Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the Post Office Budget yesterday represented the annual assault of the Government in its traditional battle against the backlog. Although the Budget has indicated to us that a valiant effort has been made on the part of those concerned in trying to win this battle, I am afraid that the enemy is still entrenched and the backlog remains as it was. In some respects the enemy is even more firmly entrenched than before while in other respects we see some signs of the strategy having resulted in a potential breakthrough. Financially—if I may use the same metaphor—the Government is using the wrong troops. It is using the battle-weary user of the telecommunications system as its permanent front-line troops. It expects the same people who have been carrying the burden to continue to carry it. It is also stretching its manpower resources too thinly over the field. Here I would like to pay tribute to those people who are bearing the tremendous strain of trying to provide an efficient service for South Africa without the wherewithal to make this possible. I have some experience of the hours worked, of the sacrifices made by those who have been involved particularly during some of the breakdown periods like the floods in the Transvaal and in other areas. I know what they have done to try to restore services as soon as possible.

I repeat that the Government is using the battle-worn and battle-weary telephone user as its main financial weapon. It is not calling up its reserves because it has not got the reserves to call up. At long last this year it has called for new weapons but it knows and the department knows that it will be years before those weapons can be brought into action.

Unfortunately our time is extremely limited in this debate. The official Opposition has a total of only 70 minutes for this entire debate. It is therefore necessary for us to try to pinpoint our criticisms of this Budget. This I want to do by moving the following amendment—

1. (1) the proposed method of financing capital expenditure will—
   1. (a) place an unnecessary burden on the public of nearly 38 million rands in increased tariffs during the next year;
   2. (b) necessitate ever-increasing tariff rises in every following year; and
   3. (c) result in present users of telecommunications services carrying an unfair share of the capital cost of all postal services to future users;
2. (2) there is no evidence of imaginative action to solve the critical shortage of technical and semi-technical personnel; and
3. (3) the country is consequently faced with having an inefficient telephone service for an indefinite period ahead.”.

This amendment that I have moved pinpoints our three main complaints. There is one in the financial field, one in regard to staff shortages and one in regard to the Government’s failure to win the battle of the backlog.

*Firstly I want to mention that we noticed that the hon. the Minister, like the hon. the Minister of Transport, deviated from the tradition of a one-language speech, the tradition of using English and Afrikaans alternately, by using both languages in his speech. As I said in another debate, we support this. I believe that the more often we use both languages in this House, the better it is for bilingualism in this country.

In the first place I want to deal with capital expenditure. The hon. the Minister told us that he had achieved the ideal of 50%-50% from revenue and loan funds in this Budget. When it was first suggested, we opposed this principle. We opposed it again last year. I should like to quote from last year’s Hansard of 13 February 1974 what the hon. member for Constantia said in this regard (col. 824)—

†In 1972 he said the following in connection with the formula, and I quote from Hansard of 23 March, column 4050—

*As far back as 1972, and on several occasions last year, we warned that tariffs would have to be increased continually if 50% of capital expenditure had to be covered from Revenue. We are even more opposed to this Budget which is before the House today. The hon. the Minister said in his Budget speech that he was meeting 50% of his capital expenditure from Loan Account and 50% from Revenue Account, but obviously that is incorrect. What are the facts? The fact is that the capital expenditure in this Budget amounts to R213 million and that only R94 million of that amount is being defrayed from the Loan Account. In other words, only 44% of the capital expenditure is being defrayed from Loan Account and 55% from Revenue Account—an amount of R112 million.

†Mr. Speaker, it is estimated that telecommunications alone, not the total capital Budget of the Post Office, will require an additional capital expenditure of R1000 million over the next ten years. That is the figure forecast in the brochure on the new telephone system received yesterday. That means, Sir, that R100 million a year will have to be found. If we follow this principle, then whereas this year tariffs have had to be increased to find R38 million, next year they will have to be increased even more to find a larger amount and the following year they will have to be increased further to find a larger amount— exactly what the hon. member for Constantia warned about in 1972. He warned that if this formula was followed, tariffs would have to be increased each year to find the additional money. Sir, telephone services are budgeted for 15 years. Some of them last longer. Some of the telephone equipment that we are using now is 50 or 60 years old, but let us take 15 years, and let us shorten the amortization period to ten years. The position then is that if that money is funded partly by loans, today’s user, instead of having to pay R50 million of the R100 million spent each year on telecommunications, will have to repay one-tenth of the capital each year plus interest. That means that if you took it to its utmost and took into account depreciation over a period of ten years, your telecommunications user would be paying a far higher annual amount than he would have to pay by amortizing loan funds. Let us take the repayment at 20%—10% capital redemption and 10% interest. It would be much less, of course, and it would only be for half the period because you would be making capital redemption payments each year. Over ten years the telecommunications user would pay R200 million towards the capital account, whereas if 50% of that R1 000 million is funded by revenue then in the same ten years he is going to pay R500 million, a difference of R300 million or two and a half times as much. Sir. the Post Office is a monopoly. It could not survive otherwise, because it could not be competitive if it had to finance its capital programme on this basis. What is happening is that the telecommunications user of today is being forced to pay for capital services for users of the future. Today we are having to pay for the capital which is required to supply telephones for future generations. Just as we are opposed to this 50% formula, so are we even more opposed to the suggestion of a unitary Budget which will disguise the extent to which every person who makes a telephone call is contributing twice as much as he needs to, in order to pay for a telephone call that his children will make in ten years’ time.

The telephone and telecommunications service is to the Post Office what highrated traffic is to the S.A. Railways. It is the goose that lays the golden egg, the telephone user being the goose. He is being made a goose of by this system. In this year there will be some 6% or 7% more telephones supplied to the public and there will be 15% more traffic. However, the profit, according to the last figures that we have has gone up by 66%. So, where you get 6% more telephones and 15% more traffic, the telecommunications profit has gone up by 66%, from a figure of R30 million to R50 million. On top of that R50 million we are now being asked to pay a tariff increase amounting to R37,5 million, that is over and above the R50 million profit which they have shown in the last year. Surely it is a basic business principle that increased turnover means a greater profit, which in turn means lower tariffs or prices, but in the hands of this hon. Minister increased turnover means increased profits plus higher tariffs. It just does not make sense. That is the first and one of the major objections which we have to this Budget.

The chaotic situation which we have in the telephone services of South Africa is, what is more, an indefinite one. We realize there are reasons. There has been bad weather, there has been this, that and the other. Last year for instance. I suggested a disaster squad which would be available to fly into a flooded area to help to deal with the disaster situation. It was not taken very seriously, if one judges by what happened on the Witwatersrand earlier this year.

Whatever figures one may quote, and however one may blind people with statistics, facts remain facts, and one of the facts is that the telephone service in South Africa today is a shambles. On the Witwatersrand in particular, they have had representation after representation; and even people pleading that the nerves of their telephonists are so shattered that they are having to have medical attention, because the strain of being a telephonist is more than many people can take. I must say that in the short time that I was in Durban during January, it was the worst period that I have ever experienced in so far as dialling was concerned. There were wrong numbers, premature engaged signals, the cutting off of calls half-way and crossed lines; it was simply chaotic. So whatever statistics one may bring along, the fact is that the telephone service is chaotic and a shambles. In the battle of the backlog, I regret that the Government is on the losing side. There is no point however in flogging a dead telephone, and I think that we should appeal to the Government to try to look for some immediate steps and to tell us, for instance —I ask the hon. the Minister to tell us— what he is doing about investigations in depth into the reasons for cable faults. The hon. member for South Coast will deal with this in more detail; as an engineer he can deal with it more technically. This is the sort of thing we want to know. What is being done to deal with the situation? Has thought been given, for instance, to seeing that when a new township is set up it should be a condition of that township’s development that telephone cables are laid to service that township? What sort of cooperation is there between town planning and the Post Office? Does the Post Office know what future town planning is? It does not seem like it, because when a new township appears it often takes years before the people who move into that township can get a telephone service. What sort of planning is that? What is the breakdown? What is being done to ensure the sort of co-operation and the advance planning that is necessary? Local authorities demand that if a block of flats is built telephone connection pipes are laid for telephones. Surely that principle could be extended to the provision of cables for a whole new development area.

And what about the recruitment for the 2 600 technical and semi-technical people we are short of in the Post Office? There is nothing imaginative about the recruiting. There are advertisements in the newspapers or a trip overseas to look for people. Particularly with the recession in Europe now we should be able to pick up qualified People, but our recruiting is unimaginative. We think we have reached the end of the world when we find 100 Black people who can be trained. We should be training a thousand, and you cannot tell me that there are no Black people looking for work and wanting to be trained. You cannot tell me they are not available. What is wrong is that we are not going out to look for them. There is no imagination in our whole approach to our recruiting. I want to ask whether the SABC is carrying its share of the capital burden, or whether the telephone user has to carry it. We read for instance that there are 7 000 km of microwave and 500 km coaxial cable—a capital investment of R8 million in preparation for television alone. What proportion of that capital is the SABC paying, not to mention the FM reception in Durban which apparently cannot be heard because of television? Sir, I have not the time but I have here a full page of suggestions which I will possibly be able to complete during the Third Reading debate. These deal with the unprofitable services and labour intensive services in regard to which the only answer of the Post Office is that where there is labour intensive service, the tariff must be pushed up or the service reduced. That is their only answer. If the service is unproductive or unprofitable they push up the tariffs.

What is your answer?

I will give you my answers, Sir. Bring in your postal user and let him make his contribution. I have six positive proposals which I will make at a later stage of the debate to show how the user, if given the right inducement, can adjust his normal business practice to remove much of the labour intensive work of the Post Office. The businessman is doing it anyway and by proper liaison and co-ordination he can use the same amount of labour and divert it to the right direction to take the burden off the Post Office. There can be more mechanization. Stamp machines could be equipped to put the code on envelopes so that when letters are posted they go straight into the sorting machine. There are all sorts of imaginative ideas which we do not get implemented because the Post Office is a monopoly. It is a monopoly and therefore has no competition. I believe this House can provide some of the challenge which competition would provide in private enterprise and I suggest to the Government members that they try to shake their brains up somehow and make even one contribution to help the Post Office.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Durban Point, and I have the amendment which he moved, in front of me. I shall refer to it in the course of my speech. It reminds me of an old saying, but I shall not quote it because it is unparliamentary and the wrong inferences may perhaps be drawn from it. Sir, the hon. member began his attack by referring to the 50/50 formula. I want to tell the hon. member that he did not do his homework. The hon. member said that 55% of the financing will come from revenue. Surely that is not the case. I should like to quote what the Franzsen Commission had to say at the time concerning the source from which this revenue should be derived. After they had referred to the 50% which should be financed from loans, they said the following (translation)—

According to this direction of the Franzsen Commission we are far behind as far as this redemption from revenue is concerned. That is not what that hon. member and his party are alleging. After all, the data is very clear. There are loans to the amount of R40 million from the State, R13 million plus the R30 million of the Post Office Savings Bank, and foreign loans to the amount of R11,5 million. Surely the surplus of R13 million is not derived from revenue. The hon. member is trying to imply that it derives from revenue. Surely it is not revenue.

But it is not a loan either.

That money cannot be taken from revenue to finance this programme.

Is it a loan?

It is a loan. This amount of R13 million is, in one respect, financing of creditors, the utilization of credit facilities. It also derives from bank overdrafts on which the Post Office can rely. It derives from moneys which are in transit. Let me put it to the hon. member in this way: Suppose it were not available now. These moneys which we are now voting must be paid and will be paid. There is no other revenue, of any nature whatsoever, from which this R13 million can be financed. The Post Office has the power to borrow from the State or to borrow money overseas, and it can do so on its own. If that money cannot be obtained from revenue or from these other sources which I have mentioned, then loans have to be raised. These are, therefore, loans. Sir, even if I discuss only this one aspect this afternoon, I think it would be useful if we were to elaborate a little on this. The Franzsen Commission stated very clear that provision ought to be made for the replacement of assets at historic costs. That is the price which was paid for the assets which has to be written off. What is the position now in respect of the assets of the Post Office? Here we now have the position of exchanges and instruments that are obsolete and worn out. Although they can still be used for ten, 15 or 20 years, it does not pay the Post Office to continue to do so. They have to replaced. In other words, the total cost of those assets now has to be written off. The Franzsen Commission rightly went on to point out that the replacement value of assets should be used in future, because the assets which have to be purchased in future will then cost far more than what they cost five or 10 years ago. This question of inflationary bookkeeping is, by the way, something which the business world is discussing at length today. What does the hon. member want to do with that figure? When we purchase an asset, such as the new telephone service, can he tell us that that asset is going to last for 40 or 50 years before becoming obsolete? Adequate provision should be made now for the writing off of that asset against revenue, so that the future generation, when it in turn has to purchase a new asset, does not have to pay too much. The hon. member states in his amendment that we are taxing the future generation to the extent of R38 million. Surely that is not true. Where does the hon. member get that from? I want to tell the hon. member that that is not the case. I shall return to that point again at a later stage in my speech.

The hon. member states that there is a tremendous backlog in the provision of telephones. Does the hon. member realize that the applications for services which have not yet been provided in relation to the telephone services which are being provided, is only 4,95%? This percentage is the lowest for the backlog in telephones since 1968. It has never been so low. Everything in this country is growing and flourishing and the hon. member should not try to imply now that this situation is so deplorable while the backlog of telephones is so low. The hon. member forgets one thing, which is that South Africa is growing and flourishing as a result of the good work of this hon the Minister and this National Party Government. People who have never before wanted a telephone are now applying for one.

The entire world has more telephones.

This is the case; one cannot get away from it. Take as an example the major business concerns of today. Instead of their having one telephone line, many of them today have 15 or 20 telephones or extensions. Some of our young men and women attending universities are staying in flats and have telephones at their disposal. Which of the hon. members, myself included, enjoyed that luxury in our young days?

We are living in the jet age, you know.

The hon. member should rather give thanks and pay tribute to the department and to the Minister for what they have achieved. Shakespeare said: “Mine honour is my life; both grow in one; Take honour from me and my life is done.” Apparently the hon. members on that side of the House do not want to give the hon. the Minister, the Post Office and its staff the credit which is due to them. I think that life will pass the hon. members by if they are not careful.

I want to refer again to the tariffs. The hon. member complained about the tariffs which have been increased. I want to ask him who is complaining about that. On 29 January the hon. the Minister announced that the tariffs would be raised with effect from 1 April. The hon. the Minister gave an undertaking to commerce and industry that they would be informed in good time of when the tariffs were going to be raised, so that they could set their own house in order. I just want to tell hon. members what happened. Who did in fact complain? Not commerce, not industry; in fact, no one complained when those tariffs were announced. The most criticism that was levelled at us came from Mr. Arthur Grobbelaar of Tucsa. He said, according to Die Transvaler of 30 January 1975 [translation]—

Although the increase is understandable, it will unfortunately be an added incentive to inflation. However, if the Post Office utilizes the revenue to expand and improve its services, one can adopt a sympathetic approach to this matter. However, I think that this will badly undermine the country’s efforts to combat inflation.

This was the worst criticism he had to level at it. What have we actually done now? South Africa as a whole wants better service. The hon. member asked for more telephones, but he does not want to pay for them. He wants the bulk to come from loan funds. He and his party want to pass on the cost of what they are enjoying today to the future generations. That is not justifiable. That is not fair. Surely we cannot burden future generations with tremendous loans. In any case, if we were to raise major loans, where is the interest to come from which has to alleviate the burden? What is more, where is all the money to come from to repay the debt? It must, after all, come from revenue. He may score for one year, but after that he will be in the same boat again. We are doing this in accordance with a far sounder and more scientific method. Let us consider the increased tariffs for a while. The hon. member stated that the telecommunications system should not finance or subsidize the Post Office, that is, if I understood him correctly.

Let us consider the tariffs which will be raised, as has been announced. What has happened in respect of telecommunications? Let us consider automatic trunk calls in the first place. It is true that the relevant tariffs have been increased, but the tariff increase became unavoidable owing to the sharp rise in maintenance and operating costs. How can we prevent the tariffs from being increased if the operating costs have risen? Everything in the country has become more expensive. Salaries and wages have increased. There are an enormous number of things the Post Office must have, and which have to be imported. The cost of these things has also gone up. The tariff for an automatic trunk call of three minutes over 100 km was 16 cents and has now become 24 cents. What is the situation overseas? In the United Kingdom, for example, the corresponding tariff is 28,5 cents as against 24 cents in South Africa. In West Germany the tariff is as high as 90 cents. There is therefore a considerable difference if we compare our country with other countries. Only when we compare the tariff with that in other countries can we see how low our tariff really still is. We should be grateful that the tariffs in South Africa are so low; we should not kick up a fuss about them. Let us consider the tariff for manually dialled trunk calls in South Africa, based on a call of three minutes. The minimum cost of a manually dialled call is already more than 25 cents, and it is increasing rapidly. At the existing tariffs of four cents, nine cents and 18 cents for calls over distances up to 100 km, the basic costs are not nearly being recovered. Surely we cannot allow this position to continue. Who has to bear that cost now? Surely one cannot allow nine cents to be charged for a call while the actual cost involved is 25 cents. Who is going to subsidize this system. The hon. member for Durban Point or the next speaker on his side must give us this information.

Telephone rentals have increased from R36 to R42 per annum. The present rental does not cover the fixed annual cost at all. Once again, by whom or from what source should that cost be redeemed? I want to mention as an examule the annual rental for telephone exchanges in certain countries of Western Europe. It appears that the position in Western Europe is far worse than it is in South Africa where we are paying R42 per annum. In West Germany the rental is R100-32, in the United Kingdom R39-60, which compares very favourably with ours, and in Holland R64-80. Consequently there is a considerable difference in comparison with what we are paying in South Africa. I think that we are fortunate that we have a Minister and a department which are providing telephone services in this country at a relatively low cost. The telephone installation fee in this country was only increased from R20 to R30. This does not even cover the labour and transportation costs involved, and those costs are increasing all the time. In the United Kingdom this costs R63-50, in West Germany R52-20, in Holland R51-30 and in Sweden R46-50, although Sweden is an extremely wealthy country which ought to be able to do it for less. We therefore compare extremely favourably with the rest of the world. In fact, we are the cheapest of all. In respect of all the sectors I have mentioned there is not one country which compares favourably with us except in the case of telephone rentals in Great Britain.

Let us look at the conveyance of post. I want to express my gratitude today for the fact that an adjustment has been made in this regard. A change has now been made in the case of commercial articles, second class postal articles, which are not the same as printed matter and samples. The tariff has been increased from two cents to three cents per 50 g. Do you know, Sir, that the estimated loss during 1974-’75 on these second class postal articles—i.e. primarily commercial articles, will be between R8 million and R10 million? Consequently there is no justification for despatching commercial articles, including statements of account and Christmas cards at this low tariff any further. I therefore think that it is a very good thing that these tariffs have been increased. What is the situation in respect of our newspapers and periodicals which are despatched? Since 1925 this material has been sent through the post at ¼ cent for 250 g. Only in 1971 was this increased to ½ cent. Now it is being increased to two cents per 250 g. Surely this tariff for newspapers and periodicals is therefore highly uneconomical. The loss in respect of the conveyance of this material consequently amounts to R3 million. Why should the Post Office finance and subsidize this section from other sources? The hon. member must tell us why, or does he not agree that these tariffs had to be increased? The question is why the newspapers and periodicals should be subsidized, and on whose part this should be done. The increased tariffs which they are now going to pay will only bring in an amount of R879 000. This is not a major increase. It looks like a high tariff, but it does not mean a great deal of money for the State. There is still a tremendous loss. So we can continue to enumerate whole series of these things. However, I feel that it is not necessary to convince the hon. member further that things are as they should be.

