9%, in the second place, with the deficit of R131 million budgeted for, in the third place, the continued policy to be pursued with regard to the financing of capital projects, in the fourth place, the policy to be pursued with regard to staff matters, as the hon the Minister announced it here, including the salaries and accommodation of staff, and, in the fifth place, whether the provision of the broad infrastructure of the network should be proceeded with or whether we should give more attention this year to the linking of terminals, telephones, data modems and so on.

One cannot find any fault with the hon the Minister’s proposals as regards the average tariff increase of 9%; on the contrary, we have to concede the correctness of the hon the Minister’s approach. I doubt whether it will be necessary to effect a further tariff adjustment later this year. I believe that if we really concentrate on linking the terminal data modems and other equipment to the network now and try to eliminate the backlog as rapidly as possible, we shall find that the income we generate thereby will do the trick. The installation of additional telecommunications equipment will in itself create more job opportunities in the firms manufacturing that equipment. It will also give rise to more employment opportunities for the people who are going to use them. It will lend momentum to economic growth because it will improve means of communication in the commercial world. I think that the standpoint of the hon the Minister is correct. At this point we should rather utilize the existing network better and apply it more effectively without delay. By doing so we shall obtain funds that will enable us to tackle our capital projects with less loan capital. In this way we shall come back sooner to the norm laid down by the Franzsen Committee. I believe we must recognize that during such periods we shall have to spend large amounts of money and capital. Just as farmers must now and then buy equipment such as tractors, combine harvesters etcetera, to increase their productivity, the Post Office, too, has to tackle its large-scale capital projects periodically.

I now wish to turn again to the fears of the hon member for Hillbrow. One does at times have to invest in major and expensive equipment if one wants to earn a lot of revenue. If the hon member has ever been to Iscor’s Sishen mine, he will know what I am talking about. At that mine one finds trucks of 150 tons. They are gigantic and very expensive trucks capable of carrying enormous loads. If those trucks had been replaced by trucks of 25 tons each, Iscor would have had a tremendous operating loss. They would have had to employ far more people because in the first instance, there would have to be six drivers instead of one. Probably they would also need six times the number of people to keep the trucks in operation. All these matters must be borne in mind and therefore the hon member must not take fright at major and expensive equipment, because once it has been installed it will be a major asset. In any event, the increase of 9% is lower than the inflation rate and I believe that it will be adequate to see us through this year as long as the expected economic upswing takes place. I have no doubt that that upswing has already begun in the Post Office. We see in the reports that there is a strong demand for telecommunication services and equipment, data modems and telephones. Therefore, if the consumer wants these things, then that means that we shall be able to collect that revenue.

The official Opposition made a big fuss about certain tariff increases that are supposedly higher than the average of 9%. As far as the installation costs of telephones are concerned, the hon member for Hillbrow referred to them in passing. This year he used the cost increase in the installation of a telephone to show how he would eliminate the deficit. Last year, however, he was opposed to that increase. [Interjections.] Last year he protested loudly against it whereas this year, as the hon member for Umlazi mentioned, he used it for his own advantage. We are now starting to become accustomed to this kind of speech by the hon member for Hillbrow. It is for that reason that I want to single out the specific example of the installation cost of a telephone. Last year the hon the Minister proposed an increase of 50% in this regard—from R50 to R75 for the installation of a telephone. This year they are keeping it to R75. Last year the cost to the Post Office of installing a telephone was R150. Therefore one can say that the Post Office subsidized the consumer by 100%. This year the post office is subsidizing him by 120%. That kind of increased subsidy on the part of the Post Office is something that the Opposition will never mention. If the Post Office installs the same number of telephones this year as it did last year, then the subsidy will amount to R23,5 million. If one adds to that the R20 million of last year’s subsidy, then 40% of the deficit we are budgeting for as a levy, has been redeemed. I wonder what the hon members would have done if the hon the Minister had again proposed this year that there should be an increase in the cost of installation.

On the occasion of the Additional Post Office Appropriation Bill I pointed out what the consumer had spent his money on at Christmas time, and I still believe that he would perhaps have accepted an adjustment to the installation costs, although I agree with the hon the Minister that the increased rental may be a better way to distribute the cost among all the users of telephone apparatus.

The hon members of the Opposition are arousing suspicion among the public at large about the hon the Minister’s average tariff adjustment of 9% by referring cynically to certain tariffs which have supposedly been adjusted by more than 10%. It is true that certain tariffs are being adjusted by more than 10%. I wish to single out one of those tariffs in order to ask the Opposition what they would have done. I refer to postage, which is now being increased from 10c to 11c, and in this regard I want to ask what we would have done with 0,1c if we had increased it by 9%. How are we to tell the consumer that he must give us part of a cent? We have already told them that we are withdrawing the half cent. I should like to know from the Opposition how one might overcome these practical problems. If one wishes to increase postage in a practical way then one has to make an adjustment of this kind. There are political overtones to this sowing of suspicion, and we must eradicate this in this Chamber.

If one recalls the way in which the Opposition misused installation costs last year for political gain on the occasion of the by-elections in the Bergs—here I refer in particular to the hon members of the CP, since they have now quietened down somewhat—I want to say that this is something we must guard against, because by misusing this in such a way one slows down the growth of the Post Office and in particular, the telecommunications arm of the Post Office, and when we do that then we slow down the growth of the country. That South Africa cannot afford.

I wish to conclude by referring to the staff matters broached by the hon the Minister. A large percentage of the additional expense is ascribable to salaries, housing and other benefits as indicated by the hon member for Umlazi. I said a week ago, and I want to repeat it now, that I believe that this is essential, that it is right because the officials of the Post Office deserve it. We are particularly grateful that the officials who are not yet benefiting from the salary adjustments will in fact receive them retrospectively with effect from 1 January.

The hon the Minister announced an increase of 50% in the amount voted for the housing of officials. One wonders once again why the Opposition did not oppose that increase as well, or perhaps that is because it is in the officials’ favour and therefore they have to be careful how they handle it. The announcements concerning nursery schools, retirement havens and the housing of pensioners contribute towards establishing a contented, stable corps of workers. This is another of the principles with which this House ought to associate itself.

For my part I wish to extend my sincere thanks to Mr Raath and Mr De Klerk for the way in which they have provided me with information over the years. It has really been a pleasure to co-operate with them. I wish them everything of the best.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Boksburg made some very interesting and valid points and some with which I do not agree at all. I hope he does not mind if I do not refer to his speech now as I will cover certain aspects of it during my own speech.

At the outset I would like, on behalf of this party, to express our sincere appreciation to Mr Raath and Mr De Klerk. Mr Raath has been responsible for telecommunications and Mr De Klerk is the unsung hero responsible for finance and data processing. He is the fellow who takes the rap. These two gentlemen have rendered outstanding service to the department and have always been more than willing to help whenever one needed any information. I wish Mr Raath everything of the best on his retirement in February next year and Mr De Klerk likewise on his retirement in September this year. I would also like to extend our best wishes and congratulations to both Mr Van Rensburg and Mr Robbie Raath who will be occupying similar posts in due course. I believe their appointments are effective almost immediately.

A bit later.

In any event, we wish them well with their appointments a bit later in the year.

Mr Speaker, I now wish to move as a further amendment:

That, in essence, expresses our sentiments in respect of the Budget before us.

The Post Office has had autonomy since 1968. It was a bold step taken at that time. Since then it has run itself as a business and as such it has felt the need, the desire for the so-called profit motive that is behind all businesses. It is a business which has grown out of all recognition and it will continue to grow in the years that lie ahead. It has to come to the stage where I think the department can only be called a giant in the South African economy. However, as all giants, it must be very careful that it does not enjoy the title of ogre because this giant influences every aspect of our economy, and in order to avoid the title of ogre, it must at all times be most circumspect in its dealings with both its customers and its suppliers.

We have a budget before us today presented by the hon the Minister that will affect every business, from the largest to the smallest in our land, and it will certainly affect every person, from the richest to the poorest. The question is once again raised, particularly by the citizen, why do we once again have to pay more. I have a certain appreciation for the hon the Minister’s dilemma because I believe that this hon Minister, more than possibly any other hon Minister in this House, is a gentleman who finds himself in a catch 22 situation and this is being aggravated more and more each year.

The dilemma in which he finds himself can best be illustrated by likening if to the events that followed last year’s crippling drought in Natal. Water is a most precious commodity, and through no control of our own, it dried up. The rains did not come. A critical shortage developed and it resulted in restrictions. The restrictions, when they were imposed, resulted in a drop in supply and therefore a drop in income but—and this is a big but— the infrastructure remained the same. In order to balance the books, the tariffs inevitably have to rise. This is what happened in Natal and this is exactly what was reported as to have happened yesterday in the Transvaal. According to an article in this morning’s Citizen the Transvaal is on the brink of increasing its tariffs, in all municipalities, particularly in the PWV area. Everybody knows and everybody prays sincerely that the drought will be broken. It has been broken in Natal but there has been no cut in administrative costs. We found ourselves in Natal, and the Transvalers are going to find themselves this year using less and paying more. The tragedy in Pietermaritzburg and Durban is that now that water is poised to become more readily available the tariffs are going to remain at their high levels. I venture to suggest that exactly the same thing will happen in the Transvaal. This clearly illustrates the very situation that this hon Minister finds himself in. There has been a fall-off in demand for services, which has resulted in a reduction in anticipated income, which in turn has been followed by the old time-worn panacea for all ills, namely a general tariff increase. This is an almost panic measure to try to balance the book as quickly as possible.

It does not even balance.

Correct. I will come to that. In my amendment I am suggesting that there is a strong possibility that this is what has happened. I do not believe that the hon the Minister has sincerely addressed himself to other areas where effective controls and management steps could possibly be taken in order to minimize the severity of the increases.

I am ever conscious of the fact that it is easy to criticize; so in my speech I hope to be constructive and to be able to try to suggest areas where alternatives may possibly be found. Let me say at the outset that I should like to see the so-called popular services, standardized mail items, telephone unit charges and telephone rentals, untouched. That is something I would really like to see. I believe that there are other areas in operating expenditure that could be closely examined. Let me name a few. Overtime is one. R58 million is budgeted for overtime for the coming year. R18,5 million is budgeted for subsistence allowances and a globular amount of R74.8 million for transport. As a person who has been involved in motors and transport virtually all my life I believe this is an area where effective savings could be implemented. R202 million is budgeted for provision for depreciation of assets. There are also other smaller items, but one which I sincerely believe could be avoided to a great degree is irrecoverable debts for an mounts of R4,5 million. That is a loss, a complete write-off, because of telephone accounts, etc, that have been uncollected. These are but a few items. I believe that some of them can be dealt with in greater detail in the Committee Stage.

I want to turn to the income side. Here we believe that there are certain services that have to come in for critical re-examination. I think of the Centex service. This is something that could be looked at closely. It is a service where serious tariff adjustments will possibly have to be considered. Regrettably it is going to hurt a lot of people in the lower income groups. We understand and accept that, but other services cannot be expected to subsidize this to the extent that they do.

We are gratified by the fact that there has been a tremendous improvement in the staff situation. I want to couple my remarks here with the anticipated cost of overtime for the coming year. We believe, and I think the hon the Minister will readily accept, that the improvement has been brought about mainly due to the economic climate. I particularly refer to those who have rejoined the Postal Services. We will readily accept that there is a need to retain at all times a competent and well-trained staff. However, in these times I think the hon the Minister should look hard at productivity levels. Good management walks hand in hand with maximum productivity. An effective management in modern business needs to be almost ruthless in this regard. I say this in all seriousness. Effective management needs to be ruthless as far as productivity is concerned. I submit that the hon the Minister will accept that this aspect must be examined very closely because tremendous savings could be effected in respect of the overtime commitment that he is budgeting for.

Let us look at housing. There is no gainsaying the fact that good housing is important to ensure a satisfied and motivated staff—those were the words of the hon the Minister. We note that R30 million has been set aside for the granting of loans. I want to pose a few questions in this particular area. There is a tendency for people who enjoy housing loans or subsidies to purchase properties that are not commensurate with their present standard of income or their future potential capabilities in respect of income. Too many people, particularly—I am sad to say—the younger ones, have what we used to call a champagne taste and beer pockets. All too often they tend to fly too high when they look at properties to purchase and I think that this is where stricter management controls could be brought into play. I believe that housing loans must be carefully scrutinized and that properties must be assessed in the light of the applicant’s assets and his potential in the service of the department. On no account should people, and particularly— again I emphasize it—the younger people be permitted to bite off more than they can chew, or be permitted to live above the standard which even their potential earnings will permit. There is a danger here, the danger that possibly too much is being spent on too little.

We also note that R112 million has been set aside under capital expenditure for the purchase of land and building works. We submit that this too could be an area for revaluation and re-examination because the Post Office has successfully leased premises over the years.

While we are—as we are in this Budget— faced with the prospect of finding only 23,8% of our capital expenditure requirements from the self-financing component, I believe every item under the R112 million for land and buildings should be reconsidered in the light of the fact that we have to seek 76,2% of capital expenditure from loan funds. One starts to despair for the day when we will hopefully achieve the guidelines that were set down by the Franzsen Committee some 12 years ago, in 1972.

Having said all this, one fact emerges very clearly, and that is that we must obviously continue to expand our telecommunications servies in order to generate sales which will lead to higher income levels. Therein, I believe, lies the catch 22 situation in which the hon the Minister finds himself. I cannot in all humility stand here today and say that I have the answer but I can only suggest that control might not be as tight as it could be, and that is the essence of my amendment; that is the aspect that disturbs us.

I believe sincerely that the hon the Minister is taking a bold step. I think he is taking an aggressive step because he is budgeting for a deficit of some R102 million in the hope that an upturn in the economy is going to come, in the same way as we hope that the rains will come, and that that upturn is going to generate a greater income and that the deficit is going to be eliminated. However, he hangs the sword of Damocles over our heads. He says that if this upturn does not come he must sound the warning that he might have to increase tariffs again later this year. That, Sir, is a horrifying thought. Nonetheless, I say that he has taken an aggressive step, because it is the very thing that the hon member for Amanzimtoti recommended and called upon the SA Transport Services to do. It is good to see that this initiative is being considered and is in fact being taken by the hon the Minister of Post and Telecommunications. We in these benches sincerely hope that there will be an upturn in the economy. We sincerely hope that the rains will come and that there will be an upsurge in the usage of posts and telecommunications facilities, because, as I said earlier, it is going to be a tragedy if the hon the Minister has to increase tariffs further later this year.

Regrettably, Sir, my time is almost expired. I am sorry to say that we cannot support the Second Reading of this Budget. I can only close by saying that we make an urgent appeal to the Minister to critically examine all operating expenditure with a view to curtailing or containing any increases and possibly making good much of the deficit for which he has budgeted in the Budget which he has placed before us today. As I said a little earlier, criticism very often comes to the lips easily, but constructive criticism is a little more difficult. We do not have the answers, but we do believe that sound management is the one area that must be looked at. We believe that the Post Office must continue to be run along business lines. We also sincerely believe that the recommendations of the Franzsen Committee have to continue to be a goal towards which the hon the Minister and the department must constantly strive.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umhlanga made a constructive speech. I believe that it is the task of an Opposition party to criticize. I believe that they have the right to criticize, but also that it is everyone’s duty to suggest solutions. The hon member for Umhlanga was honest and admitted that there were no obvious solutions to such a problem.

This Budget and the publicity and criticism which it has evoked, is not so much the fault or the problem of this department, as it is an economic and financial problem of South Africa as a whole and the entire world. No member of the Opposition referred this afternoon to the recession, or to inflation which is a world-wide phenomenon. Nor did they refer to rising interest rates, foreign exchange problems, dollar problems, etc. These financial factors have a direct and far-reaching role to play in this debate.

The hon member for Umhlanga spoke about a lack of sound business administration which was perhaps discernible in the Post Office. This was an exceptionally drastic statement, because I believe that if one were to test this department for sound business management, it would in fact pass the test. Like the hon member, I believe that we have to be ruthless when it comes to the question of productivity. We have an exceptionally loyal work force in the Post Office. They are very good people, with an effective management. I believe that if one were to test the department by the norms of effective management, it would pass the test.

Let us suppose that the Post Office has been listed on the Stock Exchange. In that case few people would purchase shares in the Post Office on the strength of the tariff increases announced yesterday, because they would say—as the hon member for Umhlanga said—that “you must act ruthlessly”. In that case the tariffs would not be increased by 9%, but have to be increased dramatically and drastically. Sir, we forget that the Post Office is not only a business, but is also there to render a service.

In support of what I have said, I want to single out an aspect. If we had to take really drastic action and had to make the Post Office profitable to avoid the criticism which was evoked, what would we have had to do? Let us take the postal services to which the hon member for Umlazi referred so effectively this afternoon. It would not then have been sufficient to increase the postal tariffs by one cent. Let us consider the losses being suffered on postal services. In the 1980-81 financial year the loss was already R51,3 million. In the 1982-83 financial year it was R85,1 million. In the current year, even after the adjustments, there will still be a loss of R102 million on this service. Surely this proves to us that the department did not simply raise tariffs for the sake of raising them. The provision of service aspect was taken into consideration. If we had purposefully to eliminate the loss to which I have referred this afternoon, a letter would in future not cost 11 cents but at least 16 cents.

Let us hope the economy improves and it is not necessary for us to adjust tariffs in South Africa again. I believe that the hon the Minister was being honest when he warned the public of South Africa that there were economic problems and that the Post Office had to overcome these problems. No one wants to see this department end up with such a financial problem that it could no longer be saved. We are living in challenging times and this department has to keep abreast of these challenges. In fact, I believe that this department has to take the lead as far as these challenges are concerned. As long ago as March 1981 these challenges were pointed out to us in the periodical Posts and Telecommunications. The main heading to the relevant article was: “The Eighties: A Decade of Challenge".

†Allow me to quote from this article. This is what the present Postmaster-General, Mr Bester, said:

That is exactly what the hon the Minister is trying to do in this Budget. We are in the throes of a global change to society, the effects of which will be more profound than the effects of the industrial revolution over the past 200 years. Posts and telecommunications are South Africa’s prime mover of information, both nationally and internationally. It handles spoken information by telephone, printed information by telex and Teletex, and numerical information by moving it from computer to computer. In the coming decade posts and telecommunications in South Africa will not only have to provide and maintain those services but will also have to meet the challenges of the vast developments taking place now in the field of information technology. South Africa simply cannot afford not to provide the national communications infrastructure to support the electronic revolution upon which the future of our nation depends. If we should fail now to build up an adequate and efficient in frastructe we shall never be able to cope with the enormous demands for services of all kinds in the very near future.

*I believe that the Post Office has had these things in mind for a number of years now That is why the hon the Minister referred to them again in his Budget speech yesterday. I also believe that hon members of the Opposition read through the Bill carefully and made a thorough study of it. For that reason I want to refer to them to one paragraph which is of importance. In the introduction to his speech the hon the Minister asked what the characteristics of the past financial year had been. In his summary of these characteristics the hon the Minister referred inter alia to the weakening in the department’s financial position owing to the large sums of money which were required for expansion programmes. He also referred to price and cost increases, and the fact that the losses on uneconomic services had remained high.

The problems were therefore identified and we on this side of the House are prepared to face up to them. We are not only prepared to criticize. We accept these problems as challenges and we are also going to try to convert these challenges into successes, to the benefit of this department and South Africa as a whole.

Tremendous progress in the field of technology, and recently in the field of electronics in particular, has had an important effect on the nature and scope of the everyday services provided by the Post Office. In order to accept this challenge, highly sophisticated electronic apparatus is of cardinal importance, and it also has to be used constantly to meet the steadily growing needs of our rapidly developing country.

