As I said yesterday, one has to look at the Budget of the hon. the Minister against the background of the state of affairs in the Post Office and in the country today. We have to see and judge it against the background of the biggest single increase in tariffs in the history of the Post Office; we have to see it against the background of the most extensive and alarming telephone shortage we have suffered in this country; it has to be judged against the background of a staff turnover which until the end of last year was seldom, if ever, exceeded in the past; we have to see it against the background of a service which, with reference particularly to telecommunications and telephones, is so bad that it beggars description; and, finally, we have to look at it against the extremely gloomy picture which the Minister painted in his speech of the years that lie ahead. Accordingly I wish to move as an amendment—

1. (1) placed a further heavy burden on the South African citizen through an excessive increase in tariffs;
2. (2) inevitably contributed through such increases, to inflationary conditions leading to higher prices and production costs;
3. (3) failed to arrest the growing shortage of telephones and to improve the inadequate and unsatisfactory telephone services, which can result in decreased productivity and impair the development of the country; and
4. (4) failed to arrest the alarming turnover and losses in staff.”

We and the country are entitled to ask, how did the Post Office get into this deplorable state of affairs? The blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the Government Party, particularly so with reference to five factors. The first, I am sorry to say, is the Minister himself; the second is the general economic policy of the Government which this Minister is forced to follow; the third, inadequate planning; the fourth, the wrong staff policy; and the fifth, neglect of the business principles which the Post Office has been enjoined by law to adopt.

Let us look at the first factor—the Minister. This is not personal. I do not regard the Minister as the worst by any means in the Cabinet—in fact, I should not like to take the wooden spoon out of the mouth of the hon. the Minister of Tourism. However, the Minister suffers under certain disabilities, not necessarily all of his own making. I believe—and I am glad the hon. the Prime Minister is here to hear me—that the task of looking after two important portfolios such as Labour and the Post Office at the same time is beyond the capabilities of most people and too heavy for the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister is also Minister of Labour and in so far as this is concerned I am afraid he is introducing the same type of ideological thinking into the Post Office, that ideological thinking which is responsible for our labour position in South Africa being a catastrophe. As I say, he is introducing that type of ideological thinking also into the Post Office, something which will be ruinous to this organization.

The second factor I mentioned was the economic policy of the Government, a policy which last night I called “an economic conspiracy against the ordinary people in South Africa”, i.e. the policy to slow down the economy deliberately by taking money from the pockets of the consumer, thereby slowing down everything. What more effective way is there for the Minister to implement this policy of economic conspiracy than by increasing the production costs of the whole country through these increases in tariffs, by taking an additional R50 million per annum out of the pockets of the ordinary man, and by financing 62 per cent of the capital expenditure of the Post Office from ordinary revenue to be obtained from these increased tariffs? Mr. Speaker, this Government calls to mind a comparison between ancient and modern medicine. A modern doctor aims at ensuring the health of a patient; the ancient doctor indulged in bloodletting and leeching of the patient. This, then, is a budget of bloodletting, a budget of leeching on the body politic of South Africa. But amazingly, despite all that, this Budget fails to do anything to counteract inflation and towards increasing the productivity of the country. Let me call as witness the hon. the Minister himself. In his speech, under the heading “Tariff Adjustments” he said—

In other words, this is an inflationary Budget, and this while the hon. the Prime Minister as well as the hon. Minister of Finance are calling upon the country to adopt measures to fight inflation. But here we have an admission from the hon. the Minister that he has presented a Budget which will lead to greater inflation in the short term as well as in the long term. He made another admission, Sir, an admission in regard to the telephone services of this country when he said this—

That is very poor.

Sir, these are the Minister’s words which the hon. member describes as “very poor”—

I repeat: “inadequate and unsatisfactory telephone services”, the Minister’s own words—

Sir, here we have an admission from the Minister that this is not only an inflationary Budget but also a Budget which can lead to decreased productivity in industry and in commerce and in the economic life of our nation.

I said that the second factor in this Budget is that it is an indication again of failure in past and present planning. Everybody admits that before the passing of the Post Office Re-adjustment Act, during the first 20 years of this Government’s rule, we had the worst problems of planning that we have ever had in the history of the Post Office. That side admits it. But after that, Sir, I am by no means satisfied that the planning has been such as to ensure for this country the post office service to which it is entitled. I say this against the background of the actual facts as they are today, against the background of broken promises by one of the Minister’s predecessors that the telephone shortage would have been solved by now or that it would decrease during this year. I say it against the background of the staff shortage and turnover; I say it against the background of the building programme, which, despite the large amount voted this year, is still going far too slowly. One judges planning by its end-result, and judged by that the planning has not been adequate to meet the needs of South Africa in regard to its postal and telecommunication services.

The hon. the Minister has told us that he is aiming at something like, I presume, a 100 per cent service for only 70 per cent of applicants. I think that is a silly remark that originated with his predecessor or with Dr. Albert Hertzog. He is not giving a 100 per cent service. We know that he is not giving it. We see it on every side, we see it every day. Here, Sir, I have a telegram that was handed to me yesterday during the debate by the hon. member for Johannesburg North, from a prominent voter in his constituency. It reads—-

Sir, I call upon the hon. the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs for action; that is what we need.

He should pay his account.

Sir, the labour and staff policy of the Post Office and of the Minister is a fourth factor. I am glad to say that since the recent increases the establishment of the Post Office Staff Board and the re-organization of posts in the Post Office things have improved. But for more than 20 years we had this utterly unsatisfactory state of affairs, which was so bad that at one stage workers in the Post Office actually went over the head of the then Minister and appealed directly to the hon. the Prime Minister, as he will remember.

That is nonsense.

When Dr. Albert Hertzog was still a member of the Prime Minister’s Cabinet he did not deny it when I taxed him with it. However, I shall get the facts from the hon. the Minister, but this information was given by his former great colleague, Dr. Albert Hertzog. Sir, there have been improvements; I admit that, but everything cannot be lovely in the garden if you look at the following facts: The total personnel of the Post Office is 55 000. It is a fine body of men. There is a turnover annually of 14 000—and here I am not counting the people who died— out of 55 000. Of those 14 000, 10 000 represent resignations and 4 000 represent people who were dismissed. Sir, that is a huge number—14 000 out or 55 000—and everything cannot be right, even now, with the staff policy. I trust that the hon. the Minister will be able to say to us that since the 1st January there has been some improvement in the position.

I repeat the words I used yesterday in expressing the sincere appreciation of this side of the House for the magnificent work done by the Post Office staff, from the Postmaster General down to the ordinary worker. [Interjections.] Sir, they may pour scorn on the workers in the Post Office; they may insult them; they may shout at them as they are doing now; they may laugh at the misery, in many instances, amongst the workers of the Post Office, as we see them doing now, but this side of the House stands by the ordinary man and woman in South Africa. We repeat our thanks to and our admiration for that section of the Post Office, numbering between 7 000 and 10 000 I believe, who have agreed to work three hours per week more, instead of overtime as in the past, and even additional hours where overtime was not at stake in the past. Sir, we appreciate that, but here I feel that a word of warning is necessary. These additional hours worked voluntarily by members of the staff of the Post Office must not—-I repeat “must not” —be made an excuse in future for keeping a longer basic work week when and if ever this crisis is over. It must not be used as a measure to force longer working hours in perpetuity on the workers in the Post Office. The second warning I want to issue is this: If there are groups or certain sections who feel that owing to the large amount of work that they are doing at the moment it is impossible for them to increase their working hours voluntarily, I trust that that will not count against them in any way whatsoever.

Sir, the fifth point I mentioned was that the Post Office is not adhering to business principles. We remember that when we passed the Post Office Re-adjustment Act some time ago, giving greater independence to the Post Office, it was laid down that it should be run on business principles—a fine principle, Sir, a fine clause in the Act, one which we supported and which was inserted in the Bill on account of the policy of this party. But I am not satisfied that everything that the Post Office is doing today is an example of adhering to business principles. Let me mention a few instances. Is it good business to finance such an exorbitant proportion of your capital programme as 61.2 per cent out of your ordinary profits?

Very sound.

Is it sound business to make such a huge profit through unnecessary tariffs? That hon. member says that unnecessary tariffs are very sound. Is it a sound business principle? I know of very few public companies adopting sound business principles which would use such a huge amount of their ordinary revenue for capital expenditure. I am authoritatively told that such a company would usually not use more than 33½ per cent, if that, of its profits, of its ordinary revenue, for capital expenditure. It is not a proper business method to me such a large amount of ordinary revenue to finance capital expenditure, as is being done in this case. I doubt whether even the hon. the Minister of Finance does that, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Transport does not go as far as that.

Sir, there is a second principle in business. which says that a good business satisfies its customers; it gives value for money; it tries to sell its product. Does this Post Office of ours really give a product that satisfies its tens of thousands of customers throughout the country? Is it really trying to sell its product, or is it doing the strangest thing on earth that a business can do, and that is to say to the people: “Please do not buy our products; don’t ask for new telephones; don’t use the postal services?” That is not a business principle, Sir. I can assure hon. members that the Minister would be only too happy if people were to use their telephones less and made fewer applications for telephones, and generally made less use of the postal services of the country.

The third mistake in regard to business principles is, I believe, that the Post Office, although it is not apparently carrying out these business principles, is nevertheless staring blindly at only those two words, “business principles”. While it does and should act on business principles, we must realize that the Post Office cannot act to the exclusion of the general interest and welfare of the country, which is most important. Like Escom and the Railways, the Post Office offers a public service; it is a public utility. It provides an essential service and it is therefore wrong, I say, to adopt an extreme business principle and stare only at profits and profits alone.

The next issue on which I question whether the Post Office is adopting business principles is in regard to its strange position of being a monopoly. It cannot help that it is a monopoly. In the nature of things the Post Office is one, but if it wants to conduct that business, that monopoly, on business principles, it should seek to avoid the worst features of a monopoly. Some of these features we know. There is no competition whatsoever under a monopoly. You can put up your prices because you deliver a service which nobody else can. You can cut down on your services and on the value of your services and nothing can be done about it. Too many of those vices of a monopoly are appearing in the actions of the Post Office and in the actions particularly of the hon. the Minister in arbitrarily forcing these huge new tariffs on the country.

Let us take a closer look at some of the new tariffs on which this Budget is based. The hon. the Minister is budgeting for a R50 million increase in tariffs this year, an imposition which is the largest ever made by the Post Office as an additional one in this country in all its history. The income the hon. the Minister is going to get from these increased tariffs, and only from these increased tariffs, is equal to double the total income of the Post Office in the year 1948 under the United Party Government. [Interjections.] How overjoyed that hon. member over there is! Does he remember 1948, when he paid 1½d. on a letter, which will now be 4 cents, when we paid 1½d. for a phone call and when we paid £3 12s. annual rental for a telephone, whereas we now pay R24 rental for a telephone? [Interjections.] I wish the hon. members would stop shouting against the Post Office.

We have to see these increases in tariffs against another background and take another factor into account. We must remember that this R50 million increase in Post Office tariffs is not the only one in the present financial year. The first shock came on 1st July last year, when already additional millions and millions were taken out of the pockets of the ordinary taxpayer, citizen and telephone-user in this country. Have we forgotten that printed matter weighing 2 oz. went up by 125 per cent last July, from I cent to 2½ cents; that a certain class of newspaper weighing 4 oz. went up in postage tariff from ½ cent to 2½ cents, or 500 per cent? It started in July last year. Have we forgotten that installation charges for telephones, which were nil in the past, suddenly became R20 for each phone in July last year?

As I said yesterday, Sir, these increases are fantastic; they are grotesque. On an ordinary letter the increase has been 60 per cent, from 2½ cents to 4 cents, through which the hon. the Minister is taking R9.5 million out of the pockets of the citizens. A 2 lb. parcel has had the postage on it increased from 10 cents to 30 cents, an increase of 300 per cent. Telephone rentals have gone up from R18 to R24, an increase of 33½ per cent, bringing in an additional income of R9 million to the hon. the Minister. The telephone unit charges have been increased from 3! cents to 4 cents, and that ½ cent alone is taking R15 million out of the pockets of the citizens of South Africa. Let us look at how these telephone charges increased. In the United Party days telephone calls were l½d. each. It remained like that, on the good foundation the United Party had built, even when this Government took over, for many years. Then it was increased to 2½ cents in October, 1959, and to 3½ cents in January, 1967, and now we have this latest increase to 4 cents. These increases I have mentioned are not all. Here I have them all; it is a thick book, 12 pages of them. While most of them refer, admittedly, to airmail charges, there are dozens and dozens of increases mentioned here of which the ordinary public as yet know nothing.

What does the Minister do with all that money?

One really wonders what is happening to this money. I can tell the hon. member that a great deal of that money is being wasted through the mismanagement of the Government and their economic policy. These tariffs have been a shock to commerce and industry. The National Post Office Advisory Committee stated that it regretted that the Department of Posts and Telegraphs had found it necessary to raise postal and telecommunication charges when business was battling to keep down costs. This is an organization which represents Assocom, the Federated Chamber of Industries, the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, the Transvaal Chamber of Industries and the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut.

*The Handelsinstituut expressed itself even more strongly than that when it stated (translation)—

†The hon. the Minister gave us an interesting document, a memorandum explaining or seeking to find excuses for these increases. Sir, it reads as well as any piece of fiction you can find in the library. It is one of the strangest pieces of special pleading I have ever come across. The hen. the Minister has taken five or six countries, countries with some of the highest living costs in the world, and compared their tariffs to his satisfaction with the tariffs in South Africa. But he left out major countries such as Switzerland, Belgium, New Zealand, Austria, Italy, France, Portugal, Denmark. I have not had the time to check them all, but I have checked some of them, and I can assure him that there are many more countries in Western Europe whose tariffs and charges are lower than those quoted by the hon. the Minister in his memorandum.

Then we hear about so-called concessions which are being made, these half-tariffs, the “sundowner service” from 5 p.m. to 8 a.m. I ask you, Sir, what business in South Africa will benefit from that? What business will keep open until midnight and pay the additional staff so that it can benefit from half-price tariffs? What are these concessions really worth? Very little. And coupled with them we have had truculent threats by the hon. the Minister that unless we make use of these things, he will take them away. He is trying to force the people of South Africa into a midnight pyjama game with the telephone, phoning all over South Africa. If one does not play that game of his, he proposes to take the telephone away at once.

I mentioned the shortage. This shortage is tragic today. It is a shortage of 114 000, or 112 000 if one does not count the 2 000 shortage in South-West Africa. The tragedy is that this shortage has been increasing progressively over the years. In 1966, five short years ago, it was 41 000. In subsequent years it rose on 31st December of each year to 63 000 in 1967, to 72 000 in 1968, and to 82 000 at the end of 1969. Now, at the end of 1970, it has risen to 114 000. In five years the shortage has almost trebled. In the last year there has been an increase in the shortage of 30 000. As far as I can establish, this is the biggest increase in any single year, an increase of more than 36 per cent. We must see this against the promises made to us.

Send for Albert.

Yes, I do not mind sending for Albert. We can then at least find out what happened to this promise which was made by him as the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. In 1966 he said that he was raising telephone charges by one cent for the sole purpose that it would enable the Government to supply all the telephones needed within three or five years. Five years from 1966 brings us to 1971. Where are all those telephones?

But there were other promises. The hon. the Minister’s own predecessosr in June, 1968, was a bit more pessimistic than Dr. Albert Hertzog was. He said that the backlog should be eliminated in five years barring unforeseen circumstances. In other words, the shortage should be over by 1973. Minister Van Rensburg also told us:

This is the great year, 1971, when the number of outstanding applications should decrease quickly and spectacularly. As he is sitting there, the hon. the Minister must contrast that statement against his own words from those benches yesterday, in which he said:

In fact, I expect that the department will only succeed in arresting the growth of the waiting list by 1973, and thereafter reducing the waiting list rapidly.

His predecessor said that in 1973 the shortage would have been eliminated, or eliminated by 99 per cent. Now he says that the shortage will grow and grow until 1973, before there will be this sudden huge decrease again.

High in the sky, by and by.

High in the sky, as the hon. the member says. I dealt with the services. I do not wish to say much about that now. Thirty-nine exchanges are closed on the Witwatersrand. Two thousand telephones are reported out of order every day on the Witwatersrand. That is almost one million such reports in a year.

I now mention the staff in passing, because other members will deal with it. This hon. Minister has not succeeded in solving the shortage of technical staff. It is much greater than indicated by him in his Budget speech yesterday. The true position at the end of 1969—and I believe that the position has not improved substantially since then— was set out by the present Postmaster-General in a speech which he made before the Executive Council of the Federated Chamber of Industries, which was published in F.C.I. Viewpoint. He said:

Has there been such a terrific improvement since then? The hon. the Minister sent a special team overseas to recruit technical workers, and how many did they find? Only 280. What did it cost? R200 000!

I want to conclude by saying that this Budget forms part of the general picture we see developing in this country, namely that of inflation, higher prices, lower productivity and stagnation. I accuse the Government of having lost complete control over the situation in South Africa. It can no longer govern or do anything right, and the people of South Africa are justifiably crying out to this Government in the name of sanity to please get out.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Orange Grove moved the adjournment of the debate yesterday he said that the Budget that was submitted was a miserable document. I just want to tell the hon. member that in my view and according to our statements to the House in the course of the debate there will be sufficiently convincing proof that it is a truly miserable approach on the part of the hon. Opposition to designate this Budget as such. On my part I want to state that this Budget testifies to absolute determination and singleness of purpose. With the words “determination and singleness of purpose”, and before I turn my attention to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said, let me say that I am reminded that when the Post Office obtained independence the Opposition itself expressed the view here that in obtaining this basis of independence it would be necessary for Posts and Telegraphs to provide for its own capital requirements. At the time they endorsed this statement very strongly. They were also in favour of independence in respect of the provision of services and the acquisition of capital. However, what is the present position, after almost three years? Now the Opposition is running away from that statement they themselves made. In this Budget it has been proved unequivocally that this independent department is now trying to find its own capital in a self-reliant way. At a later stage in my speech I shall be making various references to this statement of mine.

I now come to the hon. member for Orange Grave … I mean “Grove”. [Laughter.] I think it is a tolerable slip of the tongue. The hon. member referred here to the tremendous telephone shortage. We on this side of the House do not deny it. From year to year more applications for telephones have been forthcoming. This is proof of the economic growth and confidence in South Africa and its business world. This was established by the National Party and not by the United Party. It was at this time that shortages mounted up. I just want to mention this briefly. On 31st March, 1967 we had 1 179 811 telephones. On 31st March, 1968 this number increased to 1 239 205, an increase of 59 394. This represents an increase of 5.03 per cent. The increase of 59 394 was almost equal to the number of telephones outstanding at that stage. On 31st March, 1969 there were 1 311 864 telephones, an increase of 72 659 or 5.86 per cent. Again it was approximately the number of outstanding applications. Then we come to 31st March, 1970. There was an increase of 85 883 or 6.55 per cent. Again this was more or less equal to the number of outstanding applications. This is proof that notwithstanding a large increase in the number of applications, this Department was almost successful in coping with applications that had not been dealt with. That there are more than 100 000 applications on the waiting list at present can be ascribed to the fact that most of the present-day businessmen and individuals would like to have a telephone at their disposal. I want to conclude this argument by saying that it is quite quick and easy to fill in a form and deposit R20 so that one’s name can be placed on the waiting list. However, it is quite a different matter to provide that telephone and to establish the necessary installation points.

I still want to say a thing or two about a service that is now in the experimental stage, i.e. the “Sundowner Service”. You will note that the Department is not asleep as far as the telephone shortages are concerned. It plans to see to what extent it can provide people on the waiting list with telephones. Hence, too, the concession of a half-tariff service. Initially this only applied from 12 o’clock midnight to 6 a.m. Now it will also apply on weekdays from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. It will also apply from Saturday at I p.m. to Monday at 8 a.m. In order to realize the extent of this I should mention that the public is now obtaining a half-tariff service for 118 out of the 168 hours. I consider this to be of very great assistance. The judicious use of this service can to a large extent eliminate the consequences of tariff increases. However, I want to point out that if this service is not used properly it could result in the estimated surplus, for which the hon. the Minister has budgeted in these Estimates, i.e. R1.1 million, being converted into a deficit.

I want to express another thought in connection with the telephone services. I should like to refer to the experiments being carried out by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in order to make telephones available to people who cannot obtain a full-time service. This is the telephone service from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. called the “Sundowner Service”. Persons cannot make use of that service during the peak hours of the day. They can only use it from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m. Since to my knowledge only one term exists for the service thus far, i.e. the “Sundowner Service”, I should like to submit for the consideration of the hon. the Minister and his Department that an Afrikaans term be found for this service. I suggest that it should be called the “Opsitdiens”, because it also takes place during the evening and nocturnal hours when the services is available. And this is surely the only time when the courting candle is used. That is why I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister call it the “Opsitdiens”. If the word “Opsitdiens” does not meet with approval, we can call it the “Wakkerblydiens”. Hon. members know how bad-tempered the old people were in the past about staying awake.

I want to go further by referring to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said here and to the amendments he moved. He spoke of the inflationary situation being created here by the increase in the tariffs. Then he quoted the hon. the Minister, but he did not do so in full. Hon. members must please allow me to quote one small paragraph in order thereby to clearly give the Minister’s reply and his view of this matter. I quote—

That is about as far as the hon. member went. He continued, and I quote—

I now ask the hon. member for Orange Grove why he did not read that last portion of the hon. the Minister’s speech. He only pointed to the hon. the Minister’s recognition of the fact that it will create inflationistic conditions. In his speech yesterday the hon. member pointed out that he was not in favour of our using revenue to finance our needs. He wanted us to use loan capital rather than our revenue sources. Is that not also a step in the wrong direction? I shall presently come back to that point.

The hon. member referred here to our ideological thinking. I do not want to go into this point, because the Opposition is familiar with the National Party’s policy. They are also familiar with our policy concerning this specific matter. However, the hon. member neglected to tell this House what the United Party’s alternative policy is in respect of this so-called ideological thinking. This matter was broached in a debate during the previous session and now again in the railway debate. Up to now we have received no clear statement from the Opposition about their ideological thinking. This now leaves me free to state my own ideas about their policy before this House. They think along the lines of integrating non-White labour with White labour, regardless of colour or qualification. That is not the policy of the National Party. I should like the speaker who follows me up to give us a little clarity about this particular matter. I have already dealt with the matter of the telephone shortages. Here the hon. member for Orange Grove said that the Post Office should be run on business lines. If one has a look at this amendment that was moved by the hon. member, it is clearly apparent that they are not disposed to increasing the tariffs in order to make this necessary production capital and operating capital available for Posts and Telegraphs. Then only one alternative remains. This Department must have recourse to the Treasury in order to obtain loans from them. I shall presently indicate how wrong this policy is. As I have said, in this House the Opposition itself advocated that this Department should become independent. We have not yet received a reply from them about how the Department, now that it has obtained independence, must finance its affairs. That question, which I also asked hon. members last year, is still without an answer. I think that in 1971 hon. members could come around to answering this question for me.

Since the commencement of Act No. 67 of 1968, which gave the Department of Posts and Telegraphs its measure of freedom and the right to administer its own affairs in the future on business lines, there has been sustained growth and progress. There are numerous statistics we can quote in proof of this. As a business undertaking of the State the Post Office is compelled to apply its revenue for the benefit of the officials and the public, thereby supplying a service to those providing the capital. For capital requirements the Post Office must be self-sufficient. As far as the revenue from postal services is concerned, there have been considerable shortages from year to year. That is why it was urgently necessary to adjust tariffs. Metrication was not used to adjust these tariffs. This is the time at which we are converting to metric weights and measures.

As far as the shortages due to salary increases, increasing costs and all services are concerned, the Post Office suffered a loss of R4.3 million in 1968. This increased to R12.1 million in 1969-’70. With a view to enabling the Post Office to provide for its capital requirements it was compelled to obtain about 50.1 per cent from its operating surplus and the rest from loans. If, however, tariffs were not adjusted this portion of its capital requirements, which the Post Office itself finances, would have decreased drastically in 1971-’72, because from revenue sources there would not have been an additional supply sufficient to keep pace with this increased cost structure. In other words, if it had decreased to an estimated 22.5 per cent of the revenue sources, 77.5 per cent of the capital requirements would have had to be financed from loans.

