Mr Speaker, I move:

The Bill before the House provides for the appropriation of a total amount of R3 000 million for the continuation of Post Office services after the expiry of the present financial year until the main Post Office Budget for 1987-88 can be submitted for consideration and approval later in the year.

Although the Bill only provides for a global bridging appropriation, I wish to give hon members a brief review of the activities and financial performance of the Post Office in the present financial year and an indication of its expected financial position in 1987-88.

Mr Chairman, it is customary for a spokesman to welcome a new Minister and to wish him well in the task that lies ahead of him. I must say, however, that I am deeply shocked and amazed that the hon the Minister has stepped into the ring and delivered a left hook to the nation with his shock announcement today that there is to be an increase of two cents in respect of postage stamps for use on standardised letters. This is an increase of approximately 14%.

It is just an election gimmick! [Interjections.]

While I wish the hon the Minister well in the task that lies ahead of him, I do feel that the increase announced today has taken us all by complete surprise, and I would say that it is unnecessary in view of the fact that the hon the Minister has stated that the reason for the increase is the loss on postal tariffs and that this service is being subsidised excessively by the telephone user.

However, in the same breath, the hon the Minister has advised that the anticipated deficit of R36 million which was budgeted for last year will end in a deficit of only R3 million. Therefore, the R33 million that he has saved is equal to the amount that will be raised through the increase of two cents on postage stamps. In fact, if he had been left with a deficit of R36 million, this would have wiped out the R33 million to which I have just referred. I therefore say that the increase is both hasty and premature.

I believe that the hon the Minister has undertaken a portfolio which is of extreme importance to the country. I do welcome him on a personal level. He has had experience as Administrator of Natal but he is also Minister of Home Affairs, and that is a very big and important portfolio. I do not blame him, but I do blame the hon the State President for appointing one person to handle both these portfolios. I do not believe that the hon the State President has given sufficient consideration to the fact that the Post Office is a very large business undertaking.

Looking at the latest report of the Postmaster-General, I feel I must congratulate Mr Ridgard on it. Incidentally, I hope that he has had a speedy and complete recovery and am pleased to see him back again. I should also like to thank him and his staff for the co-operation and guidance which we always receive from them.

This department has a total revenue of R3 billion. It has assets of R7,8 billion, a total expenditure of R2,8 billion and a staff of 95 761. That, as hon members will agree, is indicative of a large undertaking.

Furthermore, in the 10 years that I have occupied this position as the Official Opposition spokesman, I have seen various Ministers come and go, namely, Mr Van der Spuy, Mr De Klerk, Mr Hennie Smit, Dr Munnik, and now Mr Stoffel Botha.

He will go too! [Interjections.]

I do not think the remedy lies in the appointment of a Deputy Minister, because this will solve nothing. This is a one-man job and it needs the full attention of one man.

On the other hand, I was pleased to hear the hon the Minister today set out clearly the terms of reference for an investigation by Dr W J de Villiers, similar to the internal committees appointed to investigate Escom and the SATS. The amendment which I shall move refers to a committee of enquiry which will look into matters mentioned by the hon the Minister, such as future planning, postal and telecommunications services, capital expenditure, investment priorities, privatisation as well as productivity and deregulation, and cost-related tariffs and the question of crosssubsidies.

I am particularly pleased because this is what we in the PFP have requested for a number of years, and if the hon the Minister looks at the amendment we moved last year, he will find that we asked the Standing Committee on Communications and Public Works to investigate and report on, after calling for and considering representations from all interested parties, the advisability of privatisation and also the financial policy of the Post Office. This committee is long overdue and I am anxious to hear its recommendations.

In the circumstances, I do not believe that a tariff increase is at all necessary at this stage in order to cope with a deficit of merely R3 million. The reason given today by the hon the Minister for the increase, namely that the loss on non-profitable services amounted to R192 million, of which the loss incurred by the Post Office was R129 million, do not justify it at all.

The hon the Minister has gone even further. He is looking at the possible adjustment of other tariffs later on in the year. This is a clear indication that tariffs for telecommunications and other services will most probably be increased in the main Budget. What, then, is the purpose of this committee of enquiry if it is not going to relieve the nation of the intolerable burden of tariff increases and devise a new strategy for the department? After all, for how long can the department go on soaking the public of South Africa with increased tariffs?

Let us look at the record. In 1984 there was an increase of 9%; in 1985, one of 14,8%; and in 1986, one of 15%, averaging out at 20% on the most important items. Now there is a 14% increase in postal rates. The whole idea of a committee of enquiry, as I will suggest in my amendment, is for it to act in concert and in consultation with the National Consultative Committee on Post Office Affairs, because they represent a broad spectrum of bodies, such as the AHI, Assocom, the FCI, the JAS, Seifsa and the TCI. If, then, on a broad basis of consensus, this committee of enquiry, in consultation with the lastmentioned body, makes recommendations on tariffs, we in the opposition benches will have to listen very carefully to those recommendations.

I feel confident, however, that if this committee does its job properly, then repeated tariff increases will not be necessary, and that a proper financial policy and a proper infrastructure will be built into the Post Office.

It was, in fact, my intention to ask the hon the Minister, as he has recently acquired this portfolio, what his policy is with regard to a number of facets of the Post Office, but since he has indicated the work of this internal committee and set out its terms of reference, I would ask him to instruct the committee to take into consideration a number of points which I now wish to raise.

Firstly, the Post Office should accept that the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission, which dates back to 1972, are out of date and should be scrapped, and that a completely new look should be taken at the financial policy of the department and also a new strategy.

Why?

Secondly, the selffinancing ratio should be determined but the guidelines should be the growth requirements for the year; a forecast of the rate of inflation; interest rates; and foreign exchange rates. For this reason alone, the policy should be flexible in order to meet the exigencies of the economy as it varies from time to time.

My third point concerns the question of privatisation. The peripheral activities of the Post Office should be considered for possible privatisation, but not the basic services. On no account should control be surrendered to the private sector which would then gain a monopoly. The hon the Minister mentioned car telephones. This is a very bad example; it is a disgrace, in fact, that this service has been privatised, because I have been told that it costs something like R9 000 to hire a car telephone from a private company, whereas I believe the Post Office charged under R1 000. Furthermore, if capital assets are sold off as a result of privatisation, the funds generated should be used only to build up the infrastructure of the Post Office.

My fourth point also deals with the infrastructure of the Post Office. The committee must concentrate on extending and improving basic communication facilities, and the assets required must be designed to achieve that goal. A system of priorities for capital expenditure should be worked out so that expenditure will generate the maximum amount of revenue and productivity. I am not sure whether the post office side can ever be run at a profit and whether or not there will always have to be some form of subsidisation from a profitable revenue side such as its telecommunications service. The question is: What sort of formula should be worked out?

However, with a view to privatisation, perhaps the committee could consider whether certain mail deliveries—the delivery of parcels and letters—should not be privatised. I believe this is being done in Australia.

Furthermore, the Post Office must bear in mind that it has a monopoly and cannot therefore ride roughshod over the public by framing a budget incurring capital expenditure and then going to the public for the money to finance that expenditure by raising tariffs. It must be done the other way round. The Post Office should see what the amount of revenue is before it involves itself in increased expenditure.

Any increase in tariffs must be fully justified and will obviously be more acceptable in times of an upturn in the economy than in times of a downturn in the economy with its high inflation and high interest rates. The policy, therefore, must be flexible. The borrowing of money should be increased when money is more accessible and interest rates are low, and borrowing should be reduced when money is scarce and interest rates are high. This has a direct bearing on the tariff increases. It could take place, for example, at a time of high inflation since the loans could be repaid in depreciating currency.

In summary, therefore, I say that the selffinancing ratio of the Post Office should be flexible and be determined each year in the light of the necessary capital it requires for that year, the inflation forecast, interest rates and foreign exchange rates. The Post Office must accept that the post office facilities in the smaller towns must be subsidised in order to provide a service to the smaller communities.

The hon the Minister must always bear in mind that an increase in postal tariffs could have an adverse effect in the form of a reduction in the volume of postal articles offered. This happened in 1983 when there was a decrease in volume of almost 4% because of the tariff increase.

As regards the question of privatisation, I hope to deal with it more fully at the Third Reading when I will have a little more time. I shall discuss how the public and the staff of the Post Office can participate in privatisation.