Let us consider just a few of these which, I believe, can already be considered milestones. These may be minor aspects, which are not being singled out for criticism. However, it is minor aspects which play a big part in the general infrastructure of the Post Office. I am referring here to the matter of mail collecting points. There are already 48 250 readily accessible mail boxes for the collection of mail in the country. I am personally satisfied with the number of available mail boxes. As far as I could establish, however, there are only 40 mail collecting points in the country. I wonder whether the time has not come for the Post Office to concentrate more on making mail collecting points available, instead of having people ride around on bicycles and motor cycles delivering post, while they are in any case exposed to all manner of dangers, including of course the danger of fierce dogs. [Interjections.] South Africa is battling with economic problems. I want each one of us to examine his own conscience. We are getting tired of this critical attitude being adopted from armchairs in front of television sets. Those hon members should cease doing that and do more to promote our economy.

I think that urgent attention will have to be given to the matter of mail concentration offices and a preferential postal service. There is the matter of a preferential postal service to overseas countries which could generate more capital for this department. Other examples we could mention in this connection are the telex services, the BTS-60, Beltel, the pre-payment payphone, video conferences and international services, to mention but a few. I believe that when the Opposition criticizes they should also take the positive aspects into consideration. With due regard to those positive aspects, they should then come forward with constructive criticism and suggest positive solutions to our economic problems.

I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Overvaal spent some quite considerable time criticising the hon member for Umhlanga because he had said that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications was well run on business lines.

Where do you get that from?

The hon member for Over vaal criticized the hon member for Umhlanga for having said so. The situation is that the Post Office is a business whether it runs at a profit or a loss. The question to be asked is whether it is correctly managed and whether it is carrying out the functions for which it was established. I want to tell the hon member for Overvaal that the officials do not need the protection of the hon member for Overvaal as far as their business acumen is concerned. They know full well how to run their business and if they do make a mistake we in this House are entitled to tell them what we believe they should do. In this regard the official Opposition has accepted the challenge to keep the Government on its toes at all times so as to ensure that it is doing its job properly. That was the function of the hon member for Hillbrow this afternoon when he told the hon the Minister exactly what he believed was wrong with the department. His was constructive criticism because it is only by means of constructive criticism that businesses can be run properly. Not everybody is a genius like the hon member for Overvaal who has all the answers to every question.

Having said that, I want to say that as far as the amendment of the hon member for Umhlanga is concerned, we have no problems with it whatsoever and we accept it. However, as far as the amendment moved by the hon member for Nigel is concerned, we can only accept the first paragraph of it because the remaining two paragraphs are racialistic in the extreme. It is racism at its worst which is totally contrary to our policy. Under the circumstances, therefore, I sincerely hope that that amendment will be rejected.

I want now to discuss some of the details of this Post Office Budget. One of the basic reasons why a problem has arisen is the gross overspending of the department in respect of the previous Budget. I think that those problems arose because the department overspent when it was not entitled to do so. The hon the Minister came to this House with an Additional Appropriation Bill and thought that that would cover all his problems. He may have had that measure approved but it was still a question of overspending.

Would you not have spent that money?

I would have spent it in a different way. If the hon the Minister carries on like this, I am absolutely certain that all of us, irrespective of race or colour, will be reduced to living on R20 per month.

You hang around tomorrow and I shall deal with you. [Interjections.]

In the time available it is impossible to touch on more than a few points. In order to arrive at a clear understanding of the actual financial problems facing the department, one must separate two fundamental accounts, viz the revenue and expenditure and operations accounts and the capital expenditure. In going through these accounts one finds it quite difficult to understand them because they are not as clear as the accounts of an ordinary business should be. They are two completely different things. Revenue, expenditure and operations inform of one’s profit and then one looks at what one’s capital expenditure should be in order to make more profit to develop one’s business, but here the whole lot are lumped together and eventually there is a surplus or a deficit, however in order to try to unravel them one almost needs a super accountant to go through them.

In Part I—Summarized information on revenue and expenditure on services rendered—one finds, if one puts postal services, savings and agency services together, that there is a deficit of R185 million. One has to separate them, one cannot put the postal services and the telecommunication services together and mix them all up, expecting the one to cross-subsidize the other. One must keep them separate so that one can see clearly what the situation is. The operating expenditure is going to be some R369 million and there are further items of expenditure of some R638 million while the revenue will only be some R453 million. On the other hand one has in the case of revenue an income of R2 118 million as against an expenditure of R1 746 million which gives one a surplus or a profit of R372 million.

I now want to turn to a summary which one finds on page 9. Here we have the estimates of revenue and expenditure as they really are. This summary shows quite clearly that the Post Office is actually operating at a profit despite what is being said. It is only when one starts mixing up the revenue and expenditure on operations with the capital expenditure that one starts getting all sorts of confusing figures. If one has a look at these figures, one finds that certain sections are operating at a profit. We therefore have profit centres and loss centres. Savings, postal orders, agency services, telephones, telex and leased circuits show a profit of R213 000 whereas the loss centres show a loss. The postal services show a loss of R102 million; money orders, R699 000; COD services, R673 000; and Gentex services, R3 million. That means in effect that the surplus—it is called a surplus but actually it is a profit in the normal business—this year will be close to R87 million. I take it that is after the tariff increases are taken into account.

What worries me and shows the expenditure and the overspending last year, is that the same profitable centres this year which are yielding surpluses of R213 million actually gave R398 million last year while the loss centres which this year are reduced to R127 million last year showed a loss of R155 million. That is why there was a surplus last year of R243 million and why a surplus of only R86 million is anticipated in the coming year. I believe that the Department will need to re-investigate the whole question to see where their efficiency has dropped and how they can arrive at a higher surplus.

I now want to refer to page 3 of the Estimates and Expenditure as some questions should be asked about this. Staff expenses have as compared with last year increased by R173 million, of which salaries and wages constituted R64 million, or approximately 12%. Other remunerations have increased by R80 million, but of this R80 million, under a heading called “Other payments” there is an increase of approximately R60 million. No mention is made in the Budget of what is included in “Other payments” and I would like to ask the hon the Minister what this increase entails so that we can see if we can affect certain savings. Something else which worries me is the payment for international commitments which has increased by R22 million. The figures as far as pension and liability is concerned, have risen considerably as a result of the increase in salaries and wages.

I should now like to deal with the question of the postal services. The dilemma which faces the hon the Minister in this regard should really be examined. Despite tariff increases and the handling of more postal articles we find that operating expenditure will increase by some R54 million while the revenue will increase by only approximately R10 milllion. It is obvious to me that the postal services are handling more and more low-profit articles while the high-profit traffic is being taken away by private enterprise and others. I believe that the time has arrived that a closer inspection should be made to obtain a higher income traffic inside the Post Office. The Post Office now has the power to enter into contracts with private enterprise in terms of the Post Office Amendment Bill which we passed last week.

I want to refer for example to the courier service. A firm such as DHL has offices world-wide, and there are many others like them. It is necessary to ensure that documents nowadays are sent to various parts of the world in a very short time. Firms may want an article or a document delivered in New York, San Francisco or even Alaska within a few days. Under ordinary postal conditions delivery from South Africa to the United States may take up to anything from one week to 10 days when paying the normal postal rates. Companies are prepared and are paying these courier companies R25 to R30 to ensure that an article handed to them is delivered to an address in the United States within two or three days.

The post offices in South Africa have the best locations possible and I believe that they can operate on an agency basis for these courier services and also receive some of this remuneration which they receive. I believe that the time has arrived for the Post Office to go into partnership with some private courier services. The reason for the existence of courier services is that the postal services do not provide rapid enough services. It has therefore been saddled with the lowest-price traffic, traffic which private enterprises is not prepared to carry at the price which the Post Office does.

I should like to deal with the question of Beltel, which was mentioned by the hon member for Overvaal. He seems to think that this is such a wonderful thing under the present conditions. If one looks at the general information that is given on the system one sees that Beltel—it is also called Prestel and other names—is really Videotex, which is the scientific word used for it. What information can be obtained from it? Financial information such as share prices and interest rates. How big is the market really for that? It is very small. The system will also carry information on transactions. How many buyers will one get to carry out these transactions? How many buyers will look through the catalogues? The average housewife prefers to go to the store to see the goods herself. The system will also be able to do calculations. How many people are going to use this? There will be very few. Very few people will also use the mail box facility.

I should like to sound a note of warning to the hon the Minister with regard to the provision of this particular new service. In Florida a company owned by a newspaper has been trying to persuade some 200 000 households in affluent Miami to buy local news and to go electronic shopping on their televisions and telephones via Viewtron, America’s first videotex service. In the last year, despite three years of trails, only 2 000 people have linked up with the service. In Great Brittain Prestel has become the world’s biggest Videotex disaster. The hon the Minister knows that. Viewtron prices were far too high. The prices were R600 per terminal, R15 per month rental and R2 per hour in telephone charges. The service is also too boring. This reason for its failure is a very simple one. The market that it goes for in providing information is too small. Videotex has proved no substitute for newspapers and magazines, which the Post Office carries at very low rates.

I believe that if the Post Office wants to makes a success of Videotex a system has to be found which will work through personal computers rather than through specialized terminals. It will cost half as much at least. I notice from the prices that I was given at the exhibition that even the prices offered to the ordinary household are such that the average household will not be able to afford it. I am certain, however, that a firm like IBM. which is expanding into all kinds of electronic ventures, does not intend to be left behind should Videotex via personal computers become the rage. It is possible for it to become the rage. The key to the ultimate success of Videotex via the personel computer in itself is not enough. The ultimate success, with enormous money spending potential, is to provide something on Videotex that people want to buy. It should not only be information which the hon member for Overvaal says that one can supply in enormous quantities, such as updated mail catalogues and stock exchange prices, a field in which very few South African private persons can compete against the institutions which operate in that particular market. One has only to see the mushrooming of video shops all over the country to realize that the Post Office has approached the Videotex market incorrectly. The task is to provide on Videotex what people buy. People want to buy soap operas, people want to buy films, in which viewers can vote to kill off the involved character, because Videotex is transmitted by telephone. Viewers can then talk back on their telephones.

Another money-spinner would be laser based Video games, which we already have. On the other hand this will mean that the Post Office will go into competition with the SABC, and that will not be a bad thing either. Let me assure the South African public of one thing: Knowing the Post Office officials’ ingenuity and ability, if they were to accept my advice, and the complete ineptitude of the SABC, they would have a money-spinner in this type of Videotex because this is the untapped market of the future and not the provision of unwanted data. In other words, the Post Office has an inbuilt system of cable television because in Videotex, transmission does not require separate lines but telephone lines are utilized. Furthermore, the point is that the Post Office is not there to provide information. The Post Office is there to sell time; that is its purpose. It provides the instruments and the telecommunications services and wants the public to utilize these services because they are charged according to the amount of time that they use up for these services. Therefore there is nothing better than to have video on Beltel which can be used for decent programs which people will be watching for an hour or an hour and a half. It will therefore pay the Post Office to go into partnership with firms like IBM, CBS, BBC, ABC and other suppliers from overseas in order to get ready for this potential great market of the future for videotex.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bezuidenhout tried to understand the Revenue and Expenditure Account of the Estimates and to convey it to us. It was a bit of a struggle, but here and there the hon member did nevertheless refer to an interesting matter. Among other things, he argued that the Post Office should make use of more profitable services, for example by integrating with courier services on an agency basis and by making more money from the video industry. His ultimate conclusion was that there would then be opposition for the South African radio services, which in his opinion would be a good thing. I know the hon member tried his best, but I shall simply leave him at that now.

When one considers our postal service, one observes at once that this service, which in every civilized State is the best barometer of the ups and downs of that State’s development and progress, also fulfils this task in South Africa. It is a service which keeps its finger on the pulse of modern development; a service of which we may be proud, because in the past few years it has undergone enormous growth.

One may ask oneself what the most important factors are which contributed to this development during the period from 1968 to 1983. One would then have to admit at once that there were several important factors, inter alia factors which inhibited the growth of the Post Office, and consequently admit that it is in fact the staff component of the Post Office, just as in any other business undertaking, which determines the success or failure of the service.

In the first place we should in this connection take cognizance not only of the numbers, but also of the productivity. The hon member for Umhlanga suggested, not directly but by implication, that the productivity of the staff was not entirely satisfactory, and in particular he referred to the question of overtime. But I should like to quote a few statistics to indicate the high degree of productivity which is being maintained by the Post Office staff of South Africa.

To be able to assess this, one must determine in the first place what the numerical strength of our Post Office staff is. It is generally known that on 30 December 1983 the Post Office had 90 432 full-time and part-time staff members in its employ, and that their wages and salaries amounted to R501 million. During the period from 1968 to 1983 there was a 68,3% increase in the number of employees. This staff increase should now be measured against the operating results over the same period. Over this period the number of telephones rose by 165%, while the trunk network was expanded by 549%. The business turnover increased by 820%. Operating expenditure increased by 1 010%, while the operating revenue increased by 1 100%. Any reasonable person will surely admit that this was an enormous increase, particularly if one bears in mind that the staff over the same period only increased by 68,3%. One can find no better testimonial to the productivity of the staff than is evident from these figures. Surely this is the finest testimonial which the staff of the Post Office can hope to receive.

The question which now arises is how the Post Office was able to achieve this, in the midst of these tremendously difficult conditions of a world-wide recession, inflation, high interest rates, domestic problems such as the drought, and so on. How did the Post Office succeed in maintaining this tremendous growth rate in view of the minimal increase in staff? I think the answer lies in the fact that the Post Office’s three most important programmes in regard to its staff were aimed, in the first place, at acquiring a sufficient number of staff, in the second place, at developing their potential properly, and, in the third place, at keeping them.

To be able to accomplish these things, three projects were launched. The first of these was, of course, the recruiting project, which one could, in turn, divide up into two categories, namely foreign recruiting and domestic recruiting.

As long ago as 1981 a very successful Post Office delegation visited England and Belgium. As a result of that recruiting campaign, 196 staff members were recruited and have already arrived in South Africa, while contracts were concluded with a further 60. Correspondence with overseas applicants also ensued, which led to a further 55 contracts being concluded, and those people are on their way to South Africa, while a further 400 applications are being considered. In other words, active efforts are being made to recruit foreigners to make their services available to the Post Office.

At home we have done everything that could possibly be done to recruit new staff members for this fine service. Perhaps one could just mention that our news media have been involved in these efforts and that universities and high schools have been visited to recruit staff. What is important is that the existing staff have been motivated to do promotional work themselves among people who wish to join the Post Office. What is also important is that people who here left or who wished to leave the service have been visited and asked to reconsider their decision. A large number of them decided to stay on or rejoined the service.

To find people, of course, is not enough. One must also develop and train them. I do not think there is a postal service in the world which adopts a better system of training its staff properly than the Post Office in this country. In this connection one need only consider the training of clerical staff. There are training centres in Port Elizabeth, Cape Town, Kimberley, Johannesburg and Bloemfontein for Whites. Then there is the training centre in Belhar in Bellville for the training of Coloureds, and the training centres in East London, Bloemfontein and Pietermaritzburg for Blacks. Consequently, a tremendous effort is in progress to train the clerical staff of the Post Office. For example, one could consider our postmen and our telephonists. These people are trained in the work situation to enable them to render the best service. It is interesting, for example, that during the past year no fewer than 639 postmen and 746 telephonists were trained. It speaks volumes for the Post Office that it is constantly able, by means of training, to keep its staff up to date and increase their productivity.

The important section of the Post Office in modern times is in fact that section dealing with the training of the technical staff, because without technical staff we simply cannot make progress in the modern world, with its sophisticated techniques and equipment. We must take cognizance of what is being done in respect of the training of our technical staff.

In this connection we have two categories. The one is that of pupil technicians who then go on to qualify as technicians. If they are selected and are in possession of a matriculation certificate or the other necessary qualifications, they can be trained towards acquisition of the ND or the NTD, and after that the higher diplomas. People who are not successfully selected in that sphere, become telcom pupils. They, in turn, are trained in two groups, the engineers and the mechanics. The wonderful result achieved was that at the end of the last year no fewer than 6 471 of these technicians and pupil technicians were in the process of being trained.

Mere development and training, however, are not going to be enough to get the job done. That is why the Post Office had to give attention to the conditions of service as well. Other hon members have already referred to the housing scheme today. It was recently announced, however, that an amount of R30 million was deposited in what I want to call the rotating fund. This is a fund into which future appropriations will be paid, together with refunded instalments, capital and interest. I believe that this rotating fund will grow in the same way as our well-known National Housing Fund, which is the only one of its kind in the world, and that in due course it will be self-sufficient.

I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his top management on this wonderful creation, because in the years which lie ahead it will be one of the fine things which were created for the staff in our time. It is important that the housing aspect of the staff should not remain in abeyance. I do not want to go into details about this. I do not have the time for that. The only thing is that it is important to know that the official can buy his official dwelling. Provision is being made for that. He can obtain a loan in terms of the new Post Office Loan Scheme which is being established. The subsidy ceiling has also been raised from R40 000 to R50 000. He can also share, as do other public servants, in the Public Service Loan scheme of 100% and all the additions and adjustments which are made from time to time and which are important to give our staff the certainty and joy of owning their own home.

In these modern times, however, it was also essential, owing to the modern techniques and equipment that were being introduced, to appoint staff with special qualifications. The result was that salary adjustments which could not be scientifically justified had to be made :n respect of these people. The Post Office management then came forward with the important institution of post evaluation, salary research and salary adjustment. From this ensured task evaluation, as the hon the Minister put it so well. This entails that a task and a post are evaluated, that the salary is researched, that occupational differentiation can take place and that ultimately a salary adjustment can be made which is market-related and which can compete with salaries in the private sector. In the past it happened that the best staff members were trained, but that they were subsequently poached by the private sector. This section which the hon the Minister and his staff have created will now enable the Post Office to compete with the best that the private sector can offer in future.

Now, it is also important—tremendously important, in fact—that since it is a major task to effect these evaluations, this research, these adjustments, in order to complete these programmes, it was only possible to do so on a regional basis. There are certain cadres in which people are already receiving adjusted salaries. Humanly speaking, it could give rise to occasional dissatisfaction when people realize that not all these matters have been finalized. However, the Minister has given the assurance so frequently in the past that all adjustments will be made with retrospective effect from 1 January 1984. Consequently no one is going to suffer. In terms of this system, the Post Office will be able to retain its staff, it will be able to compete with the private sector, and it will also be able to grow and flourish because it will also be able to rely on a scientifically sound staff complement which will therefore enable it to compete with the other sectors.

In conclusion, I want to point out that I think this is a great day for the Post Office. It is a wonderful achievement for the Post Office to be able to boast, under these difficult circumstances, that it has not suspended any services, and that it is still growing, flourishing and prospering. I believe it deserves the thanks and appreciation of everyone who is interested in the activities of the Post Office.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Newton Park elaborated at some length on what the Post Office had done for its people. He also referred to an increase in the number of staff. However, I should like to know from him whether he has worked out what the actual real growth in the Post Office finances has been. If one bears in mind that during the past year the inflation rate has fluctuated between 16% and 11%, what was the actual real growth in this sphere? [Interjections.] However, the hon member for Newton Park also referred to the good aspects of the postal services and I feel this was only right.

Just before I address the hon member for Boksburg, I do want to associate myself with those persons who expressed their thanks and appreciateion to Mr Raath and Mr De Klerk for the years of faithful services they rendered. I still remember how Mr De Klerk coached the football team in Acacia Park a few years ago. I believe that even the children of Acacia Park will remain grateful to him for this. We should also like to congratulate everyone in the department who has been promoted.