We would do well to consider the function of the Post Office. We passed a law here. I am relying on the hon. member’s good judgment, and I want to tell him what is stated in the 1968 Act. I am referring to section two, which I am going to quote to him—

Included in this, apart from the Post Office having to be a business undertaking, is the statement that services may be rendered, and in general this is the view which should be adopted here. We know that the Act provides that if a service is rendered at a loss the Controller and Auditor-General shall submit an account annually, which may be paid from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. If the hon. member is of the opinion that a service is being rendered by the Post Office here which should in fact be financed from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, why does the hon. member not point this out to the hon. the Minister and say: “This service should be subsidized by the Central Exchequer”? The means are there for the hon. member to do this. Why does the hon. member not put forward a proposal that a specific service should be subsidized?

I am coming to that.

I would be very glad if the hon. member would come to that. We will support him if something has to be done. We want to act fairly towards everyone in South Africa. None of us want one section to be exploited to the benefit and profit of another section. We simply do not do this. If the hon. member has a case to make out, I shall support him.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

I do not have very much time. We can argue this matter further during the Committee Stage.

There is another aspect I want to discuss which is this: What else is the Post Office doing in general? I want to put the hon. member wise to the fact that apart from a few things which he could perhaps think of, the Post Office is in many respect not merely supplying telephones and delivering letters. There are many other services which the Post Office is rendering. There is, for example, the tremendous building programme which the Post Office has to undertake itself. In this country it is expensive to do this; it is not all that easy. We cannot simply connect up a telephone every day. The big problem is to establish the exchanges first. The building has to be erected, and then the exchanges have to be put into operation. The necessary material and machinery has to be imported. In addition we in South Africa have the difficult position that it is not always possible to deliver the equipment on time. The hon. member knows that just as well as I do. We cannot blame the department and the hon. the Minister for things which are not as they should be. I want to repeat that the Post Office does not merely provide telephones and deliver letters, but that it renders other services as well. The hon. member himself has probably seen the wonderful Post Office annual report. I want to thank the hon. the Minister and the department for the wonderful annual report. It is as complete as one could wish it to be. I am speaking on behalf of this side of the House when we express our appreciation in this regard. Not one of us will object, because it is such a good and excellent report.

On page 62 of the report mention is made of the agency services. Do hon. members realize that an amount of R370,7 million is being handled by the officials of the Post Office, whether in the form of payments, or in the form of moneys which are collected? I should like to enumerate the whole series: Community Development— collection of rental and loan redemption; customs and excise; inland revenue; provincial administration (Cape); pensions which are paid—a service which is being rendered to our old people. Let us now see what our post office receives in return. They receive a meagre remuneration for this. No one else will collect this money for the commission the Post Office receives for it. In addition there are the pensions of the S.A. Railways that are being paid, and there is the work which is being done for the Treasury. Surely the Post Office is performing a great task and we should be grateful for this.

I just want to make the position very clear to the Opposition. When we think of the Post Office, we must also think of the minor sacrifices which those people make. Although they regard these as minor sacrifices, these are of great importance to South Africa. This reminds me of something Emerson once said, namely that good manners consist of small sacrifices. It would be good manners if this House of Assembly also acknowledged the minor sacrifices of the Post Office workers on behalf of South Africa. I referred to the money which is being collected. The Post Office receives only 2% on the sale of revenue stamps and licences, 1% on the amount paid in respect of loan levy certificates, one-eighth per cent on credit issues and 2½% on direct sales in respect of excise stamps on tobacco, and so on. I can continue to enumerate the whole series. I think the Post Office is rendering very good service to the people of South Africa. I think hon. members ought to take that aspect into consideration.

I now want to consider another matter. The hon. the Minister told us yesterday that the public should co-operate as far as our postal codes are concerned. However, there are many other spheres as well in which the public can make matters far easier for the Post Office. I am thinking, inter alia, of the postmen. Frequently there are no letter boxes on garden gates. I want to make an appeal to our people to place a letter-box at every gate. We also find that the letter-boxes for blocks of flats assume all kinds of shapes and sizes. Our people should preferably put up standard letter-boxes in all blocks of flats. I do not know through what channels the appeal should be made, perhaps over the radio or perhaps in the Press. However, if the people of South. Africa would all help, the delivery of post would take place far more easily. We know that the Post Office is in arrears with the provision of telephones. We also know that one frequently cannot get through when one makes a call. However, I think that we should try to make telephone conversations briefer. We should be more judicious in the use of the telephone. This applies to all of us. I also think that we can apply standardization to a greater extent as far as the size of envelopes and postal articles which have to be delivered are concerned.

In conclusion I want to say thank you very much to the Minister for the fact that Pretoria is now going to be given a post office which will be worthy of the capital. I said in the Railway debate that Cape Town and Johannesburg had their beautiful stations, but that Pretoria did not yet have a station or a post office which was worthy of this capital. Let us be given a post office there which will not only attract attention from all quarters, but which will also be able to render good service and redound to the credit of us all. I also want to ask that when this post office is being finalized and given its final touches, we shall bear in mind the past history, the historical events which took place on that square, and in which, the building which is going to disappear possibly played a part. We hope that some symbol of or link to the history of the past will remain, so that we do not lose that link.

A microwave tower is to be erected on Lucasrand. This happens to be in my constituency. We do not know when work on this tower will be commenced, and therefore we would be pleased if the hon. the Minister could perhaps, at this stage, give us a little information in regard to what has been decided. We know about all the speculation concerning it—for example whether there is going to be a restaurant or not. We would ask that the construction of that microwave tower be expedited so that Pretoria, in which there is at present a good service, but in which there are also justifiable complaints, may also have that service, and particularly, too, in view of the fact that we are going to have television next year. It would be a good thing if it will also be possible for us to watch television.

Lastly I want to say this to the hon. the Minister: Thank you very much for this Budget and thank you very much for the excellent way in which the Post Office and its officers have during the past year dealt with the affairs of the country. I want to say that we consider ourselves fortunate at having been able, at these low tariffs, to have received so many services from this hon. Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sunnyside has told us that we are lagging far behind with the 50/50 formula as far as the spending from revenue funds is concerned. I do not know where he got that from. If he refers to page 1 of the Estimates of Capital Expenditure he will see the financing resources. If he adds only those first two amounts, i.e. amounts from revenue and provision for depreciation and high replacement costs of capital assets, he will see that these amount to R112,2 million. This is derived from revenue, from a revenue source, and represents more than half the total amount of R213 million. I therefore do not know to what the hon. member was referring when he told us that we were lagging far behind in respect of the 50% expenditure. To my mind we have exceeded the spending from revenue funds, because it exceeds 50%.

The hon. member also objected to the fact that we want to burden future generations with the amount of R38 million. This is as far as the increased tariffs are concerned. The hon. member said he felt that future generations should not pay interest and redemption in respect of capital assets on which money is being spent at present. In this case I cannot understand the hon. member either. If he had read the report in connection with the new telephone dialling system, he would have seen that under the present dispensation as far as the telephone exchange is concerned, we have equipment which has been in use for more than 80 years. I am sure that the equipment we are going to purchase now will not have become obsolete in 10 or 20 years’ time. I believe it will still be useful in 50 years’ time. Therefore, I cannot follow the argument of the hon. member at all. We are now buying durable equipment which we hope will last as long as the old equipment we are still using today.

The hon. member also said that every one wants a telephone and that this is the reason for a shortage of telephones. This is quite correct. Everyone wants a motorcar and everyone wants a refrigerator. Life does not stand still. I do not know whether the hon. member is perhaps retrogressing. [Interjections.] The hon. member also said that no one complained about the new tariffs. He told us that the people who said that they are glad that new tariffs had been introduced, had said they were sure the services would improve because increased tariffs had been introduced. I do not know whether the hon. member could go and tell this to his voters. I do not think I could go and tell this to my voters. The hon. the Minister has already told us we must not think that we would be getting improved services simply because tariffs had been increased. He told us we would have to struggle along in this way for the next four or five years. The hon. member also referred to the unavoidably high operating costs. He says this is inevitable.

Sir, I think there are many things which could be avoided. One of the things which could be avoided is the money which is still being spent on apartheid in post offices today. Let us do away with those signs in our post offices. Let us remove the partitions and built-in cubicles we find in our post offices. We could then use the same staff to serve everyone. I am sure that we would be able to reduce the operating costs of the Post Office in this way. I really do not see any need for maintaining apartheid in the post offices. The hon. the Prime Minister said we should have a totally new dispensation in regard to the different races in this country. We should be satisfied to be served on an equal footing with the other races in post offices. We are quite satisfied to be served on an equal footing with them in the shops, in the banks and in the building societies. Why could we not be served on an equal footing with them in a post office? I think these are costs which could be avoided.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Sir. I have only 20 minutes. I do not think I shall have time to reply to questions. Perhaps the hon. member could put his question at a later stage.

†Sir, the hon. member for Durban Point says in the amendment moved by him that there is no evidence of imaginative action to solve the critical shortage of technical and semi-technical personnel in this Budget presented by the hon. the Minister. The Minister in his speech, on page 2, says that there is a very serious shortage, and on page 3 he says that there is a shortage of 2 600 personnel in the technical and semi-technical fields. Sir, I wonder if part of the Minister’s trouble is not the fact that he does not treat his staff well. I think that is probably part of the trouble, because if he looks at the reply that he gave to question 28 on 14 March he will see that in connection with telephone exchange operators, he expects them to work an average of 8½ hours a day, and in addition they work an average of 2¾ hours a day overtime, a total of 11 hours. What time do they get off during the day? For lunch they get 30 minutes and the very maximum they can get for tea is 20 minutes, a total of 50 minutes therefore in a working day of 11 hours. I think that is disgraceful. I believe that unless the Minister is prepared to improve the conditions of telephone operators he is not going to get more telephone operators. He is going to go on getting the resignations that he is getting at present. Sir, if that applies to telephone operators I think it probably applies to other staff as well. I think it is high time the hon. the Minister went into this question of the working conditions of his staff. I think if he went into it properly, he would find that there are many improvements which could be brought about, and I think he would then find that his requirement campaign would improve by leaps and bounds.

Sir, there is another question in regard to staff and that is the training of non-Whites. What does the Minister say? He has a very lame excuse. He says that he cannot train more non-Whites because the availability of instructors and training facilities are limiting factors. Surely in a time of serious crisis and shortage of personnel he must make provision for that. Surely he must provide the instructors and facilities. If they are not there today, then he must provide them for tomorrow, and if he could not provide them last year then he must provide them in this financial year, but the Minister does not say anything about this in his speech—not a word. I say that the hon. member for Durban Point is quite correct when he says the hon. the Minister is quite unimaginative in regard to his staff shortages. I suggest that the hon. the Minister should go into this matter and see whether he cannot tell us, when he replies to this debate, what he has in mind. Can he hire premises? Can he build premises? Can he get facilities? Where can he get instructors? Can he train them? Or is his trouble that he only has White instructors and does not want them to instruct non-Whites? That might be the reason. In any event, let him tell us what the reason is.

Nonsense!

If that is not the reason, why then do you not use them?

I cannot understand it. Another reason why I say that the hon. member for Durban Point is correct is that we are now in the electronic era and electronics is a most fascinating job. Everybody who has worked with electronics says it is a most fascinating job and they do not want to leave the job. What is wrong then? There must be something wrong with the way in which the Minister is training these people in electronics. Is he not making it attractive enough, or is he making them work too long hours? What is the reason? There is another strange thing. I notice in RP.13 of 1975, on page 6, under the item “Miscellaneous”, there is an item 1(4), which refers to incentive bonuses. I do not know for what purpose the incentive bonus was used during this financial year, but for whatever purpose it was used, the Minister says that he is going to spend R190 000 on incentive bonuses during this year. But what does he propose for next year? He proposes a very great reduction. He only proposes using R55 000 for incentive bonuses. There must be some reason for this. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell us. I would think that an incentive bonus is something to help the staff to be a little more productive, or to make their work more interesting for them.

Then, Sir, in the very short time at my disposal I want to go on to another point, and that is the point also raised by the hon. member for Sunnyside. The hon. member for Sunnyside said that he felt that there were certain ways in which the Consolidated Income Fund could subsidize the Post Office. I do not know whether I agree with his ideas, but I also have some ideas on the subject as to how the Post Office can run at a profit in respect of some of its transactions. You will remember, Sir, that I asked a question. No. 30 on Friday, 14 March, about the basis on which Government departments paid the Post Office for services rendered to them. It was a most revealing reply. The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to one or two items, but let me read the whole lot, because this was tabled and I am afraid that nobody has really had the opportunity to study it. For the distribution and sale of revenue stamps and licences, the Post Office gets 2%; for the payment of loan levy certificates, 1%; for the issue of consular stamps, 1%; for the distribution and sale of tobacco excise labels, ¼% for the collection of investments in Treasury obligations, ¼%; repayment of savings obligations, R2-25 per certificate; for the collection of moneys on behalf of the National Housing Fund, 18,8 cents per transaction; for payment of pensions and grants, 11 cents per voucher; for the payment of Railway pensions, 8 cents per voucher, and for telephone services to the S.A Railways, 50% of the full tariff. Now, Sir, any business which is going to show a profit is certainly not going to do business on this basis. It may be argued that if they let there Government departments pay more, then in the end perhaps we will pay a little more income tax or perhaps we will have to have an indirect tax on this, that or the other, and therefore we must keep these tariffs low. But I think that is no excuse. I shall tell you why I say it is no excuse, Mr. Speaker. It is no excuse in my opinion because I believe that the Post Office is a trading organization, and as a trading organization it must strive to make a profit. It does not need to make an enormous profit, but it must strive to make a profit, and you cannot make a profit if you allow a collection fee of only ¼%. Have you ever heard of anything like that? This collection fee is really something “uit die ou doos”. I do not think there is a responsible business institution in the country today that would collect some of these items at under 7½%, and vet we are here talking in terms of figures like one-eighth per cent and 2% in the case of the sale of revenue stamps. That is no commission, no commission at all. Surely, when you handle a responsible sale like the sale of revenue stamps, you must be realistic in laying down the commission. Incidentally, I think the only reason why post offices sell revenue stamps is because it is a most responsible sale. You have to be very careful about the sale of revenue stamps, otherwise you find trafficking in these stamps and people do all sorts of things that they should not do. Now why give the Post Office only 2%? Why do they not get 10%? That would be a fair commission. Mr. Speaker, when one goes through all these items one realizes why the postal part of Posts and Telegraphs is run at a loss. It is because of all these jobs done by the Post Office for virtually nothing. I say that the hon. the Minister must not again tell us in a Budget debate that he has not changed' these tariffs. This is a way in which he can find extra money to balance his Budget. If he had this extra money from proper commissions in respect of this work done by the Post Office, he would not have had to come here today and ask for R38 million in extra tariffs. Based on these ridiculous figures which I have just referred to, in the year 1973-’74 Government departments contributed almost R131 million to the Post Office. Let us assume that this is put on a business-like footing. Let us assume that instead of one-eighth per cent the Post Office will collect 7½%, that instead1 of 2% they will take 10% and that generally these tariffs are increased fivefold. That will then mean that we will be able to multiply the amount paid by Government departments to the Post Office by five. Five times R13½ million is certainly a great deal more than the R38 million which the hon. the Minister is asking us for today.

It is double that amount.

Yes, it is double that amount. If that were done, the hon. the Minister would not have to increase his tariffs. He would have this finance available to him.

He could reduce the tariffs.

Yes, of course. He would not only be able to reduce the tariffs, but he would also be able to do a great deal more in regard to those parts of the telecommunications system that have to be replaced. Cables, for example, are most important and should be replaced as soon as possible with the finest cables available, cables that can withstand the vagaries of the weather and anything else which may affect them. At the moment the Minister is completely up in the air as far as telecommunications and stored programme control are concerned. He seems to forget that although stored programme control is all very well at the end where you are going to push out messages, you have to have cables to carry the messages. Unless the Minister is prepared to do something about the cables, he is not going to have an improved service. He is going to have wonderful sending stations in the various telephone exchanges, but he certainly will not have the means of carrying those speech channels to the subscribers so that they can have unbroken conversations without crossed lines and so forth.

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that my time has almost expired. I had hoped to be able to deal also with other aspects of capital financing, but I am afraid that I shall not have the time. I want to say in conclusion that I support the amendment of the hon. member for Durban Point. I do believe that the hon. the Minister should pay particular attention to the matters raised in this debate, and give us full replies to our queries and the suggestions we have made. I do remember that on a previous occasion the hon. the Minister glossed over the rather telling question we put to him and answered only those he felt he could. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to answer these questions, because I believe that that is the only way in which, through this debate, we will get a proper telephone service, a proper telecommunications service and a proper postal service in the country.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to follow up to any great extent on the remarks made by the previous hon. speaker. He spent a number of minutes on the speech preceding his, namely the speech by the hon. member for Sunnyside. He repeatedly stated that he was unable to understand the hon. member. However, that does not surprise me. I want to tell him that we understand the hon. member for Sunnyside and that the hon. member for Sunnyside understands the Budget. That is more than I can say for the hon. member for Wynberg.

Probably there is no question that both sides of the House—this side of the House carries the responsibility, while the responsibility of that side of the House is to advance sound and constructive criticism— have one thing in common, viz. that both sides desire an efficient and sound post and telecommunication system. Hon. members on both sides of the House have tried to ascertain how this is to be obtained. In the first place, thanks to a good National Party Government, which has ensured a very sound and strong economy, South Africa has a need for a sound and efficient post and telecommunication system. If a demand for a service of this kind did not exist, it would be foolish for anyone to try to provide a service. Consequently there is, in the first place, a need for a good service, and this need has been created by the sound economic policy of the National Party Government. In the second place: When one wants to establish a good service, one must have the funds for that service. I can probably say without fear of contradiction that the funds to build up a good telecommunication system do exist. One need only look at the Budget to be impressed by the amounts being budgeted. One need only look at the Budgets of the past few years to see that the funds voted are becoming progressively more every year. When I say “progressively”, I do not mean “progressively” in the sense of the Progressive Party. If, after one has established the need, one has the funds, certain material or equipment is required. The equipment can be purchased if the necessary funds are there. The final item necessary for the utilization of the funds and the equipment and the establishment of the communications system, is the human material. This is really the bottleneck in South Africa. This bottleneck exists thanks to a sound economy in South Africa in which everyone competes for the services of trained staff. I could devote all the time at my disposal to the staff question in the post and telecommunication system. I want to quote an article that appeared on the 13th of this month in Hoofstad [translation]—

Since mention was made of the Postmaster-General in the extract I quoted, I want to tell the hon. Opposition that it surprises me that on the one hand they praise the Postmaster-General and his whole staff while in the same breath they blame the hon. the Minister for the rotten service. This simply does not make sense, because the two are surely linked. In any event, I shall come back to this.

The improved utilization of the staff is a matter that receives continual attention from the Government, I want to quote what the hon. the Minister said in his Budget speech—

In other words, what is necessary to utilize the available manpower to the best advantage of South Africa and the Post Office is being done by the hon. the Minister and the top management of the Post Office. Last year the hon. the Minister had the following to say about the staff development (Hansard, Volume 50, column 2030)—

In this regard I just want to come back to what the hon. member for Wynberg said. He wants us to employ more non-Whites, but I know how they want to employ non-Whites: They want to employ them at the lowest levels. In contrast to that, the Post Office is doing outstanding work by training non-White staff in the supervisory posts as well. This is of great importance. The hon. member for Wynberg was concerned about the question of who would train the non-Whites. Well, these people will train their own people.