I now just want to refer in passing to the White Paper, in which it was indicated that in this Budget provision is being made for R20 million for the redemption of interest on loan capital. Additional provision is being made for R8 741 000 for redemption of loans. Hon. members will find this amount under subhead 5 of Capital Expenditure. Hon. members will find the amount of R20 million under Expenditure item C. If we were to subscribe to the hon. member for Orange Grove’s policy, borrowing an additional R50 million this year when we have already borrowed a large amount from the Treasury last year, what would the interest and redemption have been then? The bigger than interest and redemption capital becomes, the less there is available for the industry, because one must, of necessity, pay interest and redemption. This would send tariffs soaring in the foreseeable future. Loan capital is not easily obtainable in the times we are living in at present. Where is the Treasury going to find those large amounts, which the hon. member for Orange Grove now wants to borrow, merely to curtail the tariffs? I think the time has long since arrived for us to tell the well-intentioned and hard-working men and women of South Africa that we could also do well to sacrifice a little more, if not for ourselves, then for the sake of South Africa and its government which has brought the country to these great heights. [Interjections.] If we must continually have recourse to loan capital we shall experience the opposite of growth. At the beginning of my speech I referred to the sustained growth the services that were furnished. If tariffs are not increased, where else will capital be obtained to furnish those services to which the public is entitled? I put that question specifically to hon. members of the Opposition. Apart from the revenue which the increased tariffs will supply. Posts and Telegraphs was compelled to borrow an additional R50 million. And then hon. members opposite want to spread the story out there that our people are being bled. The fact is that the Department is not even taking enough to provide for its capital requirements for the coming financial year—that is why it had to have recourse to loan capital. Where is that bloodletting now? [Interjections.]

What are you laughing at, powder puff?

Revenue from personal sources is not enough. It will therefore be disastrous for the future if we only took excessive loans from year to year. The fact that the hon. the Minister is budgeting for a surplus of R1.1 million for the 1971 ’72 financial year, is sufficient proof that almost all available capital is being fully utilized for services to the public. In spite of the large amounts being voted here, at the end of the financial year the Minister is only going to have a surplus of R1.1 million, and if the public does not make full use of the half-tariff services this surplus of R1.1 million, which is now being estimated, will possibly be converted into a deficit.

But I must hurry up. In conclusion I want to gratefully pay tribute to the officials of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs for their decision to work more hours every week, and thereby, with higher productivity per manhour, we are going to break the back of inflation. The object of the Minister and of the Department is the elimination of bottlenecks in the infrastructure, which promotes productivity on a national level and combats inflation in the long run. That is why I want to conclude by saying that this is definitely a purposeful budget.

In the course of my speech I shall come back to some of the points the hon. member for Harrismith made. The other point I want to settle quickly. The hon. member said that they have now almost caught up on the telephone backlog. If that is true I shall accept it. However, many people would not. The public would prefer to wait until 1973—or is it 1978?

You do not understand Afrikaans.

No, my friend, I understand Afrikaans as well as you do. As I was saying the public would prefer to wait till 1973 to see how far the Post Office gets with this matter. Another point the hon. member made concerned the United Party’s labour policy. But surely the hon. member knows very well, since it has been stated time and again in this House, that the United Party’s policy is to consult trade unions, and that we would do nothing that would clash with their views. If we were to do what he professes we want to do, i.e. to integrate non-White labour without regard to the labour pattern of South Africa, this could mean only one thing, i.e. that the trade unions and the Post Office will agree with the elimination of the difference between Whites and non-Whites. That is the only alternative to the answer I received from the hon. member. If that is the extent of his confidence in the capacity of the White workers, the hon. member would do well to think again. As far as I am concerned, I have much more confidence in the trade unions of the Post Office, believing that they will see to it that their labour pattern is protected.

The hon. member called the amendment of the hon. member for Orange Grove a “miserable document”. But I wonder if he agrees that the tariff increases are a further heavy burden on telephone subscribers, or is it not a heavy burden?

It is a light burden.

The hon. member said it is a light burden. The hon. member is making good progress, backwards. Does the hon. member agree with point number two of the amendment, which is actually a repetition of the hon. the Minister’s speech? Does he agree with point number three that mentions the growing shortage of telephone services? That is surely true. The same applies to point number four. And yet the hon. member describes this amendment as a “miserable document”. The truth is that this is a factual document and the people will accept it as such. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has the honour—he probably has other sources of honour as well—to be the first Minister to begin with the tremendous increases we have had in the past few months—in the Post Office, in the Railways, in respect of sales duty, etc. When I speak about the Post Office and the Postal Services, it does not mean that we have any criticism against the staff or officials. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. the Minister in his praise of the officials of the Post Office. They are not only doing enough work, but in numerous cases they are even doing too much. South Africa is grateful to them for their services. The present shortages must not be sought with the officials, but in the policy approach of the Government, as it is also applied by the hon. the Minister.

In what position does the Post Office now find itself? The Minister himself said that it was a matter for concern because the position was unsatisfactory and inadequate. What is causing even more concern, he said, is that this inadequate and unsatisfactory service is being supplied in those areas that are making the biggest contribution to our economic prosperity. He added that the existing shortcomings were also adversely affecting productivity. As far as I am concerned, I have never received more factual and at the same time more damning evidence from any other hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He says the service is unsatisfactory and inadequate and, worse even, unsatisfactory and inadequate in a key aspect of our economy and, in addition, unsatisfactory and inadequate in spheres where South Africa’s productivity is affected. Sir, how did this situation develop; where are its origins? When did the hon. the Minister become aware of the situation; when did the Nationalist Government find out that the situation was so unsatisfactory? Let us look at what the hon. the Minister says. He gives the reply himself; he says—

I sometimes think, Sir, that the Nationalist Party ought to thank the world for its shortcomings, because they use those shortcomings as their criterion. He continues by saying—

and that is important—

These are things that have mounted up over the years. These deficiencies, these inadequate services, did not start yesterday.

It is because of the economic prosperity.

The hon. member says that economic prosperity is the reason for it. In his speech the hon. the Minister told us very clearly that the greater the economic prosperity, the heavier is the demand specifically for telephone services.

Surely that is so.

I am glad hon. members agree. But when did the hon. the Minister make the discovery? Did he find out about this yesterday, or has the Nationalist Party never been aware of this specific fact? Surely the Minister knew the position. Let us look at the figures we are given in this wonderful memorandum. I want to look at these figures from the point of view of two periods. The first period covers the 10 years beginning with 1959-’60 and ending with 1968-’69, 10 key years as far as the economic development of South Africa is concerned, years about which our Nationalist friends speak with great pride. Sir, while the South African economy was flourishing to such an extent during these years, what did the Nationalist Government do as far as the Post Office and telecommunications services in South Africa are concerned? How much was spent? Let us look at the figures. During the 10 years ending with 1968-’69 the average amount spent annually on telecommunications services was R23.91 million. In some years it was a little more, and in other years a little less, but the average for the 10-year period was R23.91 million, 10 years that were the most prosperous South Africa has ever known, 10 years in which the Nationalist Party and the Government ought to have known that the demand for telephone services would increase even more rapidly. At that time they spent an average of R23.91 million, and now they suddenly wake up with a start; so rudely were they startled from their sleep that over the past three years they have not been spending R23.91 million; now, waking with a start, they want to spend R75.26 million. Why are they suddenly waking up now? For 10 years they have been lying under the Post Office tree, resting in the shade almost like a Rio van Winkel; now they have woken up with a start and want to collect this money by way of tariff increases. That is where the capital must now come from. The present-day telephone subscriber must pay for the fact that during those years the Government was having such an enjoyable rest in the shade; that is why the tariffs have been increased to such an extent.

Sir, I know the Post Office Re-adjustment Act; I know that the Post Office must be run on business principles, but I consider it a totally wrong principle that almost 62 per cent of the capital requirements must be covered from current revenue. We have never had this in South Africa before, and I want to give the hon. the Minister this thought for consideration: I still want to see the business undertaking that finances 62 per cent of its capital requirements from its current revenue. If this is a business principle then most of the businesses in South Africa are run on non-business principles, and this applies to every municipality in South Africa as well. If that is not the case, then the Post Office is not being run on business principles. The fact that the Act mentions the application of business principles in the supplying of capital requirements can mean only one thing, i.e. that the Post Office must cover its capital redemption and interest from its operating surpluses, and not much more.

The hon. the Minister is now asking us for all this money, but he motivates it; he says: “We are adopting business principles”. He says that one of the reasons why he is increasing the tariffs so markedly is that it is desirable that the longest possible time, from five to 10 years, must pass between general tariff adjustments. Mr. Speaker, what kind of business principle is that? For five or 10 years the tariffs must remain completely static. If I am conducting a business and I decide that over a period of 10 years I want to make 50 per cent profit, must I already increase my tariffs by 50 per cent now in the hope that people will be satisfied with that? Let us apply the same principle to the wage-earner. Supposing the wage-earner says, “In 10 years I want to earn so much, but do not wait 10 years, simply give me all the increases now.” That is surely not business. Surely the Post Office is applying a totally wrong principle. And the fact that they are doing so is costing us so much more money. If the Post Office must cover all its capital requirements from the operating surplus, then I tell you today, Sir, that the Post Office tariffs have been increased by 50 per cent too much; that is the truth. He has taxed us twofold because, in my humble opinion, the principle he is applying to the financing of the Post Office is a totally wrong one.

But I know what the answer will be. The hon. the Minister will say: “But where must I get the capital from?” I shall give him three answers, Sir. In the first place I say that the Post Office should have looked for its capital during the good years when capital was available, but then they were resting in the shade of a tree. In the second place I say that he must not complain now about a lack of capital. A badly-run business can never get capital; a well-run business can always do so, and the hon. the Minister will not want to admit that the Post Office is a badly-run business. Point number three is that the hon. the Minister must not try to tell us that he must not approach the Minister of Finance with capital requirements. The Post Office cannot play Father Christmas to the Minister of Finance; the Post Office must look after itself, and in these times of high costs the Post Office dare not allow the citizen, the South African telephone subscriber, to carry as heavy a burden as he has to carry today.

The hon. members for Orange Grove and Maitland made only two small mistakes today, and these are the two small mistakes: Everything they say is wrong and everything they do is also wrong. Sir, these hon. members have quite a few things to say here which no House of full status would take the trouble to reply to, because it is a long time since I have heard so much nonsense.

The hon. member for Maitland had quite a lot to say about finances and about business methods. I shall come back to that a little later. Sir, the hon. member must not venture into that sphere because he makes a fool of himself. He would have been much better off if he had rather kept quiet, because by getting up here he has removed all doubt about that. Yesterday the hon. member for Orange Grove said the following, inter alia, about the staff—

That is what he said about the officials. I want to tell the hon. member that this Government looked after the officials. The hon. member says positively today that they stand by the officials, but that the National Party does not do so. I want to tell that hon. member that the officials stand by the National Party, the Minister and the Government as few other people do. This Government and the National Party looks after the interests of the Post Office and we see to it that things go well there.

You sit in Pretoria; you do not know what is going on.

Sir, the hon. member said that it was as a result of their policy that the Post Office was placed on a business footing. He knows that is not true; I say this to him frankly. In 1958, when Dr. Hertzog moved his policy motion in the Other Place, the United Party consistently opposed the principle. When we passed the Post Office Re-adjustment Act here in 1968, that hon. member and his party put up such a fight that we had to struggle for hours to get that Bill through. Then he says today that they supported this measure. Their attitude was such that it took hours to get anywhere.

The question is what the people at large think and say of this Budget of ours. I just want to refer this hon. member to the Cape Times of this morning, and this is most certainly not a newspaper that supports us. I just want to quote a short piece—

We do not deny that there are problems, but if the Cape Times can say that it is being tackled intelligently it most certainly behoves this unintelligent Opposition to pay some heed to that and to go and read it again. Thanks to the loyalty of the officials, the competence of the administration of the Post Office and the wise policy of this Government and our respected Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, he could submit a good Budget.

What must we weigh this Budget up against? I want to weigh it up against the Post Office Re-adjustment Act that we passed here in 1968. According to that we must take note of one thing, and that is that the affairs of the Post Office must fulfil the following conditions—

Today I want to make the statement that the interests of all these sectors, commerce, industry and agriculture are looked after in this Budget. Not one of these sectors has been adversely affected. And this Budget is similar as far as the countries abroad are concerned, and not only this one, but all the recent budgets and the entire financial policy adhered to by this Government. This is in order to make this Post Office a unique service, a service satisfying every need in South Africa and also bringing South Africa into high repute in the eyes of the world at large.

Then, secondly, as far as possible the total revenue of the Department must not exceed that which is needed for defraying the necessary expenses on capital expenditure from revenue, the repayment of loans and the payment of interest on loans, operations, maintenance, replacement, improvements and depreciation, etc. Sir, this is what is being budgeted for here, and as this Act reads—and the Opposition did not oppose it in 1968—it is necessary for one to finance the Post Office from revenue and not from loans. That is the spirit of this Act. I can also refer to section 25, and I want to tell the hon. member for Maitland that he would do well to give the matter a bit of study. Provision is, in fact, made for loans to be obtained, and it provides that such funds as are authorized by Parliament, and which may be required by the Postal Administration from time to time out of the proceeds of loans for capital expenditure, shall be obtained by requisition on the Treasury. But along comes that hon. member, who ought to know better, and makes the silly statement—I call it silly— saying that this Post Office Department should already have obtained loans from abroad in previous years.

I did not say that.

Elsewhere he said where there is capital to be found. And where was capital to be found? The capital market was actually overseas. The hon. member does not even know enough to be aware of the fact that there was a capital shortage in South Africa. Then the hon. member goes even further and says that it is a badly-run business and he now wants them to find capital. The Post Office cannot do it alone; the Minister has no jurisdiction to obtain loan capital anywhere except from the Minister of Finance, but that the hon. member does not know. Then he makes such statements that simply have no substance, and he speaks only with his eyes on the gallery. These tariffs have been increased; we acknowledge this, but now I want to know from that hon. member whether he would have wanted us to curtail certain expenditure, because we had to have revenue. Did he want the R22 million that was spent on salary increases, etc., for the staff to have been cancelled? Or did the hon. member want our capital expenditure curtailed? What does the hon. member want?

I shall reply to that in a minute.

I should like to have the reply. This hon. member is being very clever about finance this afternoon. even though he knows nothing about it. We have a Budget in which the tariffs were increased. That money is needed and we must have it in order to place this Post Office on a sound footing. The Post Office is run on business lines to an extent unparalleled elsewhere in the world. In spite of the increases in the tariffs, our tariffs are still the lowest in the world. That hon. member knows it.

[Inaudible.]

That is so. The hon. member for Parktown, who ought to understand financial matters, cannot deny this.

[Inaudible.]

No, he is talking nonsense. I shall now quote for hon. members. The hon. member has also received the same documents that we have. While I am dealing with that point I want to say that with this memorandum the hon. the Minister and his Department did a fine piece of work. Has the hon. member for Parktown not read this memorandum?

I have.

How can the hon. member say that that man is speaking the truth and that the facts in the memorandum are inaccurate?

He was speaking of the other countries.

Let us have a look at the other countries listed on page 15 of the memorandum. The list refers to postal tariffs. That is what the argument is all about. South Africa pays 4 cents for 40 grams; Australia pays 4.8 cents; Britain pays 5.16 cents; Holland pays 5 cents— these are all South African cents: Canada nays 4.28 cents and Norway pays 7.2 cents. In the case of Norway it is for 20 grams, not for 40 grams, as in South Africa. In other words, this should actually be 14 cents for 40 grams. In Sweden 7.15 cents are paid. All the countries listed on this page have higher tariffs than South Africa, except for one item relating to parcels. The second-class tariff in England for 1 000 to 5 000 grams is a cent or so less than the South African tariff. The hon. member knows that.

I want to go even further. This does not only apply to postal tariffs. We can also look at telecommunications. This Department has worked it out for us. They have made it very clear that telephones and telephone calls in South Africa are also still the cheapest when the amounts are calculated. Taking an average of 550 local and 40 trunk calls, let me quote the comparative figures from the report to the hon. member. Only Sweden’s overall account is less than that of South Africa, R11 less, therefore putting Sweden’s costs at R39. While South Africa’s overall account in this case is R50, that of the U.S.A. is R68, that of Britain R52, that of France R94, that of West Germany R63 and so on. Japan concludes the list with R77. We must remember that South Africa is almost as big as the whole of Western Europe. For example, it costs a great deal to install telecommunications systems, telephones and so on in South Africa. In Sweden one can travel around on a bicycle, but one needs an aeroplane to get from Cape Town to Johannesburg. Does that hon. member not realize that it costs more to install telephones in South Africa than it does to install them overseas?

As far as trained staff is concerned, throughout the world there is a shortage of technicians. Surely the hon. member for Parktown knows this. I would not say that the hon. member for Orange Grove knows it. He always tries to vent his spleen, but that hon. member knows it. The hon. member for Maitland ought to know it as well. With the best will in the world a man cannot be trained overnight. But this Opposition wants to push in untrained non-White labour.

Who says so? That is your story.

That is what these people said. They said that we have more labour in South Africa than we require. Hon. members said that we have more labour than we require, but we do not make use of it. That hon. member, the previous M.P.C. of Queenstown, knows it.

Postal tariffs have increased in South Africa, but there is another factor involved, i.e. costs. The costs have also increased. On page 25 of the Railway Budget that we had recently we saw that for the year 1968-’69 to 1969-’70 costs shot up from R3.2 million to R5.2 million. This is a 60.9 per cent increase. This is the additional amount the Post Office has to pay for its postal deliveries. If the tariffs are not increased, where would they obtain their funds? I could easily carry on speaking for an hour, but unfortunately I do not have the time.

I just want to say that commerce and industry support these steps, whatever hon. members opposite may say. In 1968 the Postmaster-General attended one of their meetings in Johannesburg—this was on 6th November, 1968, and at the meeting they challenged him about telephones. What took place there was reported as follows—

There was virtually a unanimous “Yes”. When the tariffs were increased in 1967, commerce and industry voiced their approval, because money would subsequently be available for the Post Office. We know that our people are prepared to pay for good service. They are prepared to pay for what they are going to get. Since this Budget is aimed at enabling the Post Office to install expensive telephone systems, this will be done. The National Party is not going to ask the Opposition what must be done to rule South Africa. This party knows the way. With this competent Minister and this competent Government we shall ensure that South Africa will not suffer, we shall see to it that South Africa progresses.

In conclusion I just want to say that every growing country in the world has a telephone shortage. Post Office systems can hardly keep pace with the economic growth. I am therefore glad that I can pay tribute to the hon. the Minister, Mr. Rive and the staff on their first budgets and on the excellent work that was done and is still going to be done.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. the Minister and his supporters continue to maintain as they have that postal services must be run purely on business lines, as laid down by the statute, then the first question I would like to ask them is why they do not apply normal business principles to the manner in which these services are administered and in the service that they give to the public. The last speaker has just said that the public is prepared to pay for good service. The hon. the Minister and the whole country know well that there are very few departments in respect of which there are so many complaints received from the public in regard to services and where there is this inordinate gap in the life of the community with regard to communications as there is in the case of the telephone service. This is something which I think should have been foreseen long ago and something where, once it has been decided to set up a business department, the Post Office should ensure that proper business principles are applied. It is all very well for the last speaker to try to drag some political red herring across the scene here by saying that this side of the House suggests that unskilled labour should be used. We do not care what sort of labour the hon. the Minister wishes to use, so long as he ensures that he has sufficient labour and seeks the necessary labour in order to make these services satisfactory. It is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister as to the type of labour he acquires. He knows himself what procedures he must follow and what steps he must take. After all, he is Minister of Labour as well and should be well aware of the necessary steps that should be taken in order to ensure that he has sufficient labour to give the service for which he wants the public to pay this inordinate sum.

But what has the hon. the Minister done? He has virtually, to use a rather sad expression, ripped the guts out of the community by taking from them R47 million in a Budget where the expenditure is only R185 million. In other words, nearly 25 per cent more is being called for from the public in order to enable the hon. the Minister to finance most of his loan account. I think that this is a very big step to take. Not only has the hon. the Minister done that: he also has a different attitude. When I raised the issue with this hon. member’s predecessor last year with regard to the appropriation of revenue funds towards capital requirements, he referred me to the Act and made it perfectly clear that the Act gives him the authority to do so and that it was on the Act alone that he relied for this purpose. In the hon. the Minister’s explanation which he has given this year in order to explain why he is taking this large amount of capital, he virtually tells the public that he is projecting his capital requirements over the period of the next ten years, and that the tariffs are being raised to ensure that for the next ten years he will have sufficient funds coming in from revenue to pay for his capital requirements. This means that the community is asked to pay now for what will take place in ten years’ time.

This is irrespective even of the other reason that he has given with regard to the fact that telecommunications are changing at a much more rapid pace than ordinary real estate and other types of heavy machinery are changing. He projects this and virtually says to the public: “You have now been committed by this Budget and these increased tariffs to an expenditure of possibly R750 million over the next ten years.” We know that capital requirements increase year by year. They have jumped, as it is, from the figure of R94 million last year to an estimated R129 million this year. This seems to be the pattern of capital requirements right throughout the various statements and estimates of expenditure put before us in Parliament. Year by year we have in the main Budget for the financial affairs of the country, a jump averaging about 20 per cent per annum. This looks as if it is even bigger. The public must not be consoled, if there is any consolation, by the fact that only R50 million is being taken this year. These figures may continue to increase. To meet this deadline of 50 per cent, the public may welt be committed to a figure of R750 million, if not more over the next ten years. That is a very nice picture indeed to present to a country which is not only caught up in a spiral of inflation, but to a country where costs have risen to such an extent that every movement of the Government has an immediate reaction on the cost of living and the daily facts of life of each and every individual in this country.

I must comment on the fact that the hon. the Minister approaches this position with quite an air of bravado. In doing so, he probably follows the principle that attack is the best means of defence. He warned us some months ago that this would happen and today he came along to give us all the good reasons as to why this should take place. He told us quite blatantly what he was doing and said that he was getting everything he could, because the law gives him that opportunity.

I should like to commend the hon. the Minister to one of his colleagues, the hon. the Minister of Transport, who has been described as probably the most capable man on the front benches on that side at the moment, particularly on matters concerning issues of this nature. The hon. the Minister of Transport loses money on his passenger services year by year. This affects the domestic public directly. This loss is met by the surpluses which are received in respect of other services. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has turned his deficit on telephone services to a surplus of nearly R4 million, an increase of nearly R15 million, in one fell swoop. Furthermore, his profit in regard to telecommunication services has jumped by R30 million. All in all, his profits have jumped from the fantastic figure of R31.4 million to R77 million, a difference of R46 million. I believe, and I commend this to the Minister, that on the bread-and-butter side of this particular department he should have given some consideration to the domestic public. I think there he has failed them, because they will bear the brunt of these higher costs. Their expenses in regard to telephone services are going to be raised by 40 per cent, their telephone rental by 33½ per cent, their air mail letters by 66 per cent and surface mail by 60 per cent. I say that this has fallen very hard on the people who need the services the most, and that is the domestic users in the country.

The next point I would like to put to the hon. the Minister is that if you are to take all this money from the public, at least some service must be rendered. I would like to quote to the hon. the Minister a very interesting story which appeared in the press the other day. This article appeared under the heading “Increased telephone charges”. A certain person said:

This was written in Johannesburg. I quote further:

which is a town near the airport in Johannesburg,

That is what is going on at the present moment. We receive constant complaints. I feel that a service of this nature should not allow complaints on such an extensive scale.