Although no one has referred to this yet, I want to tell the hon the Minister that we are grateful for the trips he arranged, on which he took representatives of all the political parties in this House with him. I also want to thank him for the visit to the cable companies which he arranged for us. These are all good things. In the same breath I also want to congratulate the Post Office on the exhibition which it presented in the H F Ver woerd Building across the road.

However, I now want to address the hon member for Boksburg. I believe that in this life it is important for one to read things and also to listen to certain things. Now I take it very much amiss of the hon member for Boksburg for having acted so unfairly. The hon member for Nigel moved an amendment in which he adopted a very clear standpoint against the crowding-out of Whites in Post Office buildings in White areas as a result of inadequate facilities for people of colour in their own areas. However, the hon member for Boksburg alleged that the hon member for Nigel had made an appeal for separate facilities in White areas. That is not the case at all. [Interjections.] When the hon member for Nigel asked for separate facilities in the non-White areas, he was by no means … [Interjections.]

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

No, I am not replying to any questions now. [Interjections.] The hon member for Nigel did not ask for another post office to be built next to the existing post office in the White area. We are merely asking for separate facilities to be made available in post offices in the White areas, as the position used to be in the past. Before the present hon Minister was appointed to this post, we had a beautiful post office in Sunnyside with separate facilities for Whites and non-Whites. Everything was perfect and we had no problems. Then the Cabinet decided that separate facilities had to be done away with. What happened next? Everything was knocked down and closed up, and now everyone has to use the same door. [Interjections.] That is what happened. If it had not been for the fact that in South Africa we have so many good officials in the post offices, from the Postmaster-General right down to the most junior member of his staff, people who work with such dedication and such a sense of duty, I do not know what the financial position of the Post Office would have been today.

What about the hon the Minister?

I am still coming to him. I am not suggesting that there are no shortcomings nor am I suggesting that there are any defects. Nor do I wish to say that certain sections of the Post Office are not productive or are not as productive as they should be. One will experience this throughout the world. We are merely pointing out that it should be guarded against.

I now want to refer to the hon the Minister. As far as I know, the hon the Minister has always encouraged his officials to do their work well. Unfortunately we cannot say the same for the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs because he makes his people despondent. He says to them: Become despondent and give up. If he had been the Ministers of Posts and Telecommunications, the Post Office would probably have suffered a great financial loss by now.

I now want to refer to a few financial matters for a moment. In his speech the hon member for Overvaal mentioned the fact that inflation was a world-wide problem. In this connection there is in fact a charge I want to make against the hon the Minister, and that is that the fact that we have such a high inflation rate in South Africa is directly attributable to the spinelessness of the Cabinet, because they did not clamp down on inflation. Throughout the world it is a general hypothesis that a government is one of the major causes of inflation. What did the hon the Minister and the Cabinet do to combat inflation? We do not know. Can the hon the Minister tell us what he did in the Cabinet to ensure that inflation was being combated by his colleagues?

It is during a period of recession such as we are now experiencing that we should not cease or drastically reduce all our capital works. We have to maintain our infrastructure for the upswing which will come. It seems to me as if hon members, the hon the Minister himself and the department are fairly optimistic that we are going to experience an economic upswing this year but I cannot see that happening. No matter how much I should like this to be the case—and I do not think there is another hon member in this House who desires this more than I do— when we consider the events around us it is highly unlikely. Company after company is finding itself in difficulties and some companies are experiencing losses of up to R60 million. There is also the disastrous drought that has struck South Africa. I therefore maintain that when we speak about an upswing, we should take all these factors into account. I repeat that our economy is not going to recover as quickly as was thought.

What is the position in connection with revenue? Revenue increased by 14,7% and this also indicates a certain trend. However, expenditure increased by 24,8% and that is a tremendous increase. This was caused by inflation. If our inflation rate had not been so high we could have kept that expenditure within reasonable limits. It was within those limits that the revenue increased.

Let us consider loans. I am afraid that we shall have to take a look at our loans, because the amount which has been borrowed is increasing at a tremendous rate. At present this amounts to approximately R804,5 million. There is R2 million from savings services while money and demand totals R100 million. The total amount is therefore R1 104 million. Let us consider the interest charges on these loans. The interest charges are tremendous—this year they were 50,75% higher than last year, and that gives us R458 million compared with R304 million. We have to realize that we shall have problems in future.

In addition to the interest charges which are going to hurt us, there is also the question of self-financing of capital works which we have to consider. The Franzsen report said that this should be 50%, and over the years we have all accepted this. It dropped to 29,3% in 1982-83, then to 27% and now to 23%. What is the hon the Minister going to do about this? This trend has to be halted, because we cannot carry on like this.

The hon member for Boksburg said we should not talk politics in this debate because—as he put it—the future government cannot reply to a political debate. This immediately brings me to the question I want to conclude with. The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs did not want to tell us how the next Transport Services Budget would be introduced. Is it going to be introduced to the separate Houses or is it going to be introduced at a joint sitting? Since this is an historic moment because this is the last time that the Post Office Budget will be introduced in a White Parliament, we want to know whether the hon the Minister can tell us how the next Budget is going to be dealt with. Is it going to be introduced in the three separate Houses? Is the hon the Minister going to make three budget speeches, or what?

Mr Speaker, for many years the hon member for Sunny-side was the main speaker on this side on Post Office Appropriation Bills. He is therefore an expert on Post Office matters and one would really have expected him to have made a far more positive contribution to this debate than the one he did make, precisely because he has the experience and knowledge. The postmaster of Sunnyside post office assures me that there are no crowding-out problems in that post office. I questioned him about this personally. [Interjections.]

Friday is a very important day in the history of our country because on that day the Nkomati Accord, which is of very great importance to our country, will be signed. Signing that accord would have served no purpose if no one knew about it. The Press, the radio and television all have a special role to play in the dissemination of knowledge as far as this matter is concerned. Consequently the Post Office plays a very important role on such an occasion as this. As far as this matter is concerned, our post office is excelling itself in the provision of services. The pressmen tell me that on the occasion of the previous talks which were held between the hon the Prime Minister and Pres Kaunda, the efficiency of the services rendered by the Post Office was remarkable. In particular they were struck by the personal presence at those talks of the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General, for example, told a technician to repair a telephone quickly, because the journalists were having difficulties with it. [Interjections.] Unfortunately the Postmaster-General will not be there on Friday for the signing of this accord. He will be here because the Post Office budget is under discussion at the moment.

On Friday the Post Office is providing 60 automatic connections from the Johannesburg Central Exchange. The Post Office is so attentive to detail that these 60 automatic connections make use of the Lorea telephones instead of the Disa telephones, because the Press have a problem with their acoustically-coupled tape recorders. In addition 30 telex lines have been laid on from the Braamfontein exchange. Of these 30 telex lines, 24 are operated by officials of the Post Office. Six lines have been placed at the disposal of foreign journalists who speak languages which our officials cannot understand or telex. In addition two facsimile machines are being provided for the purpose of transmitting land-line photographs. There will be two connections from the Johannesburg Central Exchange in the White Train for the specific use of the hon the Prime Minister and his guests. No postal services have been requested.

Special arrangements are being made for the SABC. A video channel from the site to Johannesburg is being installed. In addition 12 audio connections from the site to Johannesburg are being installed for TV1, TV2 and TV3, the English and Afrikaans radio services, and the various Bantu language radio services. A total of 12 stand-by audio connections will be in readiness as reserves for the 12 I have just mentioned.

For the State, 12 telephone connections from the site to the various Government departments in Pretoria are being installed.

Mozambique is being provided with a video channel via the SABC in Johannesburg, the Harbeeshoek station and an Intelsat satellite. A total of six audio connections are being provided from the site to Maputo for TV and radio services.

A total of 111 of the Post Office’s technical staff, telex operators and labourers are involved in this effort. We wish them everything of the best with their great task which they are going to perform on Friday.

The year 1984 is a special year for the Post Office Savings Bank because this is its hundredth anniversary. It is interesting to consider the history of the Post Office Savings Bank as the world knows it today. In 1815 a man by the name of Charles William Sykes was born in Huddersfield, England. After he had completed his school career he became a banker. There he made the acquaintance of various clients, primarily labourers from that area who came to the bank at which he was working to deposit small amounts of money as savings.

One day he read the following words:

These words made such an impression on Charles Sykes that in 1840 he established a “penny bank” in which the workers could deposit small amounts. He also instilled the habit of saving in the school children of Huddersfield. When I speak about school children, many hon members probably remember only too well the days when they were still at school and bought a stamp with a penny until they had a total of 15 shillings and nine pennies worth of stamps, for which they received a certificate which was subsequently worth £1. In my case I bought a bicycle with the pounds I saved. The hon the member for Springs was far more intelligent. He bought two heifers, and by breeding with them it was subsequently possible for him to go to university and become so clever that he was able to come to Parliament! [Interjections.]

At one stage Sykes even tried to get guarantees from the State for these depositors. He wanted to expand his bank but understandably there was not much confidence in his undertaking. His efforts to obtain a guarantee from the State failed.

As benefits any good citizen he then went to his member of Parliament, a Mr Edward Bains, who listened to his story, and was told that there were 2 000 towns in England in which no savings bank existed. Mr Bains took up the matter with the Postmaster-General, who was immediately convinced of the possibilities of managing such a savings bank system through the Post Office. In 1860 the Prime Minister, Gladstone, personally piloted legislation through the British Parliament to establish the Post Office Savings Bank in England. In that way the Post Office Savings Bank was started on 16 September 1861 in 300 towns in England. At the end of that century there were altogether 12 000 offices with savings bank facilities, and this bank attracted deposits amounting to £100 million. In 1881 Sykes was knighted by Queen Victoria for the initiative he had displayed.

On 6 September 1883 the Post Office Savings Bank Act was passed by the Cape Parliament, and on 1 January 1884 the Post Office Savings Bank began to operate in this country with eight branches. At the end of that year there were already 112 branches, 5 660 accounts had been opened, and a total of £125 000 deposited. In this way the Post Office Savings Bank also spread to the other provinces. There was a major problem in the Free State where the authorities did not want to accept it, but in 1897, 17 petitions containing 900 signatures were submitted and in 1898 the Post Office Savings Bank began its activities in that province. It is quite interesting to know that it was in the Free State that there was opposition to it on the part of the authorities, because it is in fact in Bloemfontein that the head office of the Post Office Savings Bank is now established. The prettiest roses of Bloemfontein are working there. The Post Office Savings Bank, the poor man’s bank, became so popular in South Africa that while, in the past, we had budgeted for deposits amounting to R50 million, the actual deposits amounted to R320 million, distrubuted among 2,5 million accounts We wish the Post Office Savings Bank another very successful 100 years.

A great deal was said about the increase in tariffs. But just allow me to point out that the Pony Express tariff from St Joseph to Sacramento was $5 for a half ounce in 1860.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Hercules confined himself mainly to the Post Office Savings Bank, and I associate myself with what he said about it, because it is a bank for children and younger people who do not yet earn a very large income. I also want to associate myself with the good wishes the hon member extended to the Post Office Savings Bank in this connection.

There is another matter, however, on which I want to disagree radically with the hon member. He alleged that there were no crowding out in post office buildings in White areas. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that each and every one of us has experienced crowding out by people of colour in White post offices from time to time.

When were you last in a post office?

Let me tell the hon the Minister that I go the post office myself because I am not a rich man and do not have someone I can send. I frequently go to the post office myself.

Which one?

Waverly post office, in particular.

I also want to point out that the private call-boxes are used to such an extent by people of colour that White people seldom have the opportunity to make use of those facilities. If the Cabinet or the Government should, therefore, have occasion to open post office facilities to all race groups as an experiment, let me say that this need not be permanent if it definitely seems to create problems. For the sake of good order and to prevent friction, separate post office facilities could be reintroduced for the respective population groups. [Interjections.]

However, I want to get back to the Budget as such. On the basis of information in the annual report, which is a particularly good report, the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister and the exhibit in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building, we are impressed by the tremendous development that has taken place in all the various spheres. Unfortunately I do not have the time to go into this in detail. In any event, other hon members have already referred to this today. I want to point out, however, that the tremendous development which has taken place, and of which we are proud, has to a certain extent been overshadowed by the tariff increases that have been announced. Now that fact that a letter or a telephone call is going to be one cent more expensive is not the main issue. That is not the reason why the tariff increases worry me. They worry me because the SA Transport Services also announced tariff increases and the possibility of the hon the Minister of Finance announcing tax increases in his budget cannot be ruled out either. In addition, I am convinced that the provinces and the city councils are also going to announce tariff increases. The prices of certain products have already been increased. Third party insurance is also going to be increased. The petrol price has been increased, as has the price of sugar. When one adds up all these tariff increases and price rises, we are no longer dealing with an extra cent per letter or an extra cent per telephone call, but with the accumulated burden being placed on the consumer, particularly the person with a smaller income and a large family who is already bowed down by the high cost of living. That is why tariff increases create a problem for us and why we are of the opinion that tariff increases have to be handled very carefully. We say, in all fairness to the hon the Minister, that if it is at all possible he should consider seeing where he can decrease tariffs.

Where?

Mr Speaker, that is always the difficulty when one tries to put forward an idea here in this House. Then there are always cries of “Where?”, “Where?” Hon members do not wait for one to develop one’s argument.

I should like to refer the hon the Minister to the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure. As far as the item “Other Payments” on page 3 under “Staff expenses” is concerned, I note that the amount budgeted for in 1983-84 was R21 million, whereas the amount being budgeted for in 1984-85 is R81 million, and that all the other items under that head are also greater. The increase in this case, however, is almost R60 million. The first question I want to ask in this connection is that if it was R21 million last year, on what basis is the amount so much higher this year, and why can there not be a saving with regard to this item? I also want to refer the hon the Minister to page 8 of the Estimates. Under the head “Telex system” there are the heads “Inland calls” and “Overseas calls”. A larger amount is being budgeted for both these items. Just below that there is the head “Installation fees”, for which exactly the same amount is being budgeted this year as last year. Is it not possible for more revenue to be obtained from this source during the coming year? The same question could also be asked in connection with the next head, namely “Interest, dividends and profit-sharing”. In this case the amount has decreased from R5 480 000 to R3 390 000. As far as the Gentex system is concerned, the amount for inland telegrams remains the same, whereas the amount budgeted for overseas telegrams is being decreased from R6 million to R5,5 million. Under the next head, too, namely “Leased connections”, the expected revenue decreases, as it does under the head “Interest, dividends and profit-sharing”. On what grounds is the estimated revenue here lower than that of last year? I am asking this question with particular regard to inland and overseas telegrams. Is it not possible that the expected revenue in this connection may be greater?

I also want to dwell for a few moments on the staff. In the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister, he referred to the fact that there were fewer resignations this year, but also to the fact that fewer people were reappointed to the service than last year. I accept that present-day economic circumstances, the recession we are experiencing, played a big role in there not being such a large fluctuation in staff, but in the light of what the hon member for Newton Park said, I do think there is a warning light flickering here. The fact that fewer people were reappointed, may have had something to do with the fact that there were fewer resignations, but the question which springs to mind is: If there is an upswing in the economy, as we trust will be the case, and there is a greater demand for the services of the Post Office, will the Post Office at least be able to retain the necessary staff to render this service, since there will also be a greater demand for staff outside the Post Office and people will therefore try to lure staff from the Post Office, as they have done in the past?

When the hon member for Nigel spoke about the staff, the hon member for Hercules immediately asked: What about salary increases? With a gesture the hon the Minister then indicated that this costs money. It is true that it does cost money, but the people who have to do the work must also live. My problem is that as soon as there is economic pressure, a squeeze or recession, and one has to save, the first thing everyone considers is saving on the salaries or incomes of the workers. Now I want to ask: Is that the only factor that plays a role in this connection? Are there not other expenses which also play a role in this connection? After all, it is not only the small salary adjustments, which the staff thoroughly deserve, which play a role. The labourer is worthy of his hire, and one does not muzzle an ox when it is thirsty. Now for me the point is that salary increases for the staff are not the only factor responsible for deficits or tariffs having to be increased. Many other factors play a very important role in this connection. That is why I am asking that if, in spite of everything, it is at all possible, in future the hon the Minister should give his staff further salary increases commensurate with their needs, in view of the cost of living pressures they are subjected to, because if we do not pay those people well, we shall firstly lose their services when there is a future upswing; and secondly we cannot expect them to maintain a high level of productivity if they are not paid enough to be able to live decently.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Koedoespoort will forgive me if I do not react to his speech. I ask him this in all courtesy. I only have five or six minutes in which to say what I want to say. [Interjections.]

The Post Office Budget is always a very interesting event. After all, it gives one an opportunity to have a good look at the Post Office, at its problems and their solutions, at its achievements and all the other related matters. This is surely one of the most important departments in the country. It is indeed the heartbeat of our country and its activities affect each one of its inhabitants. That is why there is also a responsibility resting on the shoulders of every inhabitant of this country to make his contribution towards ensuring that this department will always be healthy and vigorous. The fact that this department maintains a turnover of approximately R10 000 million a year, testifies to the great magnitude and importance of this organization. It also proves that the public has confidence in this department.

However, we should also examine the Post Office’s fine annual report and take congnizance of the many commendable achievements in virtually every section of the Post Office. Of course, this all testifies to sound and competent planning and management, as well as devotion to duty on the part of the staff. I also wish to point out that with a staff increase of only 10%, the Post Office has shown an increase of R400 million in its revenue over the past financial year. This is an increase of 28%, which proves that there has been a considerable increase in productivity among the staff of the Post Office. For this we thank them sincerely. We must also remember that they often had to work under very difficult circumstances and that they had major problems to contend with. In fact, the hon member for Umlazi referred to the sterling services rendered by the Post Office staff during the recent floods in Natal. I could add, of course, that during the tremendous floods in the Western Cape last year, the Post Office staff acquitted themselves equally well of their task. Approximately 2 000 company telephones and a further 6 000 private telephones were put out of action, with the result that Post Office staff had to work virtually day and night to restore the service. In addition, they had to repair 10 000 cable pairs in the Cape Peninsula which had also been damaged by the floods.

Another important demand that is being made on the Post Office is that it should be competitive but not in competition. It is important, therefore, that the growth of the Post Office in this field, too, should not be hampered. Another important demand that is being made on the Post Office—and the hon member for Overvaal also referred to this—is that it should not fall behind the phenomenal development in the technological field.

I have had the privilage of visiting the exhibition of electronic equipment in the H F Verwoerd Building. There is one particular apparatus to which I want to refer specifically. This is the Beltel apparatus. There is a very great deal one could say about this. However, I believe that it would require more than all the enthusiasm of which the hon the Minister of Co-operation and Development is capable to describe fully all the functions which that instrument is able to perform. It is an absolute miracle. In fact, I believe that our people should begin to realize that we are increasingly entering an era in which electronic equipment will become part and parcel of our daily lives. This is changing our lives completely, and will change them even more in future.

Electronic equipment and the replacement of such equipment costs money, of course; money which the Post Office has to find somewhere. Not only money is required, but also knowledge, specialized training and idealism. That is why it is so gratifying to note in the annual report that the Post Office has maintained its contacts with a number of universities for this purpose. I should just like the University of the Orange Free State to be involved in this process at some stage. I believe that that university will be able to make a contribution to the training of these people. We are also grateful for the training which is being offered in this sphere by our technikons, as well as for the training centres of the Post Office itself. We thank them, too, for the very important task which they perform.

Mr Speaker, my time is running out, and I still have a few requests which I should like to put to the hon the Minister. Three years ago, the request was made during the debate on the Post Office Budget that a training centre for technicians and other Post Office workers should be built in Bloemfontein as well. I believe that the hon member for Bloemfontein East will also be pleased to learn that such a centre is in fact being planned, and that it will be situated in his constituency. The land for this purpose has already been bought, and it is likely that within a few years a college building will have been erected on that site at a cost of several millions of rands.