I am going to quote from Post Office documents to prove what the Post Office is doing and how thoroughly they are doing it. The staff know what they are doing with regard to every facet of the work. I should like to quote what the Postmaster-General said on the occasion of the official opening of the 40th congress of the Post and Telegraph Association of South Africa in Johannesburg on 11 March this year. Remember, this is the head of the Post Office, in whom I have the fullest confidence. In fact, I make bold to say that South Africa finds itself in a fortunate position in that it has a person like that dynamic person as the head of the Post Office, a person who is not deterred by criticism, but continues with his task. I quote what he said [translation]—

This is in fact what the Post Office is doing. He goes on [translation]—

The Progressive Party will probably say “hear, hear”.

Hear, hear!

I quote further [translation]—

Do you agree with that?

Yes, I agree. However it is primarily, to serve their own people, in contrast to the Progressive Party which wants to use them primarily as slaves. I could still quote at length from the Postmaster-General’s speech and could perhaps tell you that since 1968, more than 200 officers excluding technicians, have already obtained diplomas—in a three-year course —in public administration, public accounts and finance, electronic data processing, systems analysis etc., while 122 officers have obtained bachelor and master’s degrees. At the moment 138 students are studying full-time and 40 part-time at South African universities in various key fields with the aid of Post Office bursaries. Is there anyone in South Africa who can say that the Post Office is not developing its staff situation in a dynamic way and training its people? I could quote from a number of documents bearing on the staff situation. Here is the department’s annual report, an outstanding report. Under the heading “Training and staff development” the following is stated—

So one could continue—

Let us come back to what the Post Office itself is doing. At Olifantsfontein, between Germiston—please note, Germiston—and Pretoria, the Post Office’s Olifantsfontein Training Centre is to be found. Those of us who have had the privilege of seeing what is being done there, have only the highest praise for that fine training institution at Olifantsfontein. Intensive training of technicians is undertaken at the department’s modern and well-equipped training college built at a cost of R2 million at Olifantsfontein and commissioned in 1971. At any given juncture about 1400 technicians are at some or other stage of training and the Post Office spends about R7 500 to train just one technician. Apart from this, about 1 300 learner telephone technicians are in the process of training. In their case the training cost is about R4 040 per pupil. A technician’s training period lasts for three or four years, depending on the course followed. As far as telephone technicians are concerned, the training extends over a period of two years. It is clear, therefore, that if one considers all the evidence, the Post Office is doing its job thoroughly.

Let us take a look at the existing staff. On 31 December last year the grand total of officials in the service of the Post Office was 64 475. 4 043 of them are technicians, but the demand for technicians at that date was 5 360. In other words, there was a shortage of technicians and there is a good reason for that—they are lured away. There were 5 856 White telephone electricians and technicians in service and the demand was for 7 197, thus representing a shortage of 1 341. The number of approved posts for White learner telephone electricians and technicians was 1 592 whereas 1 525 were in service, a difference of 67. This is very close to the total number required. Even women are being trained as technicians. In 1974 a start was made with the training of women as technicians. Ten women are being trained at present and we hope that this number will grow.

I now come to the question of resignations. I want to give an indication of the resignations with regard to three categories, viz. pupil technicians, telephone technicians and learner telephone mechanics. In 1971 the total number of resignations was 569. In 1972 it rose to 941 and in 1973 it dropped to 720. In 1974 there were almost 1000 resignations. There is one aspect that causes us a great deal of concern. The Post Office is also the training centre for the private sector because the private sector lures away many of the trained staff of the Post Office. Many members of the Opposition represent the private sector and capitalism.

It seems to me that you are jealous of that.

If one’s neighbour steals one’s oxen and one’s plough, then surely he cannot point his finger at one later on and say one has no crop. I should like to make an appeal to the private sector. They cannot have two things at the same time. They cannot have their cake and eat it. If technicians are lured away, they cannot expect to have a good telephone service, because if the technicians are not enticed away, then the private sector can demand a good telecommunication system.

In conclusion, I should like to pay tribute to the Post Office. In paying tribute to the staff, I should like to start with the hon. the Minister. We have a dynamic Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. At his side is the Postmaster-General, to whom I have already referred, and his top management. Then there are the 64 000 Post Office officials, down to the humblest postman who delivers the mail. They are all humble people who do outstanding work. The Post Office is not without its achievements. One need only look at the activities at Olifantsfontein and Derdepoort, on the other side of Pretoria. The engineers and technicians of the department are all dynamic young men who put everything into the struggle for the department and for South Africa. Let us take a look at one of the instruments developed in the Post Office. The instrument is known as the Charlie box. It is a mini-computer, a service test unit. It was designed by Post Office officers to test the quality of service along the many and various routes of the complicated Witwatersrand automatic telephone exchange system. These Charlie boxes named after the Post Office design, register the rate at which calls are successful or unsuccessful, between the exchange in which the instrument is installed and other exchanges along the automatic network. Furthermore, the Charlie box can pinpoint telephone traffic bottlenecks and/or service interruptions at any point of the network and give the alarm even before users become aware of abnormal congestion. This is an outstanding invention. To begin with, 20 of these Charlie boxes are being installed in exchanges on the Witwatersrand, Later they will be installed in other centres in high telephone traffic areas throughout the country. Then, too, there is the party-line telephone service system. This system makes it possible for rural subscribers with party lines, too, to dial direct. This system was designed by Post Office engineers in cooperation with local manufacturers of telecommunications equipment to serve the rural party line user and for the benefit of South Africa.

It is with the greatest pleasure that I support and acclaim this Budget by the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Party has been charged with a number of sins of omission and commission in its “veelbewoë lewe” but, heaven knows, it has never before been accused of wanting to enslave people of colour in South Africa. By making this fanciful suggestion the hon. member for Germiston District has chalked up another notable first. I congratulate him on his imaginative inventiveness, if nothing else.

It is self-protection.

The hon. member professed to be puzzled as to why the Opposition was criticizing the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. There seems to me to be a fairly obvious reason for this and that is that the Nationalist Party has been in power in this country for nearly 27 long years. It only seems like 270 years, but it is in fact 27 years! I think it is only fair to ask them to take some of the responsibility for the situation in which we find ourselves today.

I want to say quite categorically that the major problems of the Post Office today are due to short-sightedness and a lack of imaginative planning in the past. I think any reasonable person will agree with this. There was also political prejudice in days gone by which made it impossible for the Government to see the labour situation in perspective. Today this country is still plucking the bitter fruits of that past incompetence and myopia. What is the major problem today? It is obviously a manpower one. I think we are all agreed on this There is not enough skilled labour to go around to cope with the increasingly heavy work load. Nothing makes people quite as mad as a telephone which either does not function properly or does not function at all. I would say that public indignation and anger about the telephone system is due primarily to the deficiencies in the service rather than the shortage of telephones, however serious that may be. If you have not got a telephone, you are just depressed, immeasurably depressed. However, if you have got a phone that does not work, you just get properly mad. There are quite a number of people in this country who are very nearly that. I would say that if the Post Office in its own and the public interest would only improve its maintenance service, the level of public criticism and annoyance would drop immeasurably and almost immediately.

Much to the surprise, no doubt, of the hon. member for Germiston District. I should like to pay tribute to the drive of the Postmaster-General and his readiness to face reality and to be realistic about things. I believe that his achievements often in the face of almost insuperable odds have been quite remarkable, despite the Government and despite the worst and best efforts of politicians. When he addressed a telecommunications conference at Kimberley, the Postmaster-General pointed out that with proper training the major work connected with the installation and maintenance of television sets could be done by other than skilled labour; in other words, by labour which required less than three years’ training. He said, in fact, that more than ⅔rds of the manpower needed really required no more than one year’s intensive training. He went on to say that it would be a pity and an unforgivable waste if we were to use highly-skilled manpower on such work. He could see no cogent reason why non-Whites should not to a considerable extent be employed in this sphere, especially in the operative and semi-skilled spheres. My question is simply this: Since there are clearly not enough Whites available for the work, why does the Post Office not make far, far greater use of non-Whites who have been specially and specifically trained to do maintenance work, work which calls for much less than maximum skill? We heard from the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications yesterday that 116 non-Whites have completed their training as electricians and that 139 are in training At the same time 44 have completed the first year course as technicians and 46 are to be admitted for training this year. We know the problems associated with training programmes. I am not talking about the political problems in this connection. But, surely, in view of the emergency in the telephones sphere, could these numbers not have been trebled or even quadrupled? Times are abnormal. Why not adopt abnormal procedures? Why not institute crash courses for maintenance work only? Sir, there must be countless telephones all over South Africa that could be repaired with a minimum amount of skill. I am thinking not only of the two dozen or so public telephone boxes on the Johannesburg railway station which never seem to me to work, but there must be thousands of these that could be repaired and maintained with the minimum of skill. Why do we not train an army of people to do this kind of work? Sir, I would like to see a telephone subscriber who objects to a man of colour repairing his telephone. If he does, let him wait. He will have to wait a little while.

Give him a white telephone.

It is for this reason, Sir, that I was a bit dismayed to see in the annual report of the Postmaster-General that the non-Whites qualifying as technicians will do so for service “in their own areas”. Surely, Sir, this will defeat the whole object of the kind of training that one has in mind, and it will certainly not make the kind of contribution to the solution of the Post Office’s difficulties that is so badly needed. Surely, in heaven’s name, if a man is trained to do certain work, let him do it where the need is greatest, which happens in most cases to be the so-called White areas, because that is where the telephones are located. At the same time, Sir, I would like to say it is pleasing to see in the same report that in collaboration with White staff associations, non-Whites will in future also undertake certain facets of cable-jointing, overhead and underground line construction, and fitting and wiring of buildings in White areas. I would like to say categorically that this is a positive move in the right direction and is to be warmly welcomed. Mr. Speaker, while we are on the subject of the greater use of Black or Brown men in the Post Office— and I know that this is not a panacea for all our ills, but I believe that it can make all the difference between an inefficient and an efficient service—I would like to say something briefly about the wages gap between White and non-White. Sir, in 1973 the average wage of White staff in the Post Office was R3 695 a year; for Coloured, R1 253, for Asians R1 913, and for Africans R875. A year later the figures were R4 064, R1 296, R2 057 and R920. In other words, while the average White wage went up 10,1%, that of Coloureds went up only 3,8% of Asians 7,5%, and of Africans 5,5%. Sir, I am aware that averages of the nature that I have quoted can be misleading, but it remains a fact, however rough and ready the calculation is, that the gap— this is the important thing—between White and non-White wages in the Post Office is not being narrowed; in fact, it has been widened, and on this occasion, unless I am wrong, it has been widened not only absolutely but also percentage-wise. Sir, this seems to me to be something to which the Minister should devote some “daadwerklike” attention pretty soon, because this surely is in conflict with the whole trend of Government intention if not of achievement. According to my calculations, based on figures which were supplied by the Minister of Statistics on 25 February, the average income of a White Post Office employee in 1974 was R339 a month, while the average of the three non-White groups, Asians, Coloureds and Africans, was R87. The average for Africans was R77, and according to figures given this week by the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications 1 see that the average annual income of Black people was R600— R50 a month. Mr. Speaker, these are pretty alarming figures. If we remember that the recent poverty datum line estimates vary from R99 for a family of five in Soweto to between R93 and R112 for a family of six in different centres, as calculated by the University of Port Elizabeth, then even bearing in mind the care with which such estimates should be treated, I believe that the average of R77 for Africans and R108 for Coloureds in general is indefensibly low. In fact, it is not a living wage, certainly not as far as Africans are concerned, and I doubt very much whether it is as far as Coloureds are concerned. Government spokesmen are very fond of telling the private sector that there is nothing to prevent them from paying their employees a living wage. Well, I suggest that the Minister takes a very long and critical look at these wages, and while he is doing so I suggest that he should have a few words with the hon. the Minister of Labour and see whether he cannot persuade himself to allow Black employees in the Post Office to form a recognized body which will be able to negotiate about wages and conditions of work. One would like to know at the same time whether Black workers are in fact consulted about things like job evaluation and changes in job levels. The hon. the Minister has on occasion paid tribute to the White technical staff for their realistic approach and co-operation on the question of employing Blacks in White jobs. That is fine, but what has the Post Office done to ensure a realistic approach in regard to the co-operation of Blacks, when the latter may not even form a registered trade union? I believe there is great scope for improving the mechanism for consultation with Black workers, and I hope the Minister does so.

Finally, I should like to follow up what the hon. member for Wynberg said about apartheid. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications to do a Nico Malan in the Post Office; in other words—I am trying to be realistic about this, Sir—to remove all unnecessary apartheid restrictions in post offices throughout the country. I am not asking for the moon. I am not saying that all separate facilities must be abolished immediately, although obviously that remains the ideal and that is the direction along which we on these benches would emphatically go. But why not start with the abolition of stupid and unnecessary segregation and remove compulsion from it, and let people go where they want to. So many of these separate facilities, particularly in the smaller post offices, serve no purpose and are simply hurtful. They are a constant affront to human dignity, and they are simply a symbol of rejection. The Post Office, I believe, could give a lead to the country if it were to take a broader and more realistic view of this matter. There may be cases in large post offices, particularly, where separate collection and despatching facilities would serve some practical purpose, but let these be determined on the basis of need, on the nature of the service and not on the colour of the customer. There are countless cases where separation is simply senseless and unnecessary. If there was ever an example of discrimination based solely on colour, it is in the provision of totally unequal and often inadequate facilities for people of colour which one finds in so many post offices. While there are notable exceptions, depending very often on individuals, it is often true that inadequate service in these circumstances accompanies these so-called separate facilities. Sometimes, one regrets to say, one has seen at the “hokkie” next door to where one is standing, that the service to persons of colour leaves a very great deal to be desired and compares very unfavourably with the service given to Whites. And of course, Sir—and this will appeal to the modern mind in the Post Office Administration—inadequate service is usually inefficient, which is precisely what the Post Office management and the public at large do not want. So here, I believe, is a fruitful field for action.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Germiston District must pardon me if I do not follow up on him, but I just want to tell him that since the Government tells us every day that this is a land of milk and honey, we can only blame the Government if we do not get the milk and the honey on our bread.

†I wish to speak about the Savings Bank and the National Savings Certificates which are sold by the post offices and the methods by which it is done. First of all, the position has changed. Once we looked upon the Post Office Savings Bank as the poor man’s bank. It was where everyone who did not have a lot of money to invest in building societies or in the bank went and stuck his modest rand away and drew his interest. This position has now been changed since last year by the hon. the Minister and by the Treasury. They have made a Post Office investment a very valuable investment for the middle-class investor and also for the person who is having tax problems. We thought, when these concessions were announced last year by the hon. the Minister, that this would make a big difference to the takings of the Post Office Savings Bank. The hon. the Minister wishes to finance the department by loans from this savings bank and we think this is commendable, but the way the savings bank has gone about its business is regrettable and I for one feel that their efforts have not been very good. I am not criticizing the staff or the Post Office—that must not be construed—but I am criticizing the way in which the department has gone about availing itself of these extra facilities and concessions.

Let us first of all take the savings bank where the common people, the ordinary people, Whites and non-Whites included, go and bank their money so that it is easily available. In this field the Post Office has a terrific advantage. It pays 5% on current account as against the 3½% which is paid by the building societies. In addition, the interest paid by the Post Office is tax-free while the interest paid by building societies is not. Yet we find on reading the report —and I hope I am reading it correctly— that on page 59 it is stated that the Post Office has a total savings investment of only approximately R170 million. As against that, I notice from the building societies’ report that at the end of last year they had investments in their savings banks to the value of R1000 million. I want to know why there is such a big difference. Why can we not avail ourselves more fully of these investments from the general public?

We are also disappointed as regards investments in the National Savings Certificates. Let me say at once that these National Savings Certificates are a wonderful investment for anyone who has tax problems or who wishes to save money. An investor can go along and invest his money at 8,33%, tax-free, with a limit of R15 000 per person. As against this, the building societies can only give you 7½% with a maximum of R10 000 per taxpayer, not per person. There is a vast difference and yet we do not seem to be cashing in on this. What is the problem? On Friday, 21 February, I asked the hon. the Minister what the value was of (a) National Savings Certificates, (b) Savings Bank Certificates and (c) Premium Bonds (second issue) sold during each month since the commencement of the latest issue. The figures which the hon. the Minister gave me bore out my own feelings in this respect. I went to a small post office in a town which shall be nameless and made some inquiries about these investments, after hearing the very excellent terms announced by the Minister last year. They could not tell me about it, but referred me to a little pamphlet which was stuck to the wall in a glass case. I read it and then asked whether they had certificates. The reply was that they only had a limited number, that these had all been sold and that I would have to wait for the next month’s allocation. I was told that I would have to go to a bigger post office to get savings certificates.

Mr. Speaker, this is surely not the way to do business. The figures which the hon. the Minister gave to me are very revealing. For instance, he said that in October 1974, the first month during which these savings certificates were sold, the takings from the sale of the certificates rose from R8,5 million to R13,l million. In other words, the increase was of the order of 50%, which was to be expected after the announcement was made. In the next month, November, the value of certificates sold dropped by 22% to approximately R10,2 million. In December the value dropped by another 33% to R6,8 million. Yet the hon. the Minister tells us in his report that he expects an increase of about R55 million in investments for this year. I do not know how he reconciles these figures.

I am not criticizing the Post Office in respect of the investments and I am not trying to suggest that they should steal business from the building societies, but in this very report we are told that the public has invested some R71 500 000—the hon. the Minister may correct me if my figures are not correct—in Union Loan and National Savings Certificates. Yet the total investment in fixed deposits and sales of shares with the building societies totalled over R4 000 million. Surely, the Post Office is entitled to a bigger share. If one wonders about the cause of this, it is very easy to find an answer. First of all the facilities which the Post Office offers to the prospective buyer or investor cannot compare with those offered by banks or building societies. The Post Office is drab and it usually has a scruffy look about it. You talk to people through iron bars or brass bars at best, you stand in queues and everybody around you can listen to your business when you are inquiring about investments and about how much you are going to invest. In other words, there is no privacy. Surely this is no way to get money out of people. I suggest that the hon. the Minister should take a good look at the way the investing public are being treated. You cannot expect middle class people who are having tax problems and to whom this is a very good method of investing, to go to these places and to buy shares.

Get a few birds with minis.

Yes, they should get a few attractive young ladies. This brings me to the second point I want to raise. In the very same question I asked the hon. the Minister whether the Post Office staff entrusted with the issuing of these certificates and bonds receive special training. The hon. the Minister quite honestly said “no”. This is just not good enough because these things are not that easy to understand. The prospective investors do not know how to invest their money and they do need some advice. Surely you do not expect the postmaster to deal with each of these investors. I think that the persons who are entrusted with this should be properly trained.

This brings me to another point. The hon. the Minister is getting away with murder. Do hon. members know that the charges involved in the selling of certificates and the work spent on the Post Office Savings Bank is not reflected in this Budget? A very healthy profit should be shown on this. The general taxpayer is paying for these services and yet we are not benefitting by them. I have here a photograph which shows how the Post Office in Germany launched their bond issue. Blokes were dressed in fancy uniforms and they were blowing bugles all over the place. It was a gala occasion. I am sure that our Government can do better than it is doing at present.

Let the Minister blow his “kruithoring”. [Interjections.]

Well, yes, I am sure that we shall get some money out of that.

The other point I want to draw attention to is the lack of advertising. In the first month this scheme got off to a good start. It received a lot of publicity from the hon. the Minister’s speech, but what other advertising have we had on these investments of the Post Office? Very little indeed. The hon. the Minister told me that he had spent R5 000 on radio advertising and R37 000 on other advertising. I can tell hon. members that one building society spends over R1 million a year on its advertising alone. This is certainly no way to try and draw business.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Coast is a man with a grey beard and grey hair and I expected a more sensible contribution from him, even though he belongs to a party that does not act in a sensible way. However, I shall leave it at that, because it is his prerogative to belong to the party he wants to belong to. I want to tell hon. members that if I have to listen to this debate …

Do you have a relative by the name of Van Coller?