I want to point out another factor which is very important. I want to talk about the question of foreign trade which is referred to in the Act. There are many businesses, and I have had an experience of one, which are being established in this country where people find after they have hired premises that telephone services are not available. I say that if the postal services, the telephone services and other services of the Post Office Department were handled by satisfactory public relations methods, there could have been announcements from time to time indicating where there is a shortage of telephone services. I know a man who is going to establish a big textile factory in Johannesburg. He has bought premises in a certain suburb, but now he finds that he cannot get telephone services. He does not know what to do. For six months his business will be a dead loss, because his communications will have to take place in person, in other words by motor traveling, by telegram, by letter writing or by some form of communication other than communication by telephone. That man should have been advised of that. That man should have known that there is a shortage of telephones in this particular area. This shortage has now increased to 112 000, and I do not want to deal with that again because other hon. members have dealt with it. It is something which should be clearly made known to the public of the country and to people who want to come and invest money in South Africa and who wish to establish factories. I think that is a very important aspect, and it is an aspect to which some attention should be given.

I would also like to say that we should allow no question of party politics to enter this picture at all. This is a service … [Interjections.] The trouble is that the hon. the Ministers accepts every criticism as a political criticism and he does not realize that there is a great deal of merit in the criticism which is levelled here. After all, as I have said previously, business principles for business undertakings must be maintained in the proper spirit of those undertakings. If they are not undertaken in that manner then there is no question whatsoever that the hon. the Minister fails the country and that the service fail the people. There is no justification for taking these enormous sums from the pockets of the public and industry which has to pass it on to the public in any case, unless something is done which will bring to an end once and for all the difficulties and the problems which face us.

Finally I want to say that there should be very much closer communication between the department’s officials and the public. I believe there should be a much easier method of approach. People who wait for telephone services should be told from time to time exactly what the position is. They should know exactly where and when they can get their services; because I believe that that is an important factor in the development of our community. That is one matter to which I do feel that the hon. the Minister should give attention.

The hon. member for Jeppes is feeling very uneasy here this afternoon, because he does not know how to get over the irresponsible statements the hon. member for Orange Grove has made. If the hon. member for Jeppes tells me that “we should allow no party politics to creep in”, I want to ask the hon. member to tell me what happened here last night. What did the hon. member for Orange Grove say last night? He said—

That is correct.

When the hon. member tells me it is correct that—

then I want to tell the hon. member with all due respect that he is as much of a political opportunist as the hon. member for Orange Grove is, and that we will give him his just deserts. I have always accepted that the hon. member’s approach to politics was a sound one. But Í am also going to prove that this is not the case by putting certain questions to him today. He made two statements here today. Firstly, he spoke about the business concept and subsequently about the labour problem.

I want to deal in the first place with the labour concept he suggested to this House. He said—

I now want to ask the hon. member what he means by a statement like that. This department has recruited technical and skilled workers from abroad. The shortage of skilled workers is the major problem we have to cope with in the Post Office. There is an acute shortage throughout the world as far as technicians are concerned. Where does the hon. member want to get these workers from? The hon. member for Jeppes is just as liberal as the hon. member for Houghton—he wants the Post Office to go black. After all, this is what he said—

Let me state the labour pattern of our side of the House. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that the fact that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs was also the Minister of Labour, and that his ideological concepts may cause a labour shortage in the Post Office was a source of concern to him. That was said by the hon. member for Orange Grove this afternoon. But what is our policy? Our policy is to train other racial groups to serve their own people, but is by no means racial integration, which the hon. members of the United Party want. I know what the concept of the hon. member for Zululand is.

What does Arrie Paulus say?

The hon. member for Simonstown should keep his mouth shut about certain matters, because he is not man enough.

Let me make it quite clear what our labour pattern is. Our labour pattern as far as the Post Office is concerned is that Whites and non-Whites should not work together. Would the hon. the Opposition tell us whether it is their policy that telephone exchange operators should work together or not? Is the hon. member for Orange Grove prepared to see that White and non-White telephone exchange operators work together or not?

Answer!

Zip, Sir, Zip!

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I do not have the time. I have only fifteen minutes. Furthermore, we believe that they should be given the opportunity in their own areas to become technicians so that our White workers can be afforded the opportunity to supplement the manpower shortage which exists. But we can never associate ourselves with the policy of the United Party, in that they want to use labour without any restrictions whatsoever. For that reason I want to repeat this. However, the hon. member for Orange Grove will not answer; he will not say whether his party subscribes to the fact that White and non-White telephone exchange operators should work together. Zip! The allegation that the position in the Post Office in South Africa is chaotic is not true. On the contrary, I suggest that notwithstanding the acute telephone shortage which exists, a shortage which nobody has ever denied, a tremendous service has been rendered in recent years, particularly since the Post Office Re-Adjustment Act has been approved. What was the telephone shortage like when the United Party was in power? —19 per cent. As against that, the shortage was 7.03 per cent this year. There are 1 600 000 telephones today—five times as many as in 1948. The trunk call system is five times the size it was 30 years ago. In 1961 there were only 88 000 telephones as against 1 600 000 in 1971. Is that not an achievement? In 1961 there were 440 000 miles of telephone lines as against 1 200 000 miles in 1971 and as far as trunk lines are concerned, there were 771 000 miles in 1961 as against 2 000 000 miles in 1971. In addition, all the major cities and towns in the country are connected to a 2 300 mile microwave system with 60 stations. Let us have a look at the Protea telephone which is designed and manufactured in South Africa. Technically speaking, this is one of the best telephones in the world, one which is now also going to be used by other countries. Is this not an achievement?

However, the major objections came from the hon. member for Jeppes and concerned the method of financing and capital expenditure. But what do his own business people in Johannesburg say about this? In the Rand Daily Mail of 20th March the following was said: “Business happy at P.O. spending”, and the report goes on to state—

The hon. the Opposition refuses to talk about the labour aspect, but the people outside nevertheless realize what they are busy doing. As far as the question of financing is concerned, I want to point out that they speak out against alleged overspending by Government departments every time they have an opportunity to do so. What did the hon. member for Orange Grove have to say about the Budget last year? At that time he described it as a “shrimp” budget. This year again he described it as a “budget of bloodletting”. Last year he also spoke about the lack of capital spending. But the question is whether hon. members opposite want to spend capital to promote the efficiency of the Post Office. Do they want to spend capital on it?

Yes.

Splendid! What then is your objection to the method of financing today?

Because it is being done out of revenue.

Last year it was 50.1 per cent from revenue and almost 50 per cent from loans. This year it is 61.2 per cent from revenue and that is a great achievement. Let us thrash out this business aspect. After all, the hon. member for Jeppes is an intelligent member. Let us thrash this matter out. The Post Office, by virtue of the Post Office Re-adjustment Act, has been placed on a business basis. But there is, however, one difference, a difference which the hon. member for Jeppes cannot understand, because he himself is a businessman and because he has been away from this House too long. Business profits are ploughed back to supply a greater carrying capacity for telecommunication services and to bring about greater efficiency. Hon. members opposite think in terms of a profit motive. Company profits are paid out in the form of dividends. However, in this case the operating surpluses are being ploughed back to bring about greater efficiency and greater capacity. That is the position. The general public will therefore not join the United Party in the things it says. I notice that the hon. member for Parktown is exceedingly ill at ease today. He is ill at ease because the statements made by his colleagues are contrary to economic facts and concepts. As these services are being developed it will bring about greater efficiency and as such they are in the interests of the public of South Africa. Allow me to prove this statement. Let us look what the Financial Mail says in its column “Current Affairs”. In the edition of 8th January, 1971, under the heading “Escom Financing” Dr. Straszacker said the following: “Change the Act and finance yourself”. That is just what the Post Office is doing. He went on to say—

This is what Dr. Straszacker, Chairman of Escom said. But now the hon. member comes along, after the adoption of the Post Office Re-adjustment Act in 1968, after phenomenal expansion of the Post Office in 1968, although we are faced with a shortage of capital throughout the world and not only in South Africa, which in turn gives rise to higher rates of interest, and he expects the Post Office to negotiate huge loans at high interest rates. Such a procedure must be inflationary in the long run. The policy which is being followed now of financing expenditure from revenue, might cause inflation in the short term, but not in the long term. As I see it, this is a very good financial principle.

I see this Budget as a dynamic budget. It shows confidence in the future of South Africa. It envisages planning. The hon. member for Orange Grove spoke here this afternoon as though there were no planning for the future. But the hon. member would do well to do his homework. He must stop his political gossip-mongering, and he will then become a productive member. The facts are that over the next ten years the Post Office will spend R1 000 million on telecommunications. That is really planning! Over the next four years the Post Office plans to increase the number of telephones from 1.55 million to 2 million and the capacity of the telephone exchanges from I million lines to 1.45 million, to increase trunk-line service channels from 25 000 to 45 000, and the automatic telephone dialling percentage will be increased from the present 77 per cent local and 50 per cent trunk-line to 85 per cent local and trunk-line. That will be done within the next four years. That is planning! In addition, the number of telex subscribers will be increased from 5 500 to 10 000. Approximately R360 million will be needed for these capital projects. In other words, over the next ten years R1 000 million will be spent on telecommunication services alone. In view of this, I am entitled to say that the Post Office is going to meet the future with great confidence, confidence in the dynamic growth potential of the postal services and to render, out of operating surpluses, an important service to South Africa.

I think whatever the hon. member for Rustenburg says about the long-term effects of the Minister’s method of financing the postal services, there is no doubt whatsoever that the immediate short-term effect is going to be to add to the rocketing cost of living in South Africa. There is no question about it, and I agree with what the hon. member for Orange Grove said in that regard.

Before I carry on, Sir, I want to join with other hon. members who have wished the hon. the Minister well in his new portfolio, although I rather feel that condolences would be more in order because he now has two of the most difficult portfolios to manage, and. I must say that I for one do not envy him. I would also like to join other hon. members in wishing the Postmaster-General well in his new task.

Sir, other members have mentioned, and I agree, that one of the main difficulties in the country and the reason for the shortage of telecommunications generally is the handling of the staff position in South Africa. There is no doubt that the huge shortfall in telecommunications is due entirely to the inability or rather the unwillingness of the Government to use the labour resources at its disposal. While it is true that the hon. the Minister has announced—and I welcome his announcement—that there are now greater training facilities for Indian and Coloured telephone mechanics, there is no reason whatsoever why the same training should not be extended to Africans who are perfectly capable of being trained in this regard. Indeed many private businesses are using Africans on their switch boards and in their telecommunications generally and they are finding them perfectly competent. I believe the overall position is that only about 8 000 semi-skilled non-White artisans are employed in the Post Office out of a total of, I think, about 20 000 trained artisan staff. We are going to continue to have this shortfall unless we make full use of the available manpower resources. As I say, it is not only Coloureds and Indians who can be trained for these jobs, but Africans as well. They are perfectly capable of being trained.

Sir, I want to say at once that I am very pleased about some of the innovations that have been introduced. I believe in giving credit where credit is due and I wish to do so now. First of all, I believe that there has been a great improvement in the telephone service between South Africa and the rest of the world. I think there has been an enormous improvement over the last year or so and I hasten to say that I for one am very pleased about it.

Secondly, I think the sundowner service, or whatever it is called—the service between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m., the special service given to people who have been waiting for telephones—is an excellent idea. There are people who have been waiting for months and years for telephones which I certainly do not approve of, and it is an excellent idea to supplement the existing services by using lines which are not in use during those hours by businesses and other people who have rented those lines and handing them over to people who are waiting for telephones. There are very many widows and women who are living alone, who are nervous and who are delighted to have this service at night at least. I hope that this service will be extended, and I assume that some sort of priority is given to people like widows and other women living alone and also to people who produce doctors’ certificates. Those are the people who are very nervous of being left alone without telephone services, particularly at night, and I hope that the Post Office is giving priority to these people.

Sir, I do not agree with the hon. member for Orange Grove when he criticizes the half-tariff after hours, on week-end and public holidays. He says that this will not help businessmen. Sir, I do not believe that this was mainly introduced to help businessmen. But surely it was introduced to help businessmen to some extent by taking some of the load off the telephone service during the peak hours. I am very glad that this has been introduced. It is something for which I have been asking for many years B.A., even “Before Albert”. This is being used in England and in the United States with great success and there is no doubt that the fact that people can make long distance calls during certain hours at half tariff has definitely reduced the load at peak times. I am hoping that this will contribute in the future to a better telephone service generally in that one will not have this irritating wrong-number phenomenon happening as often as it happens at present. I can only assume that if the lines are no longer overloaded there will be an improvement in the service generally. I am very pleased about that.

I also want to say that I am glad that the Postmaster-General has announced that there will be greater opportunities for women in the postal service in future. I think that is an excellent idea and the idea of offering equal pay to male and female matriculants who enter the postal service, is certainly going to attract more women to the service. I do not know why the differentiation in pay still exists between women telephonists and men telephonists. They do the same work and presumably they are trained in the same way. I think this is a differentiation which is unfair and which should be ironed out.

I was glad also to see that better rates of pay are going to be introduced, according to a report, for non-Whites who enter the Postal Service, and that they could expect pay rises. I am very glad indeed to see that. There has been a promise that Coloured postal workers would in future share in the general pay rises given to White postal workers and I think that is something which should also be commended.

Then there are two criticisms I have to offer. The fir I is the standard of English at the Post Office. I must say it is getting steadily worse. The telegrams in the English language that one receives these days are wellnigh unintelligible.

You English-speaking people must go and work there.

There again it is a question of attracting people to the service, and now that men and women are going to be paid at the same rate, it may be that there will be an improvement in the number of English-speaking women who enter the postal services. But this is something that requires attention. There would be a very big uproar in this House if a telegram sent in Afrikaans were as bad grammatically and as unintelligible as telegrams sent in English!

The other thing I want to complain about are these new overseas lettercards. I do not know whose bright idea it was to remove one-third of the writing space from the overseas lettercards, and instead to put a very pretty picture, I will admit, of Table Mountain on it. There are others which have less pretty pictures of the Union Buildings. But I think the whole idea is a foolish one. Our airmail letter-card, as it was, was an excellent letter-card. It did a lot of diplomatic work for us in the outside world, and I have heard many people saying what sensible airletter cards South Africa has, because you do not have to look around to see where you have to cut them and then find them in shreds when you have opened them. I hope we will get rid of this and get back to the old system. We do not really want to send pictures of South Africa overseas; we want to be able to write letters to people overseas.

Finally, I do not know whether this hon. Minister is responsible for it or not, but the telephone booths at our airports are absolutely appalling. I do not know whether they are his responsibility or that of his colleague the hon. the Minister of Transport, but I wish he would look into this. First of all, very many of them are out of order and, secondly, they are airless and smelly little boxes. That is the only way I can describe them. I would like to ask him whether he could not get one of his officials who is going on an overseas trip to have a look at the sort of boxes that are used at London Airport, which are very attractive, open and airy, and at least have a shelf where a woman can put her handbag, and somewhere where one can sit if necessary. I would commend this to the hon. the Minister, because our airports are really the first entrance to South Africa and it would be a good idea to improve the services of the Post Office there.

Finally, I hope the hon. the Minister will do something about the provision of telephones in the non-White townships. I know that there is a tremendous shortfall here and Africans, Coloureds and Indians feel that they are being discriminated against because they have to wait for years and years before they can get a private telephone. I might say that practically all the public telephones in non-White areas particularly are unusable, through the fault of vandals, I admit. But these are needed for emergency services and then they are not available at all.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Orange Grove have quite a lot in common, except perhaps for the one big difference that the hon. member for Houghton has only these last few years now been participating in this Post Office debate, while the hon. member for Orange Grove is a person who has for many years been singing the same tune he sang this afternoon. A few days ago I was paging through the Kruithoring, just for the sake of interest. I shall tell the hon. members what I read there. In the year 1946, plus-minus 25 years ago, the hon. member for Orange Grove said inter alia (translation)—

The hon. member for Orange Grove went on to say—

These are the same words as those used by the hon. member for Orange Grove yesterday, i.e. “Miserable message from the Minister of Posts”. It is interesting to see what else the hon. member for Orange Grove had to say in this connection. He laid the following at Mr. Mushet’s door—

I do not know why the hon. member for Orange Grove was so angry with England at that stage. I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that even in 1946 he was wrong. What were the facts, even at that stage? The facts were that on 31st March, 1948, there was a shortage of 73 000 telephones in South Africa. On 31st March, 1949, there was a shortage of 92 000 and in 1950, that is the year which he mentioned as being the year in which the shortage would have been wiped out, there was a shortage of 104 000. It is quite true that the National Party was governing in 1950. We took over in 1948 from a miserable government. This Government tried everything and did everything possible to solve those problems under severely difficult circumstances. That was the bankrupt estate we took over from the United Party. This National Party threw everything into the struggle to wipe out the shortages. In 1960 there was a shortage of 15 000 and in 1961 a shortage of 13 000 telephones. I want to say to the hon. member for Orange Grove that we know there is a shortage and that there is a waiting list for telephones.

We know that the services in South Africa can be improved, but I want to tell the hon. member that this is, after all, not the first time in the history of the National Party that they have had to struggle with problems. This National Party is engaged in a day to day struggle with problems in South Africa. I want to give the hon. member the assurance here that we have in the past solved far greater problems than a mere shortage of telephones. I know that we are faced with a telecommunications problem, but it is a problem the scope of which the Government is aware. This Minister and his department are aware of the causes and the factors which gave rise to it. I want to say in all earnest here that South Africa will have to exercise patience. But we are not simply asking for patience in blind faith; we are asking for patience from our people in the knowledge that the problem will be tackled systematically.

When South Africa became a Republic, no banks closed in South Africa, and there was no recession in South Africa. Hon. members will remember the dire prognostications which were made at that time. I wonder what the hon. member for Hill-brow said in those years. As I say, no banks closed. On the contrary, South Africa has during the past few decades developed economically as never before in the history of our fatherland, as a result of the fact that we have a stable government here in South Africa. It is a stable government in which the vast majority of the inhabitants of South Africa have confidence. But more important than that, it is a stable government in which an ever-increasing number of people outside the boundaries of South Africa also have confidence. That, together with the fact that the Department of Posts was dependent upon the Treasury for its financial means, imposed tremendously great and difficult demands on this Department. Inadequate telecommunication facilities are a worldwide phenomenon. Last year in this debate I pointed out that in spite of the fact that there are shortages in South Africa, the service which is being rendered in South Africa, in comparison with that in the rest of the world, is still among the best. I proved this beyond a shadow of a doubt.

I think it would be a good thing if we could pause for a moment and glance at the future of this Department, which the hon. member for Orange Grove says is stagnant, and in which other hon. members on the opposite side say conditions are chaotic. The Department plans to spend more than R400 million within the next four or five years, just on the expansion of the capacity of our communications system. This is a matter to which top priority, should be given and is more important than making up the backlog in regard to telephones. In regard to this matter I am very grateful that the hon. the Minister emphasized very clearly in his Budget speech yesterday that in future it will be ensured that the services are given top priority and will be more important than the telephone waiting list. In this connection I can also state that the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs also said that top priority would be given to the services, but unfortunately my time is too limited. I think it is very important that we take note of this.

Hon. members on the opposite side must bear in mind that the process of making all the facilities available is an expensive and time-consuming one. This is the case throughout the world. Throughout the world and so, too, in South Africa, it takes at least 2½ years to design, to draw up specifications for, to manufacture and to install an exchange. Although the Post Office has only been operating under its own steam for two years, it is already moving away from being a frustrated and hidebound establishment. The hon. the Minister has a competent Postmaster-General in Mr. Rive, and they are already at the present moment building up a new postal service for South Africa. The Department is developing at a phenomenal rate.

Let us glance for a moment at what has happened recently in this Department. We see that the Department supplied more than 285 000 new telephone services last year. Admittedly, the waiting list has grown, for apart from cancellations there were more than 237 000 applications. During the past two years the entire telex and Gentex system has been automated. During the same period the national trunk-line network has been expanded by 30 per cent, which is indeed a brilliant and wonderful achievement. In the last year the length of our trunk-line channels was increased from 3.5 million to 4.1 million kilometres. I find these facts significant. In future one million of the 1.6 million subscribers will be able to dial one another directly, while a mere two years ago the figure was only 250 000. This in itself speak volumes for the progress made by the Department.

To keep pace with the country’s present rate of development it is estimated that it will be necessary, during the next ten years, to spend an amount of approximately R1 000 million on the expansion of telecommunication systems. In this connection I should just like, briefly, to mention a few examples. The following expansions are being planned for the next four or five years—

(b) to increase the exchange capacity, i.e. the number of lines, from I million to 1.45 million;

(c) to increase the trunk-line channels from 25 000 to 45 000;

(d) to increase the present automatic dialling system from the present 77 per cent local calls and 50 per cent trunk calls, to 85 per cent.

These capital projects will cost approximately R360 million.

So I can continue and mention one achievement after the other of the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in South Africa, but I want to let this suffice because I want to mention something else, which weighs heavily on my mind, and in regard to which I believe that we in this House as well as the whole of South Africa can learn a lesson from the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I am talking now about the diligence of this Department. As has been proved, down through the centuries, labour is the only value-creating resource at man’s disposal. After all, the Bible tells us that man shall eat his bread in the sweat of his brow. Any man, and any nation, that disregards the lessons of the Bible destroy themselves physically and mentally. It is labour which hardens us physically and purifies us spiritually. The old civilizations collapsed when the people forgot how to work and others had to work for them. They disappeared into oblivion. Now one asks oneself whether Western civilization, even we here in South Africa, are not going the same way. Have we here in South Africa become too prosperous, and are we not forgetting how to work? Have we not become too easy-going in our conduct? Is love of ease not merely a euphemism for laziness? Has our beautiful motto “Labour ennobles” not in South Africa become “Labour idle”? Mankind and a nation can rebel against poverty and hardship, but apparently are not proof against prosperity and affluence. There is only one way in which we can realize our ideals. We must believe and we must be prepared to work hard. There is no other alternative.

Now it is a great pleasure for me to know that these important facts, i.e. that we must believe and that we must be prepared to work, are being recognized by the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. Other hon. members on this side of the House referred to it, and I should like to associate myself with them. I also want to convey the highest praise and the greatest recognition to the Department’s engineers, administrative and clerical staff, the senior technical and uniformed staff, and certain telephone operators who decided to work longer hours of service in that Department for South Africa.

I wonder whether we realize what that means? It means in general a 5 per cent increase in productivity. Since there is a shortage of approximately 4.8 per cent in the industrial sector, one asks oneself whether there would not be less talk of a labour shortage if all of us in South Africa worked just a little bit harder? In the Post Office 10 000 officials declared themselves prepared to do so. Again, expressed in terms of labour, is just over 875 000 man hours per year. I say therefore let us on this occasion give the greatest possible recognition to this Department, because prominence is often given to what is petty and what is negative. In conclusion I just want to say that with this attitude, this spirit which is prevailing in our Department of Posts and Telegraphs, as we find it today, I am convinced that we can with this Department enter the future with the greatest confidence in the knowledge that the men and women associated with that Department, are inspired with one ideal, which is to render only the best services to South Africa and to its people.

Mr. Sneaker, the hon. member for Welkom, who has just resumed his seat, appears to have spent most of his time quoting from the Postmaster-General’s Report.

Mr. M. W. DE WET: I quoted from Die Kruithoring.

We have read that too. It is unfortunate that hon. members on the other side do not express their views and try to be more original about it.

It is significant that we should be discussing this important Budget this afternoon and that the hon. the Minister, who is Minister of Labour, should at the same time be Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I believe that this is very significant indeed. I have no file dating to the time when the hon. the Minister himself was employed in the postal services from which I can quote. However, I have a copy of the monthly magazine, Herald, the official journal of the Postal and Telegraph Association of South Africa, dating from the years 1935-’36, when the hon. the Minister himself was a civil servant. I notice that he wrote some very interesting letters during those years.