The provision of telephone services is the most profitable aspect of the Post Office. Capital expenditure in this connection should be on a priority basis. However, the hon the Minister stated in his speech today that at the end of current financial year approximately 180 000 telephones will have been installed but in a Press report that I read a few months ago a senior official of the Post Office stated that 200 000 telephones would have been installed. I wonder what happened to the other 20 000.

As far as personnel and salaries are concerned the hon the Minister was rather cautious today when he said that staff associations had made representations in this regard and that he would give careful thought to the matter when drafting the main Budget which is expected to be submitted towards the end of May. If there is to be any increase in salaries and it is to be retrospective, his concern should be whether the amount budgeted will be sufficient to cover the amount involved on a retrospective basis. In that case he may as well have budgeted for it now. What he has done now, is in line with what has happened in respect of the SATS and the Public Service generally.

The Post Office must set itself standards. If, for example, it sets itself the standard that a letter has to be delivered within 48 hours then that must be the standard by means of which performance and productivity can be measured from time to time, and that must be reported on.

Time does not permit me to go further at this stage but I want to tell the hon the Minister that I do not think he is going to be too popular with his colleagues today. We are facing a general election in May. With postage stamps costing 16c on each letter and with each candidate in the election probably having to send out anywhere op to 30 000 letters in the course of the campaign, the hon the Minister will be placing a very heavy burden on all the candidates.

Let me point out that two years ago an increase of one cent on a postage stamp brought in a revenue of R17 million. According to that formula an increase of two cents should bring in a revenue of R34 million. However, circumstances have changed over the past two years; therefore my estimate is that the revenue from the increase of two cents that has been proposed today will be at least R35 million and not R33 million.

Reverting to the general election, I have made a rough calculation that 30 000 letters will have to be sent out in each of the 176 constituencies. On that basis, according to my calculations, the Post Office will generate a further income of R6,4 million on postage stamps alone during this campaign. That will increase the cost of the election which I estimated the other day to be R10 million to the State and another R20 million to the candidates by a further R4 million. We are therefore looking at a cost of something like R34 million for the coming election.

I do not know what discount the hon the Minister is going to give for bulk postage but he is certainly going to receive a large amount in revenue and I do not know whether he took that into consideration when working out his Budget.

In conclusion I want to welcome the hon the Minister to this new post. I also welcome the announcement he has made regarding the appointment of a committee of enquiry to carry out the functions outlined today, for which we in the PFP have asked for many years.

However, I am afraid that we are going to have to decline to pass this Post Office Part Appropriation Bill because of the tariff increase which is untimely and unnecessary. Accordingly, I move as an amendment:

1. (1) to revise the tariff increases on postage for standardized letters as announced on 19 February 1987 so as to relieve the burden placed on the consumer and to reduce their effect on the rate of inflation and the economy generally;
2. (2) not to introduce further increases in tariffs before the internal committee of the Post Office and Dr W J de Villiers, in consultation with the National Consultative Committee on Post Office Affairs, have submitted their recommendations and report; and
3. (3) to see to it that—
   1. (a) parity is reached in the remuneration of all the employees;
   2. (b) discrimination in employment is removed; and
   3. (c) steps are taken—
      1. (i) to improve productivity; and
      2. (ii) to find ways and means of retaining skilled staff.”.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Hillbrow, predictably enough, seems to pin his hopes on gamering some votes for the Official Opposition on the increase in the postal tariffs. I suggest that the hon member’s attempt is going to misfire badly, and basically for three reasons.

First of all, some 60% to 70% of the mail handled by the Post Office today is bulk mail; in other words, more than 60% of the mail handled by the Post Office is business mail. When the hon member therefore speaks of a burden on the consumer and the individual he is speaking at most of some 30% of the mail handled by the Post Office. However, that percentage is not only for private mail; most of it is also individual business mail.

The fact of the matter is that increasingly in recent years private individuals have moved over to the use of the telephone for communication purposes. The telephone is used more and more for private communication. Especially in recent times since the old minimum of three minute calls was abolished— people can use the telephone now for even a part of a minute—the use of the ordinary letter and consequently the burden on the individual as the hon member has suggested has decreased significantly.

I suggest that the bulk of the private mail handled nowadays is handled on behalf of people who are not telephone subscribers. Those people in general are not voters for either the Government or the Official Opposition. Therefore, if the hon member for Hilbrow thought he was going to gather some votes because of the tariff increase I think his attempt will misfire badly.

*Two years ago I drew attention to the exceptional achievements of the Post Office as far as productivity was concerned. In the year prior to the 1985 Budget the Post Office succeeded in keeping the increase in its personnel down to a mere 4,3%, in the midst of a far larger increase in revenue and expenditure. I do not intend to repeat all that information, but surely that achievement is applicable today when we are faced with a tariff increase in the postal service.

The important lesson we can learn from the 1984-85 report of the National Productivity Institute is that cost increases in the Post Office cannot be blamed on low productivity. In fact, the productivity achievement of the Post Office is something many public and private organisations can envy. That report specifically quantified the savings brought about in postal tariffs by the productivity achievement of the Post Office. Even during that year it brought about a saving of R24 million.

If the Post Office therefore wishes to limit its tariff increases in the postal service to a minimum, it must look for those savings along other avenues than those of staff cuts. Having said that, I am not for one moment trying to insinuate that an increase from 14 to 16 cents per postal item is excessive. It is an increase of approximately 14%, which is still a good 5% lower than the inflation rate. Postal tariffs have in fact increased by 196 percentage points, between 1 February 1980 and the end of December 1986, compared with 249,9 percentage points in the consumer price index. This increase will, it is estimated, cause the consumer price index to rise by a mere 0,0085%. If I have the time I shall perhaps refer later to the consumer price index.

I said that the Post Office had to examine methods other than staff cuts to keep its costs in respect of postal tariffs as low as possible. Briefly I want to enumerate no fewer than 13 methods employed by the Post Office to achieve the greatest measure of cost efficiency.

We must remember that the postal service is a vast undertaking. During the past year more than two billion postal articles—it was 2 061 million to be precise—were handled by the Post Office. These had a total mass of 106,8 million kilograms, and the total transportation cost was almost R56 million.

In the time at my disposal I can only refer very briefly to the efforts that have been made to make the postal service more cost effective. Mechanical and electronic mail sorting equipment has been installed in the four main centres, viz Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town and Durban, at a cost of R35 million. This equipment sorts 458 000 postal items per hour, compared with the handling of an average sorter of one thousand postal articles per hour.

Secondly the preferential postal service has been extended from three destinations to 15. This service copes with one million postal articles annually, and makes provision for overnight despatch.

Thirdly, 12 mail concentration offices have been established, 11 of which are already functioning. This ensures more direct mail despatch. Furthermore a mailbag exchange office has been established near Boksburg. In the PWV area the despatched mail is exchanged in an office which is in operation 24 hours a day.

Postal routes have been revised. Postal articles are also being conveyed by road. More than a hundred mail collection points and 117 000 postboxes have been provided. Mail to the operational area has been speeded up and improved. Mail operating inspectors, special letterboxes for postal articles and a same-day service between Pretoria and Johannesburg has been introduced. The containerisation of internal postal articles for air transportation has made it possible for the Post Office to negotiate a more economic tariff than was possible even by way of transportation by rail. A saving of R94 000 was effected in this way. The conveyance of post by private carriers is being investigated.

I have very quickly enumerated for hon members 13 different methods by means of which the cost-effectiveness of the Post Office has been further improved. By way of summary we can say that every possible effort is being made to bring about the greatest measure of cost-effectiveness in the postal service.

If we pause for a moment to consider the reasons why the increase is justified, hon members will recall that we on this side of the House have consistently advocated realistic postal tariffs, as well as that the degree of cross subsidisation should be kept within realistic limits of not more than 10% to 15%. I am referring now to the subsidisation of the postal service by other post office services such as the telephone service.

We are particularly grateful that the hon the Minister apparently agrees with us here when he says that the large measure of subsidisation of the postal service—this is a service used primarily by businessmen—by the telephone subscriber should be phased out, and that this is in fact one of the matters Dr De Villiers is at present investigating. We are therefore very grateful that it is clear that the hon the Minister agrees with us in that respect as well.

If one considers why an increase in the postal tariff is justified, it is good to remember that the real costs of handling a postal article amounts to an average of 16,32 cents. If one also takes into consideration, as I have already said, that between 60% and 70% of the mail represents bulk mail and that an average rebate of 18,75% is allowed on bulk mail, it means that a rebate of 2,63 cents is allowed on every letter. Therefore, on the present 14 cents per letter the Post Office, in the case of bulk mail, receives only 11,37 cents per postal article. Consequently a real loss of 16,32 cents minus 11,37 cents—that is almost 5 cents—is suffered on bulk mail. On letters which are not despatched as bulk mail, the loss is 2,32 cents.