In the light of what I have just said, I do want to ask the hon the Minister whether the present training centre in Bloemfontein, a building called Green Lodge, could not be given a place of honour in Bloemfontein. Green Lodge must be one of the oldest buildings in the Free State, evoking just as strong a sense of history as any other building of cultural and historic value, and I hope it will remain the property of the Post Office, for the purpose of being used as a postal museum. Even before the Free State became independent, Green Lodge was the residence of the British High Commissioner at that time. When the Free State became independent in 1854, it became the vicarage of the Rev Mr Murray. Subsequently the house was bought by a Mr Steyn, who farmed in the Maselspoort district. He was the father of Pres Steyn. Pres Steyn grew up in that house and went to school in that region. It then passed into the hands of Mr Justice Fawkes and subsequently of Mr Justice De Villiers, who was Judge-President. The Post Office has been using it for the past 30 years. It is a historic building, therefore, and we want to express the hope that the Post Office will see its way clear to converting it into a museum. There is enough material available to meet the needs of such a museum. I also understand that the Philatelic Society of the OFS is engaged in an in-depth research project in connection with OFS postmarks, and I think they will also be able to make a fine contribution to such a museum.

As far as public interest in stamp collecting is concerned, I do not want to quote any figures. The figures are given in the annual report. However, we are glad that there has been such a great increase in the numbers. Over the past year, the number of orders has increased from approximately 350 000 to approximately 450 000. This refers to sales in this country. I am also glad that we are now to have the new 11 cent stamp. It is a new addition to our present series, which we are very grateful for. Although the increase of one cent will not be welcomed by all, the philatelists are very definitely interested in that stamp.

I wanted to say something about the reason why stamps are important and why our South African stamps are popular items. In brief, it is because cultural and historic aspects always form part of their design. There is also the question of the good quality of the printing, etc. I should like every school in South Africa to have a deposit account with Philatelic Services. I think it is important for every school, because it is a historic and an educational matter. Every envelope contains is a very neat little card with a full description of the content, the design and the whole motif of that stamp.

I just want to say, too, that we are considering the establishment of a parliamentary philatelic association here at Parliament. We have already approached Mr Speaker in this connection, and if we receive his permission, we shall proceed with it. In that case, the hon the Minister would in all probability be the honorary president of that philatelic association.

I should also like to ask the hon the Minister whether he would not consider issuing a series of commemorative stamps depicting our defenders. I think we have reason to be proud of our achievements. We have weapons that have astonished the world, and these could be very successfully depicted on stamps.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 75.

Mr Speaker, before moving that the debate be adjourned, I should like to make a few remarks. To begin with, I want to convey my sincere thanks to all the hon members who have participated in the discussion. Some of the speeches were good, some were very good, others were not so good and some were poor. I was told by the official Opposition yesterday that this was the worst budget that had ever been introduced, and I must say that the feeling is reciprocal, because one of the opening speeches made on the other side of the House is probably the worst I have ever heard in this House. At this stage we understand each other, therefore, and we can resume the discussion tomorrow.

The debate has been characterized by a fair amount of irrelevant discussion, because we are considering a budget of more than R3 000 million. We are talking about a business enterprise with a turnover of R10 000 million, and then some hon Opposition speakers came up with all kinds of platitudes in an attempt to tell us how to run such a business. It has been said that we should examine our productivity and that we should consider the quality of our officials. It has also been said that we should completely change the way the budget is drafted and that we should introduce new items. One would think that this business was operated by a lot of ninnies who did not really know how to handle budgets. I was really surprised at some of the allegations that were made here.

Before moving that the debate be adjourned, I want to make it clear that I have the fullest confidence in the top management, the total management of the Post Office. If anyone is able to give us some advice, we shall accept it with pleasure, but we shall not accept a lot of information that is given to us across the floor of this House with a view to political gain. I am keeping this department out of politics. [Interjections.] The hon member for Bezuidenhout really should keep quiet. I did not interrupt him while he was speaking. We are not talking about cheese now; we are talking about telephones. The hon member can be insulting when he is speaking, but he must not think that I have to keep quiet when he interrupts me.

I have the fullest confidence in the management. The Post Office is operated according to business principles. We have our difficult times; we are going through such a time now. We do not plan on an ad hoc basis and we do not provide instant solutions. The hon member for Hillbrow wants instant solutions, but we have long-term planning. We are installing equipment at the moment which was ordered three years ago and we are only paying for it now. This is not the kind of business in which one can apply instant ideas; it is a business which has to be properly planned, and that is exactly what my officials are doing. As their Minister, I am able to present their planning to this House.

One cannot say, on the one hand, that this is the worst budget one has ever seen, while on the other hand praising my Deputy Postmaster General (Finance) to the skies because he is retiring. Surely that is just a game. Why are hon members doing this? Why is the Post Office being denigrated in the eyes of the public? The hon members should rather be constructive, but I do not expect it of that side of the House; no, they have to see whether they cannot attract a few votes.

I shall reply tomorrow to the actual debate, but I do want to deal briefly with one single point, namely the remarks made by the hon member for Nigel about the Whites being crowded out. Perhaps I should tell the hon member at once what the policy of this side of the House is. We believe in communities. We believe in healthy community life, where people can find fulfilment. We believe that services have to be rendered within the communities, but where services cannot be rendered within the communities, they are rendered in business areas which are visited by all people in any event.

I want to draw the attention of the hon member, and of the hon member for Koe doespoort, to the fact that it has been decided by the Cabinet that post offices will in future be open to all wherever this is possible and where it does not lead to friction. That same Cabinet, of which the late Mr Vorster, the then Prime Minister, was the chairman, also had Dr Connie Mulder and Mr Lourens Muller among its members. They are people who approved that decision. The hon member for Sunnyside was the chief spokesman on Post Office affairs on this side, but I cannot remember that he ever rose in this House and indicated that this should not be done. Nor did he ever rise to do so in the caucus. Did he conceal his true feelings with regard to this matter?

Go and ask Mr Hennie Smit. [Interjections.]

Order!

We could say a great deal about this, but I want to say that only once was anything brought to my attention by any member on that side, and that was done by the hon member for Pietersburg while he was still a member of the NP. He came to see me about the Pietersburg post office. Not one of those hon members has ever said a word to me about people being crowded out of their post offices; not one, and that includes the hon member for Brakpan.

I have written.

Then I apologize to the hon member. What about the other 16 hon members? [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to make it clear that wherever there is a problem, we investigate it, because everyone in this country is entitled to a service. We see to it that nothing happens which may harm the name of the Post Office or the people using the Post Office. We try to conduct the administration in such a way that no one is crowded out or insulted or offended. That is the policy. That was the policy when I came here, and that is the basis on which I am proceeding with it. Whenever I receive complaints and problems, I shall try to deal with these. There is a complaint about public telephones. I do not believe that we can prevent a Black or a Brown person from using a public telephone which has been provided for general use. It is provided for the use of the public, and it brings in money. We can improve this matter by means of better organization, but we cannot introduce absolute segregation here.

I want to conclude by saying that the Government will provide facilities to communities. The hon member for Wellington addressed an enquiry to me a few days ago. He has a large area in his constituency which is served by a White post office and which has three Coloured areas bordering on it. We are now building a fine post office in one of those areas, precisely in order to induce those people to go to their own post office, because it is kilometres closer to them. That is the way we plan and work.

I just wanted to remove from the discussion the idea of being crowded out, so that I would not have to refer to it tomorrow.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, when this debate was adjourned, I was dealing with the amendment moved by the hon member for Green Point and I had indicated that while we in this party have tremendous sympathy for the sentiments expressed in his amendment—and we will support those sentiments when the Select Committee on the Electoral Act reconvenes to consider the Act—we cannot support it in the context in which it is moved in respect of this Bill. I wish to place on record again that the main reason for that is the timetable. Since that matter was a subject of discussion in the select committee, many things have happened. We had the passage of the Constitution Bill and a referendum and we are now faced with this timetable before the elections take place.

To draft this Bill must have been a mammoth task for the officials. It is a Bill of tremendous importance and there are various aspects of it which we welcome which I would like to touch upon. We welcome the fact that postal votes have been taken right out of this Bill. We hope that this is a forerunner of things to come in respect of the Electoral Act generally. I think postal votes have become a problem in our electoral system. We have a complete understanding for the fact that absent voters, who are the postal voters, are a category of people who have enjoyed a certain method of voting which will be extraordinarily difficult for the Indian and Coloured parties to put into effect. That is because of a lack of knowledge of this rather intricate system. The main issue is that there will be provision for a special vote for those who want to cast a vote and who live outside a constituency. That is what is tremendously important. What is more important, it that the department will ensure that there will be adequate points at which special votes can be recorded.

We also welcome the requirements in respect of identity documents because there is obviously a grave problem area in this respect, particularly among the Indians and Coloureds. I would like to touch upon that later. We have understanding for the problems which the hon the Minister and the department have with regard to the timetable between proclamation, nomination and election days. We do sincerely hope that they will be able to adhere to the normal, that is to say the periods of 21 to 28 days between the proclamation and nomination date and 35 to 45 days between nomination and election date. We sincerely hope that they will be able to retain that. We do, however, understand that there could be problems. The clause about 300 signatures can obviously not be applied where one does not have political parties.

It is interesting to see section 187 taken out. It is amazing to me that that has remained in the Act as long as it has. I think it must have been an oversight. It is a peculiar little bit of nonsense, if I may call it that, that has remained in our Electoral Act. I refer to the clause in respect of the right of White women to sit in this House.

The provisions in the schedule in regard to the registration of voters are welcomed, and also the fact that voters that are already on the existing Coloured Persons Representative Council list and the South African Indian Council list will be deemed to have been registered. We do not believe that the differentiation between parties established prior to and those that may be established after the passage of this Bill is in any way unacceptable. I do not think that it is a difficult or an onerous task for any party which wants to establish itself in order to take part in these elections to get the required 50 voters’ signatures—they must be signatures of registered voters—in order to register as a party. That of course will only apply to those that fall into the latter category, those that require registration after the passage of the Bill.

Provisons in respect of vacancies are also quite acceptable. However, we now come to identity documents for Indian and Coloured people. It is tremendously disturbing to hear the hon the Minister say in his introductory speech that there are hundreds of thousands—I think that was the terminology he used—of applications unprocessed. We can understand that obviously the department has had a pretty torrid time with the build up to the referendum. We can also understand that there might be many of those that are unprocessed because of the lack of information on the actual application. We do however urge that this situation must be rectified as soon as is humanly possible.

In saying this we would also like to make a suggestion to the hon the Minister in respect of the impending Coloured and Indian elections. We have become accustomed under our present system that the existing political parties bear the brunt of registrations. I think it is incumbent upon the department and the hon the Minister to embark on a comprehensive and high-powered publicity campaign. I call it that sincerely. It must be a high-powered campaign. It has to be high-pressure advertising in all the media, including radio and certainly television. Maximum information should be fed to all members of the Coloured and Indian population stressing on them exactly who are qualified to vote in the coming elections, stressing on them the importance of registration, urging them to come forward and register. At all times I think we must have the optimum number of points where such registration can be effected and at all times those points must be given publicity. The important thing is that every single eligible Coloured and Indian must be given the opportunity to register in order that they can vote. I repeat what I said earlier. There is absolutely nothing in this Bill that will not provide for this "once only" situation or that will in any way prevent any Coloured or Indian who has registered from voting in the coming elections for either the House of Delegates or the House of Representatives. I say this in all sincerity. It is for that reason that we will support this measure.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umhlanga made a positive contribution, for which we should like to thank him, and we also thank him for supporting this Bill. The hon member referred to a few points to which I assume the hon the Minister will reply. He referred to certain specific measures, for example, the omission of postal votes, and said that he approved of that provision. I wish to associate myself with that, and I also want to refer specifically to the omission of the 300 signatures. I believe that this has proved to be impractical in practice, and I hope that when a more uniform Electoral Act is planned for the three Houses of Parliament in the future this will be borne in mind again.

The hon member referred to the backlog in the issuing of identity books, but I think the hon the Minister has already replied to this satisfactorily when he referred to the problems being experienced with following up information, letters that are not answered, and so on. The hon the Minister also said that 500 workers were catching up on this backlog after hours. This is a praiseworthy effort by the department, and I should like to support it.

As regards the amendment of the PFP, in which they request that this legislation be referred to a select committee. I think that we have confidence in the top management of the department, since we know that they have done a thorough job in conjunction with the legal draftsmen.

The hon the Minister emphasized that this Bill makes provision for the establishment of the two additional chambers of Parliament, as provided in section 52 of the constitution. When we listen to the criticism of the CP in particular, it is important to bear in mind that granting the franchise to the Coloureds and Indians is not a new concept. Until now however, it has been restricted to the franchise for members of the Coloured Persons Representative Council and the Indian Council. It is now being extended to two chambers of this Parliament, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates.

We must always bear in mind that the franchise is a tremendous privilege; a privilege the individual must never abuse, but which also goes hand in hand with a great deal of responsibility. It is the reponsibility of the individual to see to it that he puts a party in power that will govern this country well. On the other hand it is also the duty of the State to see to it that the franchise is not cheapened. Similarly, the task of the State is to see to it that the franchise is not withheld from someone unnecessarily and unjustly. I believe that the golden rule here is to do to others what one would have done to oneself; to grant others what one claims for oneself. It is quite striking that in a very recent debate—scarcely half an hour ago—the hon member for Nigel said precisely that—he does not begrudge others what he claims for himself. I therefore assume that the hon member does not begrudge the Coloureds the chamber he claims for himself. If he does, he must call his party to order, and if the party does not maintain this principle, they must re-examine their motto.

As regards the franchise in general, it is interesting to note that the Whites in South Africa, as is the case everywhere in the world, had to undergo a process of evolution. It is interesting to note that under the old Cape Parliament before 1910 White men were treated differently from Whites in the Transvaal. For example, White men in the Cape Province had to have certain qualifications to be able to register as a voter. Firstly, they had to be able to sign their name. In addition, they had to have an income of at least £50 per annum or own property to the value of £75. In contrast, women in South Africa only obtained the franchise in 1930. In the life of a people 1930 was only yesterday. The Minister pointed out that this is a nostalgic remnant from historical times. In this regard I should like to present to this House a few quotations from the speech of Gen Hertzog, who was Prime Minister of South Africa at that time. He dealt with the Women’s Enfranchisement Bill himself in Parliament on 6 March 1930. Inter alia, he said that women who obtained the franchise would also qualify in future to be elected as a member of the Senate, a member of Parliament, or a member of the Provincial Council. It is interesting to note that Gen Hertzog presented the concept of the women’s franchise to the people at an election and promised that if the NP were placed in power again, he would present the question of women’s enfranchisement to Parliament as a non-government measure.

Furthermore, it is very interesting to look at certain quotations from Gen Hertzog’s speech. Inter alia, he says the following:

He was referring to the Westminster system, as they knew it then. He went on to say:

It is illuminating that the Senate was abolished 50 years later and that the curtain for the last act is going up now in 1984.

The White Parliament is being abolished.

The hon member says that the White Parliament is being abolished. The hon member also said yesterday that the name of this House should be changed and it should no longer be called the House of Assembly. It struck me then that scarcely a month ago the CP had conducted a by-election to elect a member of this House of Assembly.

Yes, for this one.

The constitution provides that this will be the House of Assembly. The CP does not object to the House of Assembly, but to the constitution. They refuse to accept the decision of the voters and they do not know when they have lost.

It has always been the standpoint of the NP that it would never impose anything on the voters before having put it to them. As regards Gen Hertzog, I just want to make one other remark. The concluding paragraph of his speech reads as follows:

I think we could reiterate those words today. If the Coloureds are to get the franchise, let them get it from the NP, according to the good principles of the NP. In 1958 the late Dr Dönges, the then Minister of Internal Affairs, introduced a Bill in this House granting the franchise to 18-year olds. Although the principle of the franchise for 18-year olds had been an issue since 1953, the NP only took it to the people in 1953 by way of an election in that year in order to obtain a mandate from the people to effect such a statutory amendment. It is 1984 now, and South Africa again finds itself on the eve of major, dramatic breakthroughs.

Just like South West Africa.

The hon member knows so little about South West Africa.

You deserted South West Africa.

I hope we shall have the opportunity to discuss South West Africa under the Prime Minister’s Vote. I do not engage in huckstering with regard to South West Africa. I do not try to bring South West Africa under wrong impression. It is no use engaging in incitement when one cannot or does not wish to do anything for those people.

As I have said, we find ourselves on the eve of breakthroughs which the present Government and its predecessors have been working on for many years. Once again it is the National Party that is introducing this Bill. The National Party is doing so not only with a two thirds majority in this House, but also with a two thirds majority of the voters of South Africa. What a powerful mandate! It is no wonder that it is having a ripple effect and spilling over to distant countries. It is no wonder that it is leading to what was unthinkable yesterday: Peace with our neighbouring states. It is symbolic that this measure is before us in one of the most important weeks in our modem history. [Interjections.]

Order! I should be pleased if hon members would make fewer interjections.

Apparently the hon member for Rissik has no feeling for the incredible tempo of events in recent times. He has no understanding of the events that are succeeding one another so rapidly that one can hardly keep up with them. He has no understanding of the fact that South Africa finds itself in the spotlight of the world. He does not understand that it is the very pronouncement of the voters of South Africa that has made these breakthroughs possible. He does not care whether the criticism and remarks of the Conservative Party reflect a negative image of South Africa to the outside world, and in particular, a negative image of the Afrikaner people, to which we all belong. I do not care if the hon member wished to make a fool of his own party. However, it is a pity that he is also making a caricature of the Afrikaner in the process. He speaks of a new nation and of a melting pot of a nation. Can you imagine that, Sir! We are engaged in creating a separate voters’ list for the election of members of separate chambers of Parliament. The key word is “separate”, but now he is speaking of conglomerate, a new nation. I do not understand how he gets the two to correspond.

Surely the CP is aware that their amendment to the effect that this measure should be read in six months’ time has no chance of succeeding. Why are they moving it? Is it simply to try to show that they are the people who speak on behalf of the Afrikaner and for the Afrikaner? Do they think they know everything? Do they really think that two thirds of the voters of South Africa would place the wrong government in power? The measure we are discussing here today has been approved by two thirds of the voters of South Africa. Consequently, I, too, take pleasure in supporting it.

Order! The hon member for Rissik has asked me to afford him the opportunity providing a personal explanation regarding a remark he made in a speech in this House yesterday. I now take pleasure in giving him that opportunity.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity you have afforded me of giving this House an explanation.

I made the following allegation in the somewhat stormy debate on the present Bill yesterday:

I then quoted certain words. The words I used, however, were not the words of the hon the Prime Minister, but the words of the then Minister of Internal Affairs, as recorded in column 71 of Hansard of Monday, 26 January 1981.

I went on to say in my speech yesterday, and again I quote:

In both the cases to which I have just referred, “the hon the Prime Minister” must be replaced by “the hon the Minister of Internal Affairs”. In this way the whole matter will be placed in the correct perspective.

Mr Speaker, I thank you once again for the opportunity you have afforded me to explain this matter, and I also apologize to the hon the Prime Minister for the error that occurred.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Walvis Bay spoke about the implications of this legislation and also referred to its possible effects on the NP. He also pointed out what the consequences of this measure would be in respect of the Indians and the Coloureds. He did say that this measure provided for a separate voters’ roll for separate parliaments. I do not, however, intend to proceed in that particular vein.