No Van Coller is a relative of mine and I am particularly proud to be able to say so. Furthermore I do not have any relatives who are United Party supporters, either. In years past, one of the debates on the domestic economy in South Africa has been the debate on the Post Office Budget. Now I realize the injury that has resulted from the fighting on that side of the House. It is terrible to take part in a debate of this kind when it is given no content by the Opposition.

But give it content, then.

I shall give it content. What were the statements which their chief spokesman, the hon. member for Durban Point, who is otherwise a very pleasant man, made today? He made three basic statements. He said: There are chaotic conditions in the Post Office in the financial sphere, there is a staff shortage and then there is the failure to eliminate the backlog.” The hon. member for Parktown who is laughing so delightedly there, was formerely the editor of The Star. When he discusses these things, he always comes back to the colour problem. According to him, this is apparently the only problem faced by the Post Office and South Africa. He is living in a fool’s paradise. In a business enterprise, one does not only have colour problems, one also has problems in respect of capital formation, amortization, interest, efficiency, etc. I want to congratulate The Star on the fact that there has at least been an improvement as far as editors are concerned. In The Star of 31 January 1975, under the heading “Poaching adds to ’Phone Backlog”, the present editor wrote the following—

That is a mistake. It is actually 98 000. We are not ashamed of it.

These are the little crackers that will be let off—

The private sector are the very people whom the Progressive Party assist and support. I am sure that the hon. member for Parktown will acknowledge that I am right. The hon. member for South Coast spoke about the “middle class”. I do not like these labels; where does he get these terms “middle class” and “high class”? In other words, there is also a “low class”. I want to say that the people who support the hon. member’s party—in other words, the capitalistic class, the people with the money —are the very people who entice staff away from the Post Office to the private sector. Let us have no illusions about that. It is the people who support his party who do not come up with a story about colour, but who entice these White technicians away from this service department to that party’s private sector to enrich themselves. They must be in no doubt about that. Is it fair to create this impression, that this department is in a chaotic condition?

As far as the telephone service is concerned; I did not refer in this regard to the department.

Yes, very well; as far as the telephone service is concerned. I say that this is an unfair statement to make. Let us look at the set-up after 1968 and the expenditure on telephones since then. In 1968, R29,9 million was spent on this. This year R 153,6 million is being spent on telecommunications. Notwithstanding this backlog—I have the greatest sympathy for people who are waiting for telephones; I myself have had experience of this—the backlog is less than it has ever been percentage-wise. I shall prove this: In 1969 it was 6,06%, in 1970, 6,07%, in 1971, 7.66% and so on. This year the waiting list is 4,95%, percentage-wise. This is the lowest it has been for many years. Is this not an achievement? Let us take a look at the increase in capital expenditure by the Post Office. Do you know what the expenditure has been in the years since the Post Office became independent? In 1964-’65 it was R26,4 million but from 1968 onwards it rose. In 1969-’70 it was R73,7 million and in 1974-’75, the capital expenditure by the Post Office was R 182,2 million.

Have you tried to make a phone call lately?

I make regular phone calls and I would like to say categorically that the service we receive in this country is not the worst in the world. [Interjections.] Hon. members may laugh. It is typical of the Opposition to laugh and ridicule that which is their own. They have no pride in trying to develop that which is their own.

It is the way you say it that makes it so funny.

I quote from an article headed “Impressed by efficiency”—

Hon. members can laugh that down their throats! They try to ridicule that which is their own. They try to ridicule everything that is their own in this country. It has become part of their way of life—to belittle. That is why the Opposition is a dwindling party. They have no pride in that which is their own. That is their problem.

But you said it was not the worst in the world.

Well, I did not say that it was one of the best in the world. If I were a banana-eater like that hon. member, I would have no pride in anybody. [Interjections.] I apologize to the hon. member for what I said about him.

Let us have a look at what happens in America. I quote from Fortune, July 1973, where it is said that prices are high and deliveries very often impossible, and—

Let us have a look at England. When anyone speaks about England in this House certain members from Natal get the most beautiful smile as if they were in another world. In the Daily Telegraph, in an article called “First-class letters to cost seven pence”, it was stated—

*The reasons for this are simple. A business enterprise, whether it is in the private sector or whether it is the Post Office—also a business enterprise—have to increase tariffs in times of inflation in order to provide efficient services. There can be no doubt about that. Consequently it is essential to increase tariffs in South Africa. A new electronic telephone service is being installed, and I am convinced that it will be an extremely successful service. There will be a saving as far as the manpower shortage is concerned, the very point about which the hon. member for Parktown had so much to say. When this system is functioning, we shall be able to make do with 75% fewer staff than we are employing today. This will be made possible by this electronic set-up. The Post Office is a dynamic department that is engaged in all kinds of development in the interests of South Africa.

However there is still expenditure and financing. The hon. member for Durban Point records his objection to the fact that no further loan funds are being used to develop the Post Office. The Franzsen Commission was made up of people who knew and understood finance. It is ridiculous to say that the greater the loan capital, the less the responsibility of the consumer, because as the loan capital increases, interest and amortization have to be taken into account. The lifetime of the specific commodity must also be taken into account. It makes no difference whichever kind of body it is—whether it is a Government department, a local authority or a private body—if it only concentrates on loan capital then eventually it must necessarily be placed in a situation of extreme financial embarrassment. The Franzsen Commission specifically and intentionally compiled a formula that is being applied by the department. The department deserves to be congratulated on following this commission’s report and handling the financing on that basis. I want to say that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is a dynamic department. I say this notwithstanding the telephone backlog and the problems we are facing. One need only look around one to see what is going on in the department. I am now going to mention my own constituency because I have been challenged to do so. I am going to mention Rustenburg as an example. Rustenburg is a region that has been developing rapidly. This is the position everywhere in South Africa today, with our rapid growth rate. Development on a gigantic scale is taking place throughout the country. There is the development at Saldanha Bay, there is the second Sasol and developments of all kinds in the mining industry. In the mining industry itself there are members of the managements themselves who speak with the greatest respect of the wonderful and immediate service that has been provided by this department, notwithstanding difficult circumstances. Rustenburg has also undergone a period of rapid growth. I have the statistics before me. Over the past year, more than R400 000 has been spent on construction work for the Post Office in connection with the provision of an additional storey for the purposes of an automatic exchange. The automatic exchange has been expanded by 1950 lines. Since then, 196 exchange connections and 671 night and weekend services have been provided. All outstanding applications for telephone services for which cable leads are available will be dealt with during the second half of 1975. In other words, there will then no longer be a backlog. The cost of the exchange equipment and the installation thereof amounts to R653 000. The microwave system between Johannesburg and Rustenburg is expected to be completed in June 1975. 240 additional telephone channels will then be made available. The number of channels can be substantially increased later. The cost of this project is estimated at R661 000. Here is a case of R1,71 million having been spent on one growth point in the course of a year or two. It is the same throughout the Republic. This department is providing a service in growth points in the interests of the development of South Africa. South Africa has a growth rate that compares favourably with that of any country in the world. We cannot get away from the fact that under present circumstances there is a backlog in the telephone services. We have to accept that. In a country that is developing rapidly and dynamically, the standard of living rises, and a weak party like the United Party dwindles. A party like the National Party, again, has provided South Africa with opportunities. This party acknowledges and appreciates South Africa’s potential. This department is engaged, in a far-sighted fashion, in expanding and providing a service for the development of the Republic. Notwithstanding criticism, the Post Office has a staff that worked day and night during the recent stormy conditions in the interests of South Africa. They were loyal towards the department. We must stop being so critical about the poor telephone service. We must adopt a more positive attitude and state that we are grateful for what has been achieved, often under difficult circumstances. The hon. member for Parktown must also learn a lesson. He must not always be referring to more non-Whites to the exclusion of everything else. That is basically wrong. We believe in the training of non-Whites and consequently we cooperate with the staff associations. We are training the non-Whites to provide a service in their own areas. Why this present this contrast and say that as soon as the non-Whites are available, there will be no problem. Hon. members opposite know that that is not true. There are all kinds of factors that give rise to this situation. Let us show a greater degree of calmness and efficiency in …

That is not so, and you know it.

What?

What you have just said. [Interjections.]

What did I say?

In connection with non-Whites.

We are training the non-Whites. In co-operation with the staff associations we are training them to work in their own areas. Let me put it very clearly that this Government is consistently providing non-Whites with training in cooperation with its White workers. If this had not been so, there would have been strike upon strike. What a proud country this is!

Why can they not work in the White areas too?

Why can’t they? That is the problem of hon. members opposite. They immediately ask these hypothetical questions. Why can the non-Whites not be trained to work in their own areas? What is wrong with their own areas? After all, it is right that they should work there. No, Mr. Speaker, let me put it very clearly: South Africa can be very proud of its Department of Posts and Telecommunications. We are training non-Whites, we are ensuring the position of our Whites and we are expanding a service which is a proud service. It is not a service that should be criticized merely for cheap political gain.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with some of the points made by the hon. member for Rustenburg during the course of my speech. I think that I am the ninth speaker to take part in this debate. This long-suffering House has listened patiently now to eight different viewpoints expressed, if I may say so, with varying degrees of skill and displaying a sliding scale of technical knowledge. Like others, I do not pretend to be an expert on technical matters. I speak as a layman and perhaps, like the hon. member for Rustenburg, as a politician, but certainly not as an aspirant candidate for the post of Postmaster-General which is so very well filled by the present incumbent.

I have been allotted 10 minutes to speak, and although I had studied the estimates and the speech of the hon. the Minister carefully, I am sure that you will agree with me that it is in fact very difficult to react in such a short period to the broad matters that have been placed before us today. I am compelled to mention only one or two aspects which come to mind. In doing so, I want to follow up some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Wynberg and the hon. member for Parktown. Although I know that it is an unpopular subject with Government members, I want to talk about the advancement of non-Whites in the postal and telecommunications services. I also want to discuss the question of the narrowing of the wage gap as well as the services available to non-Whites generally. I say this because these matters go to the very root of the problems that are facing the department and the public, in the services that are being offered. The seemingly unending and extensive backlog of telephone applications can be ascribed, if the hon. the Minister is to be believed—and I believe him—in no small measure inter alia to the acute shortage of trained technical staff. At a stage where there is a shortage of 2 658 technical personnel in the hon. the Minister’s department, it is surely ineffective to announce most blandly as the hon. the Minister did yesterday that—

Mr. Speaker, three points are immediately apparent. Firstly, I find it absolutely incredible that the Government has waited all these years, after being hammered on this point for almost a decade until 1974. i.e. last year, to train non-Whites as technicians; secondly, that the Government’s planning even now is limited and so timid as to allow only 46 or so non-Whites to be admitted for training as technicians in the following year; thirdly, that more adequate preparations were not made to ensure that sufficient instructors and training facilities were available. Sir, taking into account the unabated staff shortage, the long discerned increase in telephone applications, the high growth rate which we are experiencing in the industrial, the mining and the business sectors and the growing demand from a fast developing non-White area for telephone services, surely it is obvious, against this backdrop, that the plans disclosed by the Minister to utilize staff in a better manner have come too late and are too timid and rather like a drop in the ocean. Only last year we were told in regard to the homelands, in the Minister’s speech that—

Mr. Speaker. I want to warn that unless a far more dynamic programme of technical training is urgently embarked upon, the hand-over in years to come will be a fiasco. At the present slow rate of progress there will not be sufficient trained personnel to look after the difficulties and problems which will be encountered within the Republic, let alone in eight under-developed independent areas.

Sir, to move on, there is clear evidence that the Government is at last doing something about creating career prospects for various grades of non-White staff. It is also clearly stated policy that the wage gap must be narrowed. The question I wish to pose—and it has been posed earlier—is whether these changes are being introduced in an ad hoc manner as emergencies arise, or whether there is a systematic and planned programme which is being implemented? The staff estimates which are before us illuminate the situation very clearly. Of the estimated 23 410 non-White employees, only 666, or 2,8%, will be employed at salaries with scaled ceilings of R3 600, or above. In the White sector, of 43 625 employees some 33 000. or 74%, will be employed at similar salaries. In the R6 300 category and above, there are some 3 300 White employees, while a single Black man or Coloured or Indian can aspire to such a job. Sir, this is not good enough. It is not something that we can be proud of. When one speaks of careers as opposed to jobs. I tend to feel that it is the duty of this Government to provide vocational opportunities for all races, opportunities which involve real responsibility, satisfactory outlets for energy and endeavour, and an income which will secure a reasonable standard of living for the thousands of families involved. If one looks at the very lowest grades of employees, one finds that only 700 are White people out of the 43 000 who earn less than R2 000. and none earn less than R1 200. On the other hand, of 23 000 non-White employees, over 15 500 earn less than R1 000. Sir, that is a sum which even for a labourer, certainly in the urban areas, cannot sustain a family with any degree of dignity. Has the time not arrived when the basic minimum wage for all races should be set at at least R1 200 per annum?

Finally, on this point, despite Government-stated policy, a Bantu counter clerk with a Std. 8 qualification performing the same functions as any other clerk and having the same training as other clerks, starts with R1 087 and proceeds over four years to reach R3100. His White counterpart, with the same training, starts at R3 480 and progresses over only three years to R4 680. He starts at a salary to which the non-White can never aspire. Where is the justice in this, Sir? Where does the Government’s policy of eliminating discrimination fit in, if at all, into this picture? Sir, my time is up. I must say no more. Therefore, inter alia, to record matters which I have not had time to debate, I would now like to move the following amendment—

1. (1) users of telephones continue to be levied with an inequitable share of the burden of financing the services of the Post Office as a whole;
2. (2) no inflation-proof savings means are being offered by the Post office to the ordinary man who requires to save to safeguard his future;
3. (3) no details are presented of comprehensive postal, telephone, telegraph, savings and other services for the homelands which are moving towards independence;
4. (4) adequate steps have not been taken to remove practices which discriminate on the grounds of race or colour, particularly in respect of—
   1. (a) the employment and remuneration of staff; and
   2. (b) the provision of facilities to all the users of the Department’s services;
5. (5) inadequate plans have been made to overcome the critical staff shortages; and
6. (6) while steps have now been taken to plan the long-term future of the telephone service insufficient action has been taken to relieve, in the interim, the backlog of applications for services.”.

Mr. Speaker, you know, there is one thing which disappoints me in my erstwhile colleague from Sandton, and that is his preoccupation with colour politics. He, like the hon. member for Parktown, cannot get away from it. No matter what we discuss, that is all they bring in. They are not interested in the users of these services in South Africa. They are not interested in whether people can get telephone services and things like that. All they are interested in is colour. Then the hon. member comes here at the end with an amendment with five legs which have already been dealt with by members of this party, the real Opposition in this House, the party which is in fact in front of that party, not to its right and not to its left or anywhere else, but in front of it in every way. The hon. member mentioned the question of the Post Office Savings Account. My hon. friend from South Coast has just spent 12 minutes discussing this with the hon. the Minister and to far greater effect than the hon. member for Sandton. He discussed the question of a basic minimum wage and he appealed for a minimum wage. He knows, Sir, or he should know because he was in the party long enough, that we have done this for years and years. Now who is guilty of plagiarism?

But, Sir, I am afraid I have no time to waste on those hon. members. I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister this afternoon a most important matter which has come to my attention. I drew his attention to it by way of a question last week, whereupon the hon. the Minister intimated that his department was aware of the fact that certain envelopes had been opened in the post and that certain letters had been incorrectly placed in the wrong envelopes. I want to quote now from a letter which has been received by the complainant in this matter from the Postmaster-General, in which he says this—

Now, I happen to have the envelope here, and the sender’s name and address do appear on the back of it. So I can accept that the Post Office authorities did not open the envelope. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has taken any action since he received this complaint from Mrs. Corrigan of Pietermaritzburg Has he taken any action at all? He sits dumb; he does not answer. I must assume from that that he has taken no action. I believe that in this country tampering with the mail is a very serious offence. What is the Minister going to do about it? Is he going to lay charges against these persons unknown? Is he going to ask the police to investigate this matter, or does he bear some knowledge of this interference with these letters which he is not prepared to divulge to this House?

You are absolutely tragic.

No, it is not “tragic” at all. But I want to say to that hon. member now that if there is a matter of security involved in this, we will be the first to assist and to defend the hon. the Minister if the security of the State is at issue. If there is anybody who is authorized to investigate mail and to open letters in order to investigate what is written in them, why does the hon. the Minister not admit it? What does he have to hide? All I want to know from him is whether there is anybody who is authorized. We asked this question earlier: Is anybody authorized to open letters? Is it the Bureau for State Security? Is it the Special Branch? If they are entitled to open letters, let the hon. the Minister have the courage to stand up this afternoon and admit it, and admit that under special circumstances they do take this action. However, at the same time I believe that the hon. the Minister must give this House and the people of South Africa an assurance that this power is not being abused. What are the circumstances in this case? A young lady at university in England writes to her mother. A young girl writes to her boyfriend. Quite by coincidence the mother and the boyfriend are both domiciled in Pietermaritzburg. The boyfriend gets the daughter’s letter in the girlfriend’s envelope and the mother gets the girlfriend’s letter in the daughter’s envelope. How does this come about? Is this purely coincidence? [Interjections.]

Order!

Is it coincidence that they should both be in Pietermaritzburg? Where does this take place? Does it happen in Pretoria or does it only happen in Pietermaritzburg?

Who says it did not happen in London?

If the Bureau for State Security or the Special Branch or any other body has authority to open mail—I ask the hon. the Minister in all fairness to admit it if it is the case—then I want to know how they operate. Are they under the control of his department? Do they open “voor die voet” any letter which happens to come to their notice? Do they open all letters which come from overseas? Does it mean that anybody in South Africa who happens to have correspondence from overseas can expect that his or her letters will all be opened?

What utter nonsense!

It is not utter nonsense at all. Is it only certain selected people who can expect that, and if they are selected, how are they selected? If envelopes are selected, how are they selected and on whose say—are they selected? These are questions which I believe require answering this afternoon. I believe that this is a serious matter. If an unauthorized person has been tampering with the mail, I believe it is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister to see that he is prosecuted.

What steps has the hon. the Minister taken to ascertain whether it was an unauthorized person?

It is a very good question too. What steps has the hon. the Minister taken to ascertain whether it was an unauthorized or an authorized person who did open these envelopes? Let me quote further from the letter of the Postmaster-General—

How naïve! I want to repeat the question that I have asked earlier. What steps has the hon. the Minister taken to ascertain who did, in fact, open these envelopes? [Interjections.] The letter goes on—

The letter ends—

What steps did he take to try to ascertain that? I do not believe that he did very much. On 14 March I asked the hon. the Minister—

1. (a) By whom was the letter opened, (b) on whose authority, (c) in terms of what statutory authority was such action taken, (d) for what purpose was it done...

The reply of the hon. the Minister was—

1. (a) to (d): Unknown.