What concerns me most today is the labour problem. I am very pleased that I am able to discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister of Labour. It has been mentioned here this afternoon that the officials in the Post Office are satisfied with the extra three hours per week which they are now called upon to work. It has been mentioned too that they volunteered to do so. I know for a fact that not all of them volunteered to do three hours extra duty per week. In fact, I know of many civil servants who are indeed very dissatisfied because they are called upon to do the extra 3 hours work. When one works it out at 3 hours per week, it works out at 156 hours of extra duty per annum. When you work that out again, it means that they work 19½ to 20 days overtime for which they are not paid. We know that their salaries were increased on the 1st January, but this is nullified by the fact that they are being called upon to work an extra three hours per week. There is dissatisfaction especially in the Eastern Cape and in Pretoria. In fact, there is tremendous dissatisfaction amongst the civil servants of Pretoria about the fact that the civil servants who work at the Receiver of Revenue, and other departments do not do overtime whilst those in the Post Office, have to. I believe they are not called upon to do as much work as the people in the postal services. We know that the civil servants in the postal service have to deal with railway pensions which have to be paid out by the Post Office every month. We also know that they have to deal with the non-European railway pensions as well. This entails a tremendous amount of extra work. In offices, such as the Receiver of Revenue, they have their set hours and when closing time comes, the day’s work ends. This is not the case in the postal services, particularly in the festive season of Christmas and New Year.

We know there is a tremendous shortage of labour in the postal services. In this very magazine I have just mentioned namely The Herald. I would like to quote an article which deals with the recruitment of staff. There is no denying that this problem existing at present. I quote:

This is the opinion of postal officials. I quote further:

We find ourselves in the same position where we have a tremendous staff shortage. Are we back to the years of the 1932/1933 depression?

They changed the government then as well.

Yes, it cost South Africa a new government to avoid this problem.

That is wishful thinking.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development says it is wishful thinking. The tragedy is that here again, in the Post Office Budget, we have to see the Government’s ideological thinking. We see this in every portfolio, I am referring to the labour problem. I am thinking of the many thousands of Bantu people and other non-Europeans who have to suffer as a result. I think of one particular new township which this Government regards as a showpiece. I think of an area like Mdantsane which is supposed to be a showpiece. However, you find that in that particular showpiece township, where 100 000 Bantu are living today, there are no postal services. In other words, there are no postal services for over 100 000 people—absolutely nothing! Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that I am told by some Bantu that there is one public telephone, but most tell me that there are no public telephones at all.

Now I am coming to my point. When the Bantu want to make use of postal services, even to post or receive a parcel, they have to go to the cities and the towns. This does not only apply to Mdantsane in East London, which is a showpiece, but it obviously applies to other townships, too. When these people go to the post offices in the towns and cities, who has to attend to their needs and wants? They are served by White civil servants. We cannot afford the White labour to attend to thousands and thousands of Bantu. Why can this Government not accept the fact that Bantu should serve Bantu in our post offices? Why must the White people serve Bantu? This invariably causes friction. One can go to any Receiver of Revenue office, where Bantu are served by Bantu. [Interjections.] I am not surprised that the hon. member for Harrismith is making a noise here this afternoon. I know that in Harrismith, in the office of the Receiver of Revenue one finds Bantu serving Bantu. One sees Bantu paying out pensions to the Bantu old-age pensioners. Why can this not be done in the Post Offices as well? It is not a matter, as the hon. member there was trying to insinuate, that we want to fill these posts with unskilled labour. That is absolute nonsense. I would like to see, particularly in the Eastern Cape, where we have many thousands of Bantu, that these people are served by their own people, and that the pressure is relieved from the White civil servants. Here they say in their own magazine that mentally and physically they are suffering under a strain.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, my time is limited. I am sorry. I want to ask the hon. the Minister another question as regards non-Whites working in the postal services. I think of one particular man, an Indian in Durban, who happens to be a postman. This man is working on a temporary basis. He can never be engaged on a permanent basis. This particular man wants to build a house, but what guarantee does he have that he will remain in the service? He is only there on a temporary basis. It is high time that this Government considers engaging Bantu, Coloureds and Indians to serve their people on a permanent basis. Let them have a guarantee that they can purchase and build their own homes for the future.

I want to know, too whether the Minister is satisfied that everybody in the postal service is promoted on merit. I happen to know of an individual who had been in the postal services and resigned. He was out of circulation for more than two years and came back to the services. That particular person was not only accepted back into the service, but he was promoted at the same time. The merit list was disregarded. Now, I always had an idea that, when one left the services, and wanted to come back, one had to come back within twelve months; otherwise one could not be considered for the merit list. I would like to know whether the Minister is satisfied that when people are promoted and other people are overlooked, the promotions are warranted. I believe there are a lot of our civil servants who are due for promotion; but it seems unfair that people who left the services should come back into the services and be graded above those who remained in the service.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat tried to create the impression here that Post Office officials were not working overtime voluntarily. But as far as the Post Office group of my part is concerned, not one hon. member has received a single complaint from a member of the Post Office staff. As far as we are concerned, we are grateful for this sacrifice on the part of the Post Office staff. Another aspect touched upon by the hon. member is the labour position, and also that in a certain area non-Whites do not have telephone services. Does the hon. member not know that the Post Office has already begun training Coloureds, Bantu and Indians? The Coloureds are being trained here in Maitland, the Bantu probably in Umtata and the Indians in their area, precisely so as to serve their own people, in accordance with our policy that non-Whites should be served by non-Whites.

I should like to associate myself with hon. members on this side of the House, as well as on the other side of the House, and also pay tribute to the services of the late Mr. Strauss, the former Postmaster-General, as well as the late Mr. Basie van Rensburg, the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. For us it is a privilege to honour their memory. The most fitting way in which we can do this, is to follow their example of diligence and preciseness. But here we have once again seen the realities of life, the reality that nobody is indispensable. Already we are working at full steam with the new Minister. As far as he is concerned, I do not think everyone knows that he is an ex-Post Office official. That is why we have confidence in him and believe that he will be familiar with the problems of the Post Office staff and will solve them to the best of his ability. I also want to convey a word of welcome to Mr. Rive, the new Postmaster-General, and praise him for the way in which he, upon short notice, took over the sole responsibility for the Post Office after Minister Basie van Rensburg died. He has acquitted himself very well indeed of his task.

We on this side do not endorse the allegation that the Post Office officials are not working overtime voluntarily. On the contrary. We want to praise and thank them for their sacrifices. The most meritorious way in which we can do that, is to be courteous, friendly and thoughtful towards them as well. Let us from our side try to make their working conditions pleasanter for them and make an appeal to the public to be courteous and friendly towards the staff.

The hon. member for Orange Grove came along once more with his old pattern of attack—lack of planning. Then of course we had his tirade against the tariff increases. The hon. member referred to another constituency, I think it was Johannesburg North, to demonstrate the shortage of telephone services. His doing so means one of two things: Either there is no demand in his own constituency, or he does not know his constituency at all. As far as the tariff increases are concerned, we must look at the Press statement released on 7/8 December. It was stated there that tariffs were going to be increased because a major capital programme had to be financed, a programme with a view to the expansion of our tele-communication services, so that an effective service could be made available to trade and industry. Now it is being complained that there is a lack of planning in the Post Office, but as soon as there is planning, this is also criticized. There were also complaints about the increase in telephone rentals. But do hon. members know what it costs to make a telephone available to an applicant? On automatic farm lines the instrument alone costs R85.77; the cost of the box which houses the batteries, costs R248; and the average cost of supplying the service, i.e. the instrument, wiring, the exchange, and so on, amounts to R788.02 per applicant. Compared with that the rental is now R30 per year. A rental of 3.8 per cent if we compare it to the costs of installation. Surely the hon. member cannot allege that that is unfair. There were also complaints about postal rates which have been increased with the conversion from I ounce to 20 grams. This results in an area of .5 cents. I am inclined to think that most people are grateful that they are now at last rid of the half cent which was in fact a nuisance, when one wanted to buy stamps.

But there is another sphere in regard to which I want to testify to the efficiency of the Post Office, i.e. by comparing our tariffs with those of other countries. The rentals and call costs as a total is R50 in South Africa, as compared with R69 in the U.S.A., R77 in Japan, R94 in France and R63 in West Germany. The waiting list for telephones in South Africa is not out of proportion when we take into account how long the Post Office has existed here in comparison with those of other countries. In Britain there is a waiting list of 108 000, and in the United States, where there is a private service and people would consequently expect the service to be efficient, there is a shortage of 46 000, in France a shortage of 319 000, in the Netherlands 120 000 and in Western Germany 331 000. No, Mr. Speaker, our Post Office is efficient, and we are grateful for that.

There are a few matters I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. A few years ago a concession was made to social pensioners so that they need pay only R1 for a radio licence, instead of the normal R5.50. What I now want to advocate is that the Minister should also reduce the telephone rentals of pensioners. The concession made in regard to radio licences, was made because it was realized that these people should not be left alone and become bored. But they also want to communicate, and therefore I want to as the hon. the Minister to reduce the normal rental from R24 to R12. In view of the fact that there are approximately 150 000 social pensioners and this is reduced to only those persons who are not in old-age homes or are being cared for by their children, such a concession will entail a loss of approximately R420 000 for the Post Office. When one takes this as a percentage it is only .93 per cent of the expected total revenue from rentals. When one takes this as a percentage of the additional amount which the tariff increases will produce, then it is something like 3 per cent. Sir, this is then the first suggestion I should like to make to the Minister.

In the second place I want to ask him, although it may perhaps sound ridiculous, to give consideration, too, to the question of making a concession to social pensioners as far as stamps are concerned. If one accepts that all 115 000 aged pensioners write four letters per month-—one letter per week—this will amount to a total of approximately R300 000. If that concession can be made that social pensioners can buy stamps for 2 cents instead of 4, then it will mean a loss of approximately R150 000 for the Post Office. When one reduces this to the total revenue, then it is only .22 per cent. If one takes it as a percentage of the expected additional revenue from tariff increases, then it is only 1.6 per cent. When one adds these two together, telephone rentals and stamps, then it will mean a loss of .18 per cent for the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. I do not want to advocate this Department becoming a welfare organization, but if one gives the benefit of this inconsiderable loss of .18 per cent to the pensioners, then it means for them a saving of approximately R1.10 per month. I do not think that any one of us begrudges the social pensioners the best possible treatment.

Sir, I should like to make this suggestion to the hon. the Minister, and we thank him for the way in which he is administering this department. We are certain that he will continue to make this department the model Post Office Department in the world.

Sir, the two suggestions made by the hon. member for Bethlehem to the Minister, are interesting. It is interesting that these suggestions were put forward at this very stage whilst there were hon. members on the other side, such as the hon. member for Sunnyside, who said that this Budget did not offend any sector in South Africa. It is interesting that the hon. gentlemen now asks that concessions be made to social pensioners, that their telephone rentals, for instance, be reduced from R24 to R12 and that also as far as postage stamps are concerned, they be granted a 50 per cent reduction. I say it is interesting that the hon. member has asked for these things. Why? It is because he realizes what the effect of this Budget is on the people outside. He realizes that in essence this Budget is not deflationary but in fact inflationary; he realizes that this is a Budget which will cause a considerable increase in the cost of living in South Africa and, consequently, will also lower considerably the standard of living of people such as our aged and our social pensioners instead of alleviating their lot; that is why the hon. member has asked for these concessions.

Sir, those hon. members opposite who have taken part in this debate up to now, have said that we appreciate that the Post Office has to finance itself, that it has to undertake new expansions, that it has to launch new capital programmes. More services are being asked for all the time, and the Post Office will undoubtedly have to incur increased expenditure, but what causes us concern on this side of the House is that all of a sudden such fantastic increases are being introduced here, increases which will not only be detrimental to the aged and the pensioners, but will also have an adverse effect on most sectors of our South African economy. In his enthusiasm for this Budget, the hon. member for Rustenburg told us that it was a dynamic Budget since such a large part of the Post Office’s loan capital would be financed out of normal revenue. The hon. member went on to say that the Budget was not inflationary. Sir, I am prepared to accept the opinion of any authority on this matter, but, really, I am not prepared to accept the hon. member for Rustenburg as an expert in this sphere. He himself knows that it was only his enthusiasm for this Government which induced him to make that statement, for what are the facts of the matter? The hon. the Minister’s Budget would definitely not have been inflationary, in spite of the fact that he is financing his loan account out of his Revenue Account, if there had not been such a substantial increase in tariffs. If that had not been the case, it would to a large extent have been deflationary. What do the Chamber of Industries and the Chamber of Commerce have to say? After all, these people are the experts as far as this matter is concerned, and not the hon. member for Rustenburg. Sir, let me quote to the hon. member what these people are saying—

This is according to the Rand Daily Mail of 9th December, 1970—-

Then they mention one firm as an example, and I am now going to quote what they say—

Then they go on to refer to the trunk calls, etc. The hon. member says that the Budget will not be inflationary. Sir, if there is an increase in the costs of a businessman or an industrialist, where is he to recover those costs? He recovers them from the consumer. He simply has one alternative, and that is to add these extra costs to the price of the product he produces.

What about the after-hours concession?

The hon. member asks, “What about the after-hours concession?” I am pleased that he has reminded me of it. I want to read out to him what was said by Mr. Bischoff. Mr. Bischoff is not a responsible member of the Chamber of Industries; no, he is a responsible member of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, and listen to what he has to say—

“Little benefit”; that is quite correct. Sir, if that hon. member were the head of a business and he received this concession to make his trunk calls after 5 p.m., who would he ask to sit there and to make those calls? Would his employees do so without being paid for it? If their normal working hours are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., these firms will suffer losses because they will have to pay overtime to their employees. The hon. member says that the Budget is in actual fact not inflationary. What did Mr. Bischoff go on to say? He said—

But this shining light from Rustenburg on economic matters is telling us that this Budget will not be of an inflationary nature. These are the facts of the matter. The Government expects all of us to work harder and to spend less. In actual fact, all of us must try to make ends meet. The people of South Africa have to be satisfied with the salaries and wages they receive. This is the advice the Government is giving the people: Produce more. But is it correct that a Government Department, even if it is a service organization, may, when it has to render services, simply approach John Citizen, the taxpayer, and say that as those services have to be provided, it expects the taxpayer to pay up more money; and where he finds that money, is no concern of theirs? In that case, surely it is the easiest thing in the world to finance any business or service by these means. But the Government is apparently not concerned about what the effect of this step is outside.

How do you want to obtain the money?

The hon. member has been told time and again, also right at the beginning by the hon. member for Orange Grove when he said that there was no need for the Government to transfer such a large share of its revenue to the Capital Account and that it had to defray a larger share of its Capital Account by way of loans in order that it would not be necessary to increase the tariffs to such an extent.

One would then be encouraging inflation.

The hon. member says that we would then be encouraging inflation, but if one also provided more and better services, surely the revenue of the Post Office could also increase and in that way it could also keep its cost structure lower.

But I want to come back to this explanatory memorandum published by the Minister. Sir, never in my born days have I seen a piece of propaganda of this nature, for apparently the hon. the Minister did not expect his side of the House to be capable of justifying this Budget. For that reason all the arguments which they could use in this debate, had to be put on record for them. But I want to refer the hon. the Minister to a few things in this White Paper.

In the first place, I want to object on behalf of the agricultural community, which I know, to the abolition of the agricultural parcel post service. I want to tell the Minister that times are no longer the way they were in 1908, when people availed themselves of the agricultural parcel post service, when the mail coaches, as is also stated in this White Paper, were empty on their return journeys and they definitely had to be given something to convey. Those times are undoubtedly past, but under the circumstances I think that there is no justification for abolishing the agricultural parcel post service entirely, and I shall tell you why, Sir. We have at present thousands of our young boys who are receiving their military training. Every day parcels containing biltong, rusks, home-made sausage, etc., are being sent to those boys, and why should this agricultural parcel post service now be abolished entirely? Sir, I may decide to send you one or two pounds of biltong after the next hunting season, but now that this tariff is going to be abolished, I am afraid that you will have to do without it. But just listen now to the reasons given in this White Paper for its having to be abolished now. It starts by dealing with the position in 1968, when the concessions in this regard were reduced, and then it says the following—

That is all very well, but when one still has such a disposition in South Africa, i.e. that, according to the good old country custom, people are still sending one another some of grandmother’s rusks, etc., it is sad that it has to be abolished now. If one receives visitors from abroad today and one gives them some of these home-made jams and delicacies which are peculiar to the South African people, they are immediately astonished and say that this is one of the few places left in the world where things are being done in this way. But here this service is now being abolished, simply because “since then the service has largely been used for the transmission of homemade delicacies between relatives and friends”. [Interjections.] The hon. member can see from the report of the Post Office what the revenue was from that service. This proves only one thing to me, namely that we are getting rid of our good traditions in South Africa, that we no longer want to retain these things but that now we even want to place a premium on what is so peculiar to South Africa.

That is not the only thing I want to complain about; I also want to complain about the fact that our farm telephone rentals in South Africa are being increased from R23 to R30 per year. I just want to say that the farmers of South Africa, the inhabitants of the rural areas, are deriving no benefit as a result of these concessions which are being made, because they are as a rule still making telephone calls by means of manual exchanges, and in this respect the telephone rentals are being increased by 33½ per cent. I believe that under these circumstances the farmer of South Africa cannot afford any increase owing to the situation amongst our agricultural population. All these things, irrespective of how small or trifling they may be, make it more and more difficult for the farmer of South Africa to do his work properly, to produce and also to maintain a good standard of living.

The thin plea made by the hon. member for Newton Park in regard to home-made rusks, merely shows up the paucity of their arguments in regard to this matter. In spite of quotations read out by the hon. member of what had been said by businessmen, I could read out to him some more quotations, if I had had the time, dealing with leading businessmen from various sectors who are very grateful, and have accepted these increased tariffs with a great deal of gratitude, because they know that these increases will result in their being provided with better services and their productivity being increased. Therefore, commerce and industry have accepted these high tariffs without any doubt.

The hon. member refers to the White Paper as a piece of propaganda for the National Party. I think this is blatant ingratitude. This White Paper is a fine and comprehensive document, very neatly set out, from which they can obtain full particulars, but this is now being held against the department because the slanderous stories they have been spreading in the dark, cannot stand up to scrutiny in bright daylight and are now being refuted in this White Paper. I should like to convey my hearty congratulations to the hon. the Minister on a splendid maiden Budget speech. Unlike the hon. member for Orange Grove, who described it as a “miserable document”, the Cape Times said this morning—

For, the report goes on to say—

In the light of these favourable comments made rather reluctantly by the Cape Times, in the light of comments made by prominent, responsible leaders in commerce and industry, in the light of the dynamic development programme announced in this Budget and in the light of the phenomenal expansion programme which has been taking place over the past number of years, the tirade delivered by the hon. member for Orange Grove and his companions against this Budget, really seems ridiculous to me. One feels like joining Langenhoven in asking, “Who points out one little hole in a sieve and scoffs at it?” One appreciates the fact that it is the hon. member’s task to criticize. He really has an unenviable task to try to criticize this excellent Budget. For that reason one should have some sympathy with the hon. member, but, if one concedes that, he should at least remember, too, that criticism should always be well-founded and responsible; otherwise it loses its value. Without indulging in overemphasis, as this hon. member is very fond of doing, I should like to make a statement here today, namely that it is a very great pity for the Post Office and for South Africa—indeed, that it is a tragedy —that a person such as the hon. member for Orange Grove should be the main speaker on the Opposition side in this important debate. It really is a pity that his slanted and irresponsible statements, of which one could quote several here, should be sent out into the world. To illustrate how he and his companions are trying to present a slanted picture of this matter, I want to mention here a few basic facts which they totally wrested from their context or completely overlooked.

In the first place, it would after all have been the popular thing to do, the easy thing to do, for a new Minister and a new Postmaster-General not to introduce increases straight away. They could easily have played a popular role by allowing matters to follow their own course, but that is not the way in which the National Party acts. When the National Party lays down policy and has to take action, it places one principle foremost, namely South Africa first. What counts, is not personal popularity, but the principle of South Africa first. In the light of its policy of “Let things develop”, the United Party would probably have allowed things to drag along. But here we have two dynamic men who came forward with a dynamic Budget and tackled the problems which had to be tackled in the interests of South Africa, whether or not it was to their advantage.

The second fact they overlooked, is that the present postal tariffs have been in force for 11 years. Where on earth can one buy the same value and the same service for the same money that was paid for them 11 years ago? It is, therefore, an unprecedented achievement for the Post Office that for 11 years it could maintain postal tariffs at the same level. This in itself is already proof of the fact that increases had to be introduced.

A third fact—and this these poor people cannot understand—is that since 1968 the Pot Office has had to be controlled and managed as a business institution and as such has therefore had either to show profits or to collapse and go bankrupt. The fact that this year there was a deficit of more than R11 million on postal services alone, proved that the tariffs could not remain as they were. That is why it is essential that these expansions take place. Hon. members did not take any notice of these factors.

A fourth basic fact is that the increased tariffs, in spite of the extensiveness of our fatherland and in spite of the difficult problems with which our Post Office has to cope, are not disproportionate at all. In fact, it has been pointed out here by various hon. members that these tariffs are still more reasonable than is the case in virtually every modern civilized country in the world.

A fifth basic principle is that an effective telecommunication service is an indispensable requisite for the development and progress of any country. It requires highly trained manpower who are paid well. It requires capital and the purchase of tremendously expensive equipment, which is capital-intensive. Virtually all over the world today loan capital is unobtainable. Therefore, if one wants to expand, where is one to obtain the money from other than by utilizing working profits for capital investments? When hon. members opposite say that they are opposed to the principle of utilizing working profits for capital investments, they are in actual fact saying to the country that they want to hold back its progress; then they are saying to the country that under their régime they would be too scared of doing the right thing and that the country’s progress in this regard would then be held back. It is an irrefutable fact that an effective telecommunication system implies progress in every sphere and will, therefore, also imply increased productivity to the private sector in particular. It is for that reason that responsible business leaders have accepted this Budget with gratitude. Hon. members also waxed lyrically here today, an old story, about the labour shortage and the need for making use of non-White labour on a large scale in order that the backlog may be wiped out and inflation may be combated. Of course, this story is a figment of the United Party’s imagination, for the manpower shortage that exists in the Post Office, is not a shortage of unskilled people. The manpower shortage that exists there, is a shortage of highly trained technicians and engineers, whose training takes years. Throughout the civilized world there is a shortage of these people owing to the tremendous development in technology. Every nation only has at its disposal a certain percentage of people who have the aptitude for being trained in this sphere. Therefore, it is a totally rash statement to say here that large numbers of non-Whites should be employed in order to solve these problems. Large numbers of non-Whites cannot replace the skilled labour which is needed. Nevertheless, I want to say that the hon. the Minister and his department should be congratulated on their policy of employing non-Whites in terms of our policy of separate development. Coloureds and Indians are being trained, and in due course Bantu will also be trained, as artisans and mechanics to install telephones and to enable them to provide their own people with services in their own areas. Coloureds are being trained in Cape Town and Indians in Durban, and plans are being devised for training Bantu in Umtata. This is far-sighted planning, for the time will come when large numbers of non-Whites will also claim telephones as a result of the rise in their standard of living, and when they will make high demands on our White manpower. By that time these trained non-Whites will be able to provide their own people with those services. I do therefore want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on their efforts in this connection. The National Party has a definite policy in regard to the employment of non-Whites. This is not going to take place on an integrationist basis, as is advocated by the United Party. We are not hiding behind the trade unions, as the hon. member for Maitland does. When we asked him a pointed question in this regard, he said that his party would do nothing which the trade unions did not approve of. However, the National Party states its policy and the principles in terms of which non-Whites will be employed. There will be no mixed living conditions and working conditions. That is the first principle. The second principle is that Whites will never be placed in positions subordinate to that of a non-White supervisor. The third principle is that White workers will never be replaced by non-Whites. The fourth principle is that non-Whites will serve in their own residential areas in their own homelands and in that way lighten the burden of the White worker.

In the annual report it is mentioned that an increasing number of White women will be engaged on mail-delivery duties. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on his intention to engage more White women on mail-delivery duties. In Port Elizabeth we have a large number of White women who are doing this work. My impression is that they are doing it neatly, that they are doing it conscientiously and that the authorities are satisfied with their work. This affords many White women, and especially those who have to fend for themselves, the opportunity to earn a very good income without being absent from their homes all day. In the light of our manpower shortage it seems to me as though this is a matter which we may develop further.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136.