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister said that he wished to utilize the voters lists for the Coloured Representative Council and the South African Indian Council to compile the voters’ roll for the elections for Indians and Coloureds to take place later this year. He added that the names would also be added of those people in the Indian and Coloured communities who were eligible to vote in terms of section 52 of the 1983 Constitution Act. One can have no quarrel with that at all. Then, however, the hon the Minister goes on to admit that he wants to utilize the population register as a source for the compilation of the voters list for the first general election. However, he adds that certain factors militated against this procedure. He states the following reasons for this. Firstly, he says that the population register in respect of Coloured and Indian people is far from complete. As his second reason he states that hundreds and thousands of applications received more than 18 months ago have not yet been processed. His third reason is that one hundred thousand applications received since January 1983 are considered current applications and still have to be processed together with new applications received every day. Fourthly, the hon the Minister states that despite the employment of 500 people working after hours to bring up to date the population register, there is no prospect of completing this task before September this year. This is utterly disgraceful on the hon the Minister’s own admission. How could he allow this chaotic state of affairs to exist in his department?

Under the prevailing conditions the Government has no right whatsoever to call an election of Coloured and Indian members to their respective Houses on 22 August this year. He should have told the Cabinet that the voters’ roll would be a farce. Elections under these conditions will indeed be a farce on account of the inefficiency of his department.

The hon the Minister was so anxious to get all the White voters included in the population register for last year’s referendum that he had no time to spare to ensure equal treatment for Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] Is it correct to have elections for a White House of Parliament on a voters’ roll which does include not only voters registered in terms of the existing Electoral Act but also voters who become eligible because their names appear in the population register? In that manner the voters’ roll is supplemented but simultaneously similar facilities are not provided for Coloureds and Indians. This is racial discrimination at its worst. It is completely immoral to run an election for Whites on one basis and to run an election for Indians and Coloureds on a different basis. In view of the fact that he says that he cannot get the population register in respect of Coloureds and Indians ready before the end of September the election should be postponed until the population register has been completed. It will be better if these elections were held in March or April of 1985 with clean voters’ rolls according to which every adult whether White, Coloured or Indian and who has the vote is on the voters’ roll. If this is not done then I must warn the hon the Minister that he will have two Houses that will not be representative of their electorate. The criticism will be that this is a sham Parliament, and that can only be avoided if the hon the Minister ensures that the voters’ rolls are correct.

I want now to deal with a comparison between the voters’ rolls and the voters on the population register. In accordance with section 52 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act every White, Coloured or Indian person over the age of 18 years, who is a South African citizen and who is not subject to certain disqualifications is entitled to vote. It is therefore the duty of the State— and the hon the Minister is the representative of the State—to ensure that such a person is provided with an opportunity to vote. Let us consider what happened in regard to the Government’s obligation to ensure that this opportunity was available in respect of White voters. In March 1983 it was estimated that approximately 2 375 000 White voters were on the voters’ roll whereas the population register at that time showed that there should have been approximately 2 700 000 White persons over the age of 18 years whose names were on the register and were therefore entitled to the franchise. In order to ensure that every White voter should have the opportunity to vote in the referendum, the Government exercised extraordinary measures to ensure that all persons could be included in the population register as voting would take place merely by the exhibiting of an identity document. After the referendum, the official figure of Whites on the voters’ roll was approximately 2 700 000. Because of this figure, therefore, some 2 000 000 White voters were able to vote at the referendum and the poll was 76%. It is estimated today that there are some 3 000 000 White people eligible to vote if the population register is used. [Interjections.]

Your party actually opposed that procedure when the measure was introduced.

That does not matter. I am referring to what the Government actually did. Whether we opposed it or not, the situation is that this House makes the laws and we here have to obey those laws once they have been passed by this House. We can argue about them while they are in the process of being made but once that has been done, we have to obey them just as hon members opposite have to obey them. I shall deal with that matter later.

In 1982 legislation was passed through this House—the Electoral Amendment Act, No 104 of 1982—in terms of which the chief electoral officer may, at his discretion— which is really at the discretion of the hon the Minister—cause all the voters’ rolls whether they be for Whites, Coloureds or Indians, to be supplemented with the names and particulars of any White, Coloured or Indian person entitled to be registered as a voter in an election for the House of Assembly if his name is included in the population register. This has been done in respect of White voters starting with the by-elections in Waterberg, Soutpansberg and Waterkloof and recently in the by-elections at Soutpansberg and Pinetown. In my own constituency of Bezuidenhout an additional 4 000 voters have been included on the voters’ rolls as a result of this supplement. Therefore, in the future in respect of a White voter he need only register in the population register or notify a change of address to the population registrar and he is automatically transferred to the correct constituency, but what is the position in respect of Coloured and Indian voters? It is said that the voters on the voters’ lists in respect of Coloureds total some 675 000, but the voters eligible despite the bad work of the hon the Minister total 1 750 000. Therefore there is a difference of more than 400 000 potential voters. It is not so bad in the case of the Indians because there were 295 000 on the voters’ lists according to a reply the hon the Minister gave me, and I am told there are 350 000 who are potentially eligible if one uses the population register.

This is not the problem. In terms of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, the first delimitation for the House of Representatives for Coloureds and the House of Delegates for Indians must not be based on voters’ rolls but on the population register. This is laid down in section 102(9). Let us therefore examine what the position will be in respect of the Coloured and the Indian Houses separately.

Let us first of all deal with the Coloureds. The quota per seat will be about 13 400, but in terms of section 49 of the Constitution Act certain maximum loadings and unloadings are allowed. Special seats are also allowed. The maximum loading will therefore bring about a seat with 15 450 voters and the maximum deloading will bring about a seat of 11 400 while special seats will have 9 400 voters. On the voters roll with which the election will be fought, however, there will only be 675 000 voters. Therefore, even if the voters were evenly spread all over the country, the average per seat under the voters’ list would only be 8 430; in other words, the average constituency will have fewer voters than the maximum unload of 30% which is 9 400 required for a special seat. How can one call it a fair election?

Unless the hon the Minister supplements the voters’ rolls with those persons eligible to vote who are on the population register, the first election is going to be a complete farce. It is well known that a large number of Coloureds in particular have not registered for voting for representatives on the now defunct Coloured Representative Council, and although penalties could have been applied for failing to register as a voter, I cannot find any proof that any Coloured ever appeared in any court of law charged with failing to register.

We have now had the same problem with White voters, but we have overcome this by utilizing the Electoral Act Amendment Act, 1982, in terms of which the Chief Electoral Officer has exercised a discretion and supplemented the voters’ roll with the names and particulars of White persons qualified to vote and whose names appear on the population register.

If this system of supplementing is not applied, then there will be strange anomalies. There may be some constituencies for the Coloured House of Representatives that would have as low as 2 000 to 3 000 voters to elect a member as against others that may have as high as 13 000 or 14 000 voters available for casting their vote in the forthcoming election.

Let us not have rotten boroughs such as appeared in England before the Reform Act of 1848 where some members of Parliament were elected by one man because the boundaries had been fixed 100 years earlier and only one man possessed all the land. A constituency with fewer than 9 340 voters will be nothing but a rotten borough. I am sure that if the hon the Minister allows this Bill to go through, he will be ashamed of the vast differences in the number of actual voters in many of the constituencies. However, he can save the situation to some extent immediately by supplementing the voters roll for the Coloured Representative Council with the names of those who are on the population register, however poor it may be, and who are entitled to vote. If he postpones the election until the population register is compiled, it will be of great psychological value.

Persons who for political reasons did not wish to register, will then come onto the voters roll. Such persons can then exercise their vote if they wish to or they need not. But the country can then be sure that everybody entitled to vote is the Indian and Coloured population had the opportunity to vote and those who are elected will be representative of their voters. However, it is said that the Government does not want these additions because it wants a smaller voters’ roll so that it can say: “Look at the high percentage poll”. However, this will be on a smaller roll. I trust that the hon the Minister will accept that this is the real reason why he has introduced this Bill in its present form.

In respect of the Indian House of Delegates, the difference will not be so great as the number on the roll is 295 000 while the number eligible from the population register is about 350 000. The quota for the Indian House will therefore be approximately 8 750. We can therefore see what the loadings and unloadings and the special seat situation will be. The maximum loading would be 10 000 and the maximum unloading would be 7 500 and the special seats would be 6 125. With 295 000 voters, however, the average loading is only 7 375 per seat, which is lower than the maximum unloading of 7 437. It is certain that the constituencies delimited will not be properly polled as is the case with the Coloured voters.

I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister not to proceed with the election and to proceed with the select committee which the hon member for Green Point has suggested. If he does not, he can be accused of prostituting the constitution because he is aware of all the defects and the inefficiency of his own department. [Interjections.] He can avoid ignominy by appointing a select committee of Whites, Coloureds and Indians who can investigate the whole matter and ensure a fair election with as full a voters’ roll as possible. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon member for Bryanston allowed to refer to an hon member on this side of the House as a pimp? That is absolutely disgraceful.

Mr Speaker, I said that anybody who prostitutes the constitution is a constitutional pimp.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark.

Mr H E J VAN RENSBURG. I withdraw it, Sir.

I would like to deal with a particular piece of legislation which was passed by the National Party, namely the Prohibition of Political Interference Act of 1968. The PFP has continually asked for the abolition of this Act, particularly as there will now be Coloured and Indian Houses in the new tricameral Parliament. The Government is, however, not prepared to abolish this Act. If the Act is therefore enforced, action must be taken by the hon the Minister if anybody does something in conflict with that Act. Does the hon the Minister agree? [Interjections.] The Minister of the Interior who introduced this particular Bill in 1968 said among other things:

He also said:

One of the things that was said was that financial assistance from overseas was going to be prohibited. By strange coincidence it left out the question whether receipt of financial assistance from local sources could be prohibited. At that time this was not contemplated as being necessary. However, I want to inform the House that from the offices of the NP in Bezuidenhout some Nationalists have set up an undercover organization to fund the Coloured Labour Party. [Interjections.] I have here an article under the heading “The Big Pay-Off’. I will be pleased to give the hon the Minister a copy of this because it is not secret. It is quite open. It was published in the Sunday Tribune of 13 November 1983. Let me read some exerpts from the article:

I quote further:

I believe the hon the Minister may know him. [Interjections.] I quote further:

I happen to know him:

And guess who the third director is? I quote:

A question was put to the Minister of the Interior on 8 April 1968 as to what he meant by an agent. He said:

I will show that in terms of the interference legislation this particular gentleman acted as an agent and therefore acted illegally. I will quote the Act in a moment. The Act provides that:

and here we have the Minister of the Interior at that time saying:

Mr Coetzer has been paid to be an agent and therefore is breaking a law which the Government wants to retain. [Interjections.] When asked, Mr Coetzer said the main thrust of his fund-raising was directed at the business community. I know for a fact that Mr Du Plessis and others have approached large firms and simply said: “We want money from you for the Labour Party.” They did not hide anything at all. When a man whom he approached asked: “How can I openly say which party I want to support?”, Mr Du Plessis replied: “It does not matter; we think you must give.” [Interjections.]

The article goes on to state that:

Some commercial operation the NP is, I must say! [Interjections.] According to this article Mr Coetzer said further:

The NP appointed Mr Coetzer as a candidate against me over a year ago. Mr Coetzer goes on to say another amazing thing. If he had been collecting money for the National Party, I could understand it, but he said:

Now comes the second defect in terms of this particular Bill. It is stated here that:

The law says and says very plainly that:

I have already referred to the seminar on political strategy. I have taken legal opinion on this and I have been told that it is illegal. Therefore, in terms of the Act, I challenge the hon the Minister to take legal action as soon as possible.

Mr Speaker, I shall presently be coming back to that last remark about the Communitel company.

I should like to deal with that aspect shortly. However, I think the PFP must be very hard up in politics in South Africa today— very hard up. [Interjections.] They are using every possible opportunity to boost their ailing image in the South African political arena. However, just as they failed miserably in the City Council of Johannesburg’s so-called no confidence debate last week, so they are failing miserably in this debate tonight. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bezuidenhout made a certain accusation against a private company called Communitel of which a certain Mr Piet Coetzer is a director. The hon member is obviously very concerned about Piet Coetzer because Piet Coetzer is going to lift him out of his seat at the next election in Bezuidenhout. That is the reason why he is throwing up a big smokescreen here and is trying to put this gentleman in a bad light. The hon member can take legal advice from whomsoever he wants to get such advice. There is nothing that prevents any professional firm in this country from assisting any political party, whether it is a White, Coloured or Indian political party, in the methods of fighting an election. I think one must be grateful to professional people who are prepared to assist political parties, for example, the Labour Party, and to train them to fight elections in this country. There is nothing wrong with that. However, what the legislation seeks to prevent, is a party like the PFP getting involved in the politics of the Coloureds and the Indians. [Interjections.] The same applies to the NP. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Turffontein the opportunity to complete his speech.

I challenge the hon member for Bezuidenhout to prove to this House that one cent of NP or State money is involved in Communitel. Mr Pieter Coetzer happens to be a member of the NP and is the shadow candidate of the NP in Bezuidenhout. We are proud of him and know that he will deal with that guy next time.

Order! The hon member must refer to the hon member as “an hon member”.

I withdraw that, Sir. He will deal with the hon member for Bezuidenhout when the time comes.

The hon member made a number of accusations, one which was that the hon the Minister was not ensuring fair play in the politics of the Coloureds and the Asians. He says that because we do not use the population register as a basis for compiling the voters’ rolls for the Coloureds and the Indians, this is utterly disgraceful. He says too that we have no right to call elections and that the voters’ rolls will be a farce. What utter nonsense! For how many years have we been fighting elections in this country without the population register? We compiled voters’ rolls by giving the public the opportunity to register on the RV1 forms to become eligible as voters. The compiling of voters rolls has nothing to do with the population register.

The law says so.

It does not matter. [Interjections.] Hon members can laugh as much as they want to, but there are practical reasons why the population register is not being used and the hon the Minister has already dealt with those reasons in his second Reading speech. I do not know why the hon member for Rissik is laughing because he knows as well as I do that if the population register is not up to date we have to use another system because we want every single Coloured and Asian to be on the voters’ roll. If they cannot get on the voters’ roll by way of the population register we are going to give them the opportunity of doing so by way of the old tested system of applying on the RV1 form. We want every single one of them to cast his vote. The PFP tells the outside world that we want to disenfranchise some of the Coloured and Asian people in South Africa. Anybody who says that is an utter liar and is spreading lies, which I think is wrong.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: In the argument of the hon member he first of all accuses an hon member of making an accusation, namely that we are suggesting that Coloureds and Indians are not able to get on the voters’ roll. Then he turns round and says that anybody who says that is a liar.

Order! I think there is a connection and I ask the hon member to withdraw it.

Mr Speaker, I withdraw it. I should like to say to those hon members that if they had any honour, they would rectify that statement because it is not true. [Interjections.]

The hon member also said it was immoral to run elections for the Coloured and Asian people on a different basis to that for the Whites. What is so immoral about that? Because the population register for the White people is reasonably up to date, we use that system and we still do not stop the White people who do not have identity documents from using a RV1 application to get themselves onto the voter’s roll. So, what is so immoral about it? He said we must postpone the elections. I should like to say to those hon gentlemen that no Prog or radical in this country will stop the National Party from implementing the wishes of the voting public of South Africa. He talked about a sham Parliament that is now being created. He has not even seen the newly compiled voters’ rolls. He has not even seen the delimitation of the constituencies for the Coloured and Asian people. He plays around here with figures and sends a lot of nonsense into the outside world, but for what purpose?

I do not know how that hon member arrived in this place, because I can remember that in the days of the old United Party the hon member for Yeoville declined to give him a seat to come to this House. He knows it well. He can ask the hon member for Bryanston how many times he tried to come to Parliament and Harry Schwarz was the man who stopped him from coming to Parliament. [Interjections.]

The difference between us and that side of the House is basically that they want to compile a voters roll in South Africa on a colour-blind basis which will give us a one man, one vote election and that will be the end of the story for South Africa. That is what they want. What we on this side of the House are doing—and I must compliment the hon the Minister and his Department on this—is that we are using the most practical method to compile voters" rolls and to get a decent delimitation to accommodate group political rights in South Africa, not a one man, one vote system.

The hon member also wants to second the hon member for Green Point’s proposal for a so-called Select Committee. Did the hon member for Green Point not give him a copy of his amendment? [Interjections.] The hon member for Green Point did not ask for a Select Committee of this House. He asked for a commission to be appointed, consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Asians. [Interjections.] So much, then, for that hon member and all the nonsense he spoke in the House.

*South Africa is now entering upon the physical implementation phase of the new 1983 Constitution. Democracy has run its full course and the Government is in the process of implementing the will of the electorate in South Africa. The hon the Minister has therefore come to the House with a measure carrying the full sanction of the White electorate in South Africa. So the Conservative Party will simply have to put that in their pipe and smoke it. Here we are engaged in implementing the the wishes of the majority of the White electorate in South Africa. Before us today we have the first tangible proof of the implementation of mechanisms to give effect to the constitution.

The hon member for Rissik says we must change the name of the House of Assembly. The House of Assembly, as constituted today, is going to remain in existence the way it is today.

That is untrue.

That is not untrue. I am saying that the House of Assembly, as constituted today, is going to remain in existence as it is today. All that will be happening is that the House of Assembly, as it is constituted today …

Without its sovereignty.

Sir, the other day, as the sun was setting, the hon member for Brits said here that it was nice to hear a baboon’s voice. I do not know what one hears at this time of night—someone demented, it seems to me. [Interjections.] The House of Assembly, as constituted today will continue to exist. In the new dispensation it will become one of the three Chambers of the new Parliament. All we are doing with this measure is to introduce an Electoral Act to make it possible to have an election for a House of Representatives and a House of Delegates which, together with this House of Assembly, can form a Parliament for South Africa.

I now want to come back to the hon member for Green Point. I must say that he made a speech of great moderation. I think it is because he was a member of the select committee and understands the problems we are faced with. We did, after all, thrash out those problems amongst ourselves. I want to assure him of the fact that I am very sympathetically disposed towards the amendment he moved. The hon member moved an amendment in which he asked that this Bill be referred to a commission of Whites, Coloureds and Asians to investigate anew the mechanisms surrounding the Electoral Act. I do not think there is anything wrong with that. All that will happen, however, is that we would be delaying the whole process whereby the new constitutional dispensation in South Africa is to be implemented. Practical considerations and the realities of the situation do not, of course, accord with such an amendment. What is more important to South Africa at this stage is participation in the new dispensation by Coloureds and Asians. I therefore do not think it is all that important for us to concern ourselves overmuch with the electoral procedure.

I must acknowledge immediately, of course, that the hon the Minister and the Department, and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, did negotiate with the Coloureds and Asians on the principles of the legislation under discussion. The matter was discussed with them, and when all is said and done—let us now be honest about this—this measure is giving those people the opportunity to become involved in a first round of elections in South Africa.

Eventually, in this new parliament, we shall also be having the truly elected members of the Coloureds and the Asians. There is, in fact, nothing standing in the way of a future Minister of Internal Affairs—who will again be dealing with the legislation relating to elections—possibly constituting a select committee or a standing committee after the members of the future three Chambers have been elected, to again jointly investigate this legislation. There is nothing wrong with that either. It can, of course, be done. Then we as Whites can also make our contributions, and so too the other groups as Coloureds and Asians, and they can do so, of course, on the basis of the experience they would by then have gained in regard to these electoral mechanisms, the success or failure of which should be clearly apparent at that stage. On the basis of our practical experience our present electoral legislation is a tried and trusted system that we can very confidently implement in regard to the elections for the Coloureds and the Asians.