If the postage is therefore increased to 16 cents, just as far as these cost figures are concerned, the Post Office will still convey a postal article at a loss. If one begins to work out these unit costs, one finds that the Post Office is only able to make a profit on individual postal articles when one reaches the limit of 21 cents. [Interjections.] The consumer, whom the hon member for Hillbrow is so concerned about, is consequently still receiving better treatment from the Post Office than the service he requires actually warrants.

If one compares the increase of two cents in the postal tariffs of the Post Office with the cost increase over the past 10 years of other necessities of life, of commodities the individual cannot to do without, one finds the figures interesting. In 1976 a letter cost 4 cents, and last year, 10 years later, it cost 14 cents. This represents an increase of 250%. The price of a newspaper rose from 10 cents to 40 cents, and that is an increase of 300%. The price of milk rose from 26 cents to 95 cents, and that is an increase of 265%. The price of sugar rose from 43 cents to 224 cents. That is an increase of 420%. Even a heavily subsidised necessity of life such as bread increased in price from 17 cents to 76 cents— an increase of 347%, compared with the 250% of the postal tariffs.

I therefore do not think there is any doubt whatsoever that an increase in the postal tariffs was not only essential, but is in fact lagging behind the price increase in most other necessities of life. [Interjections.] In my opinion, therefore, this increase in the postal tariffs was justified.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal, I should like to indicate the position in regard to two other figures to hon members, which indicates that the Post Office continues to remain the friend of the man in the street, a friend which is always there when one needs one. In the first place I want to refer to the almost universal presence of the Post Office through its automatic Telebank machines. Telebank, via Multinet, is present on a countrywide basis in the form of 1 200 teller machines. During August and September it will be supplemented in that Telebank will make use of a further 1 000 Saswitch units. On the grounds of the availability of this Telebank card the Post Office savings bank will, in the months to come, therefore become to an even greater extent a friend in need to each individual user of Telebank.

Secondly the Post Office is still, as the hon the Minister’s predecessor referred to it, the poor man’s bank. It is clear that this is the case if one considers what the required minimum balance is, namely 10 cents for ordinary savings accounts and R1,00 for a Telebank account. [Interjections.]

If one takes into consideration that the Post Office Savings Bank has 2,5 million active savings accounts, and 4,3 million inactive savings accounts, that there are 1 700 post offices in South Africa, and that most of the other institutions accepting deposits, require considerably higher minimum balances than does the Post Office—I mentioned the requirements of 10 cents and R1,00; those of the banks vary between R10,00 and R200,00, and those of the building societies between R2,00, R5,00 and R50,00—it is a fact that the Post Office, as far as its money services are concerned, continues to remain the poor man’s friend.

In a part appropriation one cannot of course furnish a general survey of the financial affairs of the Post Office; nor have I tried to do so. Because we were aware of the fact that hon members of the Official Opposition would try to draw venom from this one little matter from which they believe they could do so, that is to say that they thought they could garner a few votes by emphasising the one single tariff increase which the Post Office felt itself compelled to announce at this early stage, I wanted to make this specific information available to this House.

I think it is clear to all of us that there can be no question whatsoever that the Post Office has remained a fine organisation all these years, one which is efficiently administered, and one which continues to be the friend of the ordinary man in the street.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by thanking the hon the Minister very sincerely for having maintained the tradition of his predecessor by sending an advance copy of his speech to members of the opposition parties. This was a good tradition which makes matters far easier, because it is really very difficult to debate meaningfully if one has to react and debate the budget only a few minutes after the hon the Minister has delivered his speech. That is something we appreciate.

I want to thank the former Minister of Communications, Dr L A P A Munnik, who has retired, very sincerely for what he did for this department in past years. It was my privilege to work with him. There was one thing he was never guilty of: He never discriminated against any opposition speaker or against the personnel. It was always highly appreciated. When a case had merit, he always ensured that justice was done, and that is why I shall always be grateful to him, and I shall remember him for the rest of my life as a good friend.

The post office building in Heidelberg is the one important matter which we have disposed of for the constituency during the past two years. It was a matter for which I fought for serveral years. I shall always remember, too, that the hon the Minister’s predecessor helped me in that connection. The Postmaster-General and his staff gave me their assistance and support in this respect. Of course I shall never forget that either.

What is very conspicuous in Heidelberg is that the magistrate’s office is situated in the same street as the post office. The magistrate’s office is something that was brought about by my predecessor in that constituency, the late Adv John Vorster. It so happens that the post office building is diagonally across the street from the magistrate’s court. I consider it to be a very great privilege that I was able to succeed Adv Vorster. It is co-incidental that these buildings are situated the way they are; it was not planned that way.

From the Second Reading speech made by the hon the Minister it is clearly apparent that the Postmaster-General and his personnel have done their work very well during the past year, and that is why I should like to thank all of them, from the Postmaster-General down to the most junior staff member. Since this is my last speech on Post Office matters in this House, I now want to ask for an investigation to be instituted into the possibility of a future new post office building for Nigel. Owing to the rapid expansion taking place there, it is already apparent that the present post office building is too small. It will be the task of my successor to take this matter further. My successor will be Mr Karel Schoeman. [Interjections.] Consequently I should like to move, as a further amendment to the motion before this House:

1. (1) will announce no further tariff increases during the financial year; and
2. (2) will do everything possible to persuade the Government—
   1. (a) to preserve the cultural assets of the White postal workers; and
   2. (b) to give the assurance that there will be no victimization and intimidation of any postal worker on account of his political convictions.”.

This is very important. The Post Office is one section of the Government, in fact I said this last year as well, in which no victimisation and intimidation of officials takes place. I wish I could say it of all sections.

We are watching the situation very carefully, though!

It is true that the increase in the postal tariff from 14 cents to 16 cents is extremely high. It works out to an increase of 14,28%. I think this increase is exorbitant. The fact of the matter is that all these separate increases, when put together in the long run, constitute a great flood of increases. In a recent edition of The Citizen, which is a pro-Govemment newspaper, the following was said, and I quote:

A little further on in the same report we read:

The report ends as follows:

Why not now?

Another fact is that the hon the Minister only announced one of the expected increases in tariffs. Consequently one still does not know what is going to come next. Telephone calls, if the prediction in The Citizen of 17 February is accurate, will become more expensive, which will mean that those who are dependent upon a telephone service will be extremely detrimentally affected. Here we are thinking of big business firms, and also of course of pensioners, people who frequently cannot afford their own means of transport and who are to a large extent dependent on a telephone service. This is one aspect we must definitely consider, Sir. Increases of this nature can in the long run mean that even these people will not longer be able to afford their own telephone.

We now have a new hon Minister in charge of Posts and Telecommunications in our country, and I should like to refer him to what I said in this House on 13 March 1986. I quote as follows [Hansard, 13 March 1986, col 2004]:

I trust that this will also be the policy of this hon Minister, just as it was the policy of his predecessor, and I know it is also the policy of the Postmaster-General and his senior officials. I trust that they will adhere to that policy. In fact, I have no doubt about it.

This is probably the last speech I shall make in this House, because it is well known that I shall not make myself eligible for re-election on 6 May, as a result of my wife’s health problem, which is known to many present here.

I want to convey my thanks and appreciation to all the staff of the House of Assembly—all the young men who move about among the benches here to help us. I want to thank everyone from the Secretary down. I also thank everyone in all the sections specified in the internal telephone directory, and all employed in the various ministerial sections. To the service officers who were helpful to us in our offices at all times and of whom we can speak with appreciation, to the police who within and outside the precincts of Parliament ensure the safety of all hon members of Parliament, to the people in Acacia Park who do everything to make things convenient for us, to everyone in the CP benches with whom I have worked so intimately and sincerely, to all of them I wish to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation. I wish to express my heartfelt thanks to my wife, Mrs Tonie Visagie, who has stood by me so loyally in spite of health problems. I hope and trust that things will go better with her in future so that we can, in the years which lie ahead, lend our full support to what we believe is right. It was good to have been able to be here, and it was good to have been able to render a service on all levels of government, from the third to the first level.