Mr. Speaker, in the first place, I want to express my thanks to the various hon. members on both sides of the House who congratulated me on my assumption of these duties, and I want to give them the assurance that their good wishes will certainly strengthen me in carrying out a task which to my mind is not only important, but also sentimental. To me, as an ex-clerk in the Post Office, it certainly is a privilege to be able to assist in taking care of this important pillar of our national economy. For that reason I am appreciative of the support I have been receiving from hon. members on this side of the House who spoke about Post Office affairs and who have been backing me up in such a most loyal manner. They are the people whose contributions today have also been indicative of a knowledgeable approach to this matter. I want to give them the assurance that this loyal support which they are giving me, will also mean a great deal to me in this task.

To The United Party I want to say that I was struck by a string of complaints which I actually found to be pathetic. They even laid the charge against me that my department and I had furnished too much information. From the hon. member for Newton Park I actually had to hear the reproach that through this White Paper we were furnishing too much information. He even described it as propagandist. I want to tell that hon. member and also other hon. members in the House that, as long as I am spared to hold this office, I shall continue to furnish detailed information, not only to hon. members on this side of the House, but also to hon. members on that side of the House, and, therefore, also to inform the public on what is happening in the Post Office and to the Post Office. It is correct that things should be done this way. The Post Office belongs to the public of South Africa. I think the public is fully entitled to know what is happening to its Post Office. Therefore I am not apologizing for the publication of this White Paper. On the contrary, in the future hon. members will obtain even more information in regard to the Post Office.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred here to the “gloomy picture” I had painted. The “gloom” probably refers to my honest statements. I want to tell that hon. member that just as I shall continue to inform hon. members fully, I shall continue at all times to inform hon. members in regard to the Post Office in an honest manner. If at times this appears to be “gloomy” to those hon. members, it is a great pity, but that will not relieve me of the right and, I think, the duty to furnish hon. members, and therefore the public as well, with all the facts. The hon. member for Orange Grove, who is the main critic, started his criticism with quite a number of generalizations and with a great deal of wild talking. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Welkom, this wild talking is no different from what it was in the days of Die Kruithoring. The terminology has remained the same. One would at least have expected his crossing over to the other side to have brought about some change, but it seems to me that this is also a case of the leopard not being able to change his spots. For instance, in his language the hon. member argued that “they failed to improve the telephone services”. In my introductory speech I openly admitted the problems with which we have to contend. I admitted that there was a backlog and that I had no illusions in that regard. However, the facts of the case are that over the past two to three years an amazing amount of work has been done in an attempt to make up the backlog. If one considers that during the year ending 31st March, 1971, 85 000 telephones will have been installed, and if one considers that it is being envisaged to install 100 000 new telephones in the coming year, surely no reasonable person can tell one that one has failed to improve the service. I must concede that this is not the ideal state of affairs, and I must also be frank in admitting that this will still take years. I am not the only person to say this, but in a moment I shall quote to the hon. members what was said by my predecessor. To suggest now that we failed in our efforts to improve the service, does not tally with the facts and with reality. If one considers that over the past two years there has been a 30 per cent increase in the number of subscribers who can dial one another direct, then surely it is an astonishing achievement, astonishing progress, of which all of us can be proud. If I think of the visit we paid to the International Telephone Exchange the day before yesterday —and I asked that hon. member as chairman of their postal group and Mr. Rail as chairman of the postal group of this side of the House to accompany me—one has to admit that the development has been amazing.

Good work is being done.

Yes, it is amazing that those chief superintendents—for whom one has, along with the staff, the highest esteem—merely have to press three buttons in order to put one through directly to London. The next moment she can press three buttons and then one can, as my hon. friend did, speak to Frankfurt. It is virtually a question of a second before one can speak to Frankfurt. When those calls had been put through, both he and I were obliged to say, “We are testing the line,” for at that moment we had nothing else to say to London and to Frankfurt. Surely, this is an amazing achievement. After all. to disparage this by saying that we failed to improve the services, is neither correct nor fair towards the people who have been performing a prestige service in that regard.

Reference was made to the turnover in staff. The hon. member for East London North took it upon himself to prove how unhappy the people were because they had to work these extra hours. In the first place, some of the sums made by the United Party are wrong. They did not offer to work three hours, but two hours. Besides, they are doing it voluntarily and not one person is being forced to do it. In other words, it is a voluntary service which is being rendered here. The staff associations were consulted in this regard and their mouthpieces commented favourably on this matter. The staff as such has probably seldom been as satisfied with the labour situation as it is at the moment. For that reason I want to express again on this occasion my appreciation for what Mr. Louis Rive and his top executive have done to inspire the staff as a whole to render this voluntary service. Surely if they themselves pull their weight, the other people will do so too. As these people are prepared to put in a hard day’s work, it is possible for them to inspire their people under them to do the same.

Attempts were made to point out the alleged difference between me and my predecessor in regard to the provision of the telecommunication capacity. In this regard I think it is necessary for me, even if it were only for the sake of the record, to refer to one or two statements made by my predecessor in regard to the question of the provision of telephones, or rather the question of the waiting list. Of course, the waiting list also has a bearing on the capacity. I am only going to quote two of his statements. On 19th March, 1969, my predecessor said the following in this House (Hansard, column 289CT)—

To my predecessor the development of the capacity of the telephone network was a basic matter. Consequently I referred in my introductory speech to the fact that, whereas before Mr. Van Rensburg’s time the attitude was adopted that it was better to provide a 100 people with a service, the value of which was only 70 per cent, my predecessor adopted the sensible attitude, which I am following, of rather supplying telephones to 70 per cent of the applicants, whom one may possibly provide with a 100 per cent service. That is the difference. That is the attitude which my department and I also want to adopt. It is a pity that this will inevitably have the effect that there will be a waiting list and that it will grow, but we do at least not want to have complaints of the kind I once again had to hear here today from a few Opposition members, who told us how many times they dialled without getting any reply. That is because the capacity is overloaded. If the capacity is overloaded, one finds dissatisfaction amongst one’s people. It is no good providing every person with a telephone installed in his home and then expecting everybody to be in the clouds and to be satisfied. If such a person picks up that instrument and it does not want to work, he will be just as dissatisfied as the U.P. members are, because he pays for that service.

I want to quote just one other reference made by my predecessor concerning the value he attached to the question of capacity as against the provision of as many telephones as possible. On 10th August, 1970, my predecessor said the following here, according to Hansard, column 1440—

That was the situation he took over. Then he referred to his attitude and standpoint, which are also mine. He said—

To my mind that is the sensible attitude, an attitude which I fully endorse and with which I should like to continue.

Now I want to refer to a few of the other members who took part in this debate. Amongst other things, the hon. member for Harrismith made a few suggestions here in regard to the Afrikaans name for the “sundowner” service. He proposed, inter alia, that it may be called the “opsitdiens” or the “wakkerblydiens” in Afrikaans. The hon. member for Sunnyside, who could not find enough time in his speech that was cut short, mentioned the name “na-uurse hulpdiens” to me. I want to say that I find all of these to be interesting proposals, but hon. members know how it is with a name such as this. It must at least gain acceptance with the public. I hope that the mention of these names may result in one of them gaining acceptance and in due course becoming acceptable to us so that we may then use it in this regard.

Various hon. members on both sides of the House referred to the question of capital provision, and in this regard the hon. members for Harrismith and Sunny-side duly pointed out that it was sound policy for capital expenditure to be defrayed to a large extent from working profits. In this very White Paper, and in my Budget Speech, the position in Britain and other countries was set out. But, on the other hand, we now find this plea made by the hon. member for Newton Park, i.e. that we should negotiate more loans rather than increase the tariffs to this extent. This sounds quite popular and I assume that it will earn the hon. member a certain measure of popularity. But unfortunately we have to administer this country and the Post Office, and we cannot do so exclusively according to norms of popularity; we have to administer the country and the Post Office in the interests of South Africa, in the interests of the public. May I just say in passing that according to law we must obtain these loans from the Treasury, and not from other bodies or persons. The position is not, as was said by one of the Opposition members, that we may simply borrow money left, right and centre, that if we had enough prestige, we could borrow more money elsewhere. In terms of the Post Office Act that is simply not permissible. We must obtain our loans from the Treasury, and if we have to obtain them there, we must after all pay interest, too. After all, if we have to pay more and more interest every year on that growing loan capital, it must be recovered from one’s working revenue. In other words, sooner or later one has to impose a tariff increase on the public. As against that our object with this tariff increase is that there should be no need for it to be repeated tomorrow or the day after. These tariff increases were introduced in the hope that for at least five years we shall be able to do without further tariff increases; that is our objective. We think that these tariff increases are such that they will enable the Post Office to carry out its expansions without its having to introduce another tariff increase during the next five years.

†The hon. member for Houghton referred to the use of English in the Post Office. In this case I can only say that it is our policy to use both languages alternately on a 50-50 basis. With a view to improving the standard of English we have appointed a language adviser in the person of Dr. Du Plooy. But at the same time I think it will help if people like the hon. member for Houghton and other English-speaking members on the other side will appeal to English-speaking youngsters in the country to join the Post Office. I think that will help a great deal to improve the standard of English in the Post Office. I do not think it is reasonable to put the entire responsibility on the shoulders of the Afrikaans-speaking section. English is only our second language and I do not think it is reasonable to expect Afrikaans-speaking people to be able to speak English like gentlemen from Oxford. If English-speaking youngsters came forward in greater numbers to join the Public Service and the Post Office, they would be making a very practical contribution towards improving the standard of English in these services.

The hon. member also referred to the question of letter-cards. I have made inquiries in this connection. There is a beautiful photo printed on it but I take it that people would prefer to have a little more writing space. I am advised by the Postmaster-General that from the beginning of July a new form of letter-card will be introduced which will comply with the international requirements of the Postal Union. The hon. member will then perhaps have an extra square inch or two to write on.

The hon. member also referred to telephone booths at the airports. I am fully in agreement with her. I do not think they are up to South African standards even. I admit that they are sometimes disgustingly dirty. Of course, you have the problem of vandalism and unfortunately we do not have enough inspectors to check these booths.

What about the design?

As far as the design is concerned, I can assure the hon. member that we are considering an improved booth at the moment, and I hope that by the next Budget we will be able to get a “dank-die-Minister” speech from the hon. member in this regard.

The hon. member also referred to women in old-age homes …

No, women living alone.

… or rather to women living alone. They do receive preferential treatment. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for East London North made a plea here for non-Whites— Bantu by name—to be employed by us. Any hon. member who wants to take part in Post Office debates should, at least, also read the replies to questions put by members on his own side, for on 10th February the hon. member for Orange Grove put a lengthy question to me in regard to this matter. He wanted to know how many Coloureds, how many Indians and how many Bantu were in the employ of the Post Office, and how many of them held positions higher than that of a postman. From the reply I gave the hon. member for Orange Grove at that stage, I just want to repeat the following two facts: As regards the Bantu, the reply I gave at the time was that there were 12 957 in the service of the Post Office, and of them 254 held positions higher than that of a postman. The next question of the hon. member for Orange Grove was what their ranks were, and the ranks were given as those of postmaster, Grade III and IV, superintendent, clerk, radio licence inspector, supervisor, senior postman and senior telephonist. From this information hon. members can deduce that not only Coloureds and Indians, but also Bantu are in fact being employed for the purpose of serving their own people. Over and above that it is the policy that in future Bantu will also be trained as telephone mechanics. I referred to that in the Additional Appropriation, and I do not consider it necessary to go into that matter again. We are not only training Coloureds and Indians, but in the future Bantu will be trained at Umtata and perhaps at other places as telephone mechanics in order that they may serve their own people in their own areas.

†The hon. member for East London North also spoke about the question of promotion on merit. This is, of course, one of the oldest and most elaborate promotion systems in the whole Public Service. It also applies in the Post Office. I can only give the hon. member the assurance that all promotions are made strictly on merit ratings.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem pleaded for cheaper telephone rentals for social pensioners, as well as for cheaper postage stamps. This is also a matter to which one is very sympathetic, but I am afraid that it will be very difficult to carry it into effect, if one thinks of cheaper postage stamps. That is completely beyond my grasp. To make rentals cheaper, would create a precedent for us which will unfortunately not remain confined to social pensioners only. One will also find other cases which will certainly be near to one’s heart, and that will definitely complicate our problem in this regard.

Now I want to conclude by saying that whereas I am actually replying here to my first Post Office debate, I am looking forward to performing this new task in the service of the Post Office, in respect of which I am going to receive both support and criticism. Let the criticism be levelled at all times. We welcome it. I am only too pleased that in performing this task, I have the support of loyal officials and a first-rate top executive, who are prepared to take on the challenge of the development of this decade. I also believe that this increased capital expenditure which is to be found in this Budget, will in fact result in our being able to provide the public of South Africa with a better service. I pledge myself to the realization of this ideal of providing the public with a better service.

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

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—85: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, G. F.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C.; Brandt, J. W.; Campher, J. H.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, S. F·.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Engelbrecht, J. J.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Heunis, J. C.; Hoon, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Jurgens. J. C.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Kruger, J. T.; Langley, T.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; McLachlan, R.; Meyer, P. H.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D. J. L.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar, L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Potgieter, J. E.; Potgieter, S. P.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. J.; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Smit, H. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; Van Breda, A.; Van del Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, P. S.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Staden, J. W.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, M.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg, H. J. van Wyk and M. J. de la R. Venter.

Noes—39: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hopewell, A.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. J.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, M. L.; Moolman, J. H.; Murray, L. G.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens, J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Motion accordingly agreed to and Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Schedule 1: Revenue Services, and Schedule 2: Capital Services:

I believe that when the history of the last days of the National Party comes to be written, a whole chapter will have to be devoted to indicating to what extent they took refuge behind the excuse of world-wide tendency and phenomena. When we talk about inflation we are always told that this is a world-wide tendency. When we talk about the manpower shortage we are told that this, too, is a world-wide phenomenon. If we look at the memorandum and talk about the shortage of facilities, this excuse is once again tendered, because here it is indicated: “The shortage of adequate telecommunication means is a world-wide phenomenon”. Sir. I think it is time we asked whether it is really true that this is a world-wide phenomenon.

I want to ask why it is possible, for example, for a country like Britain at this stage to launch an advertising campaign to encourage people to make greater use of telephone services, if it is supposedly such a world-wide phenomenon that they do not have the necessary telecommunication facilities. I just want to quote from an article here—

Let us proceed. If the problem in our country is, as it is claimed to be, a world-wide phenomenon, why is it possible that a person in England still receives the following services? I want to mention a few of them—

Then the article continues to mention the kind of services which are being offered there—

The reason why they cannot do this here is because they cannot recommend to people a place where ingredients can be bought at reasonable prices. Then the article continues—

Then they mention still another service, namely—

In South Africa I have only heard of people who very much wanted to buy shares on the Stock Exchange and who were unable to get through to their brokers because they dialled the wrong number. Then there are other services like—

If there are certain members who feel that I should not only use Britain as an example and that I should not quote solely from an English publication, let us look at another country, New Zealand. In Dag-breek en Landstem there was a case where a comparison was made for us. The Kiwis say our telephone service is shocking. I am quoting from Dagbreek en Landstem (translation)—-

South Africa’s domestic telephone service is shocking. This is what the 10 New Zealand Pressmen, who have for almost three months been touring South Africa with the All Blacks, said about our country and its people.

For example, one was asked:

He then asked. “What telephone services?” The other to whom a question was put said that our telephone service was so poor that he preferred to make use of telegrams. Of course, he did so before 1st April, because after the last 1st April it would have cost too much even to use telegrams.

I want to proceed and mention another matter here. The hon. the Minister is no longer responsible for the South African Broadcasting Corporation. What does fall under the Post Office staff is the issuing and examining of radio licences. Here I just want to point out to hon. members that, in reply to a question which I put, I was informed that there are approximately 116 radio licence inspectors in South Africa. According to the reply I received, each of them can make an annual 15 000 visits, which costs the country approximately R425 000. Now I wonder whether the time has not arrived for us to devise a more efficient way of checking up on radio licences. I think that particularly if we consider that the Post Office has been placed on a business basis it is unproductive to send people round if they have only one chance in a few hundred or thousand of finding people who have not paid. In the street where I live, this check-up also took place. In this connection I must plead guilty because I was one of the persons whom these inspectors found difficult to find at home. When he did find me at home, it was difficult for me to find out precisely where my licence was, whether it was still in the Cape or in Durban. The fact remains that this system is unproductive. When mention is therefore made of further planning, I wonder whether there cannot be assistance in accordance with which there will still be inspectors but that they will only be sent to areas where there is a strong possibility that people do not have licences. Such areas can be indicated administratively by the various offices. I also think that for such an administrative system it must be absolutely necessary that the number of the radio is given on the licence. I say this in view of the fact that one of the best-paying businesses in South Africa today is the theft of radios, particularly motor car radios. Last year there were 7 133 cases of car radio theft which could not be solved; at a cost of approximately R1O0 a piece, this adds up to a total of more than R700 000. One of the problems—and people cannot blame the Police for this—is that when a person finds his missing radio, he finds it difficult to prove to the Police that it is in fact his radio. This happens because he does not possess an official document containing his name and the number of his radio. It is a fact that all radios today look more or less the same. A person describes his radio now, and when he is confronted with a few others of the same make he cannot pick out his own radio.

I just want to say that we should be grateful to the hon. the Minister to a certain extent for his admission that these increases will give rise to an inflationary tendency. He did in fact say that this would only be a short-term tendency, but I think it is very important that we remember the date 23rd March. I think this is the date on which we heard a Minister admitting for the first time that what he was doing, in increasing tariffs, could lead to some or other form of inflation. Up to now we have had the hon. the Minister of Finance who introduced sales duty and other increases. So, too, the hon. the Minister of Transport with increased Railway tariffs. Both of them have kept on trying to create the impression that these were not going to lead to any form of inflation. Here it is important for us to know that we have had an admission that increases could in fact lead to inflation. The Government is admitting this that it can no longer combat or control inflation.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central had a great deal to say here about the so-called service which is being rendered in England in this particular field. I want to say at once that I prefer our own service with all its shortcomings above that of service about which one cannot say when one goes to sleep, that it will still be available the next morning. Now I just wonder what the hon. member was actually trying to prove. Was he simply trying again to say something disparaging about South Africa and what is being offered in South Africa and cast suspicion on it? What surprises one even more is that although the hon. the Minister stated very clearly that it was his policy and his aim to make the available service a service which functions 100 per cent, the United Party kept on blowing hot and cold. The hon. member on the opposite side is now trying to cast suspicion on the attempts being made by the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Orange Grove took it amiss of the hon. the Minister because he wanted to supply a 100 per cent service while other hon. members, on the other hand, advocated that he should rather try to make up the existing backlog. That is typical of the United Party: The one says one thing and the other something else.

I should like to begin here this afternoon by conveying on behalf of my constituency our appreciation to the hon. the Minister and his Department for the fact that the backlog in telecommunication services will by next year this time have been eliminated completely in Springs, when the new exchange at Selcourt is put into operation. I should like to convey my appreciation, in particular if one views this matter against the background of the problems which exist there, in regard to the elimination of this backlog. I am probably speaking on behalf of all my voters when I say that we hope that the time between now and next year will pass very quickly. But the hon. member must also know that we have great appreciation for what is being done in this particular sphere and for Springs.

Mr. Chairman, I also have a request which I should like to make to the hon. the Minister. Although it has now been accepted in principle that Springs will have a new main post office, I want to ask whether it is not possible to expedite that move? At present we have the situation that the main post office at Springs is a very old building which has in many respects probably become very unpractical. But I think an additional factor which makes the matter even more difficult for us, is the fact that this present building adjoins two very busy streets, which makes it difficult to find suitable parking if one wants to go to the post office. The site which has been selected for the new building, however, is very well situated, also as far as parking is concerned. If the construction of this building can be expedited, it will not only bring about an improvement in the service, but will also, as we honestly believe, make things much easier for the person who uses the post office.

There is also a third matter I want to discuss. Here I am referring to the question of postal deliveries. I want to ask whether consideration cannot be given to making more post office box facilities available at the various post offices in order to curtail and to restrict the direct delivery of postal articles to some extent. I think that most of our inhabitants today can get to the various post offices very easily and would probably make use of that service, too, if the post office box facilities were there. This, I think, will make the matter of postal deliveries much easier both for the post office and for the public. I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could give attention to these matters as well.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Springs has taken this side of the House to task for not being fully appreciative of the hon. the Ministers various difficulties with his policy of providing additional services. It is for this very reason that we on this side of the House have suggested that these difficulties are perhaps even greater than the hon. the Minister envisages. Certainly the hon. member for Springs indicated that all is not so well in his constituency. I am quite sure that the hon. member for Springs will agree that there are many people in his constituency who complain most bitterly of the service that they are receiving.

The point is that, in reviewing the policy of the hon. the Minister at this Committee Stage of the debate, one on this side of the House is entitled to ask whether the hon. the Minister believes that with the tremendous increase in tariffs, we will have an increase in the efficiency of the service being undertaken. There is no doubt that the staff is heavily supplemented by part-time staff. If one looks at these estimates, one is immediately struck by the high percentage of part-time and temporary employees. We on this side of the House asked whether the hon. the Minister believed that he has the manpower resources to put into effect the schemes he has in mind. The capital requirements, as we see, are now to reach an all time record of R128.7 million in this financial year. This is going to entail tremendous development in the infrastructure of the telecommunications system throughout the Republic. At the same time it is going to place a tremendous demand upon the manpower resources in South Africa at the present time. This is where we on this side of the House feel that a greater effort must be made to attract people to this service. An attempt should also be made to retain the services of those persons who are performing valuable tasks in the Post Office administration, particularly those who have received their training. From time to time we see and read about the large number of persons who have received their training, but who leave the service of the Post Office. One of the suggestions we on this side of the House make is that the fringe benefits must always be improved if one wants to retain staff, particularly highly trained and technical staff, who form an important part of the Post Office administration. We can see that there are many instances where this staff is supplemented with temporary posts and by temporary incumbents of posts. However, for those who are on the existing staff the fringe benefits are of vital importance. We believe that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would be failing in his duty if he did not consult with his colleague the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, to ensure that those members of his staff receive adequate compensation when they have reached the stage where they are unable to be further employed. That is why we believe it is important for this hon. Minister to emphasize the importance of this aspect to his colleague to ensure that in the case of the employees of the Post Office administration, who are members of the Government Service Pension Fund, the regulations and aspects covering their pension rights are improved with the march of time. This should be done, because in the private sector we find that tremendous strides have been made and even in the Railways administration we find that great progress has been made. This will ensure that his staff receive improvements as far as these fringe benefits are concerned.