There is an English expression that says: “Time is of the essence”. So we cannot delay the implementation of the constitution merely because of certain differences involving the electoral mechanisms. The NP Government is on the move. The NP is getting things done in South Africa. We only have to look at the political scene around us to realize this very clearly. On the international scene people are also taking note of South Africa’s envisaged new constitutional system. We are busy doing all these things, whilst members of the PFP and the CP do nothing but try to put a spoke in the wheel of progress at every turn. [Interjections.]

I want to compliment the hon member for Green Point on the fact that he basically confined himself to the practical implementation of the legislation, without dragging broader political aspects into this debate. The doubts he expresses on behalf of the Coloureds and the Asians, however, do not convince me. On behalf of the Coloureds and the Asians he expresses doubts about whether those people would be satisfied with the content of this measure. I take that with a pinch of salt, because the unfortunate thing is that throughout the years the PFP have claimed to speak on behalf of people of Colour in this House. That role of theirs is played out. In future those people are coming along here to speak for themselves, so we need no longer listen to PFP arguments on their behalf. [Interjections.]

I also want to express a few ideas about the practical adjustments in the measure under discussion. Just by the way, let me say one or two things about the system of postal votes. This measure makes provision for our having only special votes, and not postal votes. The motive behind this is merely of a practical nature, and that is that the political parties of the Coloureds and the Asians do not have the necessary political organization to be able to handle the full consequences of a system of postal votes at this stage. We therefore want to make it as easy as possible for these people to participate fully in these elections.

It is not, of course, a strange principle either. There is a precedent. In the elections for the old Coloured Persons Representative Council use was made of the system of postal votes. In elections for the South African Indian Council, however, use was not made of postal votes. So this is nothing new that we are suddenly depriving people of. It has merely been done owing to practical considerations. What is important, however, is that each and every Coloured and Asian be placed in a position to cast his vote. Experience in the referendum has taught us that we can get along very well without the system of postal votes. Each and every Coloured and Asian who wants to vote, will be fully able to cast his vote.

I also want to refer to the question of identity documents. I have now dealt fairly briefly with the hon member for Bezuidenhout and his nonsensical arguments, but I want to say a few more words about the real debate conducted here. Let us be realistic. The arrangement in connection with the population register and identity documents has not even come into full swing yet as far as the White voters are concerned. We are using the population register as a basis or as a source of information, but we are still using the old RV1 system of registration for the Whites too. The voters’ rolls are not exclusively drawn up from the population register. This is merely being done for practical considerations, and on the advice of the Department of Internal Affairs, for at least the first round of elections for the Coloureds and Asians the voters’ rolls will be drawn up on the ordinary registration basis. The hon member for Green Point referred here to a recommendation of the select committee in regard to voters’ rolls from the population register. He must understand that the eventual aim is, of course, to have the population register used for that purpose, but at this stage the department is not in a position to do so. What can in fact be done—and here the population register is going to be of great help to us—is that we can update the addresses of those people whose names do appear on the voters’ rolls of the old Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and the old South African Indian Council. So if a person’s name appears on that voters’ role, we can use the population register to update their addresses, and that will most certainly happen. Basically voters’ rolls for the Coloureds and the Indians will consist of the names of those voters that appeared on the voters’ rolls of the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council and the South African Indian Council, and that will be used in the normal old manner, which we are very familiar with, and be supplemented by the ordinary RV1 form. Each and every Coloured and Asian who wants to participate will also have a full opportunity to get his name onto the voters’ roll so that he can vote. I want to make it very clear that the aim is for us to make much better use of the population register for this purpose in future.

I also want to comment on the 300 signatures. As we know, at the moment that measure is merely applicable to White political parties not represented in this House. We were generous enough even to have exempted the CP. I do not know whether they would get enough signatures in Rosettenville, but time will tell. [Interjections.] They do not need it. We want to give them an opportunity to stand in Rosettenville without the necessity of obtaining signatures. We are actually afraid they might perhaps not get those 300 signatures. [Interjections.]

Have you read Oom Sporie’s farewell letter?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Barberton is not coming back to this House again and should therefore also look for a seat for himself somewhere in the Free State. [Interjections.]

I also want to refer to the female representatives. In this connection I want to agree with the hon member for Umhlanga. I do not know why that provision is still contained in the Act. With the emancipation of women in South Africa I do not think it is still necessary for us to provide specifically for a woman to be an aspiring candidate in an election.

The last point I want to deal with is the registration of political parties. The measure provides that existing parties in the Coloured and Asian communities only have to submit a deed of foundation for the purposes of registering as a political party. After the commencement of this measure, however, they will also, like other political parties amongst the Whites, have to submit a deed of foundation with 50 signatures. I think that this is a very practical arrangement and that it will prove to be such in practice.

As far as the CP is concerned, I do not know what the hon member for Rissik wants to achieve by his amendment to delete “now” and substitute “this day six months”.

Do you not understand parliamentary procedure?

I have always thought the hon member for Rissik was a democrat, but it seems to me as if the AWB has now got them so firmly in tow that they have also thrown democracy overboard. As democrats they must accept that the 1983 constitution, as passed by Parliament, is a palpable reality. They can shout and scream, put a spoke in the wheel and criticize …

Why are you so afraid of the AWB?

Because I do not want to be associated with them. I do not know whether the hon member would like to be associated with them. I do not want to be associated with any organization that does not accept the principle of democracy. I will co-operate with no man who does not accept the principle of democracy.

We can wave aside the whole argument as merely another attempt at gossip-mongering and mischief-making in regard to the legislation. If their amendment were to be accepted, what is the alternative that that party offers South Africa? The hon the leader of the CP is probably still walking around with that Coloured leader’s letter in his pocket. I do not know when he is going to take it out and show it to us. [Interjections.] He said that in his pocket he had a letter from a Coloured leader stating that they supported the CP’s alternative. The hon the leader should take out that letter so that we can see who that person is. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude with the following remark: South Africa is irrevocably committed to a course of orderly reform in this country. Not the CP, the HNP or the Eugene Terre Blanches will stop us. Two-thirds of the White voters gave us the green light, and we are going ahead with the implementation of this policy in South Africa.

Since one is now setting up the electoral mechanism for the Coloureds and the Indians, one would like to appeal to those Coloured and Indian people in South Africa. The Whites have shown their bona fides, their sincerity, about politically accommodating the Coloured and the Indian communities in an orderly fashion, and one hopes that the Coloured and the Indian people will accept the bona fides of the Whites and, as one man, get their names on the voter’s roll and make use of these mechanisms we are creating for them, which have been tried and tested, with South Africa emerging the winner in the long run.

Mr Speaker, when the hon the member for Turffontein commenced his speech, I recalled the day when he spoke with such feeling about the fact that Mr Marais Steyn had left the United Party and had gone over to the NP, when he said:

I recall how he evoked a feeling of melancholy with his fine speech that day.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon member?

Sir, when I have finished discussing this point, I shall give the hon member an opportunity to put a question.

I want to tell the hon member for Turffontein that his speech this evening—the first half in particular—reminded me of a typical Hyde Park Corner speech on a Sunday. One would think that after a responsible middle-bencher like him had heard allegations—we do not know whether those allegations are true, we do not know whether what appeared in the Sunday Tribune is true, since it is normally full of gossip and one is not inclined to take a great deal of notice of it—he would investigate the matter, since a very serious allegation is being made. The hon member does not have the Act to which the hon member referred before him, yet he simply shot everything down. I just want to point out one constitutional principle to him. That is that in terms of the constitution one expects fair representation. This means that if 1 075 000 Coloureds can vote, and only 675 000 vote, that is not fair representation. This is what it is about.

In addition, the hon member asked why we should be concerned about the Act and the rules. As long as we get these people into Parliament. Has the hon member read section 102(9) of the constitution? [Interjections.] This section reads as follows:

That is therefore what the constitution says, but according to a middlebencher of the National Party that is irrelevant.

I also wish to refer to the speech of the hon member for Walvis Bay. He greatly disappointed me this afternoon. He said of the hon member for Nigel that he found it pleasing that the hon member had said that he does not deny another man what he claims for himself. That is true, and we all accept that. However, when he says that this legislation and the new dispensation is granting others what we claim for ourselves, he must be consistent and also grant the Blacks what he claims for himself. [Interjections.] We believe that to grant others what one claims for oneself is the policy of separate development, in which that hon member has always believed.

I still believe in it.

Yet the hon member supports a mixed Parliament.

He made another point which was very hurtful. He said that we were the people who projected a distorted image of the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] Just listen to that choir. He said that we were making a caricature of the Afrikaner. If the allegation of the hon member for Bezuidenhout is true that fellow-Afrikaners are allegedly breaking a law in this way, what has he got to say about those Afrikaners?

However, that is not the matter I wanted to discuss. We have had enough of the snobbishness of the so-called super Afrikaners in the National Party. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Walvis Bay that if he is without sin, he must throw the first stone. Only if there are people in his party who do not make mistakes, is he entitled to say that kind of thing. Are hon members aware that the hon member would have been a candidate for the Conservative Party in Walvis Bay if he had not realized that the National Party had a better chance of winning there? [Interjections.]

That is a disgraceful allegation.

But it is true. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister that we find ourselves on the eve of a new dispensation and we take cognizance of the fact that we are going to seek consensus in the new political system. We are now going to seek consensus. However, could I point out to the hon the Minister that if one is trying to seek consensus, one would assume that he would have said in his Second Reading speech on this Bill—I shall refer at a later stage to section 10 of Schedule 1 where it is stated that the method of election is an own affair—that consensus had been reached with the Coloureds and the Indians. However, he said by way of an interjection: “What makes you think that I have not consulted with the Coloureds and the Indians?" It is customary in this House that when an hon Minister makes a Second Reading speech that affects other people he usually says that he advertised the Bill or that consultations were held with a large number of interested parties and that they had given the matter their blessing. He has kept quiet about it in this case, however. Therefore, if we infer that he did not seek consensus in this regard, he must not take it amiss of us.

In addition, I want to tell the hon the Minister that as the Afrikaans name indicates, a constitution (“grondwet”) is a basic law, a law out of which all other laws are born. It is the law out of which all bodies and organs are born. Parliament creates the constitution. [Interjections.] However, as a result of the notorious guillotine motion, we never had the opportunity of discussing sections 41, 42, 43, 52, and all the other sections. Section 42 provides for who is entitled to vote for a particular House. As far as that is concerned, the constitution has borrowed that provision from a subordinate law. The right to vote and the right to get into Parliament, was borrowed from the 1950 Act and from the Electoral Act of 1949. Therefore the constitution is based on a subordinate law in certain circumstances. To a certain extent that detracts from that law’s illustriousness.

That is a new argument. You have never used it before.

If the hon the Minister would care to remember, I used it in the select committee. I was unable to use it in the debate on the constitution, since the notorious guillotine prevented me from doing so.

The constitution goes further and determines how many seats there will be in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. The constitution provides that the Transvaal will have 10 Coloured seats, the Free State will have five, and Natal will have five, and the Transvaal will also have eight Indian seats and the Cape Province will have three Indian seats. According to this Bill, these seats will be determined after the number of voters is known, and thereafter it will be determined how the borders of the constituencies will be defined. In this way Coloureds are now going to be elected to a body that will have equal rights with the House of Assembly and Indians will also be elected to a body that will have equal rights with the House of Assembly. They are going to represent seats in respect of territories in which they do not settle traditionally. The Free State, the Transvaal and Natal are not the traditional home of the Coloureds. Similarly, the Cape Province and the Transvaal are not the traditional home of the Indians.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon the Minister wishes to put a question to me, he is very welcome to do so. However, that fits in so well with the policy of the Government with regard to the Blacks; that is why he does not want to ask me a question. He knows that I am right. However, they are now going to be given representation with regard to territory to which they have absolutely no historical claim. They are going to be divided into constituencies that are going to overlap with constituencies represented by Whites, to the extent that there are going to be 60 Coloured representatives for the Cape Province, whilst there are only going to be 56 White representatives for the Cape Province. They are therefore going to overlap. [Interjections.] Once again this illustrates the lack of logic in, and the absurdity of, the new dispensation. The Black people of Soweto are not living in their national states, yet they exercise their political rights in the national states, except if the NP should follow the policy that Harold Pakendorff has suggested they follow, viz that the coupling policy is a myth and should be eliminated.

Are you equating a province with a state?

No, I am not equating a province with a state. However, I cannot quite understand what the purpose of the hon the Minister’s question is. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister serves on the Cabinet Committee concerned, and according to Mr Harold Pakendorff the committee has already come up with certain findings, since they supposedly know more than the NP caucus knows. I hope that it is not true that the NP is going to do away with the coupling policy, which has supposedly now become a myth.

Those Black people exercise their political rights in their various national states. The Coloureds and the Indians do not do so, however. They are being given representation in a mixed Parliament. As far as we are concerned, this Bill is a dismal off-shoot of a prostituted constitution. [Interjections.]

Let us look at paragraph 10 of Schedule 1. [Interjections.] Sir, there is such a noise in the dovecot on the opposite side that I am unable to speak. If the Whips on that side of the House cannot see to it that hon members are quiet, I cannot help them. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 provides that:

Now I can understand that this Bill is the first legislation that can regulate elections; in other words, the Coloured House and the Indian House do not yet exist, so they cannot introduce such a Bill. A number of very interesting conclusions arise out of this, however. For example, we want to know which of the aspects to which the Bill refers are going to be own affairs, and which are going to be general affairs. Let us look at sections 42(1) and 43(1) of the constitution, which provide how many Coloured representatives there are going to be in the Coloured House, and how many Indian representatives there are going to be in the Indian House. In terms of section 99 neither the Indians nor the Coloureds can alter this compositon without all three the Houses agreeing. That is correct. Nor can the President’s Council come to the rescue of a House that disagrees. In other words, the ratio of 80 Coloureds in the Coloured House and 40 Indians in the Indian House is a general affair. Sections 42(2) and 43(2) cannot be amended. Neither the Coloureds nor Indians can decide to amend the provincial division on their own. Nor is it an own affair. Paragraph 10 of Schedule 1, however, provides that it is an own affair subject to a general law.

After all, the question of redelimitation is regulated by the constitution.

Yes, that is precisely the point. That is self-determination, after all. Self-determination has a bearing on how one delimits one’s seats. [Interjections.] Section 42(1) and section 43(1) of the constitution make further reference to section 49, and section 49 concerns the method of dividing provinces into constituencies. Therefore if, for example, the two Houses want to alter the loading or deloading—if the Coloured House wants to change the loading or deloading of 15%—they are unable to do so. If they wish to follow the proportional electoral system they cannot do so on their own.

It is an own general affair.

It is an own general affair, or a general own affair. One has a choice. If they decide on representation according to occupations or professions, or if they decide on a proportional system, they cannot change over to that system on their own. The same applies to the Whites. I wonder whether hon members opposite realize that. The Whites cannot alter these things at all without the permission of the other Houses. In cases where something is not entrenched, it cannot be altered without the permission of the President’s Council. That is self-determination. The same applies to qualifications for the franchise. Supposing the Coloureds or the Indians wanted to decide that the franchise could only be exercised at the age of twenty-one. Will they be able to do so? They cannot do so, because they first have to obtain the permission of the other Houses, and if they do not obtain it, they have to go to the President’s Council with that request. They cannot alter the qualifications for the vote. This is what self-determination looks like. The Whites may want to change it, but they cannot do so on their own either. Say, for example, that the Coloureds decide to permit opinion polls. This is something that section 143 of the Electoral Act prohibits. Will they be able to do so, or not? If they want the bars to be open on election day, will they be able to do so?

Let us look at a few specific provisions. In terms of section 4(1)(c) a White has to have an identity document in order to qualify as a voter. The hon the Minister was not clear on this point in his Second Reading speech. He said that section 82(2)(d) had not yet been promulgated, but it seems to me that section 4(1)(c) has already been promulgated. If that is the case, a White must have an identity document if he wants to register, but a Coloured need not have one. Therefore, this is discrimination in favour of the Coloured. Section 34(3) determines specific times when a nomination court has to meet and when an election has to take place. As far as the first election is concerned, these two sections are not regarded as being part of the Electoral Act. The hon the Minister explained that the date of the election had been set for 22 August and that there should be a little flexibility with regard to this matter. Why? Is that the only reason he does not want to make the specific arrangements to which we are all accustomed applicable to Coloureds and Indians?

Section 41(4)(d)(ii) and (v), which determine the cases where 300 signatures are unnecessary, is something one can understand with regard to the first election. However, a great deal is being said about what a person must do if he represents a political party, but what happens if he is independent? If he is going to stand as an independent candidate, there is no onus on him. Section 82(2)(d) of the Electoral Act of 1979, which has not yet been promulgated—according to the hon the Minister—provides that a person applying for a special vote has to supply his identity number. If this has not yet been promulgated, I cannot understand why we had to do this in all the previous elections. Apart from that, this is discrimination, once again. What is the purpose of someone applying for a special vote furnishing his identity number? Surely it is to make sure of such a person’s identity so that there is no corruption and cheating during elections. Why are the Coloureds exempted from that requirement?

Because all of them do not have identity documents yet.

Then the hon the Minister must postpone the election. [Interjections.] I cannot understand why the hon the Minister is getting so excited. I think that after Soutpansberg he is no longer capable of sitting and listening to a debate calmly. He becomes nervous.

In the proposed section 7(2), in chapter II, it is stated that a Coloured can hand in his application to register at a police station, inter alia. Once again this is discrimination in favour of the Coloured. The White man does not have that right. The Whites have to follow a certain procedure and go to the nearest regional office or magistrate’s court. The Coloured, however, can go to a police station. Why is that the case? The words “free of charge” are used in the proposed section 13. One can obtain voters’ lists free of charge if one applies for them on behalf of a political party. The words “free of charge” do not appear in the 1979 Act. I assume that they are free of charge, but this is not stated.

We now come to the proposed section 19, which contains the penalties. Here we find discrimination against the Coloured. Section 31 of the Act of 1979 provides that if a person commits an offence, he has to pay a fine of R50 or is given three months imprisonment. The fine is heavier in respect of the present section 36, however. I think the fine is being doubled. The prison sentence is also being doubled. There is a heavier penalty for the Coloured than there is for Whites if this legislation is violated. Now this is a Government that is moving away from discrimination.

Now it is interesting to look at a further aspect of the Second Reading speech of the hon the Minister. We are not discussing the merits of postal votes or special votes now.

The hon the Minister said (Hansard, 13 March):

Just listen to how paternalistic he is now:

Remember that these are own affairs. These are supposed to be own affairs.

But “Ouboet” is training them now.

Yes, that is true of course. [Interjections.] I continue to read:

It is not they who can say that they want a system of postal votes. No, the hon the Minister, in his paternalistic way, tells them how they are going to deal with postal and special votes. [Interjections.] I continue to read:

Now the hon member for Witbank furnished the figures. He said that 11,3 million people had applied for special votes in 1981. [Interjections.] I mean 11,3 thousand people … [Interjections.] … and 59 000 applied for postal votes.

How many for special votes?

I am not sure of that figure. It is 11,3 thousand, or something of that nature. [Interjections.] Wait a minute; I now have the correct figure. It was 113 000, and 59 000 applied for postal votes. Is that correct?

That is correct. Read my Hansard, man.

Very well. If the Whites are permitted to apply for postal votes, why are the Coloureds being denied that privilege in this way?