It is a pity that the provincial councils have fallen away, because since then a tremendous burden has been placed on members of Parliament, especially in their constituencies. This is so because it is almost impossible to serve a constituency of 25 000 voters, or more, as an individual, while that person will have to be in the Cape for half a year, or in future perhaps longer.

I have nothing to reproach myself with; through the grace of Providence I have done my duties to the best of my ability. Today I bid you goodbye, but not farewell, because what I have worked for all my life I am still going to work for, even if it is outside Parliament in the constituencies where I may be needed to render assistance.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I want to tell the hon member for Nigel, on behalf of my colleagues, that we are sorry to hear that he is not going to make himself eligible for re-election. Since I used to be his benchmate I, together with the others on this side of the House, want to wish him all good fortune and everything of the best. We took cognisance of the contribution he made as a member of the House of Assembly and provincial council, and even as member of the town council of Nigel. He set us a very fine example and we wish him and his wife every success.

I also want to tell him that we took cognisance of the problem he has with his post office, and I think he can rely on this side of the House to see to it that that post office is established. But he must also know that we on this side of the House will see to it that Mr Abrie Hanekom will be the new member of Parliament for Nigel. [Interjections.]

If the Opposition is not satisfied with the announcement of the 2 cent increase in postal tariffs made by the Minister of Communications, I just want to tell them that I think the only way they can change it is to persuade the voters to elect another government on 6 May. They will then be able to change the situation when the Main Budget is introduced. [Interjections.] Let us leave the matter in the hands of the voters, because we on this side are certain that the voters will not entrust it to them.

The hon member for Hillbrow referred to the report of the Franzsen Commission and said, if I understood him correctly, that we should simply shelve it. I find that very strange, for year after year it was those hon members of the opposition who said that we should adhere to the recommendations of the Franszen Commission. It was they who pleaded for this to be done when we deviated from those recommendations in any way.

You are making a big mistake.

Furthermore, I also find it strange that the hon member moved an amendment and spoke about discrimination, but did not submit a single example to this House demonstrating to us where discrimination was taking place in the Post Office. I therefore want to tell him that we cannot accept that amendment of his. [Interjections.]

If one considers what it costs to get one letter typed and delivered—I think the hon member for Umlazi dealt with this matter very well—it is apparent that every letter typed by a typist, if she types 50 letters a day and earns R750 per months, costs 75 cents. That is for the typing alone. If one adds the other costs such as a typewriter, an office, etc, and one considers what it costs to send a letter from here to Messina, it means that the latter costs are approximately 5% or 6% of the total costs. If one also takes into consideration that this postal article is handled between seven and 15 times, I still think it is a bargain. I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister that I do not think he should allow himself to be put off by all the dust that is being raised about that negligible increase.

His predecessor said last year that we would have to look into this matter and make this kind of adjustment. I do not think I am far wrong if I say that the former Minister, Dr L APA Munnik, said we would have to accept an increase of two cents this year. [Interjections.] In this regard I want to tell the hon member for Hillbrow that he will simply have to examine this report. In it he will see that telex services have increased by 48%; they are one of the means of communication of the future. It is the electronic system we have put in the place of the postal service. Mail-ships disappeared off the face of the earth because the service they provided was too slow and became obsolete. That is why this Post Office is also moving towards electronic systems, and this report of the Postmaster-General mentions that there was a 48% increase in telex services within one year.

What is it I am trying to say? The evolution taking place in the Post Office is an automatic evolution that has to take place. People will move away from the expensive system of postal deliveries and make use instead of the electronic system we are establishing.

But now I want to come back to the hon the Minister and congratulate him very sincerely on this part appropriation. As new Minister I do not think he should allow himself to be deterred to any great extent by the dust which the opposition is going to kick up. I also want to congratulate the Postmaster-General on this excellent report they submitted to us. To my mind I think it reflects the state of affairs of the Post Office in simple language and with many graphic illustrations. One can see, very neatly depicted, precisely how revenue and expenditure are divided and how the capital is being distributed among the various sectors of the Post Office. I think this is an excellent document that is being submitted to Parliament.

Year after year, when we participate in this debate, one finds the miracles of electronics—particularly as they are evolving in South Africa—more and more impressive. This report gives a very clear picture of the part the Post Office is at present playing in the development of the electronics industry in South Africa. One is grateful that the Post Office began years ago to persuade this Parliament that we could convert that industry into an asset for South Africa by rationalising in respect of the types of equipment we used and the number of suppliers we had. When I heard about the report of Dr Wim de Villiers, which will be submitted to this House at some stage or another, I just want to utter a word of warning: Although we are going to consider the Post Office itself, we should consider very carefully how it is going to affect this industry. I want to ask Dr De Villiers to consider this very carefully. It was this very partnership which brought about the establishment of the industry in South Africa, and which led to its tremendous expansion.

The Post Office played a tremendously important part in the growth of this industry in the past—and is still doing so today. In my opinion the Post Office must continue with the creation of this infrastructure on which the telecommunication services are working. In his report the Postmaster-General stated that the traffic capacity had to increase threefold during the next decade. If that is the case we simply can only do so by means of new electronic equipment.

As in the case of the conversion of the Cheetah fighter plane, when South Africa could have found itself burdened with an obsolete model which could have been the Achilles heel of its defence component, I want to express the warning that if we do not pay attention to the distribution networks of the Post Office, it could also become the Achilles heel of our communications industry in South Africa. This could be extremely detrimental to the growth and prosperity of the South African economy.

The contracts of some of our suppliers will soon be coming to an end. In the interests of the strategic importance of this electronic industry I want to advocate that the hon the Minister and his Post Office team try in all earnest not to allow people in that industry to become unemployed by cutting back too drastically on the infrastructure we have been establishing during the past few years. We have been doing so in conjunction with our suppliers. That is why it is important that they be consulted if we were to consider retrenching that infrastructure. This is of the utmost importance, because they have invested vast amounts in this industry.

We saw that the British Prime Minister, Mrs Margaret Thatcher, was prepared to adopt certain standpoints in the interests of her country’s industries, standpoints in respect of the placing of certain foreign contracts by government departments. I therefore want to ask all political parties and members of Parliament to be united on this point, and not try to derive petty political gain from it.

I believe we should continue to convert this system until it is a completely electronic system. Where possible the Post Office should also continue to support the domestic industries as far as possible. I think this is the only way in which we can counteract the boycotts and disinvestment campaign in this area. We dare not allow ourselves to fall behind in the technological race.

I am worried about this matter because the biggest manufacturer of electronic equipment is situated in my constituency. In recent years I have seen what tremendous progress it has brought to the people of that region. One organisation offering employment to 4 000 breadwinners is not to be despised and should be preserved at all costs. There are few organisations in this country that employ upward of 300 engineers. One would have to be very careful before one began to discharge some of those people. Once we begin to lose technology we do not easily recover the lost ground, particularly not in Africa.

For the sake of the benefits of this industry to the country we must unite here in Parliament and encourage the hon the Minister and his team to look beyond the political issues and help to build up this industry. Let us give them all our help and support. In my opinion they should establish in good time where it may perhaps be necessary to lay people off.

I also want to refer to Sames. I want to present it to this House as one of the most successful examples of privatisation the Industrial Development Corporation has ever brought into existence. Sames is in the hands of the entire electronic industry. All the major companies involved in the manufacture of electronic equipment in South Africa are shareholders in this company. Without the IDC, the Post Office and Sames, South Africa would have been extremely vulnerable today. Because the management of the Post Office had so much foresight in the past, they saw to it that South African Microelectronic Systems—Sames—became self-sufficient in the manufacture of integrated circuitry. Sames is not far behind the USA in its capacity. I would really have liked to have elaborated on this, but I prefer not to do so because I think the more South Africa’s enemies hear about our achievements the more vulnerable we become. I prefer not to mention figures either, nor the other technological progress. Those of us who are members of the study group and who have visited these places will be able to testify that we shall at least be able to meet South Africa’s needs, while building up an exceptional asset for the country.

Therefore I want to ask, when this enquiry is carried out, that the greatest care is taken to ensure that the Post Office does not undergo these cutbacks, because Sames is one of the companies supplying the Post Office with these integrated circuits. Any reduction in the production volumes of Sames could also have an adverse effect on the Post Office. I therefore want to tell the hon the Minister that when these assignment is carried out, it should be ensured that it is not only the Post Office which is examined, but that consideration should also be given how the Post Office’s orders are going to affect the private sector electronic industry of this country.