I do not think he cares either. I want to say here and now and I want to place it on record that we on this side of the House view the tampering with the private mail of individuals in the most extremely grave light. I believe that the hon. the Minister owes it, not only to this House but to the people of South Africa as well, to give us an explanation. As I say, if the security of the State is at issue he must have the courage to stand up and admit it and we shall support him. If this is merely a further infringement and interference in the personal rights of individuals in this country, however, he stands condemned this afternoon as the head of a department which stoops to these depths.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South pointed out, with reference to what the hon. member for Sandton had said, that they are actually the official Opposition in this House. Right at the outset, I want to say that the allegation which was made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, is scandalous. We are dealing here with a Budget of a few hundred million rand, but in his speech this afternoon that hon. member tried to create the impression that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is arbitrarily opening peoples’ postal articles or letters. This afternoon I listened with great sincerity to the speeches which were made in this House on this important matter. I cannot do otherwise than to say that we have been hearing for many years already what we heard today from the hon. members on the opposite side of the House. I get the impression that as a result of the internal problems in their own party, hon. members on that side of the House are no longer prepared to work. I listened to the hon. member for Durban Point, who was the main speaker on that side. I want to give him the assurance that I believe in all sincerity that the contribution which he made to this debate this afternoon was a very feeble one. Now, what criticism did that side of the House level? We heard the same hackneyed story which we have had to listen to from one year to another, the same hackneyed story of a shortage of telephones, of a waiting list and of the chaotic situation which is allegedly prevailing in our telephone service in South Africa, as well as in the Department of Posts and Telecommunications itself. What we had in addition this afternoon, was the fact that the hon. the Minister had been forced to increase tariffs in South Africa.

At the outset, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to break a lance for our Post Office officials. Hon. members on this side of the House have already referred to this and I should like to do so again because I am aware of the fact that when we are dealing with the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, it is a department which is obviously easy to criticize. This department is obviously easy to criticize, for when we dial a number and we are not put through immediately, then it is the fault of the “damn Post Office”. When we have to stand in a queue at a post office, to buy a stamp, and we are not served promptly and quickly, then the “poor Post Office service” is blamed. It is a recognized fact that the Department of Posts and Telecommunications is the biggest department in the whole of South Africa. It is a department which performs an enormous task in South Africa from day to day. I say without fear of contradiction that this department is one of the departments in South Africa which works the hardest. For this I want to congratulate every official from the Postmaster-General down to the lowest-paid official very sincerely, especially on the fact that they decided a year or two ago to work longer service hours in the interests of South Africa. I wonder whether the hon. members who are gathered together in this House realize for one moment what this means for South Africa. In general, it means a 5% increase in productivity. Since there is a shortage of 4,8% in the industrial sector, one wonders whether there would not be less talk of labour shortages in South Africa if each one of us were to try to work harder. Tens of thousands of Post Office officials declared themselves willing to do that. It is instructive to note that the gain in terms of labour is more than 875 000 manhours per annum. This was a commendable effort on the part of this department, which to my mind may justifiably be emphasized. I want to convey my sincere thanks to those officials once again. I should like to link to this that when an appeal was made to South Africa to save petrol because of the energy crisis, this department took the lead in this matter. In spite of the fact that the number of vehicles of the department increased from 7 000 to 7 100, a saving of approximately 20% was achieved.

We could continue in this way to discuss the achievements of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. To my mind one of the most important announcements which the hon. the Minister made in this House yesterday was the announcement that South Africa is going to get a new telephone system. Even the hon. member for Durban Point, when he discussed this subject, greeted it with great acclamation. He was obviously very pleased about it. He said inter alia—

The word “welcome” will be totally inadequate to express the feeling of South Africa when it hears of the announcement of the new telephone system for South Africa which was made this afternoon.

He was very pleased. I have paged through this memorandum on the new telephone dialling system for South Africa. It is, of course, technical. It was in the last part of his argument yesterday evening that the hon. member for Durban Point presented the actual barb. He said—

Immediately after this extremely important memorandum had been tabled, the hon. member for Durban Point tried to conjure up spectres and create the impression that this new system which is going to be introduced in South Africa, might again not be a good system.

Why was there then that doubt in the hon. the Minister’s speech?

The hon. member for Durban Point went further in his argument and said that the public of South Africa must realize and understand once and for all that it will not be possible simply to introduce this system in South Africa overnight. I want to tell the hon. member that we in South Africa find ourselves in a particularly fortunate position, because we have scientists of stature here, among the best in the world. When I look at this memorandum which has been tabled, I believe and accept that it was preceded by intensive studies. Obviously it cannot be introduced overnight, but will take a few years. Nevertheless I believe that this is a marvellous breakthrough for our telecommunications in South Africa. Therefore I want to give the hon. member for Durban Point the assurance that I believe that we shall make very beneficial use of this new system for 30 to 40 years, perhaps for many decades.

You have certainly set my mind at rest now!

The hon. member for Durban Point as well as other hon. members in this House tried to make a major issue of how our telephone service in South Africa is supposedly one of the worst in the world. They went further and made a major argument of the waiting list of approximately 96 000 which we have in South Africa today. In this regard I should like to express a few thoughts for the record. Before I come to the matter which I actually want to discuss, I think that it would be interesting to go back into the history of telephone services in South Africa for a moment. On 31 March 1940 there were almost 202 000 telephones in the country. During the next five years, the network grew by 47 000. I accept that there was a war on at the time and that other circumstances contributed to this. From 1945 to 1950 the increase was 136 000 and from 1950 to 1955, a total of 228 000. Therefore, in those five years there was a greater increase than the total which had been connected by 1940. The 613 000 telephones which there were on 31 March 1955 had increased to 818 000 on 31 March 1960. All the indications are that with this Budget we shall have more than two million telephones in the country during the course of this year. It is being said now that there is a backlog of telephones. Admittedly, this is true, and we regret that this is the case. We should like to have seen that every person in South Africa could obtain a telephone immediately. Let me briefly give you the reasons why there is a backlog of telephones in South Africa. In the first place, I want to address myself to this side of the House, because we have created an unprecedented demand for telephone services as a result of the high growth rate, particularly of the industrial, mining and business sectors of the economy. After all, it is a recognized fact that we, in a developing country such as South Africa, which is developing rapidly from day to day and which is maintaining a high growth rate—every day reproaches that the growth rate in South Africa is too low are hurled at us on this side of the House by hon. members on that side of the House—can expect and understand that a tremendous burden will be placed on the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. We have only to walk down the streets of Cape Town for a moment to see how many buildings are being built. The hon. member for Durban point knows what the position in Durban is. If we go to Johannesburg, we shall see that there is tremendous growth everywhere. If we think for just a moment of the trust which not only South Africa’s citizens place in the economy, but also the trust from beyond the borders of South Africa then this is an irrefutable proof that as a result of this National Party Government there is trust in this country, and as a result of that we have tremendous growth. If we think of our growth points such as the Saldanha project and Richards Bay and others which I could mention to you, then surely it is obvious that those areas will make a heavy demand on the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and that telephones will have to be supplied to those areas. I just want to mention as an example that in my own area, Welkom, there was almost nothing 20 years ago. Our telephone service was most certainly one of the poorest and I want to tell you that as a result of this department’s actions—and I say this with pride—there are no complaints whatsoever in my constituency in respect of telephones. I want to tell you that if there is any person in that area who wants to complain about the excellent telephone service on the Free State goldfields as a whole, then I think he needs to have his head read.

This National Party has seen to it that the standard of living in South Africa has been raised. We have a standard of living in South Africa—and now I am referring to the Whites as well as to our other coloured peoples—which is very certainly one of the highest in the world and because this is so, this National Government has seen to it that almost every person in South Africa today can afford a telephone. As a result of this it is obvious that in the years which lie ahead, too, heavy demands will to an increasing extent be made on his department. I want to tell you that even the Black people in South Africa, viz. our Bantu, our Coloureds and our Indians —and the department can take note of this —will want to obtain telephones to an increasing extent as a result of the increased standard of living in South Africa. Another important reason is the extraordinarily high figure which appears in respect of telephone transfers as a result of subscribers who are continually moving and who also make a heavy demand on the Department of Posts and Telecommunications.

The hon. member for Germiston District referred to how the Department of Posts and Telecommunications were toiling day after day as a result of the acute staff shortage. Now the question can be asked: What is the Government and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications doing to try to remedy the acute shortage which has arisen in an effective way? I can say with pride that the Post Office has taken the lead, for example, in the training of Brown and Black people as technicians. This is an important breakthrough, and we are already busy training them in other fields primarily—and I stress this—to serve their own people and to alleviate the burden of the Whites. The Post Office feels that it is not only its duty to train the non-Whites to make a major contribution, but that it must enable its White workers to achieve optimal development. Ever greater efforts are being made in this connection. During the last few years, more than 3 000 officers on the first and intermediate levels of supervision have been involved in seminars on modern personnel management. At the beginning of 1974, a management course for senior officials was introduced. So far 47 deputy and assistant directors and equivalent ranks have completed the course successfully. Fourteen very senior officers have already completed the advanced management programme at Unisa successfully. Since 1968, more than 200 officers with the exception of technicians, have obtained diplomas in a three-year course in public administration, public accounts and finances, and electrotechnical data processing and systems analysis, etc. A total of 122 officials have obtained baccalaureus and masters degrees. At the moment there are 186 full-time and 40 part-time students studying at South African Universities in a number of directions. We must convey our praise and appreciation to the staff associations for their realistic approach to the training and utilization of non-Whites. As long as there is a National Party Government in South Africa, the White staff know that they will always be-protected in the process. I can elaborate for hours on the commendable efforts of this department, but my time has almost expired. As a result of the rapid economic development which is taking place in South Africa today, it is a problem to keep pace at all times with the development of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. Mention has also been made this afternoon of our telephone services in South Africa. I can show with chapter and verse what the position is in respect of telephone services in other countries. In Germany the position is much more serious—unfortunately I do not have the time to quote details. However, I want to quote the following in regard to France:

I can also indicate what the position is in Holland, Luxemburg and Italy. For interest’s sake, I just want to conclude with one further quotation relating to Brazil. I do it to indicate what the position is in other countries. It is said—

These are interesting facts for those who complain every day about our Post Office service in South Africa. I quote further:

To obtain a telephone in Sao Paulo, therefore, one must pay 10 000 dollars.

In conclusion, I just want to say that I believe that this was a good Budget. The criticism that came from hon. members from that side of the House, and I say this with great respect and esteem, was very feeble. I foresee that this department, with the great demands which are being made on it will continue to go from strength to strength in the years which lie ahead. I say this because every Post Office official is inspired with one fundamental ideal, and that is to render only the best services to South Africa and its people.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see that the hon. member for Rustenburg is sitting close to the hon. member for Welkom because this gives me the opportunity, as the saying goes, to get two birds with one stone.

The hon. member for Rustenburg has told us that our telephone system is not the worst in the world while the hon. member for Welkom has regaled us with stories about the telephone system in Sao Paolo in Brazil. I would like to cap both of their stories by telling them of a telephone conversation I had with a business associate in Durban who told me about a friend of his who had just come from Ethiopia. This friend of his says that South Africa is a wonderful country expect for the telephone system which does not compare with that in Ethiopia. In dealing further with the speech of the hon. member for Welkom. I am sure that you. Sir, are delighted to hear from him that you are now going to be able to get through to Welkom by telephone. I understand that that has been one of the most arduous jobs in South Africa over recent years. I should also like to say that I think that the hon. member for Welkom and other hon. members on that side of the House would do well on every occasion that a good, sound thinking United Party member makes a speech clearly outlining a problem and tramps on a Nationalist’s corn, not to hold up this little ghost of the so-called internal problems of our party. They are non-existent and we are getting a little tired of it. [Interjections.]

Let us now get down to something practical—as my friend the hon. member for Point has put it, the battle of the backlog. We talk too much about our glorious future; I think it is the present that needs a little attention. As long as we have our present party-line system in this country I shall continue to call it an imposition which no modern society should ever have to suffer or endure. The difficulties and frustrations caused by this system are without parallel, particularly in areas of concentrated farming such as one finds in the sugar industry on the Natal coast and in Zululand. I want to refer particularly to the problems of the sugar farmer in order to illustrate the difficulties that are experienced with the party-line system. The lot of these sugar farmers, to say the least of it, is indeed a sorry and sad one. In many cases they have adopted an attitude of despair in respect of the value, if any, of their telephone system. The hon. the Minister again referred to the sterling work done by the Post Office in regard to the saving of fuel. This is commendable and I do not want to dampen his enthusiasm in this area of endeavour. I wonder how he would feel, however, if I were to tell him about the many thousands of kilometres that have to be travelled by frustrated sugar farmers trying to contact millers, suppliers and others in respect of their business because they are unable to use their inefficient partylines? Neighbours on parallel party-lines have long despaired of making contact with each other by telephone. More often than not they have to resort to using vehicles and the subsequent wastage of fuel is a natural consequence of this fact. Cane farmers also live with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads in the form of fire. Fire is a very real hazard to the cane farmer. I am sure there is no need to impress upon the House the need for an efficient and effective communications system in the dry season, namely the winter months. Hon. members have to witness only one cane fire to appreciate the gravity of what I am saying. Incidentally, while on this subject, I want to say that the harvesting of cane is a long process; it is not something which is done overnight; it takes nine months. It commences, at the latest, early in May and it is not concluded until, at the earliest, late in January of the following year. During this period of nine months the farmer relies heavily on his haulage equipment which is prone to break down because of the terrain in which it works, the difficulties under which it operates and the nature of the work it is required to do. These breakdowns require quick action on the part of service companies who are contacted by telephone and they in turn contact their service vehicles by radio. That is the theory; that is how it should work, but in practice the story is, more often than not, quite different. In practice the farmer usually battles for over an hour or more to get through to the local service agent, and, when he finds that he cannot get through, he gives up in desperation and drives into the village, only to be told that the tractor serviceman is working on his next door neighbour’s farm. They then get through to him on the radio, and by the time the farmer gets back to his farm the job has been done, but for this I can assure you that no thanks are due to the telephone.

It is absolute chaos.

I could go on and on with this tale of unhappiness. Sir, I must express disappointment in the fact that the hon. the Minister did not even touch on the subject of party lines in his Budget speech this year. Not only is this disappointing, but it is also surprising when one refers to his Budget speech last year in which he dealt at length with party lines and even went on to tell us what the tariffs would be for the new automatic system which is envisaged. The annual report of the Postmaster-General, I regret to say, also glosses over this issue. In fact, I would like to say that it almost abandons it. It glosses over it with gay abandon; it is just left in an “airy-fairy” state.

Do you know that party lines are run at a loss?

This is a pitiful state of affairs right throughout the country.

Mr. Speaker, to get away from the farms and back to the towns. I would like to deal with that happy hazard of dialling and hoping. You dial carefully and meticulously according to all the instructions which are printed in the telephone directory, and then you start hoping. I can assure you that prayer does not help. You can only hope that the number you have dialled is the one of the subscriber who answers the telephone. More often than not, it is not. Sir, this occupational hazard is fine for business houses because the Receiver of Revenue takes over 40% of the enormous additional revenue that accrues to the Post Office, as a result of the fact that people get wrong numbers. It is not so funny for the housewife who may be battling to get through to the butcher but repeatedly gets the bottle store, and heaven knows, she probably needs the bottle store by the time she does get through. This situation, Sir, is all the more aggravating when each such aventure costs eight cents— speaking of this costing eight cents, the hon. member for Welkom has told us that everybody in South Africa can afford a telephone. Sir, I wonder if he has ever heard of a pensioner? I do not think that a pensioner can even afford the rental, much less the cost of a call—permit me to explain how this can cost eight cents; it is quite simple. Exchanges in the automatic exchange areas are grouped. One exchange in each group is designated as a measuring exchange. Woe betide you, Sir, if you are unfortunate enough to find that you are told that your service will now be channelled through another exchange and that as from such-and-such a date your new number will be so-and-so. I say woe betide you. Sir, because I suggest that you should look very closely at the small print, as you may find that your home, like many others around you and in fact, practically the whole of your suburb, is well within the 10 km of the radial distance from the exchange that is currently serving you, but because the new exchange to which you have been told you will be channelled is out of that 10 km area, in other words further away, you have had it, to use the vernacular; you simply pay, and you are now in the happy position that it costs you eight cents to get the wrong number— to get the wrong number continually. Sir, I make a sincere appeal to the hon. the Minister to give consideration to cases such as the one I have just outlined where they involve, in particular, dormitory suburbs, where they involve the home owner and the housewife. The housewife has had enough. To quote the classic example which, as the Minister knows, has existed in La Lucia and in Glen Ashley just north of Durban—the one is a suburb of Durban and the other is immediately north— when, if a housewife wants to telephone a trader in Durban North, which is immediately adjacent, she finds the cost of such call to be eight cents although they can practically throw stones on each other’s roofs.

Lastly, I would like to deal very quickly with this new practice of the collection of mail by postmen from post boxes. I feel that this is something which the hon. the Minister could well have a re-think about. Many complaints have been received from constituents in Durban North. Pinetown, Queensborough, Umhlanga Rocks and Westville, stating that they are not satisfied with this service because they find that their mail takes too long to get to its destination.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 87.

Mr. Speaker, from the Opposition speeches to which we have been listening this afternoon it is very clear that their criticism has very little substance. We have had various patterns of criticism here, even to the melodrama of the hon. member who is not present here at the moment, but who will probably return in a moment, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, to whose speech I shall reply in a moment. I hope an hon. member will have him informed. We even had references to Ethiopia, the former domain of Haile Selassie, alleging that the telephone service in that country is better, according to the United Party view, than the telephone service in South Africa. It does not surprise one to hear this from the United Party. That is their dilemma. That explains why they are what they are today. It is that disparaging attitude to South Africa. That is their basic problem, with which they are saddled, and it is probably the problem which will accompany them to the grave. Sir, if one wants to refer to other countries, as we had this reference to Ethiopia, Haile Selassie’s country, where the telephone service is allegedly better than ours, then I can tell the hon. members that there are quite a number of other countries with which one could also draw comparisons if one is so eager to draw comparisons. Perhaps it would interest you to know that the other day, while I was on this trip of mine to study the operation of the liaison and works committee system, I visited a highly industrialized country such as France, and there no less a person than the representative of a very large electronics company told me at dinner table that in France it was a common saying that half the people in France were waiting for a telephone and the other half were waiting for the dialling tone. This is now being said of a major country such as France, a highly industrialized country, and a country for which one has great respect. What one really missed in this debate, Sir, was not so much the adulation and commendation of the department’s activities, but mention of the fact that we have during the past year installed 123 000 telephones, a record number, something which I think does indeed deserve mention, even by the Opposition. It is a particularly great achievement that we have been able to install 123 000 telephones in this country during the past year. That the waiting-list has grown, is, as I stated very clearly in my Budget speech, due to the fact that we have during the past year received even more applications, for this dynamic country, South Africa, is developing so rapidly that no telephone system can keep pace with this tremendous development which we have in South Africa. Our development is taking place at such a tremendously rapid rate that the provision of telephones in many areas, simply cannot keep pace with it. Townships spring up overnight. The other day I was paying a visit to the town of the hon. member for Kempton Park, where we opened a beautiful new post office, and there I saw the new parts that were springing up in Kempton Park. It is completely impossible for the Post Office to keep pace all the time with the demand for telephones when towns spring up like toadstools in this rapidly developing country. Therefore one must be realistic and realize that it is completely impossible for any administration to provide telephones like something which one offers over a counter. I think we have over the years certainly given an account of the increased capital we received. However criticism is being levelled at us, and I should like to begin with the criticism of the principal critic, the hon. member for Durban Point. He had quite a lot to say about the 50/50 formula, and also asked why this generation should pay for the next generation. He wanted to know why this generation should bear such high tariffs for the sake of the next generation. Is this not the pattern in any developing country in the world? The present generation, we, are today enjoying the benefits of Iscor and the Vaal dam, to mention only two major undertakings which were constructed quite a number of years ago. To judge from the age of some of us who are sitting here, those undertakings were constructed by a previous generation. Yet we are today enjoying the benefits of those tremendous assets which were built up at the time. It is only natural that each generation should make its contribution, not only for its own sake, for what person lives only for himself, what nation only for itself? A person lives for his country, and the cause which goes with it. We are making our contribution as well to the people of the future, and so, too, will they have to make their contribution to those who come after them.