I would also like to deal with the question of those persons who are assisting the Post Office in rendering a service to the community of South Africa. Here I particularly refer to postal delivery, because this is one aspect in regard to which there is a considerable increase in the tariffs. Obviously people are going to expect an improved service with these increased costs. There are areas which have recently developed and where development such as the establishment of shopping centres, is taking place at present. I refer to the suburbs of many of our large cities and peri-urban areas. Here we find that the lack of planning, in regard to the Post Office, is perhaps at its greatest in two fields. The one is that these business premises have extreme difficulty in obtaining telephones. They cannot administer a business without adequate telephones. Secondly, in many of these areas there is only one delivery of post per day whereas in most of the main centres of the cities there are two deliveries per day. With only one delivery of post per day, it means that many of these business concerns are at a disadvantage with the decentralization of their businesses when they establish their shopping centres in the suburbs. It is for this reason that I put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to the number of postmen who are employed in the postal services. These figures make interesting reading, because over a five year period there has been a vast increase in the amounts of mail which has been handled. In terms of these figures and in terms of the report which has been Tabled in this Home by the Postmaster-General, one can see that the amount of post which has been handled by the Post Office had increased at a tremendous rate. However, the number of postmen has hardly increased at all over this period of five years. If we look at the figures, and particularly at the number of postmen in permanent employment and if we base it on the racial position, we find that the White postmen on the 28th February, 1966, totalled 1 632. At the same date, the 28th February, 1971, it had dropped to 1464. This means that over this five year period there has been a decrease of 168 in the number of White postmen. Here these people have to cope with the enormous volume of additional post that now has to be handled in the Republic. The number of those in temporary employment—and I presume most of these are women—has increased from 519 in 1966 to 733 in 1971. That is a mere increase of 214. So the overall increase in the number of White postmen or postwomen in fact is less than 100 over a period of five years. Consequently, it is obvious that if the Minister, who is also the Minister of Labour, is to achieve his object of providing this vital service to the people of South Africa, he has to employ an increasing number of non-White postmen. Here I do hope that the hon. the Minister, as a matter of policy will consider appointing a number of these postmen. It should be done in accordance with the Minister’s policy that these postmen operate mainly in non-White areas. They should be appointed on a permanent basis, not merely on a temporary basis. The figures indicate that during the past five years, the number of those in permanent employment has increased slightly, but the number of those in temporary employment has increased considerably. So it is obvious that the Minister is unable to provide this service of postal delivery without using more and more non-Whites to assist him, due to the shortage amongst the White group of people who come forward to fill these posts as postmen. If one looks at the position as far as Indians are concerned, the number of permanently employed post men has increased from merely 54 to 81. Whereas the Indians in temporary employment in 1966, amounted to 135, there are now in temporary employment 206 Indians. As far as the Durban area is concerned, there are large areas, particularly in the suburbs, where increasing use is being made of the Indian postmen. I might say that, as far as I believe, they are proving to be highly successful in this particular field of work. So I do hope that the hon. the Minister will appreciate the fact that to deliver the post, if there are not White persons available to fill these positions, either male or female, use non-Whites, whether they be Coloured, Indian or Bantu, is not in any way detrimental to the service that is being provided. I do believe, however, that it is in the interest of having a contented force of employees in the postal administration that he should endeavour to incorporate these people in a permanent capacity, rather than merely appoint them in a temporary capacity. These people are rendering a service to the hon. the Minister and to the department, and I believe that they should have full recognition of that service by being appointed in a permanent capacity.

Similarly, as regards the figures for the Bantu, we find that the position exists where five years ago there were 150 in permanent employment as postmen, whereas the number has now increased to 168 in permanent employment as postmen. The 1966 figure shows that there were 265 Bantu in temporary employment. Now the number has increased to 528. This is an increase of some 83 per cent in the number of Bantu employed in a temporary capacity as postmen.

The other aspect regarding the question of manpower in the Post Office, is that of the telephone service. As I mentioned earlier, it would appear that, unfortunately, there is no co-ordination between the Post Office and many of the local authorities when it comes to planning new townships and new areas. This, I believe, is perhaps where the greatest shortage of telephones exists. [Time expired.]

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the member for Umbilo made quite a sober and positive speech. It was so sober and so positive that I wondered why the hon. member for Orange Grove, who is not present in the Chamber at the moment, did not begin to make interjections. I do not know why the hon. member for Hillbrow did not make any interjections either. The hon. member for Orange Grove made a great fuss about the increased expenditure of the Post Office as announced in the Budget. The hon. member for Umbilo. on the other hand, advocated greater spending. The hon. member for Umbilo made out a case for certain salary adjustments, but the hon. member for Hillbrow said a few days ago in this House that the salary adjustments of our public servants were unfounded and unprecedented. This shows how the hon. Opposition blows hot and cold. The impressions they create is that one could not even entrust the administration of one single telephone pole to them.

The hon. member for Umbilo put a very interesting question to the hon. the Minister. He asked whether it should not be accepted that non-White staff must be used in non-White areas. The hon. member ought to know that this is the policy of the National Party Government. Why does he then put the question? Or is the hon. member asking to be kicked out from his Party where he does not belong? This demonstrates the opportunism on the part of that side of the House. As I have already said, those hon. members, including the hon. member for Orange Grove, who has just come in now, cannot even be entrusted with the administration of one single Post Office telephone pole.

I should like to come back to a few matters affecting my constituency. In this regard I should very much like, on behalf of the Pretoria district, to congratulate the hon. the Minister, as former inhabitant of Littleton, on his appointment. We Pretoria-Districtites and in particular we Verwoerdburgers, and even more so, we Littletonians are very proud of the fact that he is a former Littletonian. He will therefore know what problems we have. As the hon. the Minister will know that area is bursting at the seams with a growth rate of an average of 25 per cent per year. Our small post office at Verwoerdburg simply cannot keep up with the expansion that is taking place in that area. The Post Office staff for the entire area are doing excellent and outstanding work. The Post Office can in fact be proud of those officials’ good services. However, it is inevitable that for healthy planning in future a large regional main post office for Verwoerdburg will be necessary to meet the needs of all its suburbs. This includes areas like Eldoraigne and Wierda Park, which are now in the process of being established, Littleton Extension No. 3, Doornkloof and others. This also includes the area in which the hon. member for North Rand lives, which is in my constituency. The future of that area can only benefit from that if a start is made now with the planning of the services of this greater Verwoerdburg. In addition to that an efficient post office for the areas Eldoraign and Wierda Park is very necessary. The postal services of these people are provided from Valhalla and even from Voortrekkerhoogte. It is sometimes very inconvenient for the people living in these new areas to drive such long distances to go and fetch their postal articles. Together with those post office facilities, the people living there would appreciate it very much if public telephone call boxes could be placed at strategic places, because we know that not everyone has as yet been able to obtain their own telephones. A few public telephone call boxes will help a great deal to meet the needs there.

We would very much like to express our sincere gratitude for the two automatic telephone exchanges which have been approved for Wierda Park and Valhalla. We know that this is shortly going to alleviate the shortage of telephone lines in that area, but I can inform the hon. the Minister at this early stage that I am during next year’s budget, owing to the expansions which are taking place there, going to ask for another automatic exchange in order to meet the needs of those areas. The boom cycle of that area is on the increase rather than on the wane, and since we have the excellent co-operation of the regional directors concerned, who are together devising plans for that area, I should like to place it on record here in this House that the co-operation they give us is of the very best. We hope that we, with their co-operation, will in future be able to have adequate post office and telephone facilities in that area.

There is another minor matter I want to raise. This may perhaps sound strange to you, Sir, but still this is how matters stand. The few thousand telephone subscribers of Verwoerdburg have their names appearing in the telephone book under Pretoria. Sir, Verwoerdburg is not part of Pretoria. It is separate from Pretoria. Verwoerdburg is a place on its own. We have a few thousand telephone subscribers there, and I think this merits a separate entry, such as in the case of Kempton Park, Potchefstroom or Springs, which all have separate entries in the telephone directory. In conclusion I should just like to mete out a great deal of praise, with reference to the annual report of the Postmaster-General to the publishers of the Post Office dictionary. This once again proves to me that my language, Afrikaans, has already made a breakthrough in those spheres of activity where highly technical terms are in use in this modern age of communication in which we are living. New terms and expressions, which even ten years ago we would have regarded as virtually untranslatable from English into Afrikaans, appear in this book. We felt a very great need for a publication of this nature in our Post Office and particularly in our exchanges where the Post Office staff come into contact with the public and where they would also like to speak good, pure Afrikaans. Apparently, the initiative for this came from the former Postmaster-General, the late Mr. M. C. Strauss, and I would very much like to pay tribute to his memory for the work which he has done in causing this excellent publication to be produced, which will help to promote our fine language, Afrikaans, in this particular sphere.

Mr. Chairman, let me at the outset associate myself with the hon. member for Pretoria District in congratulating the Minister on the new Afrikaans dictionary of Post Office technical terms. It is gratifying to know language is not a dead issue and that it evolves and improves as time goes on.

I have listened with great interest this evening and this afternoon to the speeches that have been made. I was particularly pleased to hear the hon. the Minister tell of the experience which he and the hon. members for Orange Grove and Harrismith had. They pressed a button and hey presto! They were speaking to Frankfurt. They pressed another button, and immediately they were talking to someone in London. When he related this episode, I immediately thought of some of the things I had experienced. I have posted letters in Cape Town to friends of mine in the suburbs, asking them to telephone me the next day or so at the very latest. But what happens? The letter takes five days to reach its destination.

Improve your handwriting.

This was addressed by the typist; it was not in my handwriting. I would like to inform that hon. member that I am very good at spelling so my spelling is not at fault but it takes five days for a letter to reach Claremont. I put that letter in the post box in this building, and I thought that since the letter was being posted in the legislative centre of the Republic of South Africa, I would at least get express service. However, it took five days for the letter to get to Claremont. Sir, this sort of thing is not peculiar to Cape Town or to Johannesburg or to Durban. It seems to be a widespread experience that when you post a letter in a town it takes anything from four to five days to a week to reach the other side of the town—a distance to which you could have walked in a few hours. Even in the old days of the Voortrekkers they could have reached that part of the town in a shorter space of time, and in the days when I was living in Zululand when the old Zulu ran with the cleft stick, he could have covered the distance in a shorter space of time. Mr. Chairman, it is utterly incredible that our service has not improved although prices are now going to go up. I want to know from the Minister what is the reason for this delay. I know that you have men who do part-time work in the Post Office as sorters; some of them are magistrates, men from the Department of the Minister of Justice, top-grade men.

What about bobbies?

No, bobbies are not allowed to do that. They have to look after the people who pinch the money. There is something wrong somewhere that must be responsible for this slow delivery of letters. It has always puzzled me—and I would like to know from the Minister tonight—what the reason is for this delay in the delivery of letters.

They are being censored; the censors are looking at them.

I have often wondered whether the Post Office is not carrying out the practice which is quite common nowadays where companies price themselves out of business. In other words, they put up the postage and they hope that one day you yourself will go and deliver the letter yourself or otherwise by-pass the Post Office.

The hon. member for Pretoria District also spoke about telephone booths. This is a matter which I also raised last year. Sir, we still require telephone booths in the non-White townships. I cannot speak strongly enough on this. It is something which is shameful. One has only to go to a police station in these Native townships to see how these poor creatures line up waiting for a doctor. It is not uncommon to have young policemen there acting as midwives and attending to wounds and cuts and that sort of thing. Here again I want to make another plea to the Minister to see that more telephone booths are installed in the non-White townships. In making this plea I do not want to confine myself only to non-White townships.

I would also like to include the suburbs. We know that there is a shortage of telephones. Surely a scheme can be devised whereby instead of having a telephone booth every ten blocks we can have a booth for every block. The housewife could then go to the nearest booth and do her shopping by telephone. Sir, these are small points but they are pertinent. They make for comfort; they avoid irritation; they also make you feel that you are in a modern society and that you are not out in the wilds altogether. People realize, as we do, that there is a shortage of telephones, and we know that the postal department has a backlog to cope with. I do not know how this scheme of sharing party lines is faring; I am not in a position to talk about it, but I have often wondered whether the installation of more telephone booths—one per block or maybe two per block, depending on the length of the block, of course— would not be advisable.

The hon. member who has just sat down, will probably forgive me for not following up in his argument. I should first like to come back to what the hon. the Minister mentioned in the Second Reading, namely the possible Afrikaans words for the “sundowner” service of the Post Office. Since that service comes into operation only after 5 o’clock, at which time dusk is falling or it is already getting dark, I believe that if we called it the “skemerdiens” of the Post Office, it would be a perfectly suitable name. If the Minister had offered a motor car or a few hundred rand as first prize for the name eventually accepted, something which the Post Office can well afford, I am sure he would have been swamped by good names, from which he would then have been able to select a suitable one.

Mr. Chairman, I spoke in this House about the stamps of South Africa before, and if I do so again now—once in six years—I am sure it will not be too often. Our stamps are a very important source of revenue for the South African Post Office, because our stamps circulate all over the world and as they circulate, they project the image of the Post Office which issued them. They can be a very fine means of propaganda, because by means of them one can project the image of one’s own products, one’s industries and one’s history to the four corners of the world. There is hardly a person who does not receive a letter or buy a stamp at some time or other, and in his handling of those things one can approach him. As regards the designs of our South African postage stamps, we have had considerable reason to be dissatisfied in the past, but I am pleased to be able to state that there has been a big improvement in recent times. The previous Minister appointed a committee of connoisseurs of the arts and people who have profound knowledge of this matter. They advise the Postmaster-General about new issues. We need only think of the beauty of the Bible stamps which were issued some time ago to realize that there is in fact reason to be grateful. Sir, I can also assure you that the four stamps designed to commemorate the Republic’s tenth year of existence, have a very neat finish and will meet with great approval.

But when one handles a postage stamp, it is not merely the design which is important; the way in which it has been printed is also important. Up to this stage we have made use of a rotogravure printing process, but we know that the Government Printer has purchased the most modern printing process machines. Once those machines have been installed and the technicians have developed their dexterity —this is very important—in handling those machines, we shall for the first time be able to print stamps which will be comparable to the best printed in Switzerland, Holland and other countries.

Then I just want to mention another matter here for the consideration of the Post Office: Up to this moment stamps have always been printed by the Department of Internal Revenue, but since the Post Office now is a department standing on its own feet, the question will arise whether the time has not arrived for this section to fall completely under the control of the Post Office. The fixed series we have at present, was introduced ten years ago when we became a Republic in 1961. It has been in use for ten years already and the time has now arrived when we ought to get a new fixed series. The previous Postmaster-General announced that a new series was in fact being planned and when that series has been planned and printed, I think it would be high time we get that series. Since 1910 we have had only five fixed series, and I think a good time for a new series of postage stamps to be issued is at the most ten years and at the least five years after the previous issue. We can choose some date falling between these two years which will suit us.

As regards our commemorative stamps, the policy is that we do not make more than three different issues annually. In this respect one cannot lay down a fixed policy from which one cannot deviate, because circumstances may force one to have more issues in one year and less in another. Last year the Post Office made a contribution by issuing water stamps when we were celebrating Water Year, and in this regard I have in mind, for example, on occasion such as the inauguration of the Voerwoerd Dam after its completion. That, too, will be a suitable occasion for issuing a commemorative series. In these circumstances I nevertheless want to plead with the Minister and the Post Office that we should never make our postage stamps cheap by having too many issues. Most countries have lost their heads in this respect and the one issue follows another at such a fast rate that nobody can keep up with the new issues. The stamp collector will always buy the postage stamp issued to meet the needs of the Post Office. There are millions of collectors all over the world; in the U.S.A. alone there are more than 12 million. As soon as these people realize that stamps are being issued in order to wrest money from their pockets, they withdraw and do not buy the postage stamps of that country. We have a very good example of this in the case of the African countries which in recent times have been killing the goose that lays the golden egg by having one issue after the other. These countries are already being left aside and their issues do not have, as we say, a nice smell. This evening I am able to say here that in this respect the policy of our Post Office has been more honourable and correct than that of any other country in the world, because our Post Office has never issued a single stamp which could not be fully justified as being a need of the Post Office.

Why did you not want to issue a stamp for Gen. Smuts?

If this hon. member would just wait a while, we would perhaps put his image on a postage stamp one day but if this were to happen, application would have to be made in good time, because to develop and issue a postage stamp is a process which takes at least a year. If we were to comply with such requests precipitately, the final product would not be neat and there would be considerable criticism.

Another matter in respect of which I want to place special emphasis on the integrity of our Post Office, is that today one can still use the first 2½d. postage stamp issued in 1910 and the Post Office will accept it. Today they still accept the money one gave them for the stamp at the time, in spite of the fact that we have a new decimalized monetary system, whereas previously we had pounds, shillings and pennies. I can assure you, Sir, that there are few countries in the world where this happens. Even a country such as Britain, which has had a very conservative policy, immediately withdrew its previous stamps from circulation after the change-over to decimilization. As far as new issues are concerned I should also like to suggest to the Post Office that we should announce the new issues and their value at the beginning of the year. The dealers from Europe, who are great buyers of our postage stamps intended for distribution in Europe, would be accommodated to a large extent if they were enabled to draw up their budgets in good time and knew which stamps they might expect from South Africa in any particular year and how much they would have to pay for those stamps.

Furthermore, the present Postmaster-General announced that they were completely reorganizing the philatelic services of the Post Office in Pretoria. We are pleased about that, and I should like to draw something special to his attention as well. Once he has organized that section, so that sufficient information material is available—and the Post Office has a great deal of exceptionally good information material—and it has the necessary films, lectures and slides, the Post Office should make a special attempt to draw the attention of our school children to the benefits of stamp collecting. I am sure that in Pretoria and on the Rand and practically all over the country, children will be only too keen to see how postage stamps are printed and especially how the mistakes occur. If we could cultivate a love for this hobby in them, they would learn a tremendous amount from it. They would gain geographic knowledge and what goes with it, and the orderly arrangement thereof could be of inestimable value to them. [Time expired.]

At this stage I think I should reply to the hon. members who have spoken in the debate up to now. Consequently I start with the hon. member for Durban Central. He asked for more effective control to be exercised by the radio licence inspectors. Let me say at once that this matter of exercising control over pirate listeners is no easy task. It is not a matter which one can examine and determine with a radar eye. There is in fact only one dependable way of doing it and this is the hard way of inspection which we are carrying out at present. In the absence of any other practical means, we shall have to continue that method.

The hon. member for Springs pleaded for a few matters, inter alia, expediting the matter of erecting a new post office building there. This is a matter to which I am very sympathetically disposed. The problem is that we have a big back-log in regard to the erection of buildings, therefore the post office in Springs, too, will have to take its rightful place on that list of other post offices. Obviously we must give preference to our telecommunications institutions as this is such an urgent matter. In regard to the request for more post office boxes, I want to inform the hon. member that in so far as space is available at the post offices, they are in fact being provided according to the demand there.

†Then the hon. member for Umbilo spoke about the improvements in fringe benefits. As far as these benefits are concerned, the position is that service conditions are reviewed from time to time in the Post Office, and of course they are effected as they are justified within our financial means. As far as the request is concerned regarding the two deliveries per day, the position is that this is done where possible, but of course it cannot be undertaken everywhere. We have to consider the question of cost and also the shortage of postmen.

Then the hon. member referred to the question of the employment of non-Whites against European posts in a permanent capacity. This, Sir, is a sensitive matter in the Post Office. We are tackling this in collaboration with the respective trade unions, so the hon. member can be assured of the fact that we are giving this the necessary attention.

*The hon. member for Pretoria District made a few requests and then touched a very soft spot in me by reminding me that I am not only an ex-post office clerk but have also lived in Verwoerdburg in my time. For that reason I should have a special soft spot for that area. This is true, but I am obliged to operate according to the same standards which apply to the others, and his requests to me will certainly receive my sympathetic attention, but unfortunately that will have to happen within the framework of merit.

The question of telephone call offices is of course an important matter. I want to tell hon. members that my Department and I will go into the matter and, where it is at all justified to do so, we shall provide them as soon as possible. The hon. member referred to the telephone directory and to the entry of the Verwoerdburg telephone subscribers and in fact asked for a separate directory entry for Verwoerdburg. This is a matter to which we shall certainly pay attention. I promise that we will go into the matter and see what the possibilities are in this regard.

The hon. member for Umlazi complained about the delays in postal deliveries. One certainly does not like things like that, but naturally my Department or I cannot go into the matter effectively if the hon. member does not give us specific complaints. Surely we cannot go into generalizations. For that reason I want to ask the hon. member to help me and the Department solve this matter satisfactorily by providing us with the envelopes which had allegedly been posted on a particular day and only arrived at the neighbouring place five days later. Then we will certainly give that matter the necessary attention.

†The hon. member also spoke about telephone booths in non-White areas. The position here is that we suffer severe losses because of vandalism in the Bantu areas. Of course, these are cases that we must take into consideration. Apart from that, I can give the hon. member the assurance that deserving cases receive our attention and that, where justified, we provide the required facilities.

*This evening the hon. member for Mossel Bay again revealed his interest in stamps, for which I want to thank him particularly. I am extremely pleased that we have his interest in this matter and I appreciate it greatly. At the moment we are doing a great deal in the Department in promoting the bureau to which he referred, so that it may in fact give more definite shape to our whole stamp policy in the future. I also share the hon. member’s view that we should not allow our own stamps to become cheap. We should not have so many issues that our stamps will no longer be sought after.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? With reference to what the hon. the Minister has said about stamps, why did his Government refuse to issue a special stamp to commemorate the birthday of Gen. Smuts?

It is a good thing that the hon. member has referred to that. It affords me the opportunity of saying something about this attitude in regard to requests which is of importance to the hon. member as well as to other people. We continually receive requests in regard to special stamps for various occasions. Even this evening requests of various nature were made to me in the lobby. Last week the son of one of our great painters directed a very serious request to me that we should issue a special stamp in his father’s honour. One has appreciation and sympathy for these important matters; one has respect for them as well, but within the framework of our judicious issuing of stamps, and in order to prevent there being too many issues. we are obliged to set certain standards in this regard as well, and also in regard to the number of stamps issued. If there were too many, we would land ourselves in the position to which the hon. member for Mossel Bay referred, namely that there would be so many that stamp collectors would no longer take notice of the country’s stamps. They would then no longer be sought after. The bottom would drop from the whole argument. For that reason we shall have to continue issuing our stamps with the greatest measure of judiciousness.

Mr. Chairman. I listened with interest to the hon. the Minister’s reply to the plea the hon. member for Mossel Bay made about the issue of stamps and the motifs on the various stamps being issued. I too would like to raise a matter in connection with the issue of stamps which I think is relevant at this stage. I want to put forward a very special plea, namely that serious consideration should be given to depicting the sheep and wool industry on South African stamps at the very first possible opportunity. As the hon. the Minister probably knows, requests have been made on several occasions to the Post Office authorities to have this industry, which is playing such a tremendous part in the economy of South Africa, depicted on a stamp issue. There were high hopes that with the new issue of stamps coming with the new tariffs, this would be the case, but our hopes have been dashed to the ground. In the Postal and Telegraph Herald of March, the Postmaster-General says that four new stamps are to be issued. A 5 cent stamp and a 12½ cent stamp will appear on the 22nd May and then, on the 31st May, a 2 cent stamp and a 4 cent stamp will be issued. I do not want to discuss the motifs on those particular stamps because I do not have any quarrel with them whatsoever. It is, however, quite clear that at this stage the role of the sheep and wool industry is not going to be acknowledged in this particular new issue. When one thinks of all the requests that have been made one can only come to the conclusion that the Postal authorities do not really recognize what an important role the sheep and wool industry has played in this country. I believe that the wool we export has been one of our main earners of foreign exchange, second only to gold. It has provided a livelihood to thousands of people over the greater part of the Republic. Many towns and villages throughout the length and breadth of South Africa owe their very origin to the sheep and wool industry. There are hundreds of post offices throughout the country earning revenue directly from the sheep and wool industry in the particular towns where they are situated. Not only our smaller towns, but even our big cities today, like Port Elizabeth and East London, can contribute their origins to the sheep and wool industry. The first industry in Port Elizabeth, the city that I represent, was a woolwashery. Out of that small beginning and the expansion of the wool industry the great city of Port Elizabeth has since emerged.

Port Elizabeth is a village.

Port Elizabeth is actually the capital of the Republic. Every province in South Africa is involved in the sheep and wool industry. It is interesting to note that we seem to think of sheep and wool only in the Karoo and in the more arid areas but in fact in Ermelo in the Transvaal we have the largest sheep population of any district in the Republic. Even in the lesser provinces, like Natal … [Interjections.] … we find a thriving sheep industry. What worries me most of all is that other Government Departments have shown a more enlightened approach to the subject. The Department of Defence, for example, has introduced a new uniform made out of a pure wool fabric.

The Imperial Chinese peacock.

We would have liked to see the tunics a little longer and using a little more wool, but we are pleased that the Wool Board took the initiative to see that these uniforms were made from pure wool. The South African Airways has also recognized the importance of this great industry. Wool fabrics are being used for the upholstery of all our new aircraft. This is not only a recognition of the merits of wool, but it also gives this great industry of ours the boost it needs at this stage. Our wool industry needs a boost at this stage when our wool farmers have their backs to the wall, when they are putting up a tremendous fight to rehabilitate this industry. I believe they will succeed. Those of us who are involved in this industry believe that it still has a great future. The motif on a stamp has definite advertisement value. I think the Post Office could help us a great deal in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to further emphasize to what extent this great industry has been neglected. Every other product, maize, grapes, cattle, gold or diamonds, at one time or another, has appeared on the stamps of South Africa. But only for five months during the long history of the Republic, has there been anything done to advertise our great wool industry.