Today, and probably tomorrow as well, many voices are going to be raised in respect of privatisation. We have already heard from the hon member for Hillbrow this afternoon. But I do at least want to refer the hon member to the debate we conducted on this matter last year, when statements were made in the Press by the manufacturers in this country in which they pointed out that it was not possible to privatise the Post Office completely because there was too much interdependence.

In this respect I want to refer to what is at present happening in the USA. In the USA, if your telephone is giving problems, you can obtain another telephone by simply buying one in a shop. Because the average person does not know whether it is the telephone or the distribution system that is causing him problems, he usually goes out and buys a new telephone only to find, when he connects it up, that the problem was not in the telephone but somewhere in the network. That is why one must be careful. That consumer will for example hold the privatised network people responsible and ask them to take a look at his telephone service because he is having problems with it.

One can privatise products, but when it comes to systems providing people with a service, people who cannot afford to use a system that is too expensive, the provider of that service must be careful. In such a situation as this in which the Government must ensure that not only the small consumer but also the large consumer and the consumer in the rural areas are provided with a service, even though the Government does so at a loss, we must be careful when we want to privatise.

I also want to sound a warning against misplaced priorities. When we consider cordless telephones for example I want to ask whether they are really all that important, because I think there are many other systems which ought to be upgraded and really need attention.

In this connection I want to refer to an incident which I recently experienced in my constituency. When I made a telephone call from my constituency to Pretoria—a distance of approximately 60 km—the call operating machine at the Post Office—I presume it was their machine—told me: “Please dial this number again. The route along this line is congested.”

I think this is one of the problems we have with the Post Office—we have obsolete equipment that has to be replaced with electronic equipment. That is why I want to repeat that we should go ahead and do what we wanted to plan over the years. We must arrive at completely electronic systems, no matter how much we have to tighten our belts in the few years that lie ahead, for we simply cannot fail to make a complete change-over to a better system.

There is just one more matter I should very much like to raise. In my constituency there are eight coin-operated telephones at the post office, but I am constantly finding that about four of these telephones are out of operation because of vandalism. This is something we will always encounter throughout the country.

I therefore want to ask the Postmaster-General to institute an enquiry into this matter. I believe that in these times of vandalism we shall have to look after these items, which are the property of the public and the taxpayer. I think such telephones should rather be installed in buildings or in other places where a guard is on duty 24 hours a day— places such as municipal offices, magistrates’ offices or police stations. There is no need to have eight telephones at one post office situated in a side street. I think we should locate them in such a way that they are constantly in the public eye, so that when four or five people are vandalising a telephone it will attract the attention of the public.

On behalf of this side of the House I want to tell the hon the Minister that we agree with him. He can introduce that increase. We think his part appropriation is an excellent one.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Boksburg made some very interesting observations regarding privatisation. I intend to reread that speech of his because I believe that what he had to say was very relevant to the situation, and certainly in respect of privatisation as far as the Post Office is concerned. He also managed very neatly—and I compliment him on this—to fire the first salvos of his election campaign. He did a little good for his constituency, and I think he possibly tried to do a little good for himself. However, we cannot blame him for doing that. There are certain other subjects that he touched on which I shall mention during the course of my speech.

I should like at the outset to congratulate the hon the Minister on this his first introduction of a mini-budget as Minister of Communications. I think the main Budget will be a tougher one for him. It will be a harder row for him to hoe. I also want to say in all sincerity that I hope that this hon Minister is going to be able to settle down in this post. I say this in kindness to the hon the Minister; it is not meant to be a criticism of him in any shape, fashion or form. However, we have had too many Posts and Telecommunications Ministers over the past few years. There are too many changes, and these incessant changes affecting the chief figure in this very important industry of ours are not good for morale. They do not do the Post Office or its staff any good. These changes ripple right through to the lower echelons and they are not good for morale. It is therefore my sincere hope that this hon Minister will be able to settle into his position and that he will be able to retain this position for some while.

He made an interesting speech, and I commend him for the fact that there were a number of problems that he recognised and that he intends addressing in the future. I also think that he recorded a number of milestones in his speech.

The problems which I believe he recognised, are firstly the nettlesome one of the cross-subsidisation of services, which is causing a lot of agony in the Post Office; and secondly, the dire need for a reappraisal and a re-examination of capital requirements and related matters. That problem, very importantly, is now being addressed, and the hon the Minister has told us that he will report on it at length in his main Budget Speech.

If he is back here!

Yes, as my hon colleague says, if he is back here. [Interjections.]

I believe a milestone has been reached here today in that for the first time in as long as I have been in this House, the telephone backlog has been reduced to 11%. This may be the best percentage to have been achieved in the past five years, but I think it is the best result for more than five years when one looks at it in terms of the numbers involved. It is certainly quite an outstanding achievement and I think we should commend the department on that.

Another milestone was reached with the provision of the new Erica telephone, which I think could be a good thing for the future.

A third milestone, and one which I think is worthy of commendation, is the ability to manufacture digital microwave systems and optical-fibre cables locally. I wonder if people realise just what has been achieved in South Africa in the manufacture of optical fibre in the short space of time since its development.

While I am referring to things like optical fibre, I would like to say that the explosion which has taken place in electonic technology since the arrival of the microchip has placed an enormous responsibility on communications systems in all countries. When one considers South Africa’s position as a developing country with vast open spaces and multi-faceted requirements which range from the ultra-sophisticated cities of Johannesburg, Pretoria, Cape Town and Durban to the Third-World situations that pertain on the platteland, I venture to suggest that we can be justifiably proud of the achievements of our postal and telecommunications services in keeping pace with and, more often than not, actually keeping ahead of the game.

South Africa has a very interesting market. The telecommunications industry has a built-in, expanding market for the sale of its services. It does not have to rely on normal population growth or economic growth, as do the developed countries of Western Europe, the United States or even the USSR, for that matter. We have a market-place out there that is ready for and wants to avail itself of what a telecommunications service has to provide.

What we must ensure, however, is that the costs of the services do not preclude people from enjoying the benefits that can be derived from them, and do not preclude us from enjoying the benefits that we can derive from that market.

As this will be my last effort in Parliament on the subject of telecommunications, I would like to make a suggestion which the hon the Minister could consider when framing his main Budget. While it is inevitable that tariff costs must fluctuate and will inevitably rise, I would like to suggest that installation costs be very closely monitored and, if this is humanly possible, reduced. I believe that the raising of installation costs could adversely affect the expansion of services. The expansion of those services will allow the Post Office to enjoy an attendant rise in turnover that ultimately can only contribute towards maintaining tariffs at more acceptable levels.

I agree with the hon member for Hillbrow that we have, for too many years, fallen back onto the guidelines set by the Franzsen Commission. I believe that the designation of Dr De Villiers, who has been asked to investigate Post Office matters, is to be welcomed. I think that the terms of reference make for interesting reading, the one exception being the second, which I quote:

I do not think “adequate” is a good choice of word. We should be asking for telecommunications services which are good. I agree they should be of a standard that the country can afford, but “adequate” does not seem the right term to use.

Finally, I would like to turn to crosssubsidisation. I agree with what the hon the Minister has said, and I quote:

I agree. Therein lies the biggest bugbear in cross-subsidisation in the whole of the communications business.

I agree that that is something that has to be looked at but I disagree with the hon member for Boksburg who maintains that the cost of a letter is 75 or 80 cents because of the typing and the built-in costs of the paper, the typewriter and the secretarial services. The little old lady who wants to communicate with her family does not use a typewriter neither does the African out in a homeland or on the platteland.

We cannot agree—and it is for this reason that we cannot support this part appropriation—that across the board increases of two cents on every postal item are acceptable. Those increases are going to cause hardship to those who can least afford them. However, in all fairness to the hon the Minister, I do accept what he said here—that business uses postal services far more than anybody else. The greatest use of the postal services is made by business houses. Therefore I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he could not have considered a smaller increase across the board—a one cent increase, if he had to, to 15 cents. Could he not have achieved the same result or even a better result by then reducing the bulk discount to the business houses to a level where the businessmen would to pay, after discount, say 14 cents, because at the moment, with discount, that majority user—if I may call him that—is still going to pay far less than 14 cents even with the increase to 16 cents? I suggest, therefore, that when we talk about cross-subsidisation, we should consider which market we are actually looking at. I believe it is the businessmen who are deriving the greatest benefits from the postal services who should pay for them. I would suggest that that be reconsidered in the main Budget.