†The hon. member spoke at length about the Franzsen Committee’s formula. Perhaps I should remind the hon. members that the Franzsen formula was decided upon after very thorough consideration. As hon. members will remember, we had the benefit of the advice of the very efficient Franzsen Committee on which the Postmaster-General, a Mr. Brown, also served. The committee went very, very thoroughly into this whole matter. They also had in mind the policy of the International Bank for Reconstruction. The International Bank for Reconstruction laid down as one of the guidelines for all developed countries in the world that the expenditure from internal funds should be approximately 50% in respect of capital expenditure. The Franzsen Committee had this guideline in mind when it considered the whole aspect of financing. The committee then submitted the recommendation which today is the basis of the Post Office’s financing. I do not think we can grumble about that. The persons who served on the committee were able people, and when they submitted their report, were acclaimed by all knowledgeable people as people who did an excellent job. The Post Office intends continuing with its financing policy on the basis recommended by the committee.

The hon. member also asked me about the contribution which the SABC makes in this regard. I can say that the SABC pays us rental according to an approved formula in respect of the circuits which we provide. We had discussions with them and we came to an agreement on the formula which is applicable today. I can also say that the formula is based on the principle that the Post Office will receive a profitable fee. We do not have a sort of Father Christmas approach to this matter. The formula is really based on business considerations and we regard the formula as a good business proposition. It offers us a reasonable profit. I think that ought to satisfy us in this respect.

The hon. member also wanted to know what kind of co-operation there was between the Post Office and town planners. There is very close co-operation between the Post Office, the town planners and the municipalities. Our officials have continual discussions with them. When new towns come into being, they know in advance about them and they have the necessary discussions with them. It is impossible for us, however, to lay power cables in advance. He said that it could be done in the same way as with telephone cables. It can be done and it is done on certain occasions, but we only do it where it is really necessary. In many cases we lay the telephone cables in the same trenches in which the municipalities lay their cables. On the other hand, we cannot afford to lay millions of rands worth of cables too far in advance because we must get the money back. If we do not, the Opposition will really have something to complain about in a debate like this.

He also wanted to know what we were doing about cable faults. We are doing quite a lot about it. Only last night at the opening of the Post Office Sports Association tournament, which I had the honour to open at 6 o’clock last night, I met some of the technicians from the Free State. They told me that they had been working on the Reef for the last couple of weeks in order to get things going. That is exactly what we are doing. We recruited teams from various centres in South Africa and I am very grateful indeed to them that they came to Johannesburg to help us. As I told hon. members on previous occasions, not all these people are so taken up with Johannesburg as some of our Johannesburg members because some of them still regard Johannesburg as a place where a good boy should not be.

Sodom en Gomorrah.

Yes, something to that effect. I and the top management of my department really appreciate the willingness of our technicians from different parts of the country to go to Johannesburg in order to assist us to overcome this backlog. That is part of what we are doing; we are recruiting special staff so that they can assist us in solving the problems which we encounter there.

The hon. member also referred to the R1 000 million which is needed for the switching system and which is mentioned in this brochure. That amount only refers to the switching system and not to the whole telecommunications lay-out and development plan for the next 10 years. As a matter of fact, I foresee that the amount which will be spent on the telecommunications network will be double this R1000 million mention in this brochure.

That doubles the strength of my argument.

The hon. member for Wynberg wanted to know about the training and the availability of instructors for training purposes. The hon. member for Parktown also referred to this but I shall refer to his remarks within a few moments. I am afraid that we do not have sufficient instructors, neither White instructors nor Black instructors. As a matter of fact, it is not only we who do not have enough instructors. Even the technical colleges do not have enough instructors to meet our demand. That, then, is the hard facts of the matter. We do not have enough instructors but if we had more we would have been able to do more in the field of the training of non-Whites.

*With reference to the question put by the hon. member for Wynberg on the overtime people are working. I just want to draw attention to the fact that the reply which was furnished, and to which he referred, referred only to the area of the Cape Town central telephone exchange. For the sake of fairness I just want to say that this really does not apply to the whole of South Africa, but only to this area. He also wanted to know about the meagre percentage basis in accordance with which we are remunerated for the services we are rendering. He referred to a half per cent, an eight per cent, and so on. That is true, but one has to take into consideration that we also, in return, receive many services from other departments. It is not only we who render services to other departments; they in turn render services to us, and for that reason it is a question of one hand washing the other. All this is taken into consideration when this percentage is determined.

The hon. member also referred to the bonus schemes.

†He spoke about the decrease for the provision of incentive bonuses He referred to the fact that the amount estimated for 1975-’76 was R55 000 as opposed to R190 000 for 1974-’75. Well, we have abolished certain bonus schemes where the production could not be effectively measured and where there was the danger of abuse. It is really a problem to judge productivity correctly. If one is going to pay these bonuses for a certain level of productivity, one must be in a position to measure that productivity. One of the great problems a country always has is to ascertain its productivity figure. To measure productivity in any country is one of the most difficult things there is. It is not a question of exact figures. One cannot simply rush data through a computer and expect a true and correct figure to appear. This problem is also encountered in the Post Office. There are different sorts of work in respect of which it is very difficult indeed for us to measure productivity so accurately that we are in a position to pay bonuses. Such a system naturally leads to abuse, something we want to prevent.

*The hon. member for Sunnyside replied very effectively to the misrepresentation by the hon. member for Durban Point of the capital position. I want to thank him sincerely for the straight forward explanation which he furnished in that regard. The hon. member also referred to the question of the Pretoria post office building, and the microwave tower which is going to arise there. He asked for further information about it. We plan to have the main post office in Pretoria, which will be build on Church Square, ready by 1980. Because one has so much appreciation for Church Square, with the old Raadsaal on the one hand and the Palace of Justice on the other, this Post Office is being planned with great circumspection so that it will fit in with those two historic buildings. The new post office must not be so high that they will be dwarfed, and it must fit in with them architecturally. I want to give the assurance that the planning of the post office as well as the planning of the administrative building of the Provincial Administration, which will also fit in with the new post office, will take the historical character of Church Square into account. As regards the microwave tower which the hon. member wanted to know about, I want to say that it is being planned to erect it on Lucasrand. It is estimated that it will cost approximately R5.5 million, and that the tower will have been completed by 1978. I have already seen the design for this tower, and I must say that it is very striking. I honestly think that the microwave tower which is going to be erected on Lucasrand, as with all the other fine things which Pretoria has to offer, will be a credit to and a fine beacon for Pretoria.

The hon. member for Parktown, of course, also complained about the telephone service. At least he did not make a wide detour to Haile Selassie, but he did complain about the quality. This is not what it should be, and we keep on saying on this. We have explained to you the problems we are facing. We hope to have this under control within a reasonable time. With reference to the telephone complaints, the appeal which the hon. member for Rustenburg made to the private sector ought to be stressed. On a previous occasion the Postmaster-General also made an appeal to private sector not to poach our technicians and at the same time expect us to maintain a service which is so good it puts us in the category of a utopia. The necessary attention was not given to that appeal, for the people think, as one says in English, that they “can have it both ways.” The Post Office staff can be poached and at the same time they can expect a good Post Office service. Unfortunately it does not work that way. Therefore I should very much like to emphasize the appeal made by the hon. member for Rustenburg to the private sector, namely that people should act with the utmost caution in this regard. If they are going to lure our people away, they are nothing but a lot of Eulenspiegels. No one can cut off his cloak at the bottom and add what he has cut off at the bottom to the top and expect to have a longer cloak. The cloak is still the same. In the meantime all that has been accomplished is to cause disruption in the Post Office.

The hon. members for Wynberg and Parktown took it upon themselves to plead for the abolition of separate amenities at Post Offices. Perhaps I should draw the attention of the hon. members to the fact that the previous member who advocated this, the hon. member for Florida, did not return to this House. The day he advocated this I asked him to put it to his constituency and to receive a mandate for this from his constituency. If he then received such a mandate we could listen again to what he had to say. You know what happened to him. The National Party representative for Florida is now sitting at the back there. That is the mandate. In other words the separate amenities must remain. I want to be very clear in regard to the question of separate amenities. Separate amenities have in fact been introduced in our post offices for the sake of sound race relations. These have been established to maintain sound relations between Whites and non-Whites. For decades these have worked very well. There is no reason whatsoever to abolish them. On the contrary. If we really want to aggravate race relations in South Africa, all we need to is abolish such essential and natural arrangements as these separate serving localities in our post offices. I concede that the number of sign-boards at some places could be reduced. Sometimes there are to many sign-boards. In fact, I noticed the other day with the opening of the post office at Edenvale that there was not a single sign-board in spite of the fact that there were separate serving localities for Whites and non-Whites. This is a matter for which local postmasters and bodies bear responsibility. This does not alter the fact that the separate amenities are in fact there, and these will remain because it is necessary for sound relations which this Government is maintaining in this country, and wants to maintain in future.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the narrowing of the wage gap. He referred to the returns, and arrived at the conclusion that no real narrowing had taken place. This is not a true picture of the matter, although the wage figures to which the hon. member referred, included all non-Whites. However, a great many of these non-White workers fall into the lowest, the bottommost labourers’ categories. In respect of the higher grades of non-Whites, however, one finds that there has during the past year been a significant narrowing of the wage gap in the Post Office, as in the Public Service. We intend continuing to narrow that gap in future. For that reason the figures mentioned do not present a precise picture of the good work we are in fact doing.

The hon. member for Parktown also referred to the question of the non-White liaison body on staff associations. Since 1969 already the Coloureds have had a recognized Coloured Persons’ Post Office Workers Association The Indians have had one since 1973. Since the beginning of this year extensive liaison machinery has been created in the Post Office for the Bantu staff. This liaison machinery operates on three levels. The lowest level, which is the direct and most important level, consist of the workers themselves. In offices, sections or workshops where there are at least 20 Black workers, one Black worker who has had at least two years’ service is elected by his fellow-workers as their representative or a spokesman. Five of these representatives on the second level serve on a regional labour committee in the department. Together with the regional director of the department and other persons they comprise these regional labour committees in the Post Office. They hold quarterly meetings and discuss the interests of the Black workers, and help to prevent labour unrest. There is opportunity for very wide discussion. On the third level we find the Labour Board, which has now been established in the Post Office. The Deputy Postmaster-General is the chairman. The Labour Board discusses matters relating to the regional committees, and expresses opinions in that regard. In this way a liaison system for Black workers has now been established in the Post Office which really ought to work very satisfactorily. It is really a system which corresponds to that of the Railway, and on the Railways this system has already been working very satisfactorily for a considerable time. I expect this system to produce good results in the Post Office as well.

†The hon. member for South Coast referred to the savings bank and to national saving certificates. He complained that we were not drawing enough money for the savings bank. The other side of the story, however, is that the building societies and the banks are complaining that we are drawing too much money. That is a very serious situation. They feel that we offer such attractive interest rates and other facilities that we are proving to be unfair competition. We have taken note of that because we believe in live and let live. In consequence, the Treasury and the Postmaster-General will have to discuss this matter because basically the Treasury and the Minister of Finance determine the conditions which apply to these savings. The fact that we are not drawing enough is a matter to which. I referred in my speech yesterday. I said that over the past ten years the Savings Bank has not shown much of an increase but that in the past year it had increased considerably owing to all the new and attractive aspects which we have introduced. I do not think there is anything I can do to improve on the position as it is.

*The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South very melodramatically used the question of a certain letter as his point of attack on this Budget. In this regard I want to tell the hon. member that apart from the statutory provision in terms of which letters which are undeliverable or are in conflict with the Post Office Act or other statutory provisions are opened in the dead letter office, the Post Office itself has no power to open letters. This is the first point I want to make to the hon. member. The Post Office has no other power. The Post Office Act, however, allows a letter to be made available by the Post Office to a competent authority, at the request of such authority, for examination if it is in the interests of national security. This provision was inserted after the Potgieter Report brought this to our attention in 1972. The interception of a letter by the Post Office can therefore only take place for reasons of security upon a written request of a person authorized thereto by the State Security Council to make such a request. In addition that request shall also be considered by the officer appointed thereto and especially authorized to do this, and not by any officer in the Post Office. Thirdly, that officer must satisfy himself that the interception is necessary. As far as this letter it concerned, in regard to which we had all this melodrama, I just want to say that the Post Office has no knowledge of the opening of the letter to which the hon. member referred. Nor, with reference to what I have just told this House, did we receive such a request from the State Security Council for the interception of such a letter either. It is now being expected of me to investigate this matter further. I would urge the hon. member to follow this matter up a little further. The hon. member himself referred to the fact that these letters came from the same source—England. Is it not possible that the people, at the point where these letters came from, made a mistake by placing the letters in different envelopes?

That is wrong. They do not come from the same source.

In view of the legal position which I have now stated to this House, why must the inference now be drawn that something sinister is happening here in South Africa? Is that fair? Is it fair to this country in which the hon. member makes his livelihood to try to cast such a slur on that country?

Yes, it is fair.

I want to say that in view of this legal position it is a disgraceful slur.

In view of the record of this Government, it is fair.

The hon. member for Umhlanga referred here to telephone charges according to the radial system. In reply to him I should like to say that we formerly had the so-called grid system which was under perpetual criticism also because eight cents instead of four cents had to be paid per call unit beyond a certain point. Whether the radial or the grid system is applied, the fact remains that a line must be drawn somewhere beyond which a higher unit rate must apply. We are satisfied that the radial system we are now applying is a fairer and a more scientifically precise method of demarcation than the old grid system. I am afraid that no system will be able to satisfy everybody.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. the Minister replied to the Second Reading debate, he seemed to think that because in other countries half the people were waiting for telephone services and the other half were waiting for the dialling tone, that excused the position in South Africa. It seemed to me that the, hon. the Minister was suggesting that be-’ cause everyone else was inefficient, we should be proud of the fact that we are' also inefficient. I just cannot understand that sort of argument. I do not think it, washes, and I think that if the hon. the Minister feels that that is the way in which he is going to reply to genuine complaints about the way he conducts his department, I think he should start thinking all over again and see whether he cannot apply his mind to the complaints and the questions raised by hon. members on this side of the House.

*The hon. the Minister referred to townships which were springing up like mushrooms and said that townships such as those could not expect a telephone service, but in the same breath the hon. the Minister said he was receiving the full cooperation of town planners when townships are established.

†It seems to me that the hon. the Minister placing the emphasis on the wrong point. Where we want the co-operation is at the time when townships are planned, and we want continuous liaison between the planners of the townships and the hon. the Minister. The Minister must be in touch with what is going on, he must know whether the plots in the township are selling like hot cakes, and he must also know whether houses are being erected. He should be in constant touch. When he sees these things going like wildfire, then he must start laying the tables. He must not wait until the houses have been occupied. He must not wait until the business area has been completely built and then say, “I am sorry, I have no cables; I cannot give you telephones; you will just have to wait”. I am under the impression that that is the attitude of the hon. the Minister. I do not say it is the attitude of his department. I do not think it is the attitude of the Postmaster-General, but I do think that the Postmaster-General is entitled to a little encouragement from the Minister and I do not think he is getting that encouragement. I believe that the hon. the Minister should look into this matter more carefully and try to apply his mind to it.

Sir, on the question of capital and the financing of capital requirements, what does the hon. the Minister say in his reply?

*He said that the Vaal Dam was built by a previous generation and so was Iscor, but what the hon. the Minister did not tell us was whether the Vaal Dam and Iscor were financed from Revenue Account. I do not think this was the case, and this is the whole point. The point of the argument is not that the Vaal Dam and Iscor were built by a previous generation; the argument is that capital works in the Post Office are being financed from Revenue account today. If these capital works are not only intended for this generation but also for later generations, why should they then be financed from Revenue Account? Why could loan capital not be obtained for this purpose? I am very sorry, but the hon. the Minister had hold of the wrong end of the stick altogether.

†Then the hon. the Minister says that the Franzsen Commission decided on a certain formula in regard to the financing of capital works for the Post Office. But the hon. the Minister does not tell us and remind us that the Franzsen Commission sat for many, many years. That may have been the situation in which the Franzsen Commission found things when they started their deliberations. I think they started 10 years before they finished, they sat quite a long time ago, and I think conditions have changed very much since then. I do not like the attitude of the Minister, who says, “The Franzsen Commission decided that 15 years ago, and what they decided 15 years ago is good enough for me and I am not going to inquire into it”. I would like to know why the hon. the Minister does not inquire into it again. I want to know why he did not do it this year. He has not told us that he is going to inquire into the question of financing capital works next year. Are we to understand that the hon. the Minister is going to stand by the recommendation of the Franzsen Commission made 15 years ago and that he is going to say, “I am not going to introduce any improvements on the commission’s recommendation; I do not see why I should”? Sir, I am perfectly certain that conditions in regard to services provided by the Post Office have changed very considerably in the last 15 years.

What is more, he is exceeding Franzsen’s recommendation.

Yes, he is. As I pointed out in my Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister is doing far better than Franzsen ever wanted him to do. He is financing more than half of his capital works out of income. The Minister brushes aside my suggestion that other Government departments should be charged on a proper basis for services rendered to them by his department. He brushes it aside by saying that other departments also provide services to the Post Office. The services provided by other departments are enumerated on page 10 of R.P. 13—’75. The departments which provide services are the Departments of Public Works, Social Welfare and Pensions, Community Development, Foreign Affairs, Mines, Justice, the Department of the Controller and Auditor-General and other departments. What does it add up to? This year it amounted to just over R1,5 million. This is chicken-feed compared with what other departments get from the Post Office. If the hon. the Minister uses this as an argument for saying that he is not going to revise the tariff which he applies to other Government departments, his argument is nonsensical. I believe that the hon. the Minister must have a look at that formula. He must have a look at the way in which he charges other Government departments. I am pretty certain that if he does that, he will not need to increase these tariffs by one cent this year. He will have more than enough money. The burden will be equally spread right over all the Government departments and the taxpayer will not feel the load in the same way as the telephone user is feeling it today and will feel it particularly after 1 April. I do not think that the hon. the Minister has replied satisfactorily to any of the matters which we have raised.

The way in which the hon. the Minister replied to the question I raised in regard to bonus incentives I thought was puerile. The hon. the Minister said that it was difficult to judge productivity and that the only way in which one could pay an incentive bonus was if you could judge productivity. He finds it very difficult to do so. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he has never heard of a study known as job evaluation. Has he never done anything like that in his Department? Surely he has. He must have a job evaluation system in his department; he must know what the value is of every work that is done in his department. He must know that if a man does more than what is required of him, he is entitled to a little extra. Surely, that is what the incentive bonus is for, for higher productivity than can honestly be expected of a man. If he wants things to be efficient, then surely he must hang the carrot in front of the donkey to get him to walk. I think this is a very simple matter. The hon. the Minister says: “I am sorry, I can do nothing about it.” He throws his hands up in the air and he says: “I am not even going to spend as much this year as I spent last year. Last year I spent almost R200 000; this year I do not even want to spend R55 000.” This is the answer we get. No, I do not think the hon. the Minister is playing the game with this House.

*Then we have the question of separate development. The hon. the Minister told us that we should go back to our constituencies and obtain a mandate from them if we do not want separate development in the Post Office. He says there is no reason for abolishing separate development. However, what does the hon. the Prime Minister say who is sitting in the bench next to him? The hon. the Prime Minister says we must put a stop to this kind of thing which hurts people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we have come back to a discussion of the financing of the capital programme of the Post Office. It is very clear to us that the United Party is not adopting the same standpoint in the Post Office Budget debate as they adopted in the Railway Budget debate.

In what way?