The position is simply that as far as the CP is concerned, we do not accept this method of participation of Coloureds in the government of the country in a mixed Parliament. We regret this, and we are indicating how ridiculous paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 of the Constitution is, in distinguishing between own and general affairs. So ridiculous is this whole new dispensation that we request that this Bill be read this day six months.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Brakpan began his speech with a distasteful personal attack on certain hon members of this House. [Interjections.] To be specific, the hon member for Brakpan contended that the hon member for Walvis Bay decided to make himself available as a candidate for the NP purely because he realized that the CP would get nowhere in Walvis Bay. That the CP will get nowhere is, of course, true. The hon member for Brakpan may as well take note that I too happened to have been born in South West Africa. I have been acquainted with the hon member for Walvis Bay since our early childhood years. I want to put it to the hon member for Brakpan that the political integrity of the hon member for Walvis Bay is unblemished. He has never deserted and gone to a different party. [Interjections.] He represents the party in this House that elected him; no other party. [Interjections.] Nor is he interested in representing another party. [Interjections.]

Like the hon member for Bezuidenhout, the hon member for Brakpan referred to a certain Mr Piet Coetzer, I happen to know this man, too, very well. The hon member for Brakpan says that one should make sure of one’s facts. May I, therefore, just ask the hon member whether he would do me the favour of sending the copies of the letters he spoke of; the letters he wrote about crowding-out in the Post Office. May I put that request to the hon member for Brakpan? [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I ask the hon member for Brakpan whether he could perhaps send me copies of those letters so that I, too, can make sure of the facts. [Interjections.] That is all I ask him, Mr Speaker. However, I am getting no reaction from him. [Interjections.]

Are you perhaps the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Brakpan says that one should ascertain the facts. As a colleague in this House I request the hon member just to help me ascertain the facts. That is all I am doing. I am putting a simple request to him. [Interjections.] The hon member for Brakpan went on to say that we should be consistent. He put this to us very forcefully. However, this is not the first time that we have heard those words from hon members of the CP. The hon the leader of the CP has said to us on previous occasions as well that we should be consistent as far as religion is concerned. I want to put it to the hon member that we on this side of the House have always been consistent. I could quote extracts to him from 1980 in support of this statement of mine.

The hon the leader of the CP does not wish to conduct an interview with the SABS if they wish to broadcast it on a Sunday. When the Coloureds sit with us in this Parliament for the first time then they, like us, will have to be consistent. The hon member for Waterberg does not wish to conduct an interview with the SABC if it is to be broadcast on a Sunday. However, when a champagne and omelette party is held for the English language Press, what does the hon the leader of the CP say? I quote him as follows:

That is what the hon the leader of the CP says. [Interjections.]

That is an untruth.

I therefore wish to point out to hon members of the CP that they must not make personal attacks … [Interjections.] Hon members of the CP must not make personal attacks on the integrity of an hon member of this House, for example, the hon member for Walvis Bay; not if that is the way they show consistency. [Interjections.]

The Second Reading … [Interjections.]

Order! I shall permit no further interjections by the hon Chief Whip of the Government in the course of this debate.

Mr Speaker, the Second Reading debate on this Bill has been in progress for some time. The approach, the spirit and the atttitude of the various political parties in this House has been very clear in the course of the debate thus far. Therefore we can no longer have any doubt as to the approach and the principles of the various political parties.

The other day I was listening to the radio programme “Monitor”. Someone was talking about the swimming bath in Bloemfontein which was opened years ago, early in the century. Initially men and women were permitted to swim there on alternate days. Eventually, however, there was progress and it was decided that men and women might swim there together, but only married men and women. That is the approach of the CP. [Interjections.] I do not wish to argue whether Bloemfontein was right or wrong in those days, or whether it was right or wrong that men and women were not allowed to swim together. However, the CP is reverting to the distant, archaic past. That is the kind of approach to this legislation that we have from the CP. Not only do they want to revert to the distant past; they want to revert to something that never existed—a Coloured homeland. They do not wish to accept this legislation. In this debate the CP have shown that they have become nothing but the political charnelhouse on the South Africa political scene. The diagnosis is rigor mortis and the prognosis is nil. The CP has accused certain clergymen of having said that the DR Church is dead. That is the terminology they used. That description; not yet a cadaver, but decrepit and on the casualty list, is most applicable to that party, that adopts that kind of attitude when we are engaged in constitutional development that has been approved, both by Parliament and in the referendum.

On the other hand we have the PFP, which constitutes the other extreme. They want to throw everything open. They are the Sandy Bay party. They want to pull off everything and throw open everything. However, if the sun shines on them a little at Sandy Bay, then the pink shines through very clearly. They are not satisfied now. I want to tell those hon members what the approach of this party is with regard to the Coloureds and the Coloured franchise and with regard to the legislation before this House. In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister clearly spelt out the NP’s approach in this regard. What does he say? He states that the mandate of the referendum must be carried out and that the new Parliament, with its three Houses, must be established. What did he go on to say? He said:

The hon the Minister goes on to say:

That is the kind of approach that has found a response among hon members on this side of the House throughout this debate.

I now wish to say to the hon member for Brakpan that we have been consistent. On 4 June 1980 a debate was conducted in this House on constitutional development and in-that debate specific reference was made to the position of the Coloureds. During that debate the decision was taken to abolish the Senate and establish a President’s Council with the directive to help work out a new dispensation because we wanted a new dispensation. The 1977 plan which we submitted, came before the President’s Council. We said that a Coloured homeland could not work, but we did have a plan for the Coloureds. Then, on 4 June 1980, that debate took place. One of the chief NP spokesmen was the hon member for Brakpan who at that stage said inter alia that the White people had ironed out their differences in regard to the languages etc. At this stage I just wish to say in passing that I am proving how consistently hon members of the NP have always acted. What did the hon member for Brakpan go on to say? He said the following (Hansard, 4 June 1980, col 8070):

He is referring here to the Whites:

That is what we are still saying. How many times in the course of this debate have we not said so! I quote further from what the hon member said at the time (Hansard 1980, col 8071):

The hon member went on to say that the NP had taken the 1977 plan to its congresses and approved it. He added that it was approved by way of an election. He said that the people of South Africa had approved it and expressed himself as follows:

And then you accepted power-sharing.

I shall turn in a moment to what he meant by this new dispensation. [Interjections.] I shall shortly quote to the hon member exactly what he said that new dispensation should be, and that is what we are dealing with in this House this evening. The hon member said that we had created this vehicle and he then asked what would become of this vehicle. He said (Hansard 1980, col 8074):

Correct.

I thought it was the hon member for Innesdal who said this last night, but it was the hon member for Brakpan who said it on 4 June 1980. [Interjections.] The hon member went on to say that we should rub shoulders in constitutional practice with the Coloureds and the other preople. [Interjections.] I now come to what the hon member for Brakpan said the new dispensation should be. On that day the hon member for Brakpan quoted Prof Rautenbach. He said that Prof Rautenbach had attested as follows before the committee (Hansard 1980, col 8075):

These are not the words of the hon member for Brakpan; they are Prof Rautenbach’s words, but what was the comment of the hon member for Brakpan on Prof Rautenbach’s words? This was his comment, and I again quote from the same column of Hansard:

Now, however, the hon member comes along and attacks the hon member for Walvis Bay on the basis of gossip he heard somewhere. The hon member for Brakpan concluded his speech as follows:

I am a member of the NP. I have been a member of the NP for all these years; long ago, when the hon member for Rissik was still a United Party supporter, I was already a member of the NP. I am still a member of the NP, just as the hon member for Walvis Bay is a member of the NP. We are consistent, not only in the religious sphere but also in the political sphere. We are consistently following exactly what the hon member for Brakpan said when he still belonged to the right party. So much, then, for the hon member for Brakpan and his consistency. I say that our standpoint is consistent and positive. We are not bluffing.

In the so-called Battle of the Bergs and Kloofs, those hon members, inter alia the hon member for Brakpan, said that P W Botha was too afraid to hold a referendum and that he was bluffing the people. What did the hon the Prime Minister do then? He called a referendum, and what was the result? Hon members have referred to this. We are now dealing with one result of the referendum. We are now implementing some of the principles as embodied in the constitution. The point I want to make is that after having said that it was a bluff, the hon member for Brakpan, as well as the hon member for Rissik, implied that the Whites were stupid. He said that they had been bluffed. Apparently they did not know what was at issue. As if the White voters of South Africa did not know what the referendum was about! It is an absolute insult to the intelligence, integrity and judgment of the Whites in this country to imply the contrary.

In the very interesting periodical Squire I read, in among the bare legs, that the hon. the leader of the Conservative Party was disseminating the story that we are also bluffing the Coloureds. He contends that we are not going to give them any significant political powers. However, what is happening now? Now that the so-called bluff is being implemented, hon members are getting the fright of their lives; they are getting the jitters and just want to run away from this “nothing” that we are supposedly giving the Coloureds.

The constitution has been adopted by a two-thirds majority and the outcome of the referendum was “yes” with a two-thirds majority. What we are doing now is to implement it in practice. I now wish to make a statement, but before doing so there is one matter I still want to put to the hon member for Rissik. The hon member said—unfortunately I do not have his Hansard before me at the moment—that the policy of the CP was not based on hatred. He went on to say—I cannot recall his exact words now— that they were indeed in favour of the Coloureds and the Indians obtaining political powers. That was the drift of what he said. They talk of consistency, but I say that the only workable and practicable method of giving Coloureds and Indians the franchise is the method we are adopting. There is no other method. We know that the homeland dream cannot work. If the hon member for Rissik is consistent, and if the CP’s policy is not based on hatred, I want to put certain questions to him. I have before me a CP pamphlet which features a photograph of the South African Cabinet. The CP say that they do not hate the Coloureds. But the heads of certain Whites have been removed from this photo and the heads of Messrs Rajbansi, Alan Hendrickse and others have been put in their place. The heads that have been put there are totally out of proportion to the bodies. These photos are now being distributed in their thousands among the Whites, and the caption to the photo is “This is what President P W Botha’s Cabinet will look like next year”. If the attitude of the CP is not based on hate, then why do they do that?

Moreover, a cartoon appeared in Die Burger at the time of Hertzog which the CP has plagiarized and “doctored”. On the one side of the pricture there are a White man, woman and child, and they have to save South Africa. On the other side stands Mr P W Botha, the Rev Alan Hendrickse and probably Mr Rajbansi, who want to wreck South Africa. Mr Harry Oppenheimer, who —like them—voted “no”, is saying “Push, boys. I will pay”. They now want to use the Coloureds to scare the Whites by suggesting that they are something dreadful.

It is the same policy that we want to implement that the leader of the CP referred to in Squire saying that we were bluffing the Coloureds and would not give them any powers. By means of this legislation the instrument is being created whereby a tricameral Parliament will come into being here. When the tricameral Parliament has been established and it is functioning and operating, it will afford a balanced perspective in South Africa as to what is really going on in the political scene. When the Coloured leaders, whether they be the Rev Hendrickse or anyone else, take their seats in this Parliament by natural democratic processes, when the leaders of the Brown South Africans—and here I want to include the Indians—speak in this House …

In this House?

In this Parliament. [Interjections.] Sir, let me tell you how petty those hon members are. That remark attests to the pettiness of their politics. It is our custom to refer to Parliament as the “House" or “Chamber”. After all, he knows exactly what I mean. The hon member gives out that he is a lawyer. However, they still have to learn that politics is the science of the possible. That is something the PFP, too, must still learn. The point I want to make is that if those leaders of the political parties of the Coloureds and Indians speak in Parliament on behalf of their people, we shall realize that what the PFP and the CP say, think and do is not of real importance in the country. What a Coloured leader honestly says and thinks about his people and what he does is of far greater importance. In plain language: What the Coloured or Indian leaders will say, think and do here is of far more importance than what the hon leader of the CP says, thinks and does. To put it in more practical terms: What Dr Alan Boesak says, thinks and does is of far greater importance than what the priest of Pinelands says, thinks and does. [Interjections.] I mean that in the good sense of the word.

It has become the custom in this debate that when an hon member reaches the end of his speech, he makes an appeal to people. This shows how sound our approach is on this side of the House. We make a sincere appeal to people and ask them to participate. I, too, wish to appeal to all Whites, Coloureds and Indians to help us with the implementation of this legislation. I repeat: This legislation concerns politics, the science of the possible. We can accommodate the Coloureds and Indians in this Parliament. That is what this legislation seeks to do.

One Saturday morning I was standing in London, with its population of 10 million, watching the people. The White English—I think they are called “pale faces”—and among them some West Indians, moved past me. They are not our people. Those White people are not our people. However, last Saturday morning I stood in front of a shop in Adderley Street watching the hundreds of Brown people moving past me. They are decent people who are decently dressed. They are our people, and not those White people of England. I entered the shop and was served by a counter assistant, a decent, educated Coloured girl—quite attractive, too, although that is not of political importance. They are our people. [Interjections.] When a Coloured leader or an ordinary Coloured person tells me what we allow some of these “pale faces” of England to come and open shops but he, a Coloured, may not do so, then I understand how he feels. If a Coloured tells me that, I really understand how he feels. After all, he is one of our people. Therefore we appeal to Whites, Coloureds and Indians to co-operate and use this instrument.

Mr Pretorius, a member of the Legislative Assembly in South West Africa, a man of integrity who does not stray from the path and desert, uses a very interesting image that I, too, want to use this evening. In conjunction with this appeal I am making I also wish to address a warning to the more militant people on both the White and the non-White sides. If hon members ask me who I mean, then I say that on the Brown side I am referring to people like the UDF and on the White side to people like the CP, the AWB, “Bloedbad” Boshoff and people of that ilk. [Interjections.] I appeal to them to be careful. In the recent past we have had a very good example, viz that of Argentine, where feelings were aroused to a tremendous extent under the cloak of patriotism and nationalism. After all, people are acquainted with the kind of concept disseminated by the CP and the UDF. However, in Argentinia feelings were not aroused in respect of a reality. What became of President Galtieri in the bloodbath that followed in Argentinia? We do not need a President “Gal-Treurnicht” for South Africa, and therefore I want to say to the more militant people that politics is the science of the possible. It is pointless their chasing after the idea that the Whites will be summarily driven from the country. Nor will there be any point in their pursuing the museum politics that the hon member for Innesdal referred to. They are not realities. The reality is what appears in this legislation.

I now turn to those on the Coloured side who say that this legislation does not go far enough, and I want to put to them the example of Kosie Pretorius. When Kosie Pretorius is invited to go on a lion hunt, he assumes that the people who invited him will have machine guns or big-game rifles. However, if he sees a lion charging out of the bush and there is a sack of stones lying next to him, surely he is not going to say: “No, I am not playing along because I thought you were going to have rifles.” Kosie Pretorius will surely pick up those stones to throw at the lion. I do not agree with those who contend that the legislation does not go far enough. In my opinion this legislation succeeds in building a good future for White and Brown in South Africa. Let those who think that it does not go far enough, come and show us that these are stones and not rifles. Let them come and speak to us here so that we can act jointly, to the benefit of South Africa. I am prepared to speak to any Coloured person, whether he be radical left or radical right. After all, I speak to the radical right here. Why should I not speak to the radical left as well? I am prepared to speak to any Coloured, whatever his political ideas; indeed, I should like to speak to them. I believe that we should use the time before the implementation of this legislation, because Prof Tusenius described the situation accurately when he suggested a major lack in South Africa as follows:

I agree wholeheartedly with that. Accordingly I am prepared to speak to anyone, in whatever direction he may be radical.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he will join me in inviting the Coloured leaders to come and eat with us in this Parliament? [Interjections.]

Yes certainly. I shall do anything that is lawful in terms of the country’s laws. Sometimes one must listen to the radicals too. In this country a person like Martin Luther King is regarded as a very radical man, but I did hear something very commendable about Martin Luther King. [Interjections.] The hon member for Soutpansberg, who is not often in this House, can laugh if he likes. I shall tell him what Martin Luther King said. At the time there were riots in America and buildings had been burnt down, and so on, and the story goes how the group of young militant Blacks were setting places alight and shouting: “Bum, baby, burn!”. However, what did Martin Luther King say to that? He said that they should abandon that slogan and rather shout “Build, baby, build!”.

I say this evening, as an NP member of Parliament, that in my opinion what Martin Luther King said and did set a fine example. Whether we think he is radical or not, or whehter we think that Dr Allan Boesak, for example—I do not want to mention names unnecessarily but wish to state a principle— is radical or not, it is high time all of us in this House did our best to get in some good practice before there are three Chambers in this House, because then there will be a greater possibility that this policy of ours will succeed. That is my appeal and that is my standpoint. I repeat that this is our consistent policy and that we shall carry it out.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who has just taken his seat ended his speech by saying the best things in the last few sentences. I would certainly support those views, namely that it is necessary to talk to leaders of any community however radical you may think they are or however much you may disagree with them. If that had only been the attitude of this Government and the NP over the years we would have had far fewer problems than we have today.

I want to ask the hon member whether, if that applies to Coloured leaders—I agree with his sentiments in that respect—it does not also apply to Black leaders.

The principle is the same but the situation is different.

I agree with the hon member that the principle is the same. The situation in a certain legalistic constitutional sense is obviously different, and I accept that. However, the principle is the same and the overriding thing is that if you are going to have peace and accommodation among the peoples of this country, the sooner the leaders of all the communities and all the groups within those communities sit down together and try to find what they have in common rather than how they differ, the better it will be for this country. That is exactly the policy of this party.

I would like to refer to one or two other things the hon member said which interested me a great deal. In his criticisms of the CP he mentioned a photograph they used and said that they were trying to scare Whites by showing Coloureds in a photograph of a hypothetical Cabinet. After analyzing and taking his view further, he came to the conclusion and said with a great deal of enthusiasm that Coloureds are also our people. Surely one of the tragedies of South Africa for a long time and in particular over the past 36 years or so has been that it has taken that hon member—I hope that some of his colleagues also agree that Coloureds are also our people—so long to recognize that fact. What I would like to point out is that this has a number of implications. He should, for example, tell the hon the Minister of Community Development that those Coloured families who have been living in Lansdowne for decades are also our people and that they should be allowed to stay there. He should also tell the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, who said last week that Coloured Cabinet Ministers would be subject to the Group Areas Act and would not be able to live in White group areas even if it was convenient for other purposes, that those Coloured Cabinet Ministers are also our people. He should also tell his Ministers and the Provincial Administration, which is controlled by the NP in the Cape, that all of God’s beaches were made for all of God’s people, that Coloureds are also our people and that our beaches should be open to all.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: In discussing this measure, can we discuss the Group Areas Act and all the other aspects as well?

The hon the Minister will recall that I referred to this aspect yesterday afternoon. However, I must uphold the principle that an hon member is entitled to reply to what was said by an hon member who spoke previously. However I shall see to it that the hon member for Cape Town Gardens does not take this matter too far. The hon member for Cape Town Gardens may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have actually come to the end of the illustrations that I wanted to give arising out of the hon member’s speech in that regard. If he can get across the message that the Coloured people, the Indian people and the Black people of South Africa are also our people, he will have achieved a great deal, in particular if the logical consequences of those sentiments are incorporated in the laws of this country.

Mr Speaker, may I just ask the hon member whether he recalls my having said that politics was the science of the possible, and whether he and his colleagues are of the opinion that everything they are saying is, practically speaking, scientifically feasible?

Many of those things are the simplest things in the world to bring about in legal terms. I mentioned allowing the Coloured people in Lansdowne to stay there. They have been there for decades. We could just let them stay there. I mentioned Cabinet Ministers being able to live in White group areas—that applies to others too, I should say. That is the easiest thing in the world to bring about. One thinks also of international hotels and what has happened to Black diplomats in South Africa. That shows that this has already happened. When it comes to beaches, except when the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries jumps up and down telephoning the police stations during the holiday period, generally de facto the Coloureds are on the beaches a great deal of the time. So, I think that in terms of law it is certainly within the bounds of possibility and there is no problem in those instances or in many other instances either.