Mr Chairman, the criticism the hon member for Umhlanga levelled at the speech made by the hon the Minister today was quite balanced. We got to know him in the standing committees over the years as someone who was positive in respect of the Post Office and Post Office legislation, but could level criticism when it was necessary. In general he was a well-balanced and friendly member of the standing committee. Since he has announced that he is not going to stand for election, we want to thank him sincerely for his friendship through the years, both in the standing committee and in this House, also in his capacity as a Whip. We wish him and his wife, the best of luck for the future. We hope that they will enjoy a long and healthy period of retirement.

The Post Office is operated in terms of business principles. In order to do this, the Post Office has to record certain achievements. Since the Post Office has the sole right to render postal services, it is imperative that it do business in terms of business principles and according to the standard of business enterprises. In the past post offices, including those in the larger centres, were closed between one and two and normally closed at approximately half-past five or five o’clock in the evening, but the Post Office felt that it should also render a better service to its clients in that respect. As a result it was decided last year to keep post offices in the larger centres open between one and two and, in certain places, to stay open later in the evenings as well, sometimes until six o’clock. On behalf of the public we want to express our thanks and appreciation to the Post Office, the Department of Post and Telecommunications, and their staff for their co-operativeness and for the sacrifices they make. Working people who are normally free at lunch-times now have an opportunity to go to the post office during this time. When one keeps in mind that the staff are doing this without receiving extra remuneration, one has even more appreciation for their sacrifice. That is not all, however. In the larger centres, and particularly in holiday resorts—we think of the Marine Parade Post Office in Durban— post offices remain open later in the evenings to be of service to the public. This already happens at 26 large post offices in the large centres. In this connection we can also mention large shopping complexes such as the Eastgate shopping centre on the East Rand.

Post Office officials come into contact with clients every moment of the day every day. Good human relations are necessary to establish and maintain a good relationship between the Post Office and its clients. That is why it is imperative that the Post Office train its staff in good human relations. This is done in an organised way at the training schools. This does not apply only to the White staff and clerks, but also to the non-Whites. There are training schools for the Whites at the following centres: Port Elizabeth, Kimberley, Johannesburg, Bloemfontein, Cape Town, Durban and Pretoria. There are training schools for the Black employees of the Post Office in East London, Bloemfontein, Pietermaritzburg and Pretoria. The Coloureds and Indians are trained at the same centres as the Whites.

On 30 November last year there were 868 school-leavers of all population groups who had been appointed to the Post Office as executive clerks during the year. Only 179 of them still have to complete their basic training. This training does not apply only to clerks, but also to telephonists and postmen. Until 30 November last year, 1 228 postmen and telephonists had been employed and had received their basic training.

With the telephone service and the various telex services which are rendered, the work of the Post Office is mainly technical. That is why there is a great need for its technical staff to be well trained. The Post Office plays a very important part as far as the training of its technicians is concerned. The technicians receive training to obtain either the National Diploma in Telecommunication—that is the T-course—or the National Diploma in Technology. Both diplomas involve a three-year course of which the first, a formal and intensive course, is followed at a technikon or a technical college. We can elaborate on this for a long time and we hope that when we come to the Main Budget, we shall be able to go into more detail on the great part played by the Post Office in the technical training of its staff.

As far as my own constituency is concerned, I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the department of the hon the Minister for the building of, one can almost say enough, telephone exchanges. I had the privilege of having telephones installed in my area—the 864-, 868-, 869- and 907-codes— within two weeks after an application had been submitted. I want to convey our sincere thanks and best wishes to the Post Office and its staff.

Mr Chairman, I just want to react briefly to the hon member for Boksburg. He said that we had not furnished any evidence in support of the second and third subsections of our amendment dealing with parity and discrimination. I just want to point out that we recently asked questions about the salaries of postmen, for example, and about the number of employees belonging to each race group. When one considers these facts, it is clear that there is still a great deal of discrimination in the employment practices of the Post Office. For example, 40% of all postmen remain White, which is certainly not a true reflection of the total labour force in this country. As far as salary parity is concerned, we know that there are many levels on which this has not yet been attained. This is the answer to that question.

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

No, my time is very limited.

From the nature of the case, some elements of the telecommunications infrastructure are rather unsightly, unlike a dam, for example, which serves a useful purpose as a recreational facility as well. One can hardly say that any landscape is enhanced by a telephone wire or a pylon. It does not have any other function either, except that a bird may perch on it in the Free State. Karoo koppies are spoilt by microwave towers, but at least it makes the people living there feel that they are also living in the twentieth century. Fortunately, it does not bother many people. The same microwave tower would not be out of place in Hillbrow, because it blends well with such an urban environment.

The location of such elements of the infrastructure is very important, therefore, and one must realise that the department will sometimes have to pay a premium, where the structures are not suited to a specific environment, to construct them elsewhere. In this way, for example, the placing of a microwave tower in Kloof is not acceptable at all. The cosmetic treatment of a microwave tower will not make it any more acceptable in a fine park-like residential environment. I believe that the Kloof residents are very upset. They are not interested in a spruced-up monstrosity; they do not want a monstrosity there at all.

†Another point that I want to raise with the hon the Minister is the inconvenience caused by the bugging of my telephone. Last year I suggested that the hon the Minister should use a more sophisticated piece of equipment that could use a long-playing tape so that I would not be interrupted while they changed the tape. This year I am asking the hon the Minister to advise whoever needs the information simply to come and ask me for the information he needs.

On three occasions last year my family and my property were put at risk when we were away because somebody came and disconnected the alarm system that was connected to my phone. It apparently interfered with the bugging device. Every time this happened it was after I had contact with organizations or individuals who in the minds of hon members on the other side of the House fall into the so-called “revolutionary camp.” However, in the ordinary Pietermaritzburg community they are simply seen as non-apologetic critics of apartheid.

Every time they came a note was left or my domestic servant was told that somebody had complained that the phone was not working and that they had come to do something about it. On not one occasion had I had any difficulties with the phone and I certainly did not ask them to come and repair it.

The last occasion was just before the diversion of the imaginary revolution that would have taken place in December last year. At that time I had some contact with trade unionists concerning the murder of certain trade unionists. If the powers that be, had wanted to know where those people were they could have just asked me and I would have been able to tell them that on 16 December some of them were in Sordwana Bay and the others in Stilbaai. They certainly had no intention of stirring up the revolution.

On that occasion my wife had to battle for about 20 minutes to persuade the person who called himself a post office technician that there was nothing wrong with the phone and that he did not have to come and check it. He then said “But what if there is something wrong?” My wife then suggested that if he was promoting the good image of the Post Office he should offer the same service to the neighbours by going around unsolicited checking if telephones were faulty.

Finally I wrote to the Postmaster, saying that he should not send people to come to check my telephone unless I requested it. Eventually I received a reply from the regional director, saying: “ … the disconnection of the alarm system which rendered your telephone inoperative cleared the fault which existed”. I can only assume that it “rendered it inoperative” at the end of the listening bug because I experienced no problems at my end. [Interjections.]

While the regional director said that the disconnection of my alarm system had cleared the fault, he also said the following:

Then, very interestingly, in the last paragraph he says the following:

I just want to ask how they could have phoned the alarm system firm beforehand if they had no record of the device being connected to the telephone.

Mr Chairman, imagination is a wonderful thing. If the hon member for Greytown really thinks that the Post Office would wade through all the prescribed rules and regulations in order to tap his telephone conversations, his imagination is playing tricks on him. I think that the interjection made here about a guilty conscience is perhaps nearer the truth, judging by the many revelations that have come from him.

I do, in any case, want to thank him for his farewell speech here in the House this afternoon. We hope he will have a pleasant rest. [Interjections.]

Then I also want to refer to the hon members for Nigel and Umhlanga. I have known the hon member for Nigel since 1970. He was a good representative for Nigel, so much so that if my own imagination is not playing tricks on me, he was a member of Nigel’s Town Council which, as a whole, was elected unopposed for four successive terms. I think that only happens to someone under whose leadership service is granted to his community. [Interjections.] It is a pity that he went off the political rails somewhere along the line. We hope that during his retirement, when he has time to reflect calmly on all these matters, he will get back onto the rails again. We wish Oom Hannes and his family a very pleasant rest.

The hon member for Umhlanga is one of the unqualified experts on this specific department in this House. Throughout the years I have never heard him make a single speech, whether in praise or criticism, which did not attest to knowledge of the department. I can assure him that I shall personally miss his contributions to these specific debates, and I think the other hon members agree with me. I thank him sincerely.