I shall prove that hon. members are dealing with these two aspects completely separately. The hon. member for Durban Point said yesterday that we shall never be able to make up the backlog from our capital provision. This implies only one thing, viz. that too little capital is being provided to make up the backlog. That is what that hon. member is implying. However, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said that we must spend capital. He wants us to lay down the necessary cables in new townships, whether there are houses there or not. Therefore he wants the capital to lie there without accumulating interest until inhabitants move into the township one day.

No, I did not say that.

But that is what the hon. member implied. [Interjections.] Not one of the hon. members who were so wise said where the capital is to come from. Everyone criticizes capital being drawn from revenue. They are against that, but truly, not one of them said where the capital is to come from. When we were dealing with the capital Budget last year, the hon. member for Durban Point asked how the hon. the Minister could allow a growth of only 9½% in his capital programme, because according to the hon. member, the rate of inflation was between 10% and 11%. He asked how one could ever make up a backlog if inflation would consume one’s whole programme. Those are the arguments which those hon. members use. They accuse us of not making sufficient provision but, as I say, not one of them says from where the funds are to be obtained. Only one way remains then, viz. that if one wants to make up the backlog in telecommunication services, one must make use of loan capital. That is the only way out.

Why not?

When we were dealing with the Railway Budget last week, the hon. member for Maitland said that the Railways could not be run profitably because the interest burden was too large and that something would have to be done about that. What they did not want to be done in the case of the Railways, they now advocate for the Post Office. How is one to understand them? In the one case, the burden of interest is too heavy, but when it comes to the Post Office, they say that capital must be borrowed—making the burden of interest even heavier. I really cannot understand the argumentation of those hon. members. When we look at the Budget, we shall see that the Post Office already carries an interest burden of R61 million, in other words, 11½% of the revenue, which is not too high. We heard in the Railway debate that the burden of interest of the Railways is between 13% and 14% of its revenue. Here it is only 11.5%. As against this, the steps which the Government is taking in respect of the Post Office, viz. to finance from revenue, is a very sound policy. The hon. member for Constantia is always saying that inflation is the archenemy of our country. These measures …

You also say so.

Yes, that is the case: I agree with him. If an organization finances its capital from its revenue, as the Post Office does, it is in fact anti-inflationary. But the hon. members do not want this either—on the contrary; they advocate that we should encourage inflation indirectly. [Interjections.] Now I want to know how the hon. members justify their argument. The Post Office works partly on a cash basis. Let us look at the capital for which this Budget makes provision. It comes to an amount of R213 million. In the past four years we have spent between 82% and 84% of the annual capital programme on telecommunication services. Of the amount for which we are budgeting this year, we are providing 85.4% for telecommunication services. After all, it is a legitimate share of the capital amount which is spent on services. The hon. member for Durban Point said yesterday that he objects to our providing R119 million of this R213 million from revenue. The hon. member just mentioned a figure. I could have told him what one can say about figures, but I shall rather not do so because it will probably be unparliamentary. Of the amount of R119 million, R43 million is earmarked for depreciation. Then 50% of this amount is still added to the depreciation to make provision for the increased replacement costs. In other words, R64½ million of the R119 million must be used for replacement costs in the vast network which the Post Office in South Africa has at its disposal. Surety this is not for capital expansion; it is for replacement costs.

Is depreciation of 30% an ordinary depreciation?

It means that in this Budget an amount of R47½ million is being budgeted in respect of further expansion of capital services. When one calculates this amount in relation to the total capital, programme, one gets a percentage of 22,3% which to my mind is not unhealthily high. Let us take a look at our capital programme. In the financial year 1972-’73, only R12 million was budgeted. Therefore, that R12 lion was related to the provision for expansion from revenue and did not include depreciation. This was 18,7% of the amount which was budgeted for the capital programme.

Order! Does the hon. member not mean 18,7%?

I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman, I am slightly old-fashioned. I mean 18,7%. In 1973-’74, the percentage was 14,9%.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is it unparliamentary to talk of something-point-something?

No.

In 1975 the percentage was 15,7% and for the financial year 1975-’76 it is 22,3%. I think that it is a fair and legitimate part of revenue. Let us look at depreciation. In 1972-’73 provision was made for depreciation to the amount of R35 million, in 1973-’74, for ah amount of R41 million, for the following year, R48 million, and now provision is being made for an a mount of R63½ million. I think it is very important that we maintain the formula which was prescribed by the Franzsen Commission. I think that it is encouraging to find that we can finance our Post Office in such a way that it is not necessary for us to incur foreign or other loans for everything and to pay tremendous interest rates on these. If we think that we have to pay R61 million in interest at the present moment, while we have introduced an increase of 7,6% in tariffs, which only gives us a revenue of R38 million, we can think what amount we shall have to supplement in the future by means of tariffs, just to pay the increased burden of interest. There is a formula according to which depreciation is calculated. The percentages are not arbitrary. A certain percentage of it is levied for replacement of properties, a certain percentage for vehicles, and so on. In other words, the provision for depreciation takes place on a predetermined basis. Therefore I think that the hon. members are advancing a nonsensical argument when they say that too much is being provided from revenue.

In conclusion I want to refer to one local matter, to the Vaal Triangle, and in particular to Vanderbijlpark. I want to express my thanks and appreciation for the fact that the hon. the Minister has made provision in this Budget for about R¼ million for the erection of a new exchange. It is expected that R160 000 will be spent on this project during the financial year. I know that in recent years there have been certain problems in this rapidly growing area. The hon. the Minister is also aware of this. As far as our industrial areas and our business centres are concerned, I am grateful that the demand can already be met to a reasonable extent. Now I should like to address a plea to the hon. the Minister. Iscor has accelerated its building programme tremendously. An average of more than a house per day is being build and two areas are being developed where more than 800 houses will be built in the coming year or two. We are aware of the burden which has been placed on the department, but I want to ask that that programme be speeded up if possible. In this I want to include the Bedworth Park residential area which is situated between Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark, and which will fall under the Vanderbijlpark exchange. Even there services must be rendered.

In conclusion I just want to refer to the appalling damage which is caused by vandalism in our country. Over the last six years, damage amounting to almost R500 000 has been done to apparatus, equipment, etc., and I am asking for very stringent action to be taken against the people who are guilty of this. I believe that they should not be fined, but should be imprisoned as a matter of course. Really and truly, if a citizen does not appreciate the facilities of his own country, I think that there should be no mercy for him. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark unburdened himself of many profundities here on the financing of the Post Office. In the process he inter alia levelled an accusation at the hon. member for Maitland on a matter relating to the Railways. I just want to remind the hon. member that in the case of the Railways it is against the law to finance mere capital expansion and development from revenue. Surely we have an example here of where this is being financed from loan funds.

On two previous occasions I devoted a considerable portion of my speech in this debate to an analysis of the volume of post handled by the Post Office. Today I just want to refer briefly to this, with particular reference to what the hon. the Minister said in his Budget Speech, namely—

Naturally the Minister was not able to furnish us with statistics. Unfortunately we do not know whether this sustained growth was in reality an exceptional growth. Nor do we know whether this sustained growth related to second-class or to first-class postal articles. Consequently I would appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could tell us how the growth compared for example with the year 1969-’70, a year which, in respect of the volume of post handled, was a peak year. In that year a really large volume of post was handled in South Africa. If we were able to compare the latest position with that year, we would be able to see whether we have made any real progress. Since 1969-’70 there has been a definite tendency to a smaller turnover of volume in respect of a large number of categories, particularly in respect of agricultural post. That tendency has manifested itself in spite of the population growth and economic development. In the year 1973-’74, however, there was an increase, compared with the previous year, but if one compares this with the figures which appear on page 52 of the Annual Report, one finds that that increase was in reality attributable mainly to an increase in the number of newspapers which were handled. In other words, this was a growth in second-class post, therefore not a category from which the Post Office could make a profit. I know the hon. the Minister will say that greater use was made of telecommunications, but I assume that this was not the principal cause of the decrease. I also want to tell the hon. the Minister that the growth in the volume of airmail was also not of such a nature that it could in any way have been the cause of this decrease. I have taken note of the fact that mention is made in the Annual Report that the statistics for previous years were unreliable, or rather that the statistics for this year are more reliable than those for previous years. The fact remains, however, that we have to accept that those statistics were valid enough to reveal a tendency. This tendency, and I have no other evidence for it, is that there has been a gradual annual decrease in first-class post. I am not going to make an issue of whether it involves 2 million or 20 million articles, but the fact remains that in the volume for the year 1973-’74 there was a decrease of 240 million articles in comparison with 1969-’70. I accept that this may be an unreliable figure, but it nevertheless indicates a tendency. I want the Post Office to accept that, when one does not make use of certain facilities, it means that there is a certain amount of consumer resistance in that regard. That consumer resistance could in the first place be due to unrealistic tariffs, or, in the second place, to inefficient service. I believe that what the Post Office should really do, is to establish beyond any doubt what categories of postal articles most readily produce a profit for the Post Office. Once they have established this, they must take positive steps in respect of those categories to bring about an increased turnover. With that in mind, I want to advance a plea this evening that the Post Office should for example, make more effective use of private aviation companies, to enable a better airmail service to be offered to more parts of South Africa.

†I am aware of the fact that the Post Office does utilize, for instance, the services of Cape Air and Namaqua Air. Although I have no definite information I assume that the Post Office is also making use of the services of the larger aviation companies in the Transvaal. Nevertheless, I am convinced that the Post Office has only scratched the surface of this particular method of increasing its turnover.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned I was appealing to the hon. the Minister to see to it that the Post Office utilized the services of private aviation companies for the distribution of airmail. I want to take the province of Natal as an example. In Natal one finds that every major town has a daily scheduled flight connecting it with Durban and in some cases also with Johannesburg. My information is that the Post Office does not utilize all the facilities available to it. There are several flights from Empangeni and Richards Bay to Durban. There are also flights from Margate, Pietermaritzburg and Ladysmith to Durban. There are daily flights from Dundee to Durban and from Dundee to Johannesburg with feeder services to Newcastle and Vryheid. Anyone who has tried to communicate by means of ordinary surface mail with a person in Northern Natal knows that this is a time-consuming operation. One can also say that the telecommunications service, especially between Empangeni and Durban, is virtually nonexistent. If the hon. member for Eshowe, who is normally a quiet member, were to participate in this debate, he would be able to vouch for this. The phenomenal growth which is going to take place in the Richards Bay/Empangeni complex, as well as in Newcastle, will of course ensure the viability and the profitability of such a service. Apart from that, I believe that the people living in those areas, i.e. the people of Newcastle, Dundee, Empangeni and Vryheid, are entitled to a better, quicker and more efficient postal service.

I now briefly want to refer to two other matters. I believe the time has come for the Post Office to take a policy decision in this regard. The first concerns radio communications and the allocation of frequencies, a matter which is controlled by the Post Office. In South Africa we have a limited number of channels available for radio communication. A large number of these channels have naturally permanently been taken up by the Government for essential services. I am not criticizing that. What I should like the Post Office to do, however, is to reconsider the division of the channels into interlocking cells, each with a diameter of 160 km. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the start of his speech the hon. member for Durban Central, who has just resumed his seat referred to the number of postal articles handled by the Post Office. By implication, what he really wants to know is what steps are being taken to increase that number of postal articles. As I see it, the number of articles handled is not the point at issue. The point at issue is the quality of service provided by the Post Office, the ability of the Post Office to handle what is given to it thoroughly and efficiently. I contend, and I am convinced that I am correct, that up to now the Post Office has always handled the work given to it with the greatest efficiency. Consequently it is unnecessary for the Post Office to seek extra business. The service rendered by the Post Office is such as to enable it to expand its services. When he took part in the Committee Stage earlier on, the hon. member for Wynberg harped on that same old topic, viz. separate entrances and separate facilities in Post Offices. He wants this to be done away with. The hon. the Minister had already referred to that matter very effectively earlier in his reply and pointed out to the hon. member that separate facilities were essential for the sake of good race relations in this country. This is true, after all, and the hon. member knows it. What one cannot understand, however, is the insistent harping and hammering on this one topic. I want to tell you that the Whites in this country are getting tired of the continual grumbling of the Opposition, to the effect that those things that have been introduced in order to preserve peace between the races in this country should be done away with. I want to tell you that if the United Party should continue in this fashion, it will suffer an even greater defeat at the next election that it did last year. What the hon. member did was to come and play politics here, because his position in Wynberg is at stake. After all, we know what the circumstances are, and we know how he had to fight against the Reformists in the ranks of the United Party to be able to get the nomination again. Now he has to butter them up a little, otherwise next time he will be without a seat.

Have you ever been in a supermarket on a Saturday morning?

There are a few other matters which I should very much like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister in the very short time at my disposal. They are matters relating to my constituency.

I could begin—and I do it with the greatest pleasure—by thanking the hon. the Minister and his department for the voting of … [Interjections.] Yes, we on this side of the House are always positive in contrast to the negative attitude we get from that side. Provision is being made here for the construction of the new exchange in a part of Springs, an exchange that will eventually cost R425 000. I am told that it will carry about 3 000 extra lines. Together, therefore, with the main exchange which is still under construction at the moment and which will carry approximately I 600 additional lines, the backlog in Springs ought to be eliminated before long. But now there is something else in this regard which I want to bring to your attention, Sir, and this is that, as has already been announced, the second Sasol is going to be situated somewhere to the east of Springs. Now, it is immaterial exactly where it is going to be situated, but what is material here is that the second Sasol is going to be built in that vicinity and that Springs—it is reasonable to expect—will have to accommodate the growth that will stem from this.

Another Nat seat.

Yes, not only is it going to be another Nat seat; it is going to result in a second Nat seat as well. In order to accommodate that growth, it is essential that an efficient telecommunications system should be established there. I have already referred to the approval that is being requested for the construction of an additional exchange there, but I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it would not be possible to expedite the construction of that exchange. I accept that in ordinary circumstances that exchange would only be completed by about 1980, and that is not unreasonable. However, bearing in mind the circumstances that have arisen in the meantime, I want to ask whether it will not be possible to expedite the matter a little. That is the first point.

The second point is that as we see it, owing to the growth that is going to take place there as the result of the coming of the second Sasol, that exchange will not be able to accommodate the extra load, and for that reason I want to ask whether it would not be possible at this stage to consider the possibility of extending the other exchanges in the vicinity of Springs in good time.

The third matter is one I have already raised with the hon. the Minister, viz. a concession in respect of telephone fees for our social pensioners. I know that there are many problems in this regard and there is no time to deal with them this evening. I realize what the department’s difficulties are. I also realize the problem of principle that is involved here. However, when one considers those old, and in many cases, ill people, then I think one is justified in saying that they really deserve a concession. It is not for me to say what form that concession should take. I should prefer to leave it to the sound judgment of the hon. the Minister and his department to consider whether they could not accommodate these old people in one way or another in this regard. I must honestly say that in my opinion we owe them some form of assistance.

A great deal has been said about the coming of television and the effect this will have on the labour position in the Post Office, particularly as far as the technical section is concerned. In the fourth place I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come for the television industry to be burdened with the cost of the training of these technicians. On the same subject I again want to plead, as I did last year, that women be utilized on a larger scale. At the same time I want to say that in my opinion, greater use should also be made of existing technical institutions for the training of married women in particular, who could then be used in suitable positions in the Post Office.

In regard to university bursaries to which reference has also been made, and for which I, too, want to convey my thanks, I want to ask whether the time has not come for greater attention to be given to the schools at an early stage with a view to recruitment and the advertising of the services of the Post Office. Pupils can be approached in their matriculation year and informed of the benefits of a career in the Post Office. In most cases they will already have decided on their field of study and in those circumstances I want to ask whether they should not deliberately be encouraged, even from Std. 7, to join the Post Office service, particularly with a view to the variety of careers offered by the Post Office.

As far as philately is concerned, I want to ask whether consideration could not be given to making available an album, as referred to yesterday by the Minister in his Budget speech, in a form intended for children and pupils. What I have in mind here is a simple kind of album which the pupils could buy and which could stimulate their interest in this field. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Springs makes a plea on behalf of pensioners and asks that they receive special consideration from the Posts and Telecommunications Department, I can assure him that he has the wholehearted support of this side of the House. We have been pleading for this for years and I am pleased to see that at last we are hearing something of an echo in this regard from the other side. In any event, I can assure him that he has the full support of hon. members on this side of the House in regard to pensioners.

The hon. member also touched on the question of recruiting in schools. I am surprised to hear that not enough has been done because I know that most centres have a careers week for their schools. Whether these are run by Rotary or other public-spirited bodies, I cannot say, but I know that Government departments usually have their stalls erected there. If my memory serves me correctly, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications was not backward in coming forward in that respect. Sir, I must cross swords with the hon. member when he attacks my colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg. All the hon. member for Wynberg was doing was to make a plea that discriminatory petty apartheid should be done away with.

As his Prime Minister did.

In any case, Sir, that is not making politics of an issue. Not only the Prime Minister but also our special ambassador at the United Nations made a plea that discrimination based on race and colour alone should be done away with. I regard what the hon. member said as being in contempt of what the Prime Minister and our ambassador at the United Nations said. Of course, this is a tender question with hon. members opposite. They brought this word “apartheid” into the world, and they are now saddled with it.

They will now make him a Commissioner.

Sir, the department has put out a very glossy annual report which makes interesting reading. When one reads it, it confirms one’s belief that telecommunications is the lifeblood of any nation, and particularly of a nation which calls itself modern and forward-looking and progressive.

Thank you very much.

I do not mean “Progressive” in that sense.

Then you must reform the country.

The department should never leave any stone unturned to endeavour to improve and maintain the arteries of communication which exist in this country. When I say that, Sir, I want to include everybody because, to my dismay, I cannot help feeling when I read the publications which were issued in regard to this Budget that the department is White-orientated. It forgets that it has a vast Black and Brown market knocking at its door to do business with it. But before I come to that theme. Sir, there are one or two complaints which I feel I must bring to light. When we had the recent heavy rains in Durban, the lines were out of order and I was not pleased to find this headline in a newspaper: “Phone crisis is a scandal.”

I think it was a scandal, because people were without telephones for up to about a fortnight. Surely there must be something wrong with the organization somewhere. That sort of thing should not happen in a modern State like this. My other complaint is in regard to the men who work in the exchanges at night in the country districts. I do not know whether they are part-time or full-time operators, but the point is that while this does not apply to all of them, they are generally ill-mannered and have no idea of what it means to give good service. I often wonder how many of them are asleep when you do happen to phone a country town in the middle of the night. It takes hours and hours to get a reply, and when they do come on the line eventually they are short-tempered with you, and that in turn makes you short-tempered with them. I would like to know what form of supervision there is over these men. I know that some of them are fly-by-night creatures. Discipline seems to be sadly lacking there, and I would like to see it tightened up.

I referred earlier on to the department being White-orientated. Shorn of all the verbiage we have read in the annual report, the department is supposed to be run on business lines. Well then, like any other business, it should seek business. But one gets the impression that the department waits for the business to come to it instead of seeking the business. Here I would like to refer to something which is a hardy annual with me, namely the telephones in the townships. I think it is a positive disgrace that a department the size of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications should allow these non-White townships to suffer as they do through a lack of telephone facilities.

I do not want to hear the old story about vandalism. We know that vandalism exists, even in the White areas, but surely it is not beyond the wit of the department to erect telephone booths near police stations —mind you, they are few and far between —or near a railway station, because the amount of crime that takes place which is never reported to the Police is shocking, and it is not reported because of the lack of telephones. When the inmates of those townships are burgled they are scared to go to the Police because they will only be hammered on their way there. I also want to suggest that when the department tries out self-service post offices, these could be used with magnificent effect in the non-White townships, particularly in the Indian townships. I am thinking for example of Chatsworth and other townships, and of course Wentworth for the Coloureds and Umlazi. If these self-service post offices are a success in the White areas, I venture to say that they will be ten times as successful in the non-White areas.