Let me go further. There is no difficulty in designing a motif. What would look better than a stamp displaying a magnificent Merino ram with fine horns, graceful front and beautiful conformation I think that this would be an outstanding motif on any stamp, [interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I do not understand what these hon. members are waffling about.

Are you wearing a woollen suit?

I am going even one further. The suit I am wearing is made of pure wool and mohair.

However, I should like to make this point to the hon. the Minister. The standard of merino ram that we breed today would be a magnificent design on any postage stamp. Just think of the horns standing out gracefully, the wonderful front, the virile look in the eyes, the look of determination that every sheep breeder in South Africa has today. I believe, too, that nearly every bowler in South Africa today not only recognizes the tremendous merits of wool, but is giving the industry a boost. I believe their blazers are always made of pure, virgin, lambs’ wool.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that my plea will not fall on deaf ears, and that at the next opportunity, when we have a new issue of stamps, the wool industry—and I will not pull the wool over the hon. the Minister’s eyes in this particular instance—will get the recognition it deserves.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot find much fault with the hon. member for Walmer’s speech. Perhaps I can suggest something to him. Let me inform him that during the war years I lived in Cradock, more or less in his part of the world. I know the sheep in that Karoo. I should just like to tell him that I cannot find any fault with the fact that he wants to advertise the wool industry by means of a commemorative or propaganda stamp. He made a very good suggestion, i.e. that the face of a fine ram should be printed on the stamp. To judge from the Opposition’s contribution to the debate thus far, I wonder whether he needs to look further for a fine profile for that stamp than that of the main Opposition speaker on postal matters.

No, he is a wether.

While we are on the subject of commemorative stamps, there is a very important matter in this connection that has not yet been raised here today. Hon. members know that in the near future self-government is going to be given to several Bantu areas in execution of the policy of separate development of this National Government which still has a two-thirds or more majority in this House. If I may also suggest something in respect of commemorative stamps, let me say that I cannot think of a more historic occasion, in these difficult years in which the world now finds itself, for stamps commemorating the self-government that is being granted to the Bantu areas in South Africa. Internationally speaking this will be very valuable to South Africa. It is going to be of great historical value for South Africa. I should like to suggest this to the hon. the Minister and his staff, in the hope that they will give this matter their close attention. Hon. members of the Opposition are at liberty to laugh up their sleeves about that, but in years to come we shall find them in the forefront boasting about those stamps.

If I am permitted, I should like to say on this occasion that I, as an ex-post office official who is still in touch with the officials of the Post Office, share the distinction with the Minister that we both began as post office clerks. Some of the staff members that usually attend this session are still known to me, and to judge from the quality of the Opposition’s contribution to the debate today I must say that I am very pleased with what the Opposition said in the debate. I am satisfied because they failed completely in their task of being a proper Opposition on so important an occasion as the discussion of the Post Office Vote.

Now first thank the Minister.

The hon. member for Durban Point and I have already crossed swords about this Post Office debate, and now it seems to me as if he is keen to take part, because thus far I have never heard him make a speech about this subject.

Imagine a person complaining about a single letter in a debate as important as this, a letter about which no particulars were divulged, which supposedly took five days to reach a certain destination! From my Post Office days I can remember that some letters took 40 years to reach their destination under the United Party Government. That is not a fabrication; it is the truth, because this letter got stuck somewhere in the sorting racks. And now I am finished with the Opposition. They do not actually deserve further comment. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members not to make repeated interjections.

There is another matter that I should like to emphasize this evening, i.e. the Post Office museum that is to be established. I can perhaps direct these few additional words to the hon. Opposition: Most of the apparatus used during their term of office are present-day museum pieces. There is a lot of the equipment that was used in the past. I am thinking, for example, of the dialling equipment, the telephone that was in use. It has undergone a radical change. It would be a pity of it were lost, and one is glad that the Post Office has seen fit to establish a museum so that old Post Office items, whatever they may be, can be preserved for the generation to come. From personal experience I know, for example, that at the Simmer and Jack Mine in my constituency there is dialling equipment dating back to the year 1880, and which has simply been destroyed as a result of the lack of Post Office museum facilities. This is very regrettable. That is why, on behalf of this House and on behalf of the public of South Africa, I want to congratulate the Post Office on that undertaking of theirs, i.e. the establishment of a Post Office museum which will be of inestimable cultural value to us in the years to come. [Interjections.] If there is some space left we shall exhibit a United Party member as well.

In this debate today there were complaints about the alleged lack of planning on the part of the Post Office. The hon. member for Musgrave raised that point. I have here the Estimates of Capital Expenditure. I just want to refer to new services. I find that there are 52 new services for which provision is being made in the next financial year. For no fewer than 41 of them the amount voted is merely the nominal sum of R50. In other words, this planning is not even for the next financial year. It is for the financial year following that. It is planning that reaches further ahead than a year. I now want to ask hon. members of the Opposition—do they think that one should plan further ahead than one year? Is that not sufficient planning?

You are already a year late.

I note with gratitude that a new exchange in the Elspark area in Elsburg, the urban area of my constituency, also forms a part of the new services. There is a great need for it, and I am grateful that this was done. I repeat that I am able to confirm, after my negotiations with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, that this planning in the Elspark area, this service, although it is now listed in the Estimates as a nominal amount, in other words, it is planning for more than a year hence, was initiated two or three years ago. All in all this is planning four years in advance. Perhaps this will satisfy the hon. member for Durban Point.

Everything is now five years later.

One can understand why the hon. Opposition is a little touchy. If one has been in the position of an Opposition for almost 25 years it is understandable that one eventually becomes discouraged. [Interjections.] I think that they are going to remain that way for a very long time to come.

In conclusion I should like to thank the Department and its officials very much for the courteous way they have always dealt With enquiries and requests and gone out of their way, where possible, to give satisfaction. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Germiston District criticized the hon. member for Walmer for wanting a merino ram on a stamp.

That is not true.

The hon. member would rather have a stamp with Bantu self-government on it. I think this reflects the whole attitude of that side of the House. Then the hon. member for Germiston District went further and spoke of the duality of the Opposition which comes with a complaint because a person had to wait five days for a letter to be delivered.

What do you say with regard to identity?

I shall come to that. Then the hon. member said that when he still occupied a high position in the Department of Posts under the United Party régime it took 40 years. I am not at all surprised that it took 40 years if we had that type of person in the Department of Posts. That was the trouble under the United Party régime, that it was saddled with that type of man in the Department of Posts while our best men were engaged in the war.

Is the hon. member prepared to call for my record and to have it made public in this House?

Mr. Chairman, with the greatest of pleasure. It surprises me that the hon. the Minister of Transport has not called for it yet. The difficulty the United Party had to contend with at the time was that it was saddled with that type of official, but now the Nationalist Party is saddled with that type of member in the House of Assembly.

Then the hon. member asked whether it was not sufficient to plan only one year ahead. Mr. Chairman, does it still surprise you that the Post Office is in this state if hon. members say that it is only necessary to plan one year ahead? The United Party would plan 10 to 20 years ahead. It is for this very reason that we are being asked tonight to agree to R49 million being wrenched from the pockets of the users of the Post Office in South Africa. This is happening at a stage when the people of South Africa are being economically ruined. There was an increase of R47 million in taxes in the Additional Appropriation, R58 million in Railway tariffs and R50 million in respect of the petrol price. In total these increases amount to more than R204 million. Heaven alone knows where it will end.

I should like to know from the hon. member whether he is satisfied with the salary increases received by the Post Office officials.

Certainly I am satisfied with them. The United Party would have increased salaries gradually as the cost of living rose. It would not, as the Nationalist Party did in order to win an election, have granted increases before an election, only to do all in its power to take them back again after the election. In this way R204 million has been taken from the pockets of the taxpayers. We would not have done that.

Would the hon. member explain to us whether this increase in the postal tariffs is taxation or whether it means that people are going to pay for services?

I shall come to that, Sir. I should very much like to come to that, if only I am given a chance to speak. I shall come to that, and the hon. member will be very sorry that he ever asked that question. However, I first want to ask what this increase of R49 million means to the man in the street. It is not an increase of only 5 per cent or 10 per cent. The cost of stamps has been increased from 2+ cents to 4 cents. That is an increase of 60 per cent. The cost of airmail has been increased from 3 cents to 5 cents. In other words, it is an increase of 66 per cent. The cost of telephone calls has been increased by 66 per cent and of telegrams by 50 per cent. Then we come to phonograms, which have been increased to 65 cents. How is this not going to affect the South African farmer? He cannot drive to town to send a telegram. He has to send a phonogram. The hon. member for Rustenburg is not here tonight, but when the hon. member for Newton Park pleaded on behalf of the farmers, he said the farmers were receiving subsides. Now I want to know from that side: Where are the farmers being subsidized on Post Office tariffs? Let me make it clear that this side of the House is sick and tired of the attitude of that side of the House, which wants to trample the farmers of South Africa into the dust. [Interjections.]

We are not now dealing only with the isolated call that is going to be made, Sir. How are these increases going to affect the cost of living? What are they going to mean to the industrialists? As Mr. Grobbelaar, the chairman of Tucsa, said, “This is a reckless move which will send up production costs in every business and industry in South Africa. Estimates are that increased Post Office charges will raise the cost in large organizations by as much as R50 000.” Mr. Chairman, this is going to be passed on to the South African consumer. Was it really necessary to increase these tariffs to this extent?

Now I want to come to the question put by the hon. member for Pietersburg. Last year the Post Office had a surplus of R31 million. The postal services, one branch of the Post Office, did show a deficit of R11.3 million, and the tariffs were increased by R18.9 million. It is therefore possible to make out a case for those increases. We are not unreasonable people. Telecommunications, however, showed a surplus of R42 million. Why was the cost of telecommunications such as telephone services not thereupon reduced? Although the postal services therefore showed a loss, there was still a total surplus of R31 million. But the Minister was not satisfied with that. He thereupon decided to increase the Post Office tariffs by another R49 million and he budgeted for a surplus of R77 million. Mr. Chairman, he is snatching an unnecessary R77 million from the pockets of the taxpayers of South Africa. And why is he doing this? Now we are told that it is for capital works. They are now going to spend 62½ per cent of the current account money on capital works. Then the Minister tells us these are sound business methods. The hon. member for Rustenburg waxed so lyrical about this that he even spoke of “dynamic business methods”. The hon. member for Harrismith said per cent was still not enough. Now I want to ask those hon. members: If using money from the current account for capital works is sound business methods, will the Minister of Finance ever do this? Will he ever use 62d per cent of his current account for that purpose? Will any municipality do this? If a municipality uses 62½ per cent of its current account for capital works, how long will the members of the town councils remain there? Not for two days, Sir. The hon. the Minister goes further and says that the Post Office can only borrow from the Treasury. Very well, let the Post Office then borrow from the Treasury and then the Treasury in its turn can borrow from outside. Then the Minister comes along and tells us that this money would also carry interest and redemption and that this would necessitate an increase of the tariffs. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member for King William’s Town has this particular gift: the few times I have been able to hear him speak in the House he has revealed and exposed himself as his own biggest enemy and as the biggest enemy of his own Party. The most pathetic thing of all is that his own party cannot take disciplinary steps to get the hon. member to speak with a little more caution. Sir, you are aware of the previous cases to which I am referring. Tonight he has the political effrontery to stand up in this House and say that the United Party is a party that planned ahead, not for one year, but for twenty and thirty years. Sir, not a single hon. member on that side has yet come forward with any proof that this party, this Minister and his predecessor, have failed to implement their wonderful planning. They merely come along with negative accusations. Sir, the only planning I personally know of during their period of office was their planning for the tapping of telephones, and that stopped very shortly after 1948. I challenge any member on that side to stand up after I have resumed my seat and try to convince this House about the planning that existed during their administration and what the content and basis of that planning was; then we can listen and have a say in the matter. Sir, in one respect the United Party did some extremely brilliant planning; they planned for the fact that they could remain out of office for more than 22 years. The public is aware of that, and the public has confirmed it time and again in every election.

Sir, since hon. members of the Opposition are unable to say thank you—it is quite beyond them; they cannot afford to give credit where credit is due—please permit to fill that role for them this evening. The Minister and I correspond very regularly, and I am in the fortunate position of being able to confirm that I have never needed to wait five days or five weeks for a reply, even if the answer was “no”. I should like to convey to the Minister, and particularly to his staff at Head Office in Johannesburg, the gratitude of the Rand-burg community which is hardest hit by the fact that it is developing so rapidly. It is the largest constituency in the country, with the population more than doubling every ten years. We want to thank the Minister and the Department for the two automatic exchanges, the three new post offices and the various services we received in extremely difficult circumstances. As far as the extensions to the two main exchanges are concerned, we know that the backlog is great, but we have a good idea of the hon. the Minister’s problem. On behalf of the voters of Rand-burg I should very much like to record my gratitude, particularly to the Minister’s staff who are very sympathetic to our problems. [Interjections.] Sir, my M.P.C. is the person who could afford to relinquish a thousand United Party votes in order to send me to the House of Assembly in the latest election. Sir, I should very much like to ask the hon. the Minister, with my sincere gratitude to him and his staff, to give consideration to the extension of the facilities at the two post offices at Tarlton and Broederstroom in my constituency. An undertaking was given that the extension at Tarlton would be automatized, and I hope and trust that this will also be included in the programme sooner or later. The same applies to the Broederstroom post office.

Another matter that I should very much like to bring to the friendly attention of the friendly staff of the Minister is the provision of extended facilities at the Betsie Verwoerd Old Age Home in Randburg, where the aged sometimes find it difficult to go to the two or three public telephone booths in the building. They are prepared to carry the cost of private telephones in their rooms. I would appreciate it very much if a special investigation could be made of this matter and if we, as usual, could be informed at the same time whether it is possible to comply with this friendly request on behalf of people who deserve this concession.

Before resuming my seat, I should just like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention that the space at the two new post offices—I underline new post offices —at Pinedowry and Randburg is even now becoming too small for the public and for efficient service. I think the time has also come in this case, as the result of the very rapid and phenomenal development of this urban area, for consideration to be given, in the planning, to the fact that as the years pass it will become more and more essential, as far as these two post offices are concerned, to make provision for sufficient space. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you very warmly for the opportunity to record my gratitude to the hon. the Minister and his staff in Johannesburg.

Sir, the hon. member for Randburg asked certain questions here to which he challenged me to reply. He asked where the United Party had planned 30 years ahead.

You said it a few moments ago.

Yes, I did say it and, what is more, I am going to prove it. The United Party planned for the Railways. Has the hon. member forgotten the Railway plans which were nullified by this hon. Minister of Transport?

We are discussing the Post Office now, not the Railways.

The hon. member asked me a question and they should not become apprehensive now when I am replying to it. If those plans of the United Party had been implemented, the Railways would not have been in the position today where the Manager of the Railways has to say: “When they talk about these huge exports I throw up my hands in horror, because we have not got the facilities”. What about our planning in connection with the Orange River that was nullified? What about our planning in regard to immigration?

Order! The hon. member must stop this side of the Orange River.

Very well. Mr. Chairman, I shall come back to the financing of the Post Office. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said it was necessary to finance 6 per cent of these capital works from the current account, because, according to him, that money would also carry interest and redemption and that would then lead to increased tariffs. Sir, would it? If this R77 million had been borrowed on a ten-year basis, the redemption would have been R7.7 million a year. Even if he had borrowed it at an interest rate of 10 per cent, which is a very high rate of interest, the interest would have been R3.85 million..,

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must give me a chance now; I dealt with all his questions very courteously. The least he can do now is to listen.

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member a chance to continue with his speech.

The interest would be R3.85 million.

On what? At what rate of interest?

At 10 per cent, but it would be redeemed all along, so that the average rate of interest over a period of ten years would be 5 per cent, because the loan would be redeemed year by year.

On what

amount?

I know this is very difficult for that hon. member to understand. That is to say, it would have cost R11.5 million.

On what amount?

On the R77 million. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to reply to these questions, but …

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No. Instead of the R77 million more which the users of postal services have to pay, they would have had to pay only R11 million which would have meant a saving of R66 million. But the postal tariffs have been increased by R49 million, so that there would still have been a surplus of R17 million, even if the tariffs had not been increased. In other words, it would have been possible to reduce the postal tariffs and still have the same results, provided one had a Minister who knew something about business. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members not to make so many interjections. Hon. members are obliging me to take strict action and then they will land in trouble.

I have indicated how the Post Office could have been financed without any increase in tariffs. This is merely another illustration of the incompetence of this Government in every respect when it comes to business affairs. This is why we have had these remarks, even from the slavish Burger, which is simply an echo of this Government, and which mentioned that the “confusion was still continuing” when it came to the financial affairs of the Government. Then we had the question of the petrol price, which these Nationalist Party newspapers have to try to justify time and again.

What has this to do with the Post Office?

It has everything to do with it. I shall come to that.

The hon. member knows nothing about the Orange River scheme.

I want to say that this country is so rich that we do not need these increases. All we need is a Government that will run this country properly. Then one would not need these increases and then the country would be governed efficiently.

The hon. member for King William’s Town made a statement here in which he mentioned, inter alia, that the hon. member for Harrismith declared that 62 per cent of the Budget must be taken from reserves. I want to point out to the hon. member that it is altogether untrue that the hon. member for Harrismith used those words. He said that in order to enable the Post Office to provide for its capital requirements it is compelled to obtain 50.1 per cent from its operating surplus and the rest from loans. Why does the hon. member put these words into the mouth of the hon. member for Harrismith? This is one of the first things I want to mention, and in addition his whole contention is wrong in respect of what he quoted here of the hon. member for Harrismith. But I want to go further. I want to refer to this money to which he so strongly objects, money that is being taken from the public’s pockets; he referred, inter alia, to the R49 million. The hon. member has a totally wrong idea of things. The increase in postal tariffs, telephone rental and telephone tariffs are all to cover the costs of a service, and I believe that if the Opposition were in power they would have increased tariffs long ago and not furnished the service. But the hon. member claims, in addition, that we could simply have negotiated loans, just as if the Post Office can negotiate loans at will. This, he says, is further proof of the incompetence of the National Party. But as far as I am concerned one of the reasons is specifically the tremendous growth that there is, that makes it necessary for us to furnish all these services that have had to be furnished recently.

But I do not want to waste my time any further by referring to what the hon. member said. He did not say anything that was very important anyway. Since we have this mammoth Budget before us, a budget from which each of us can see that the Post Office is faced with tremendous development, I feel that I should like to pay tribute to our Minister’s predecessor, the late Minister Basie van Rensburg. If we look at this Budget, and if we look back at the past few years, we see that this Budget is actually a monument to him, a monument for the services he supplied in recent years. In particular I also have Mr. Strauss in mind, the previous Postmaster-General. I should like to mention that we realize that Mr. Rive, who has taken up the new post, has had a very difficult time. He has taken up the reigns at a time when there are mammoth developments in progress and when big demands are being made on the Post Office. Our present Minister, on taking over the reigns, has not let things slide; they have increased expansion and development. That is why we can look with pride today at what has been done in recent years. We have seen what has happened in a country with a boom, with rapidly changing economic trends and with a far-sighted, energetic, dynamic and systematic Minister in control. We saw this Minister and his staff in the first place taking the extremely necessary step of giving salary increases to the Post Office staff. It was essential to make those necessary adjustments, and these people were grateful in their turn. I should like to go out of my way to say thank you very much for those necessary salary increases that were granted and for the necessary adjustments that were made. I want to point out further that the Post Office staff in their turn said thank you by freely offering to work longer hours. It is truly an example for other bodies to follow. I feel that the offer they made has led to greater efficiency in our Post Office. Those extra two hours that they work without remuneration —they do so out of gratitude—indicate that these people are prepared to work harder. By working harder they can oppose the inflationary tendencies prevailing at present. It is truly a step that is absolutely necessary, because it serves as a counter-measure against inflation.

In a country where telephone services must be extended over very long distances it is of the utmost importance for us to make this service as quick and efficient as possible. It is truly a privilege for me to congratulate the Post Office, the Minister and everyone concerned on the successful establishment of the necessary exchanges, the 85 000 telephones and everything connected with that. Many of the 85 000 telephones required wire conductors covering long distances. I want to congratulate them on the fact that this achievement will be surpassed this year because 100 000 telephones will be supplied. That is not talk, it is action. We are sincerely grateful for it.

But what does the Opposition do? Do we receive their thanks? Has one of them stood up and said that it is truly an achievement that we can be proud of? Our efforts in international telecommunications can also be regarded as a mammoth achievement in that we can now link-up with 24 countries. We do not hear about this achievement. All we hear from that side is that this Government does not plan. However, without planning, these things cannot be done. This entails years of planning. Since 1968, when the Post Office became independent, we realized that all the services could not simply be furnished overnight. These are services which form a part of the infrastructure, new services for all the necessary development that there is. I find it an absolute miracle that these services could be furnished.

Why did you wait so long?

It is strange but true that if we look at the waiting lists prior to 1968 we see that quite sufficient provision was made for the needs existing at the time. But as the needs were provided for the waiting lists also increased. The telephone services furnished in the past two years are far in excess of what the needs ever were.

We must clear up the mess of the United Party.

What the hon. member has just said is true. The United Party was also in power for a time, but in 1948 we took over from them. He tried to answer a question in connection with Railways [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, talked of planning and of our accusation that the Government has not planned. He tried to explain to us how well they have planned. Other speakers on his side have done the same thing.

Of course we have.

Yes, they have done that.

They have tried.

Yes, tried. At one stage they said that, when they came into power in 1948, there were 100 000 telephones required in South Africa. It is now 1971, 23 years later, and there are 100 000 telephones plus required in South Africa. That is some planning! The hon. member also talked about the higher tariffs and explained that it was to provide a better service. If the higher tariffs will indeed give us a better service, there will be no complaint, but it would be very interesting to hear any of the hon. members opposite go to their constituencies at a time like this and try to explain to them that the Post Office is going to take R49 million out of their pockets while it has budgeted for a surplus of R77 million. If they can explain this to their constituents they can feel happy.

I would now like to deal with the hon. member for Randburg, who has just come in. The hon. member for Randburg talked about telephone listening. We on this side of the House found it most interesting, because if anybody should know about telephone listening surely it is that side of the House. A previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, Dr. Albert Hertzog, and Mr. Jaap Marais in particular, can tell that hon. member a lot about telephone listening. The interesting thing about telephone listening is that when it is done by that side of the House those hon. members listen in to each other! Not only do they listen in to each other’s telephone conversations, but some of them go so far as to tape record them for posterity.

I would like to talk to the hon. the Minister about something quite different. Before I do so, I too would like to praise the officials of the department. Personally I have found nothing but the greatest co-operation from the officials. I have nothing but the highest regard and respect for the ones I deal with in Natal. In saying that I must admit that I have a great deal of sympathy for them as well, became I believe that they are very unfortunate to have to work for such bosses. I think their task will be so much easier if we had a better government. [Interjections.] The turn of the hon. the Minister of Community Development will come in due course and if I were him I would take a deep breath before it comes. I said in the Railway debate, and I would like to repeat it here, that if Government policy is to be seen to work, one must look to the Railways and to the Post Office. These are two divisions of the Government where they have all the power, monopolies and controls and where they can make all their own laws. If their labour policy can work it will work in these two departments. During the Railway debate last week we on this side of the House proved that the labour policy was not working on the Railways and that in fact the whole railway system had now reached the crisis point. Now we deal with the Post Office and I want to make the same accusation, namely that the Post Office has reached the point of no return under the Government’s labour policy. The simple reason for this is that it cannot solve its problems under the present labour policy. The hon. member for Umbilo, for example, mentioned certain figures and it is interesting to note, when one looks at Post Office staff, that no fewer than 15 700 non-Whites are on the temporary staff and only 1 600 non-Whites on the permanent staff. Year after year, when these figures are produced in the annual reports, we are told that these non-Whites are merely employed in a temporary capacity until Whites are available. But year after year these figures tend to grow. Now we have a new Minister in this department, but he is also the Minister of Labour, and I say “Heaven help the Post Office.”