The hon member for Green Point has moved an amendment in which he asked that the House decline to pass this Bill until the Government has appointed a commission consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians to inquire into the subject matter and report thereon. I should like to remind hon members on that side of the House that certain of their colleagues—the hon member for Turffontein and the hon member for Innesdal are two examples—served on the Select Committee in which I moved a motion, which I am not going to quote now, which the Government party members voted against and which was about the report and the Bill being referred for comment before being presented to the House. Those hon members will remember that members from their party said that they agreed with these sentiments and so on, and that the Coloureds and Indians would be fully consulted before any changes of procedure of that sort were implemented. They said we could rest assured that, although they were voting against the motion I proposed in that Select Committee, they agreed with my sentiments and what I wanted to achieve would in fact be achieved.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he wants to say that we have not consulted the coloured people?

I shall come to that point in a moment. [Interjections.] I shall come to it very shortly. The hon the Minister, in the course of his speech, did not see fit, or consider it relevant, to mention it in the House if he has consulted any Coloured or Indian people. The fact remains that it is not good enough for the Government or the Minister to speak with a certain number—assuming he spoke to some—of Coloured and Indian political leaders as identified by him and to ask them what they think. Our amendment specifically required that the Bill be published—this one has now been published—and that comment be invited thereon from any interested parties, obviously including a wide number of people in Coloured and Indian communities. It is not for the Government simply to choose with whom they want to consult. They should let people who have an interest in the matter make representations so that one can get a full range of opinions. There was plenty of time—the hon member for Green Point illustrated that in great detail—and there still is time because there is no reason why a commission like this cannot be set up quickly, the comments received in a relatively short space of time and the Bill reported back to the House in time for the elections the hon the Minister is talking about.

I was amazed by the views of the hon member for Umhlanga on this matter. He correctly reported that he supported that motion in the Select Committee and he said that, if we moved it in the next or in a similar Select Committee, he would support it again. However, he went on to say that on this occasion he could not support it in Parliament because, I think, he felt that there were practical difficulties involved in supporting it here in terms of the implementation of this Bill. This is one of the key aspects about which we are talking. There is, however, no point in supporting consultation in theory but when it comes to the crunch to find reasons why it is not necessary to have consultation at all. It bodes ill for the future that both the Government, and the NRP on this occasion, when the pressure is on them, when they want something done because they want it, are willing to let consultation wait until a little later.

Delimitation of constituencies for the Coloureds and Indian elections is already under way. Delimitation in every country that works in terms of a constituency system is of enormous importance. Hence there is a great deal of detail set out in law stipulating how this has to be carried out. One of the critical aspects that is involved in the normal course of events is a general registration of voters before delimitation. In the Coloured Persons Representative Council Act, for example, provision is made that at intervals of not more than six years a general registration of voters should take place. As far as I understand it the last general registration of Coloured voters took place in 1979. At that time the CRC was as good as finished if it had not in fact already been abolished by the time that general registration took place. It is hardly surprising that very large numbers of people would not bother to register for the purposes of the voters’ roll in respect of a body which was about to be abolished or had already been abolished. That is just common sense, I should say.

Effectively one of the basic requirements for a delimitation, namely an as up to date as possible voters’ roll, is not available. That does not, however, deter the hon the Minister. He just goes ahead and carries out his delimitations based on the population register. Then, however, he tells us that although he is doing that he is not going to call elections on the strength of the population register; he is going to call elections on the strength of these voters’ rolls, which are so badly outdated. We were of course not able to debate this matter last year when the Constitution Bill was discussed here in the House—provision for this is made in the new Constitution Act—because the Government chose to resort to the guillotine. Therefore we were never able in the Committee Stage to debate it. Obviously matters of this kind are not normally Second Reading matters. So there was no opportunity in Parliamentary practice of debating this issue at all when it should have been debated, and before it became embodied in the new Constitution Act.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether is is aware of any precedent in the South African history for the use of one set of population or voter statistics in order to carry out a delimitation while a completely different set of such statistics has been used for the actual election.

Yes, I am.

All right, the hon the Minister is aware of such a precedent.

I shall deal with that in my reply to the debate.

Well, that will be interesting indeed. I am very interested in hearing the reason for that having occurred before. I should like to hear what the views of the people were at the time. To me this is of course absolute madness. I think it is madness to divide the country into constituencies without knowing where the voters are. Once it is realized that the voters are not where they were thought to be a completely different method is used. One can indeed get ridiculous anomalies but there is no reason to believe that there is any close relationship between who is going to be on the voters’ roll in a particular area and who is going to be on the population register, particularly given the fact that one has a relatively low percentage of the adult population on either. Of course some of them will appear on both. That is why I say that one can get ridiculous anomalies which will of course detract greatly from the ultimate election results and also from the credibility of those results. There is indeed no doubt that this whole thing is an absolute chaos. What we are dealing with here is nothing but patch-work. We are merely trying to rush through a measure which is not ready to be put into practice yet, and we are not doing it in a proper fashion.

Furthermore, Mr Speaker, there is also of course the question of the Government trying to have their cake and eat it. I want to know from the hon the Minister which is more complete, the population register or the voters’ list. [Interjections.]

I can tell the hon member that after the voters’ lists have been completed. There is still time for people to register.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout gave us figures earlier this evening to illustrate quite clearly and particularly in the case of the Coloureds that something like 400 000 more Coloureds, or 60% more, were on the population register than are on the voters’ rolls as at that date. Certain Coloured political parties and perhaps the Government itself are making efforts to get people onto those voters’ rolls. However, I do not believe that one is going to increase the figure of 675 000 to more than a million given the terribly bad organization about which we have been told. We have heard all about how weak these Coloured parties are. They do not have national organizations that can cope with postal votes and so forth. Those parties are not going to be able to get a further 400 000 people onto the voters’ rolls in the relatively short period of a few months. That is just not going to happen.

Before the delimitation was completed and before the Constitution Act was passed last year the Government should have decided what the most up-to-date voters’ rolls were and proceeded to use those rolls for both the delimitation and the election. I do not believe that the Government is interested in the views of the Coloureds and Indians as a whole. The Government has chosen not to hold a referendum although the SA Indian Council which the Government has always recognized as the body that speaks for the Indian people of this country, irrespective of the percentage polls they received at their elections, asked for a referendum. Why should it be good enough for Whites but not for Coloureds and Indians? This is absolute nonsense, Sir. However, we know exactly why. It was because the Government was afraid that there would be a massive no vote from the Coloureds and Indians. That is exactly why it did not hold a referendum. There is no other reason for it. [Interjections.]

This Government could not care less whether the elections are a sham or not, and it is quite shameless about this. It is quite happy to rig the system so as to achieve the best possible results as far as it is concerned. I think that this fact was eloquently expressed tonight by the hon member for Turffontein who, during the course of his speech and in reply to certain remarks that had been made, used words to the effect that although the law says so, it does not matter. That is exactly the attitude of the Government. The law says so, but it does not matter. What does he mean by “it does not matter”? He means that it does not suit them. Their attitude is that if it does not suit them, the law does not matter and they will just go ahead and find a way. That is exactly the attitude of the Government. [Interjections.] What are the objectives of the Government in all of this? First of all, it wants to rush things through. Having brooded over this matter for years and years to try to sort out their ideas they now want to rush this thing through as fast as possible, hence the guillotine last year and the type of legislation we are discussing this evening. The Government wants the delimitation completed irrespective of its validity and irrespective of whether anybody thinks the whole thing makes any sense whatsoever when he looks at the delimitation and the election. The whole thing has been set up to have a tame electorate and to achieve as high a percentage poll as possible. That is what this fiddling around with electoral procedures is all about, electoral procedures that have worked perfectly well in other ways in the past. The Government wants to generate electoral activity to create the illusion of acceptance. This reminds me of a certain species of caterpillar. If one can get a number of them to crawl behind each other around the rim of a bowl, each caterpillar will link up with the one in front of him. Once they are all linked up they will keep walking round and round until they die. That is just like this NP. The essential problem is that those caterpillars mistake activity for achievement. Because they are moving, they think they are going somewhere. Therefore, as long as they keep moving, they think that something is happening and they are achieving something. However, very often they go around in circles and sometimes, they go round in circles backwards. [Interjections.] The effect of this will be to destroy whatever credibility those elections may have enjoyed if the processes had been properly carried out.

When one looks at some of the differences between the Electoral Act of 1979 and the proposals contained in this Bill, it is interesting to see the picture they create. Once again it is a question of: We must do everything we can in order to get the people who will vote registered on voters’ rolls. Therefore, everything has to be done in a great hurry. For example the hon member for Brakpan referred to what the hon the Minister had said, namely that the Bill provides that 300 signatures will not be required for independents. However, the hon member knows perfectly well that the PFP is totally opposed to that principle, irrespective of whether it is in regard to White, Coloured or Indian elections. We are therefore pleased that it does not apply. We are not against that but we are against the argument that the hon member uses when he says that obviously it does not apply. It does not apply strictly in the sense that there is not yet a Coloured House of Representatives and therefore there cannot be parties with existing members that are exempted. That is an obvious, specific distinction and I accept it. However, parties that want to be registered have to go through certain procedures. They have to pay certain moneys; they have to get people to sign deeds of foundation if they are formed after this Bill becomes an Act, but independents are going to be exempted. According to the Government, the whole object of stipulating that independents must get these signatures, is to prove that they have support and are therefore not wasting taxpayers’ money or the time of the voters in a specific constituency. I do not know whether the Government is afraid that because of their delimitations there may be some constituencies with fewer than 300 voters and that therefore it would be impossible for a candidate to get 300 signatures. Logic obviously does not apply or it is not in terms of the Government’s normal logic with which I disagree in every case on this particular issue. The object is to get anybody who is prepared to put his name down to become involved. In this way the impression will be created that it is going to be a tremendous election because so many people are involved; the Coloured people are very enthusiastic about it, there are many candidates, the voters’ rolls are fairly tame and therefore there will be respectable percentage polls.

The prescribed periods between proclamation and nomination day, and between nomination and election day have been removed. The hon the Minister stated that this had been done to provide flexibility because once the processes are under way, it may be necessary to change things. However, the hon the Minister does not seem to realize that that is exactly why it is in the Act in the first place—so that it cannot be changed once the processes are under way. That is the whole object of having this provision in the Act—so that all participants or potential participants will know in advance what the rules are going to be. It is therefore not for the hon the Minister to decide that because something is not going according to plan he has to change it. The hon the Minister in fact must have realized that as a result of his remarks in his Second Reading Speech there is already confusion over the cut-off dates as to when voters can be registered. That is, however, not surprising. Indeed, I am surprised that there is not total confusion considering this whole shambles. However, that is exactly why that provision is in the Act and why it should be there. In an election campaign situation the rules cannot be altered as one goes along because invariably, whether one intends it or not, it is going to be to the advantage of some people and to the disadvantage of others. Obviously, those people who are at a disadvantage are going to be upset. For example, there may be Coloured political parties that are under the impression that 30 April is the cut-off date. They will therefore arrange their activities on that basis and concentrate on completing their arrangements by that date. If the hon the Minister should then come along and change the date to 31 March these parties would obviously be upset because they had made their arrangements with 30 April in mind. On the other hand, if the hon the Minister extends the date to the end of May, those parties who have concentrated on completing their plans before the end of April may want to know how often the hon the Minister intends changing the date. They may ask whether the parties that the hon the Minister favours did not get enough voters registered in time. The hon the Minister knows very well that political parties in general attempt to concentrate their efforts on registering voters in the areas or among the people they think they will get the most support from. Here again is an example where we are moving away from the Electoral Act to the disadvantage of the credibility of the whole process.

Another change is in regard to witnessing an application. It is interesting that an adult, irrespective of his race, can witness an application for a Coloured or Indian voter to vote. That is unlike the situation with Whites where a White voter must witness the application of another White voter. Once again, I wish that we could remove the word “White” from all those laws. I hope therefore that the hon the Minister will change the White law as well. This is obviously a further attempt to find as many people as possible to register, particularly if Whites can encourage them to register. Another measure to get people to register willy-nilly is that they can register at any magistrate’s office or any police station.

It is also interesting to note—I do not know if this is the old Department of Information coming into play—how we are moving towards a more subtle racialism rather than overt racialism. In the Schedule to the Bill changes to sections 121 and 122 are proposed. These sections relate to the appointment of various agents and people who can be nominated as sub-agents and election agents. In the existing Act it says that these people have to be White. However, instead of saying that these people have to be Coloured for the Coloured elections and Indian for the Indian elections, the phraseology is used that such person must be registered or qualified to be registered as a voter in respect of that House. That is just a roundabout way of saying that the person has to be a Coloured or an Indian. However, we are trying to become more subtle to show that we are not as racialistic as in fact we are.

The question of the Prohibition of Political Interference Act was raised by the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I think this is critical and I hope that the hon the Minister will comment on this as it is critical both to the processes that are in hand and also to the future Parliament. That Act was never required and has always been undesirable for this country. It flies directly in the face of the sentiments of the hon member Dr Vilonel in terms of communication, dialogue and interchange with all people. It is irrelevant today and is in fact contravened monthly.

I saw the hon the Minister of Law and Order turn a whiter shade of pale when my colleague pointed out that the directors of the company which is raising funds for the Labour Party are White. When he asked whether they would be prosecuted, the hon the Minister looked rather uncomfortable. He has wisely decided that there are calmer places to be this evening than in this House. These laws are presently being blatantly contravened in this regard by this National Party front company and I have no doubt that it is that and nothing else.

That is not the position.

These elections will be characterized by delimitations and voters’ rolls which are in a shambles and by shameless tinkering with the electoral procedures which should be sacrosanct. This will result in elections that are a sham and not a real democratic test of the will of the majority of the Coloured and Indian people of this country.

I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon member for Green Point.

Mr Speaker, at this late hour of the night I should also like to support this Bill. However, before I say a few words about it, I should very much like to return to a few of the aspects to which hon members of the PFP and the CP referred.

Any number of reasons were given here why we should not continue with this legislation. The PFP and the CP objected vehemently to this Bill. The objection of the PFP was that the hon the Minister had not paid any attention to the recommendations of the select committee. What nonsense are they talking now! That is, in fact, the reason why the Bill is before us in this form. If the PFP had in any way analysed the situation as it really is, their members would have seen that it was virtually impossible to implement the principal recommendations of that select committee within a reasonable period of time. That is precisely why the hon the Minister made that point so clear. It was obvious from his Second Reading speech that this legislation is only applicable to the forthcoming election. As the hon the Minister said, he is going to submit proposals for a uniform electoral procedure for all three the Houses at a later date.

†I should like to turn now to hon members of the PFP. A big song and dance was made by the hon member for Green Point about the fact that we are not going to use identity documents for the election. Naturally they would have been pleased if a decision had been taken to use these documents in these elections. Hundreds of thousands of these documents have not been issued due to a lack of essential information, or due to inquiries not having answered by applicants. It would thus have meant that hundreds of thousands of voters would not have been able to vote as a result of not having these documents, and that would have pleased the PFP. They could then have argued, after the elections, that Coloureds and Indians had not voted in the elections and thus had rejected the new constitution in their hundreds of thousands.

Then we had the absolute ridiculous suggestion that this Bill be referred to a commission. Who do we appoint as members of this commission? Members of the UDF and Boesak? Surely, if we appoint the leaders of present Coloured political parties, the PFP will say that they are lackeys of the Government, as they have also tried to indicate during this debate. Therefore, to refer this matter to a commission, is no answer to the problem.

*I come now to the hon member for Rissik. I really do not know how his mind works. I am beginning to think that there are people in the CP who are a little bit cracked, tortoiseshell and all. I cannot believe that he still does not know what the referendum, in which the Whites gave us a two-thirds majority, was all about. In the first place, they announced here, in a quite sanctimonious and moralising way, that they also want to give the Coloureds the franchise, but in a fictitious homeland for fictitious leaders, who write fictitious letters and hold fictitious discussions with the hon member for Waterberg. The hon member for Turffontein has already asked him to produce the one little letter he is supposed to have received from a Coloured leader, to discuss it with us and to tell us who this leader is. I am beginning to think that the hon member for Waterberg did not actually hold that discussion. [Interjections.] It is all very well for him to tell me that the Coloured leader does not want his name made public, but if I was intriguing with that hon member behind the scenes I would not want my name made public either. [Interjections.]

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I could just as easily tell people that I also held discussions with hon members of the CP and that they were very ashamed of their leader’s touting tactics and his references to the three sixes, and so on. Then I must say who they are. I should not simply say, without substantiating it, that I have held discussions and received letters from Coloured leaders, as their hon leader did. We should very much like to know who these Coloured leaders are. Why do they not tell us? is he ashamed to tell us with whom he holds discussions? Or are things being done on the quiet again? Now they have made the absolutely ridiculous statement that we supposedly want to intimidate this Coloured leader or leaders with whom the hon member for Waterberg held discussions. How can they make such an absolutely ridiculous statement? Who are we to intimidate them? Every time it is necessary, our hon Ministers hold discussions with them. We do not intimidate those people by saying how we think things should be done. [Interjections.]

The CP’s opposition to this legislation emerged very clearly indeed during the sittings of the select committee. The hon member for Rissik sat there all puffed up and hardly said a word except: I am opposed to this new Electoral Act because it is integration and the end of the White man. That was all he had to say! That was the sum total of his contribution.

Let us make things quite clear this evening in very simple language. I should very much like the hon member for Rissik to listen to this. The new Electoral Act makes provision, strictly in accordance with the Government’s policy of separate development …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether he does not think it would be polite for the hon member for Rissik to listen while he is speaking to him? [Interjections.]

Sir, that is a very good question, but unfortunately when one looks at a tortoise one sees that it has holes at either end, and one therefore does not know which end is which. That is my problem with the hon member.

Order! Was the hon member’s reference to a tortoise also aimed at the hon member for Rissik?

Sir, I did not say the hon member was a tortoise; I was merely drawing a comparison, because the way he is sitting at the moment I cannot see which end of him is which.

Order! The hon member was therefore referring to the hon member for Rissik, and consequently he must withdraw his remark.

Sir, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

I want to make it very clear to the hon member for Rissik that this Electoral Act makes provision, strictly in accordance with the Government’s policy of separate development, for three separate voters’ rolls on which the name of no one except a person from the group for which it makes provision will be included. Apparently the hon member cannot understand this, and that is why I should like to explain it to him as I would to a little boy.

I want to compare this situation to a provincial hospital. The provincial hospital complex consists of theatres, cafeterias, parking areas and wards, but—and this is very important—it has separate wards for Whites and people of colour. If he wants to say this is a mixed hospital, he is trying to mislead people. However, our voters know that there is no such thing as a mixed hospital in the sense in which he means it. There are three or four separate wards for the various population groups, and no White can tell me that he has ever been in the same ward as people of colour in a provincial hospital.

I want to apply this to our parliamentary set-up. The parliamentary complex is a complex consisting of libraries, offices, parking areas, buildings, and—and this is very important—it also contains this House of Assembly.

What about the dining-room?

You can eat in your own home, Van der Merwe! We shall eat where we like and you can eat where you like. [Interjections.]

Here we are discussing an Electoral Act for people of colour, and all the hon members of the PFP are concerned about is eating. I cannot understand it. All they have on their minds is eating. I do not know what the hon member for Green Point always wants to eat, but all he can think about is eating.

In addition to all these other facilities, the parliamentary complex has a House of Assembly. In future this parliamentary complex is going to have three separate Chambers or, to put it another way, three separate Houses of Assembly—one for Whites, one for Coloureds and one for Indians. The House of Assembly in which we are sitting at present will continue to exist as it is. There will be no change to this House of Assembly. Debates will still be held as they are now. The people sitting here now, will still be sitting here after this legislation comes into operation.