I do also want to thank the department before I go on to speak about other important matters, although this matter is of great importance to my community. I am now referring to the new post office in Hercules, from which we can at least post a political poster, and I am also referring to the new automatic exchange at Magaliesmoot. By means of that exchange we are going to gather together all the Nationalists to vote correctly on 6 May. [Interjections.]

In his speech the hon the Minister mentioned something which, in my opinion, did not receive the attention it deserves. Last year we budgeted for a deficit of R38 million. Thanks to expert administration, hard work by the staff and increased production by the Postmaster-General and his employees, it is now estimated that this shortfall will be only R3 million. I think the department deserves to be congratulated on a fine achievement in difficult times.

In his speech the hon the Minister also mentioned the fact that the volume of postal items had decreased in the present financial year. It is true that the decrease was fairly slight, but there was nevertheless a decrease. The Post Office will probably welcome a financial year such as the coming one, because it is an election year. The Post Office will be handling so many postal items that it will have its work cut out to keep up.

I wonder whether hon members have given any careful consideration to the role that this department plays in an election such as the one that is going to take place on 6 May. There are, for example, the telephones which are provided. If a political party asks for telephones during an election campaign, telephones are made available. And there is no shortage of lines either. I do not know where the Post Office obtains the lines, because the voters do not have any, but the political parties—it makes no difference whether it is an opposition party or not—gets the lines; for them there are lines available during the election campaign and on election day. One cannot imagine fighting an election without a telephone.

Great masses of postal items are dealt with and delivered to their proper destinations. This helps the candidates. There is another very important aspect. Since 1964 I have been involved in numerous elections. An important role that this department also plays is that of handling postal votes. I do not know of a single candidate, in all the elections I have been involved in, who can testify to one single postal vote having been lost in the post during any election campaign. I regard that as an achievement.

We want to congratulate the department in anticipation and extend our very sincere thanks for the major role it is going to play in the coming election.

The present hon Minister is the first Minister who has very directly begun to address the question of cross-subsidising in the Post Office. This is a matter that has been disturbing all hon members for some time now, but we have thus far trod lightly. The danger is that if the deficit on the postal services should increase, it would of necessity become necessary to increase the tariffs on the telephone service too. The unfairness of this has already been discussed. If, however, one increased the tariffs for the telephone service out of all proportion to the service furnished, in the process one would merely be killing the goose that laid the golden egg. That is inevitable. That is why it is with great satisfaction that one notes that cross-subsidising is now going to be given urgent attention.

About this loss of R129 million on the postal services, we can but note that the two major cost factors are those of labour and transport. On labour there can really not be much of a saving. The hon member for Umlazi has indicated how efficiently labour is being employed, how high the productivity is, how labour is being replaced by mechanisation and so on. So very little, by way of savings, can be effected as far as labour is concerned. The costs involved in the transport element run to R56 million. We believe that attention can very profitably be given to the possibility of having mail—of course excluding urgent mail such as express post, which needs special handling—transported by road by private entrepreneurs.

Mr Chairman, today I want to express my thanks to the Post Office staff who, over a period of many years, has seen to it that this is a department with which one never has any problems. In this connection, for example, I want to refer to the situation prevailing at the post office in South-dale, Johannesburg. That post office is situated in an area sandwiched between a residential area and an industrial area. The post office building happens to be a very big one. The people working there have a very difficult task to perform, particularly in view of the problems created by the fact that people of all races and colours do business at that post office. Language problems, in particular, are an everyday occurrence. People stand in long queues, with the person at the head of the queue perhaps not being able to understand the language of the staff member serving behind the counter. There we have people from Transkei, from Malawi and from everywhere else. In many cases the patience with which the staff deal with all those people is such that one often feels that if there is someone that really deserves to get a star for meritorious service, it is indeed the Post Office staff of Southdale.

Even with the completion of forms and other documentation, and with the addressing of postal items, the staff grants all the necessary help to people who ask for it. I think one should just take note of the fact that in the Public Service—and in particular in this department—there are people who owe this country something. That, Sir, saddens me somewhat, particularly when I think of what the hon the Minister said about the meritorious conduct of the staff and the question of their salaries. What, however, did the hon the Minister tell them? He told them that at the moment there was not enough money for salary increases, did he not?

Now the hon the Minister sits there like a sphinx. He does not even move a muscle. Some or other time he will have to say something, however, even if only about the little song. He will have to tell me something, however. [Interjections.] If there is not enough money at the moment, I want to know what the hon the Minister is going to tax in the future so as to afford those people a salary increase. Or is he not going to give them a salary increase at all?

Barnie, what is wrong with Langlaagte?

I shall tell you what is wrong, Sir. We have a lot of heretics on the other side of the House. I shall deal with them in a moment. I shall settle their hash, particularly in the election. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister—I want to draw his attention to this—must remember that everyone knows that he does not have any money now. It is like an open book. I am asking him where he is going to get the money. Where is he going to get the money to give these people a salary increase? For they certainly do deserve an increase. He must not try to give people the wrong impression by making them believe that money is in fact available, without telling them in good time where he envisages getting that money. In this respect the hon the Minister has a dual responsibility.

When we are dealing with the drawing up of a budget, in the light of the economic situation in which we find ourselves it must surely be a nightmare for every department. The hon member for Hercules spoke about transport. Just think of the fact that in the past ten years the price of motor vehicles has increased by 700%.

Is that the fault of the Post Office?

No, the Post Office makes use of vehicles. The purchase price of its vehicles has increased by 700% in the past ten years. The Post Office can do nothing about that. The fact of the matter is that the Post Office has to purchase the vehicles from the commercial sector. That entails costs which the Post Office did not let itself in for. Those are costs that are forced upon the Post Office.

Let us look at another matter. The prices of all materials, everything one purchases— even a piece of paper—have increased alarmingly in the past year. It is a nightmare for anyone to budget, in whatever department one happens to be. That is why we take note of the fact that this budget—in spite of the Minister—is one which is not too unpleasant.

I shall be talking to the hon the Minister at quite some length at some later date, but today I just want to tell him that the biggest problem he and his department have is the Government—the inefficiency of a Government which, at this moment, is bankrupt. I shall tell you why I am saying that the Government is bankrupt. When a company states that it cannot pay its debts, it is an admission of insolvency. The moment such a company goes even further and gets someone like Leutwiler—whom one cannot call anything but a judicial administrator—one is dealing with the process of execution of that insolvency.

That is a scandalous remark!

No, it is not a scandalous remark. The problem that hon Minister has is that he does not understand what it is all about. This country is bankrupt and he does not even know it. Then he still aspires to becoming State President. The hon the Minister, with Worrall and all those opposing Mr Heunis, and all the others who are praying so hard for Heunis, the hon member for Helderberg, to be ousted, will not get far.

I am standing in my own seat. I am not running away.

That is quite right! Let me tell the long-winded hon Minister that I would lay a wager with him, challenging him to challenge me to stand against him in any constituency—in any seat in the Transvaal! [Interjections.]

In Langlaagte!

Yes, in Langlaagte! I challenge the hon Minister to stand against me in Langlaagte, but it has to be that hon Minister. The problem is that he is a bankrupt Minister. The hon the Minister knows that at this moment his Government is engaged in negotiations concerning debt which it cannot pay—domestic and foreign debt. He knows that they owe so much that their “letter of comfort” from the Reserve Bank to certain other banks is just another of the pegs that are going to be yanked out of their claims.

You are vilifying us!

Oh, that “vilification”! All they can think of is “vilification”. What I find strange is why they use a man like Horace van Rensburg to fight their battles for them.

Order! The hon member must refer to the hon member for Bryanston.

Yes, the hon member for Bryanston. They must just tell me whether they are going to come along with their next “release” about the ANC’s ties with some or other party.

They did so in the referendum.

Oh yes, in the referendum they did so, and they are going to do it again. I predict that they will do so; that they are going to vilify the other parties and are then going to say, throughout the country, that the voters should back the Government.

[Inaudible.]

Unfortunately I do not have the time to dispose of this juvenile Transvaal leader.

Order!

Pardon, the hon member for Vereeniging. That we shall be doing on the normal platforms, and I challenge him to join me in holding a meeting anywhere. [Interjections.]

There is another matter I still want to deal with today—I want to express my appreciation to Mrs Vorster for having agreed to receive the medal of honour which has been offered to her, because it does not come fro the Government, but from the country, South Africa. People are commending her as one of the great ladies of this country. Mrs Botha also deserves such a medal, because to have stood by a leader’s side for such a long time is a formidable task for a woman. That is why we congratulate both of them on receiving this medal.