The statement year after year is that these non-Whites are employed only until Whites are available. In that way non-Whites are being victimized. They are victimized because they are deprived of all the advantages of being members of the permanent staff. They are deprived of the pension facilities, promotion facilities and of wage increases. I think it is about time that the hon. the Minister, in the name of humanity and common sense—because he knows full well that he will never find the Whites to replace these non-Whites—placed these people on the permanent staff and gave them the benefits of the permanent staff. A little earlier on in the debate the hon. the Minister made a statement which quite frankly I was amazed to hear. He told the hon. member for Umbilo that this was a delicate subject; they were discussing it with the trade unions. This is the first time, to my knowledge, that that statement has been made under a Post Office Vote in many years. It is the first time, to my knowledge, that that hon. Minister has made such a “verligte” statement. I believe he should report himself to the hon. the Minister of Labour, because when he acts as the Minister of Labour, he says some entirely different things. But the point is that we will not solve our problems in regard to the Post Office until we train more non-Whites to do some of the jobs that are presently done by Whites, for the simple reason that there are simply not enough Whites in South Africa to do the work. If the Whites in South Africa want to be treated as paupers and slaves of a philosophy that just does not work, it is their own stupid fault. We can have all the advantages of a modern society, every White could be better off, every non-White could be better off, if the hon. the Minister of Labour and the Government put their minds to it and admitted that the South African White population is not strong enough. But the worst part is that if we do not do it, we will be in trouble all round. Hon. members on that side of the House, if they thought for one moment, will realize that the situation we are moving into in the next couple of years, could be very serious indeed for us. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that it goes further than this. Every White will benefit, every non-White will benefit and we will at least have a chance of maintaining peace and contentment.

But getting down to a practical issue, the hon. the Minister and the Government, under their policy, are establishing Bantustans. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister who will train the technicians for the Post Office in those Bantustans. At the moment this does not exist. But they will have to supply postal services in these Bantustans in due course. Who is training those technicians? Are they being trained now? No, not at all.

I should also like to refer the hon. the Minister to one or two other points in the time that is left to me. Can the hon. the Minister assure me that all suburban post boxes where people place their letters for posting, are cleared every single day or on the times allocated for their clearance? My information is that many of these post boxes, because of shortage of staff, are not cleared as frequently as they should be.

To finalize, the hon. the Minister made a statement in his Second Reading speech that the time might come when he would have to penalize people who complain to the Post Office about over-charging on telephone accounts when there was no fault on the side of the Post Office. I agree that this happens frequently. But frequently there are faults in the exchanges and wrong accounts are submitted as a result of trip-switches which do not fall, and so forth. I should like to suggest to the hon. the Minister, though his statement is a fair one, that when such an investigation is made and a fault is found, no charge should be levied against the person who lodged the complaint.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to a few matters that have been raised here.

I shall start with the hon. member for Germiston District, who broached a matter of sentimental interest. This is the question of a cultural-historical museum for the Post Office. This matter has been receiving the attention of the Postmaster-General for some considerable time. However, we have not yet reached the stage where such a cultural-historical museum has actually been established. The cultural-historical objects of the Post Office are at present kept at a central point in the Central Post Office. When we have our new headquarters in Pretoria, it should be possible to establish such a cultural-historical museum in those new headquarters.

†The hon. member for Walmer made a plea for a stamp depicting the wool sheep in South Africa. I have very great sympathy for that plea. However, I should like to remind the hon. member that a merino ram appeared many years ago on one of our stamps. The request to which the hon. member referred, reached us a bit late to be considered for this year. I wish to add that this request will be considered in conjunction with other requests in this regard when we decide upon another series.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? I notice that the hon. the Minister said that the sheep industry was depicted on a stamp not so many years ago. I acknowledge this to be the case, but this was only for a brief five months period.

Order!

The hon. member may only ask a question. He is not allowed to make a statement.

I ask the hon. the Minister to bear this in mind.

We have borne that fact in mind and the possibility of printing a merino sheep on one of our stamps will be considered again. Therefore, I can only ask the hon. member to trust that we will handle this matter with discretion in future.

*The hon. member for Randburg pleaded for a post office at Tarlton and Broederstroom and for the extension of facilities. We have to investigate this matter. As I know the Post Office delivery service, he is certain to receive the letter within two days of its having been signed by me.

†The hon. member for Port Natal referred to the non-Whites who are employed in temporary posts. 15 000 non-Whites are employed in a temporary capacity and by far the majority of them are in non-classified posts such as labourers and casual labourers. Because of this classification they are regarded as temporary, although they receive certain benefits such as leave and certain pension benefits. The hon. member also referred to the question of the training of technicians in the Bantustans. They will of course be trained. The telephone operators and the mechanics are of course not technicians. They will naturally be trained by Europeans.

In regard to the posting boxes to which the hon. member has referred, I can say that they are cleared at least once a day and generally more frequently. That concludes all the matters which were raised.

Mr. Chairman, I want to raise some matters which are relevant particularly to the Peninsula. In the first place, as regards Post Office staff, there are very often, as the hon. the Minister may know, antiquated facilities and maximum discomfort in some of the older post offices in this area. There is another matter which I particularly want to draw to his attention and that is the fact that when new post offices are constructed there are very often no recreation rooms or rooms the European staff can use during their free hours and during the lunch hour periods. This causes considerable discomfort. Some of the older post offices have completely inadequate heating facilities and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if his department could give its attention to that.

As regards the Transkei, we have reports on this side of the House of White personnel who are most dissatisfied with some of the working conditions in the post offices in the Transkei. Mention was made of this in a letter in, I think, the Postal Herald in February of this year. I think the hon. the Minister could well look into the complaints which were raised in that particular letter.

Then we have received further complaints regarding seniority. For example, Post Office officials have complained that they have been in service since 1955 and that others who have entered service in 1960 have for some reason or other been given seniority above those who have been in service for five years longer. I wonder whether he could perhaps give an explanation for that. There also seems to be some misgiving, which was voiced in the Postal Herald a month ago, concerning the application of the merit system.

As regards post offices and the public, there are in some of the post offices in the Peninsula long queues of customers waiting to be served. This gives rise to many complaints. Especially at the end of the month, when pensions are paid, there are inadequate seating facilities and benches, which causes great discomfort to the public. It has been mentioned already that there are not enough private boxes at many post offices. In my own experience, this in fact is so.

As regards telephone services, in the towns—that goes for most of the major cities, where I have had personal experience of this—there is definitely overloading. Lines become crossed, and there is very often no dialling tone. On other occasions, one gets the dialling tone and, having dialled the number, there is no ring at the other end. On other occasions numbers are found to be engaged, whereas in fact no one has been using the telephone at that number.

Then there is another matter which I want to bring to the Minister’s attention, namely the very high cost of installing telephones in areas that are outside of the towns the peri-urban areas. We in the Cape have, as he knows, the divisional council system. Well, in divisional council areas very often there are growing communities which are unable to afford the installation fees for telephones in those areas. In addition to the installation fee, a very high rental deposit is required from people who want a service in those peri-urban or semi-rural areas. The one particular rental deposit that has been drawn to my attention is for the Scarborough area. There applicants have been asked to pay a deposit of R72 a year for 26 years!

I want to make a special appeal to the Minister as regards public telephones, not only here, but all over the Republic. Public telephones, particularly on railway stations, in docks, at airports, and in the Army, Navy and Air Force camps, where a number of trainees wish to phone their friends and to phone home, are more often than not out of order. In White townships we are having the same complaints in the Cape Province of an inadequate number of public telephone boxes. Where they do in fact exist, very many of them very often are out of order. The same plea has been made already for Coloured and Native townships. Here again, in my own experience of this area, the Peninsula, there are too few public telephone boxes. Those that there are I do not think are serviced often enough. I would commend to the Minister the suggestion that there should be a regional repair service that goes round at least once a week to every one of the telephone boxes in a region to make sure that they are in order. I do not believe that this repair service can ever be performed often enough, because the number of complaints that are received about telephones that are out of order is too large to be incorrect.

I think the Minister will also have to give some thought to the possibility of attaching some mechanism to public telephones, so that if you deposit your coin and you cannot get through, you get your money back. I would go so far as to say that in 50 per cent of the cases where I personally have used a public telephone box, I have put in a 5 cent piece and have been unable to get through to the number, but I have not received that 5 cents back. I think this is daylight robbery of the public! I think that this is something that shows a remarkable lack of sensitivity on the part of the department. In addition, it is completely unjust. People who use public telephone boxes are by and large people who are not able to afford telephone services, or people who have been caught in a position where they have to use a public telephone in the case of an emergency. I think it is wicked that those people should lose their money and still not be able to get the service which they so urgently require.

In conclusion, I just want to refer to a remark made by one of the hon. members opposite concerning the hon. member for Newton Park. The member for Newton Park was supposed to have said that he opposed the issue by the department of a White Paper. He was supposed to have said this was just a propaganda sheet of the Government. The point that he was actually making was that there were arguments used in that White Paper which in fact were whitewashing arguments which could be used by Government speakers and had no place in that particular White Paper. But I think it is fair to say that the information that has been given this year in the annual report of the Post Office, in the White Paper and in the memorandum has been most adequate and has certainly been a great improvement on what we have received before, I would commend the department for this, but I do not want to have any misunderstanding. The hon. member for Newton Park was simply complaining about arguments used in the White Paper which he regarded as arguments to whitewash the Government and to do the job for the Government. I do not think those things are necessary in a White Paper at all.

I think it behoves the hon. member for Simonstown to confine himself to pollution, because I think that is where he belongs.

Order! I do not think that is a fair remark. The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. I wish to refer to the hon. member for Port Natal, who spoke about the telephone service. The hon. member had the temerity to refer to the telephone service in their time. What sort of service was that —a bush telegraph service? In their time you had to saddle a horse and ride to a neighbour to toll a bell there in order to get hold of an exchange. Then the hon. member talks about a telephone service here. This little fellow does not seem to know what went on in this country. But I want to tell the hon. member this …

Order! The hon. member must not refer to another hon. member as a “little fellow”.

The hon. little fellow …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. The hon. member does not seem to know what went on in South Africa, but this is perfectly understandable to me, for when they took leave of him in Pietersburg, there was not a Union Jack left for sale there, because this is how they took leave of him. He comes here and talks about conditions in South Africa, things he knows nothing about, and furthermore he talks about listening-in. Sir, in their day it was not listening-in; it was listening-in and tapping, and there is a big difference between listening-in and tapping. Those were the methods we knew in this country. There are hundreds of people who suffered a great deal of misery and scorn and sorrow in this country as a result of the methods that were used at that time.

Sir, the hon. member for King William’s Town came along here and made great play with percentages: he said the postage on a letter was now being increased from 2½ cents to 4 cents.. an increase of 66 per cent. It sounds terrible if you express it as a percentage, but the average man does not write four letters a month, and what is the difference in postage on four letters a month? The 66 per cent increase means only 6 cents per month. Hon. members also spoke about the new airmail rates here. How many parcels does the average person send by airmail? One or two a month. They talk of an increase of 60 per cent. This sounds terribly much when expressed as a percentage, but surely it is not an everyday practice to send parcels by airmail. Hon. members on that side now want to come along here and scare everyone with percentages; why do they not return to cents? After all, we are living in modern times.

Then the hon. member referred to Mr. Arthur Grobbelaar of Tucsa. But, Sir, we all know that gentleman. We know that Arthur Grobbelaar has never had a good word for the National Party, whether it concerned the ordinary Budget, the Post Office Budget or the Railway Budget. Even if we sent him to Heaven, he would still be disgruntled, because the National Party dare not send him there. This is the type of person Arthur Grobbelaar is. Hon. members on that side come along here with these ridiculous statements.

But, Sir, in the time at my disposal I want to come to a matter affecting my constituency. We appreciate what the Department of Posts is doing. We are aware of the tremendous demand for telephones. I know the department is aware of my problems at Vanderbijlpark. I want to request the co-operation of the Minister and the Postmaster-General in this connection. Is it not possible for them to put Vanderbijlpark on the second rung of the ladder, ahead of Kensington, for instance? I think it is in the interests of South Africa that Vanderbijlpark be placed higher up on the priority list, because we are having that tremendous development there. As you know, Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister recently opened the combination rolling mill there; millions of rands have been spent, and further contracts amounting to millions and millions have been concluded now. R1 200 million will be spent in the next five years, and I want to make a serious plea to the hon. the Minister for Vanderbijlpark to be placed just a little higher up on the priority list.

Then I want to conclude by thanking our present Postmaster-General. He has done something that no other Postmaster-General in South Africa ever did. Our present Postmaster-General drives from one area to another to address his officials in order to obtain their co-operation. As a result of the staff relationships built up by the present Postmaster-General we have the greatest co-operation in the Department of Posts that we have ever had in this country. I want to tell Mr. Rive that if he continues in this way, we shall get results from the Department of Posts such as we have never had before.

Mr. Chairman, in the foreward to the annual report of the Postmaster-General a brilliant set of principles of policy are laid down, principles which he follows in his personal relationships and attitude to management. I believe that if the Postmaster-General could succeed in applying and carrying out these principles it would be of great benefit to the Post Office, its personnel and South Africa.

I want to comment briefly on one of these points of policy. The objective is “the improvement of the image of the Post Office·—in the first place by improved service—until it occupies its rightful place in the public eye.” As a layman I would not like to give advice on how the image of the Post Office could be improved by means of improved service. But I do want to mention one aspect by means of which I think this image could be improved. In urban and suburban post offices it often happens at counters where the public has to be served that four or five of the booths are closed and that long queues of clients have to wait in front of one booth. Often one just wants to buy a stamp, a postal order, or whatever the case may be. This waiting when one does not have time causes some irritation and sometimes dissatisfaction as well. I think this in fact harms the image of the Post Office. I realize full well that all this is due to a staff shortage. But now that the Post Office is run as a business concern and there is no competing organization which also sells stamps, I think it is only right that the service to the public at the counters should be a little more prompt, even if administrative work has to fall behind to some extent. It often happens that while one is standing there, one sees staff members moving around behind the counter, giving the impression that they are not all that busy. In the meantime there is only one lady serving the public. By eliminating the long queues that are formed in front of post office counters, the general image of the Post Office amongst the general public could be improved to a large extent.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 136.

Just before this House adjourned, the hon. member for Walmer asked me two questions. I now want to reply to them very briefly. The first of the two questions the hon. member asked was whether a local authority could opt out, as he put it, if an administration area was established. The other question was whether it was the idea to establish these administration boards throughout the Republic. I just want to say that the Act leaves no local authority the choice of refusing to be included in an administration area. But the Act does in fact leave the Minister the choice of including or not including the area of a local authority in a larger administration area. There must be no uncertainty about this. I have already emphasized that it is not the intention to steam-roller local authorities into larger administration areas or into administration boards. The idea is not to force local authorities. The idea is to apply it carefully and leisurely. For that reason I am really not able to say at this stage whether greater administration areas and administration boards will be established administration boards will be established throughout the Republic. That will depend on various circumstances. What I can say, in fact, is that we will apply it with great circumspection. It will depend to a very large extent on the co-operation we shall receive in that regard from local authorities. I have already said that there will be a committee of inquiry prior to the establishment of an administration area. We have already received representations and requests from various areas to establish administration areas and administration boards there. Naturally we shall start in those areas from which the requests have come. Therefore, I think I have said enough to satisfy the hon. member for Walmer in regard to the two questions he put to me. I hope that with this I have also given an adequate explanation of the intention and of how this whole matter will be handled.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—66: Aucamp, P. L. S.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, L. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, S. P.; Botma, M. C; Brandt, J. W.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzee, B.; Cruywagen, W. A.; De Jager. P. R.; De Wet, C.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, A. H.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Erasmus, A. S. D.; Gerdener, T. J. A.; Grobler, W. S. J.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Henning, J. M.; Hoon, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J.; Le Roux, J. P. C.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, J. J.; Malan, W. C.; Marais, P. S.; Morrison, G. de V.; Nel, D. J. L.; Nel. J. A. F.; Palm, P. D.; Pansegrouw, J. S.; Pelser, P. C.; Pienaar. L. A.; Pieterse, R. J. J.; Prinsloo, M. P.; Rail, J. L; Rail, J. W.; Rail, M. J.; Reinecke, C. J.; Reyneke, J. P. A.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Roux, P. C; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Van der Merwe, C. V.; Van der Merwe, H. D. K.; Van der Merwe, W. L.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van Tonder, J. A.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Vorster, B. J.; Vorster, L. P. J.; Waring, F. W.; Wentzel, J. J. G.

Tellers: G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Noes—36: Bands, G. J.; Basson, J. A. L.; Baxter, D. D.; Deacon, W. H. D.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Emdin, S.; Fisher, E. L.; Graaff, De V.; Hickman, T.; Hourquebie, R. G. L.; Hughes, T. G.; Jacobs, G. F.; Kingwill, W. G.; Malan, E. G.; Marais, D. L; Miller, H.; Moolman, J. H.; Oldfield, G. N.; Oliver, G. D. G.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Smith, W. J. B.; Stephens. J. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Sutton, W. M.; Timoney, H. M.; Van den Heever, S. A.; Van Hoogstraten, H. A.; Von Keyserlingk, C. C.; Wainwright, C. J. S.; Webber, W. T.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Winchester, L. E. D.; Wood, L. F.

Tellers; R. M. Cadman and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, clause 3 deals with the constitution of the board, and I move the amendments standing in my name, as follows—

(e) one shall be appointed in respect of each urban Bantu council, if any, the whole or part of whose area of jurisdiction is included in the board’s administration area.; in line 42, after “(c)” to insert “and (e)”; and to omit all the words after “be” in line 48 up to and including “him” in line 50 and to substitute “nominated”.

I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister will have any trouble with the majority of these amendments. The first one merely provides in paragraph (a) that the Minister will consult with the bodies which are representative of persons engaged in agriculture in appointing a member to represent agriculture.

In paragraph (b) I provide for commerce to be consulted as well as industry and that the Minister will consult with the employer bodies.

Then I also move that the representatives of the local authorities in the area will not be limited to one representative but that the Minister shall have the power to make provision for more than one representative for each local authority. I fear the hon. the Deputy Minister may have some difficulty with the rest of my amendments, because I provide for representation of the urban Bantu council on the board. I move to add a new paragraph (e) at the end of subsection (1) which will provide for this representation.

The hon. member for Houghton also has an amendment on the Order Paper. But where she provides for more than one representative, my proposal is that there should be only one for each urban Bantu council in the area of jurisdiction of the board. By that I ensure that Bantu will not dominate the board.

In other words, your idea is that the representative should be a Bantu.

He need not necessarily be a Bantu, but he will be nominated by the urban Bantu council. The hon. the Deputy Minister will see in the next part of my amendment, with which I will deal just now, that such a representative will be nominated by the urban Bantu council.

Provision was made, as the Committee will know, for advisory Bantu councils to advise municipalities. Subsequently, Dr. Verwoerd provided for urban Bantu councils to take the place of the advisory councils. Provision is made there for giving them powers to control certain matters of administration. In terms of section 4 of the Urban Bantu Councils Act, the local authority, with the approval of the Minister and the Administrator, could delegate authority to its urban councils. I do not want to go into all the methods of delegation. There were 11 instances where powers could be delegated to these Bantu councils. The United Party’s contention is that the Bantu should be trained to take over administration in their own urban areas. I submit that the best way of training them to take over authority is to give them representation oil a local authority board where they can see what is happening and where they can be part of the operation of the local authority. In this way they can be trained in the procedure of local administration. The hon. the Deputy Minister will tell us that these urban councils will be consulted. We have the example of one Government board which does not consult the Bantu in its area. I refer to a report which was published in The Star of the 25th February of this year. There the superintendent of Meadowlands, Zone No. 1, Mr. Muller, was asked by the Bantu if the Bantu in Meadowlands and Diepkloof could not be given the same channels of communication with the Resettlement Board as was given to the Bantu living in the Johannesburg area. They have an urban council which consults with the Johannesburg Municipality. The reply was that as far as the Resettlement Board was concerned, it saw no need whatsoever for the establishment of such intermediate bodies in townships which fell under its control. He said that they believed simply in dealing with people’s grievances purely on an individual direct basis. I submit that this is the wrong attitude and it is not the attitude which is expected from this board. It is not either the attitude which was envisaged by Dr. Verwoerd when he provided for urban Bantu councils. We say that we should ensure that these Bantu councils are represented and that their voices are heard by these boards by giving them representation on that board. In that way the board will get the views of the Bantu themselves and not merely from officials, as will be the case if provision is not made in this Bill for these urban Bantu councils to be heard. As I have said, there is no provision in this Bill for them to be heard by the board. There is nothing to compel the board to listen to them. The board need merely rely on its officials, as the Bill stands at the moment.

Furthermore, I want to move further amendments whereby the representatives of the local authorities will be nominated by the local authorities themselves. That should be done to ensure that they not only represent the local authorities but that they are representative of the local authorities. In terms of clause 3 (2) (c) representatives of the local authority “shall be selected by the Minister from a list of names of so many persons as may be required by the Minister to be submitted to him by such body when called upon by the Minister to do so”. I submit that the words “shall be selected by the Minister from a list of names, etc.” should be replaced by the words “shall be nominated by such body when called upon by the Minister to do so”.

I want to say that we appreciate the attitude of the hon. the Deputy Minister in considering these amendments. The amendments have been on the Order Paper for some time and the hon. the Deputy Minister has consulted with the members who have amendments under their names on the Order Paper. Members will notice that the amendments have been changed from time to time after consultation with the Minister and I can assure him that in this way he has avoided a great deal of unnecessary discussion, and discussion has been cut down to the barest essentials. We know what the Minister’s attitude is and he knows what our attitude is.

I first want to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Transkei for the friendly remarks he made a moment ago. I want to say at once that the amendment, as printed on the Order aper under the name of the hon. member for Transkei, i.e. to clause 3 (1) (a), is perfectly acceptable to me. It has always been the intention that we should have the necessary consultation with the organizations concerned. For that reason the amendment to subsection (1) (a), which deals with consultation with the organizations which are representative of persons engaged in agriculture, is perfectly acceptable to me. The insertion of the words “after consultation with such organizations as, in the opinion of the Minister, are representative of the employers concerned” in paragraph (b) is also acceptable to me. In regard to paragraph (c), the request is for “one or more” to be appointed by the Minister to serve on that board in the capacity of representing the local authorities. They are not appointed as being representative of the local authorities, but in fact for other reasons, to which I shall come in a moment or two. After I had examined and considered it very carefully, I decided to accept this amendment as well, i.e. the insertion of “one or more”. I had only the one practical problem that in some areas this might have the effect of making the board too large. But I accept the insertion of the “one or more”, because I should like to prove my goodwill and that of my department towards the local authorities. Furthermore, I adopt the standpoint that, if one were dealing with an area in which there might be 30 local authorities, everyone would understand that under those specific circumstances and because of practical reasons, it would be more acceptable to nominate only one from each local authority, the number which this legislation is in fact providing for at the moment. But in another case where one would perhaps be dealing with two or three local authorities, it would be perfectly justified to nominate more than one. In this spirit and on the basis of this view, this amendment is also acceptable to me. Therefore, the amendments to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), which the hon. member moved, are perfectly acceptable to me. This covers the amendments moved to this clause up to line 35 on page 5.

What is not acceptable to me, is the addition then moved by the hon. member for Transkei, i.e. the addition of the new paragraph (e) at the end of clause 3 (1) to the effect that a representative of the urban Bantu council be appointed to the administration board. The hon. member will understand if I cut this short now by telling him that this is entirely contrary to our declared policy, because of the fact that it has always been a standing rule that an urban Bantu council shall not have representation on a local authority. I find it very difficult to accept this now. The hon. member for Houghton, of whom one would expect it, put forward the proposal that more than one member of the urban Bantu council should be given “representation”, as they put it, on the administration board, and I was rather surprised at the Opposition following in her footsteps and placing an amendment on the Order Paper in terms of which one should be appointed in respect of each urban Bantu council. I now say that this is not acceptable to us, because of very strict considerations of policy. I shall leave it at that. We can play politics with this matter at a later stage if we must and if it is necessary to do so.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.