I just want to say that Mrs Vorster displays stout-heartedness. I do not know whether I would accept such a medal if my family had been through what the former State President had to go through. There are people here who have it on their consciences, but we leave that to the individuals themselves. We honour her for the fact that she, as strong as she is, will be standing there to receive what South Africa is giving her.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Langlaagte introduced Mrs Vor ster’s name into the debate. I really do not think that this is the proper occasion to speak about that.

Order! I let the hon member continue out of respect for the two ladies concerned. I would be glad, however, if the hon member for Winburg would now leave the matter at that.

Very well, Sir. I shall be coming back to the hon member for Langlaagte at a later stage, but there is just one thing I want to tell him. [Interjections.] We have recently read in the newspapers that a certain man with a fairly senior position in the Department of Finance furnished certain information to the Afrikaner and the HNP. I think, however, that the hon member for Langlaagte should find himself another informant, because he says the country is bankrupt …

The country is bankrupt!

It is wrong information that the hon member has obtained. He must get some other information. [Interjections.] I shall be coming back to the hon member at a later stage.

On 26 February 1975 I was elected a member of this House. Shortly it will be exactly 12 years since that happened. What a privilege has it not been to have been able to share in the proceedings of this House over a period of 12 years. Judging by the periods of service of certain of my colleagues, 12 years is not a long time at all, but in this period the political scene has been a very interesting one, and to have been able to participate has truly been a very great privilege.

I have made good friends here, cementing mutual ties of friendship which, I think, will last a long time. And I think one can only cement such ties here. The staff of Parliament have been very good to me and it is not without some difficulty that I take my leave of them.

The third privilege I have encountered here has been that I myself could decide when I wanted to leave. That is truly a privilege. There are many hon members who are of the opinion that they will be returning after the election on 6 May, but they will not be returning—in other words, they will be leaving without themselves having decided to do so. That will happen for the simple reason that their constituencies want them to leave. I regard it as a privilege to be able to decide for myself about retiring.

When I look across at the ultra-right wing Opposition, I actually feel sorry for the hon member for Sasolburg. It is a pity he is not here this afternoon. The hon member knows for a fact that the CP voted him in, and now his leaders and the leaders of the CP cannot even work together. They cannot conclude an election pact. I want to put his mind at ease, however—his good friends must please convey this to him—because he is going to lose there in any event.

Order! I would appreciate it if the hon member would confine himself to the Bill under discussion.

I actually just wanted to say, at the end of the paragraph, that he should just pick up the telephone and call us. [Interjections.]

He is not going to come back in any event. He is going to get a thrashing, even if the CP members help him. If he does get a thrashing, he must please call me that evening, because I want to rejoice—he does not belong there.

I do not think the CP and the HNP are going to conclude an election agreement. Some gentleman called them the other day, however, saying that he wanted to convene a large meeting—he spoke of 70 000 people at that meeting.

He is going to post a great many letters.

Where is there any mention of that in this Appropriation?

If Mr Eugène Terre’ Blanche gets those people together, he will return, and then the leaders of the HNP and the CP will find each other, because he will do it. If Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche convinces the leaders of the HNP and the CP to work together in future, let me just tell the leaders and all the members of the HNP and the CP that in the interim they should learn to salute. They will simply have to salute, because then Mr Terre’Blanche will be marching at the head, with his men behind him.

Members of the right-wing opposition are not always honest in their political actions. What they proclaim by word of mouth and what they do to fill their pockets are two completely different things. I want to refer to two cases in my constituency.

Near us there lives a man who telephoned me. He was a supporter of the hon member for Sasolburg’s party. In the last election the voters of Sasolburg were warned that people of colour would soon be living in a White residential area. The HNP supporter living near me was subsequently made an offer for his land. The neighbours then telephoned me, saying that that man wanted to sell his land to a Black man. Remember that he is an HNP supporter! Fortunately that transaction fell through. The point I want to make, however, is the following: The HNP says we are blackening our country, are giving our country away, but if they can get any money for a piece of land, they do not mind selling land to a Black man. [Interjections.]

I want to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon the Minister most sincerely. I also want to thank all the officials of the Post Office in anticipation; during this election they are going to work very late hours, because after the election, in our jubilation, we shall be sending scores of telegrams and making scores of telephone calls.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Winburg has indicated that he will not be seeking re-election on 6 May. We therefore wish him a long and happy retirement, and hope he enjoys himself away from this Parliament.

I want to join those who congratulated the hon the Minister on his appointment, but I want to suggest that he too will be going into retirement on 6 May. [Interjections.] It is therefore going to be a short tenure of office that he is going to have, unless, of course, he gets a nominated seat, but I also anticipate that there will be a large number of Ministers in Natal seeking nominated seats. There is the hon member for Durban North and the hon member for Amanzimtoti; so there will be a long queue of Ministers looking for nominated seats.

I found that it pays to nag the hon the Minister of Communications, because if one is persistent then one achieves what one is after. There is one thing that I want to raise with this hon Minister which I have raised on previous occasions, and that is the matter of overseas dialling at reduced rates. Each year now, for four years, I have raised the matter with his predecessor and I believe in the end I will be successful.

We have a system operating internally whereby reduced rates for long-distance dialling apply during two out of three periods: The normal rates apply during the day; between 6 pm and 9 pm there is a reduction of 33,33% in the rate; and between 9 pm and 7 am the next morning there is a 66,66% reduction—or figures of that sort of magnitude. I think it is very important that we introduce this system with regard to overseas dialling as well. A large number of businessmen make calls to both the UK and the USA. This accounts for a large percentage of the Post Office’s business, and these businessmen could very well make calls after hours at reduced rates if this facility were made available to them. People who have business interests in places like Hong Kong and Los Angeles would be able to dial these places after hours at reduced rates. [Interjections.]

In his address here today, the hon the Minister said that the total duration of international telephone calls for the year was estimated at about 107 million minutes, which represents an increase of 1,8% over the figure for the previous year. I want to suggest that that 1,8% is only a small increase. If, however, he were to have this extra facility available to people, namely, to enable them to dial overseas after hours at a reduced rate, I think this increase would be substantially higher and he would be increasing the Post Office’s revenue, even though the service were provided at a reduced rate.

The previous Minister of Communications wrote to me in June last year advising that, because of economic conditions, the necessary equipment had not been obtained, but that the matter would receive attention as soon as circumstances permitted. I hope that this hon Minister will give attention to that matter as soon as he possibly can.

There is another matter I should like to raise. It is one that I have raised on previous occasions. It concerns the equipment we have for the metering of internal long-distance calls. Surely this equipment could be adapted to meter overseas calls as well. My question then is, if we are not in a position to buy equipment with which to monitor overseas calls, is it not possible to adapt the equipment which we already have so that it could be used for metering overseas calls? This is a matter of substantial public interest, and I want to urge the hon the Minister to give it his attention.

I should also like to ask him just briefly about the telephone services to Soweto that were discontinued on June 16 last year. I asked the hon the Minister’s predecessor about this matter last year, but he said it was not in the public interest to give me details of what had happened on that day. It is, however, a very serious matter indeed. I think the action taken was highly dangerous, and I want the hon the Minister to give me the assurance that it will not be done again.

I have said that it is worthwhile nagging the hon the Minister. I believe that is the correct thing to do, because I have found that the facilities in my own constituency have been improved as a result of my consistently approaching the hon the Minister in regard to those facilities. The post office at Northlands and the one at Parklands have both been improved considerably over the past four years, and I am very pleased that I have been able to achieve this. The new premises at Northlands, which were opened towards the end of last year, are very comfortable, and people who use that post office are grateful for the improvements. The accommodation is much more acceptable now. I hope it will not be long before the Bramley Post Office, which is a very busy post office indeed, will be moved to the site which has been earmarked by the Post Office, namely the site behind Bennie Goldberg’s bottle store in the Bramley area. [Interjections.] Lots of parking is available there, and I would urge the hon the Minister to do something about the Bramley Post Office as soon as he possibly can.

The Brandy Post Office? [Interjections.]

During the course of my report-back meeting with my constituency last year, I made it clear that I believed that the constituency of Johannesburg North was being well-served by the Post Office. I think the officials are extremely efficient. I am grateful for that, and I hope that the hon the Minister—or his successor after May 6!—will continue to provide such service.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.