Sir, I cannot but object to the attack made by the hon. member for Umlazi on telephone operators doing night service. Most of us associated with rural areas and I personally, and I am sure a great many members on this side of the House, can testify to the most courteous treatment one receives from these people, and often under difficult circumstances. The hon. member, who is an ex-officer of the S.A. Police and who ought to know or ought to remember that night duty is a strain on anyone, ought to know too that these people are sometimes treated with some discourtesy on the part of the public. We should like to express our appreciation towards these people from this side of the House. The hon. member also complained about the so-called telephone crisis which has become a disgrace. The hon. member, who use to be a policeman, ought to know that, with the necessary connections for a telecommunication system, it is essential for such connections to be insulated. Unfortunately it is a fact that, water being what it is, the insulation is not always successful. One may quote the example of, among other things, a connection beneath a road. The vibration of the weight of the vehicles passing over the top causes cracks to develop in the connections. I think the hon. member could testify himself that he also causes some vibration when walking over a connection.

Sir, I should like to convey the appreciation of the public of Harrismith to the department—I am referring to intern 103, under “News Services”—for the installation of an automatic exchange in the Harrismith area. We notice from the Estimates that an amount of R30 000 is going to be spent this year and an amount of R325 000 during ensuing years. We should like to give the department the assurance that this decision is appreciated and that we are looking forward to the day when it will be possible for this service to be introduced.

Tonight I want to express a few thoughts in connection with one of the divisions which I believe could with justification be called an unexploited source of wealth, i.e. the philatelic service of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. When one considers that the sales turnover increased by approximately 600% during the past three years and that the profit, over the same period, increased by more than 1 000%, one appreciates the value this service has. I believe that we should not measure the value of this department only by the financial benefits it entails, but that we should also give attention to some of the supplementary aspects in which the service rendered by this department is of inestimable value and which, to my mind, could be exploited to an increasing extent in future. In the first place, there is the educational value this service has. The way in which historic events are being effectively emphasized singled out through the issuing of commemorative envelopes, envelopes which aim to bring to the attention of the public both the design of the stamp and usually the event to which they refer is being noted with appreciation. The most important value these commemorative envelopes have is, to my mind, the little card which is enclosed. On the side of this little card one usually finds an illustration of the event or item and, on the reverse side, a full description of the event or item. I took three of these envelopes at random. I did not select them deliberately. This one deals with South West Africa and its geographical and paleontographic value, particularly with regard to engravings and sketches. On the one side of the card one finds a rock painting by some native tribes of earlier times while on the reverse side one finds a full description of the rock painting. I have another one here which was issued to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Sasol. A full discussion of the origin of Sasol is given. The third one I consider to be excellent. It deals with the well-known, but rare, Burgers pound. On the one side of the card one finds a reproduction of Gen. Burgers, and a full description of the Burgers pound on the other.

I want to advocate to the department that it should continue to issue these historic commemorative envelopes and that more attention should be given to the use of the enclosed card for a clear discussion or exposition of the area or the item. I believe this is a valuable service because it could encourage a relatively inexpensive hobby, a hobby which does not require much storage space, a hobby which the whole family could enjoy and which could keep the family together, a hobby which is particularly suitable for small groups and, to my mind, also to the three Opposition parties in this House, all of which are operating as small groups.

In the second place I want to ask the hon. the Minister to develop to the full the publicity value of our philately division. In the inflationary conditions in which we and the world are living today, effective use should be made of every opportunity. It was with gratitude that we took cognizance of four exhibitions abroad and the establishment of offices there for the sale of stamps and commemorative envelopes. In view of this interest, I think that attempts should be made to make the design of stamps more attractive for tourists. During the past few years use was often made of design on which animals or birds or flowers were depicted. This has an attraction for South Africans, but I believe, in view of the tourists potential, our sun, our sea, our open spaces, our mountains and our plains are the most valuable assets South Africa has. I believe that representations of these items could be adopted in an artistic way in the form of stamps which could serve as effective tourist publicity abroad.

One wonders whether the time has not arrived for us to make more effective use, on a business basis, of the possibilities presented by philately. This may sound far-reaching, but I think the possibility may be investigated of using the philately service and the design of our stamps in such a way that they may be used by various departments or even by various bodies on condition that the designs by the various departments are sponsored by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. When one looks around for examples, one finds that the Christmas season, for example, in South Africa has to a large extent become a time for travelling. Could consideration not be given to choosing the design of the stamps used on Christmas cards—I think it is a 3 cent stamp—in such a way that it is a constant reminder to the motorist to drive carefully? An amount for this purpose could be appropriated by the Road Safety Council. I also believe that it is possible to bring to the attention of the public, by means of a stamp, certain consumer goods which are subjected to very strict inspection and selection. The idea is not to obtain cheap publicity for certain items or events.

What I have in mind, is that we could, in this way, utilize the financial value it has for the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. I have in mind here examples of advertising which are aimed at reminding the public of a certain item or event as much as possible. When, for example, the Department of Water Affairs launches a campaign to persuade the public to use water sparingly, I believe that a stamp, sponsored by the department, could be designed to remind the public of this campaign. I also believe that foodstuffs which are particularly beneficial to the human body and sponsored by the various control boards, could qualify to be included in such a series of stamps. It is a fact that when one is in distress, one devises any plan to escape from it. Therefore I believe such a department might mean a considerable source of revenue to the industry concerned. If it is practical for the department to undertake something of this nature, I want to ask that the funds derived in this manner be used to subsidize and finance smaller post offices in rural areas which are not economically justified. It is a fact that the Post Office in South Africa played an important role in the past and that it continues to bring people together in a certain area. If we do not devise plans to save these little post offices, I am afraid that we will in future have to issue commemorative envelopes for these smaller post offices as well, and this we want to avoid. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bethlehem has raised the question of philately. As I understand the situation, definitive and commemorative stamps which are issued by the Republic of South Africa are items of interest and are held in high esteem by philatelists in other parts of the world.

I want to return to the question of telephones in the townships and want to associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Umlazi in that regard. During the Post Office Budget debate last session I raised this matter with the hon. the Minister and quoted certain figures which revealed a serious position to me. I want to refer briefly to the reply which the hon. the Minister gave me. He said—

I think the operative words are: “Our planning is aimed at providing services as soon as possible”. The handicap in this connection is, to my mind, more a question of personnel rather than a question of finance. Only this Government can be held responsible for the fact that the personnel is not forthcoming. For more than a decade this Government pegged the State expenditure on Bantu education and I believe that many people who could have been trained adequately in that period, have been held back due to the policy of the Nationalist Government. I say this because they have had 27 years to use the potential of non-White labour on the doorstep of South Africa. I should like to examine the present position. In a reply to a question earlier in this session, the hon. the Minister indicated that in the townships in and around Durban—I do not believe the position there is much different from that in any other large city—with a non-White population of roughly half a million, there were 59 call boxes at the end of 1974. In other words, it means that there is one call box for approximately every 10 000 people.

If one looks at the situation in Chatsworth which has the larges concentration of Indian people in the whole of Natal, one finds that according to information received in reply to a previous question, a new automatic exchange was established and put into operation in Chatsworth in June 1974. However, by the end of 1974 there had been 380 applications for residential telephones and 95 applications for business telephones while—it is difficult to believe this—the number of installations was three for residential purposes and four for business purposes. As far as Umlazi is concerned, with a population of 250 000 Africans the installations amounted to nil for residential purposes and one for business purposes. I believe that this makes it extremely difficult for professional men to carry out their work and for priests of various religious denominations to carry out their pastoral and spiritual duties among the denominations they are supposed to serve. I believe that we on this side of the House must go on highlighting this defect in the administration of the Post Office until something more positive and more practical is done about it.

I now want to come to the question of postal deliveries. We have been advised that there has been a reduction in postal deliveries from two to one in various areas of most of the cities. The reason given for this in a letter I received from the Postmaster in Durban is that “it ensured a considerable saving of money, manpower and fuel to reduce these services”. It may have resulted in a saving in fuel as far as the post office is concerned—the hon. the Minister proudly announced in his Second Reading speech that the saving in fuel amounted to 20%—but this does not apply to the citizens of the Republic because overall I believe the saving is much more apparent than it is real. Not only have the postal deliveries been reduced but the postal collections have also been reduced. We now find the situation that in some of the major suburban post offices the last postal collection is at 2.30 p.m., although in some instances it is at 3.30 p.m., i.e. at hour later. We find that the collections from post office boxes have been cut down too. The explanation given there is that the lack of letters does not necessitate more frequent collections. This I accept as valid, but as far as the limitation on the collection of letters at the main post offices in the suburban areas is concerned, I believe it is a great handicap not only to the general public but also to business houses that are decentralizing into the shopping areas in the suburban areas and conducting their businesses from their new premises. It simply means as the position is at present that there is no collection from the post offices in the suburbs after 10.30 a.m. on a Saturday until the first collection takes place at 6 a.m. on the following Monday. That means that letteers lie in a post office box for a period of 18 hours. Moreover, there is no guarantee that the early morning collection will ensure that those letters will be in the sole delivery that takes place on that Monday. Is it any wonder that businessmen claim that letters sent from one part of the city to another to street addresses take up to four to five days to be delivered. However, that is not the whole picture. The question of the clearing of post boxes is also a very unsatisfactory one. Many of the post boxes merely indicate: “Cleared once daily”. I have made representations to the Postmaster in Durban and my representations were received with courtesy, but I regret to say that they were unfruitful. In a letter to me I received this comment—

I believe that the elimination of the time notification has caused a great deal of inconvenience to the public. The Postmaster feels differently, and he has a right to. He says that he has had few complaints. He also says that when a time was stated on the letter-box, he received a spate of queries. I believe, however, that the public has capitulated. They realize that if they want prompt delivery of their letters, they have to take them down to the main post office themselves, using petrol, creating traffic congestion and wasting time in order to ensure that the letter has a reasonable chance of being delivered promptly. I believe that this can be proved by the extent of the congestion which I have witnessed at the main post office in Durban. I have been there on a Sunday morning, on more than one occasion, and found the letter-boxes so jammed that it was difficult to insert any more letters. I believe that many of the people who would normally post at suburban post offices have to adopt this practice if they want prompt delivery. The offices established in the suburban areas are also faced with a problem. Wanting to operate their business efficiently and successfully, as they do, they are faced with normal street deliveries to their premises during mid-morning. If they want to deal with that correspondence and despatch replies the same day, what is the position? They are faced with the difficulty of a lunch-hour shortage of staff because the staff has to have lunch. They also find that they have to deliver their letters to suburban post offices before 2.30 p.m. in the afternoon to ensure that those letters are sorted and delivered the following day. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think I should reply at this stage to the points that have been raised so far. I start with the hon. member for Parktown. He referred to co-operation with local authorities.

Wynberg!

The hon. member for Wynberg referred to co-operation.

You will not make a good postman.

The hon. member for Parktown also referred to co-operation. I can tell both sides that the question of cooperation with the municipalities does in fact take place on an orderly basis. However, there is the question of priorities in regard to the laying of cables. Even though we conduct the necessary negotiations with the municipalities, matters are nevertheless dealt with strictly on the basis of priority. The hon. member for Wynberg referred to the Franzsen Committee. Since he is one of the main speakers on postal matters on the other side, it would be a good thing if he could get his record straight for future debates. The Franzsen Committee did not sit 15 years ago.

It reported four years ago.

That is the other Franzsen Committee. The hon. member for Durban Point must also get his record straight. Dr. Franzsen was chairman of two different committees. The Post Office formula, on which this Post Office financing is based, was made public two or three years ago. This has nothing to do with the investigation conducted by the Franzsen Committee 15 years ago and which took four years. I am merely mentioning these facts to put matters right. When one comes to the question of self-financing …

They reported as long ago as 1972.

I personally appointed the committee, with Dr Franzsen as chairman, which worked out this formula for us, and I only became Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in 1970. The following year I appointed the Franzsen Committee to investigate this matter. It is therefore not a question of 15 years ago. Furthermore, I want to point out to hon. members that as far as financing is concerned, there are certain misconceptions and this also applies to a great many other responsible bodies It is not only the Opposition which labours under this misconception. One even finds that this is the case with a responsible body such as Assocom. Last year Assocom come here to discuss this very matter, i.e. the basis of financing. They objected to the fact that we were taking too much from revenue. From the discussions the Postmaster-General had with the deputation of Assocom it became evident that they were under the impression that the 50% applied after depreciation. After it had been made abundantly clear to them that the 50% did not apply after depreciation, Assocom understood the position fully and left with a full understanding of the whole situation. With reference to this matter it may interest hon. members to know that our self-financing will amount to 19% after depreciation next year. Assocom has put it at 15%, but as I have said, they were under a misapprehension originally.

May I ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that the depreciation of 30% is a realistic depreciation?

Depreciation varies from time to time and is annually accounted for in the Estimates. It is determined for the most part on the basis of the situation prevailing each year …

But is the 30% of this year realistic?

I shall furnish a comprehensive reply to that matter at a later stage. I now proceed to discuss the other aspects which have been raised here in connection with the incentive bonuses.

The hon. member for Wynberg once again referred to incentive bonuses. He objected to the statement which I had made, i.e. that it is difficult to measure productivity. One is unable to measure productivity in respect of every job. There are various jobs in respect of which productivity can quite easily be measured. However, there are other jobs in respect of which productivity cannot be measured so easily. For this reason one cannot apply the bonus system to all kinds of jobs. If one were to apply it to all jobs in respect of which it is difficult to apply, one would get the ironic situation that additional people may later be required to exercise control over this matter. This means that more money would be spent than what is actually saved on account of the bonus system. Then nothing would really have been achieved. It is for this reason that the bonus system has to be applied most judiciously. On account of these practical considerations the system is being curtailed.

†The hon. member for Wynberg also referred to the services rendered to and by other departments. In this case the position is that the tariffs are agreed upon between us and the Treasury. We get full compensation for the cost of such services. This is based on the Post Office Readjustment Act which stipulates that we cannot make any profit out of any of these services. As the law reads, we may only recoup the cost in this regard. It is, therefore, not a question of making profits out of it,

*The hon. member for Durban Central referred to the increase in the postal traffic and the stimulation of certain profitable postal systems. As far as the first matter is concerned, I can only tell the hon. member what applies in general. As hon. members know, the Post Office is a public institution. We are not a business undertaking to such an extent that we are unable to cope with the necessary public services in a proper manner. In other words, we are compelled to undertake all public services falling under a postal service. It is quite acceptable that one may perhaps single out and concentrate on some of these services but, taken as a whole, we cannot neglect some of the services; we have to deal with all the services in a proper manner. It is a fact that postal traffic increases at a slower rate than the other services. This is not only the case in South Africa; it is a phenomenon throughout the world. The postal traffic increases at a slower rate as, for example, telecommunications traffic. This is attributable to developments in the telex and data services The plea which the hon. member made here in connection with those places in Natal—Empangeni, Durban and others —is a matter which is, however, receiving attention. There are problems in connection with aircraft, for example as to whether they would be able to land regularly at a certain place, what costs would be involved and whether it would be profitable, but I shall nevertheless ask the department to investigate the matter to see whether it has any substance and whether we could possibly make use of such flights, from, for example, Empangeni to Durban, and possibly to other places as well.

The hon. member for Springs asked that the construction of a new exchange and the development of the existing exchange in his area should be expedited. We should like to build all these exchanges which have to be built as soon as possible. Of course, quite a number of factors have to be taken into consideration. We have to synchronize certain elements, for example, the availability of the building which is required. First the equipment has to be manufactured and installed. One also has to be sure what cable work is required. Of course, this also has to be incorporated with the international network. There are so many factors which have to be kept in mind that one cannot simply press a button to commission an exchange. I want to assure the hon. member that the Post Office is moving as fast as it is humanly possible within the framework of its financial and labour resources.

The hon. member also pleaded for concessions to be made to old-age pensioners. That is a matter which is dear to my heart. It would give me the greatest of pleasure to be able to announce here tonight that we are going to grant a reduced tariff for old-age pensioners. This is something one would like to do. However, it is not possible for us to implement such a system because if we were to grant this concession to old-age pensioners, we would be unable to stop there. We would have to go further and include physically disabled persons, people suffering from other disabilities and later on perhaps also people suffering from social and other psychological problems. I do not know where this is going to end. It is simply an impossibility for the Post Office to implement such a complicated system. For that reason I am afraid I will have to content myself with the reply I gave hon. members on that side as well as on my side of the House. Hon. members on our side of the House are pleading for this all the time. It is really impossible for the Post Office to make this concession, because it is not practicable.

†The hon. member for Umlazi referred to the night operators and wanted to know what sort of discipline we exercised in their regard. The fact is that postmasters and traffic officers from our regional offices carry out sporadic night inspections and they also make certain check calls, in this case from the control exchange. In this respect I think we are exercising all the control that is practical under these circumstances.

The hon. member also referred to the question of self-service post offices in non-White townships. This is certainly an aspect which will receive our attention. We are pursuing this question on a national basis and, this being so, the Bantu townships will naturally receive consideration. I trust that we will be able to start one or two in those townships as well in the near future.

*The hon. member for Bethlehem gave evidence here of his interest in philately and I am very grateful for this support one is receiving. The hon. member for Springs asked whether the album would be suitable for pupils. I presume that the album which will be available in the near future will be particularly suitable for pupils. I really appreciate the interest displayed by hon. members in this matter.

†The hon. member for Berea also complained about the telephones in the non-Whites areas. We are doing what we can in that respect. From time to time, in reply to questions in this House, I furnish particulars as to what we are doing in this regard. As far as the question of collection of mail from posting boxes is concerned, the position is that in order to conserve fuel we did cut down on collections, as I have said already in reply to questions in this House. I refer here to posting boxes other than those at post offices themselves, in other words to boxes where relatively little mail is posted. This is done, of course, for economic reasons.

*With regard to the question of depreciation, which the hon. member for Durban Point referred to again, I can tell him that a formula exists which varies from plus/ minus 2½% to 30% in respect of the various items. The amount is then supplemented by 50% …

Is the maximum 30%.

It varies between 2½% and 30%, and the amount is then supplemented by 50% to provide for the higher manufacturing costs due to inflation.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back for a few moments to a matter that I raised in the Second Reading debate this afternoon, and that is the question of the wages paid to people of colour in the Post Office. I argued this afternoon that the Post Office had made absolutely no progress in closing the wage gap between White earners and non-White earners. In fact, I thought I had produced figures to prove that this gap, far from being narrowed, had in fact increased. In reply to me the hon. the Minister gave some figures which I obviously accept, but I must say that I was not very impressed with them. I think the point to make in this regard is that the progress that is being made in narrowing the gap is really far below expectations and certainly far below what we were led to believe the Government was hoping to achieve.

But be that as it may, I want to come back to the question of the earnings of individual Black people in the Post Office. In The Cape Times yesterday the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications is reported as having said that a total of 3 992 Post Office workers, all Black, receive an annual income of less than R600 a year. Sir, I have no reason to disbelieve this, but if it is a fact that we are paying nearly 4 000 Black workers less than R50 a month, it seems to me to be a really deplorable state of affairs. Sir, R50 a month is not a living wage by any kind of standard. I tried to produce some figures this afternoon with regard to what is known as the poverty datum line, but the Chamber of Commerce in Johannesburg uses a better phrase; they talk about the minimum humane subsistence level. In all seriousness, Sir, I would suggest to the Minister that R50 a month cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as a minimum humane subsistence level. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that there is either something wrong with his figures, or that since these figures pertained something drastic and radical has been done to adjust the position, because I do not believe that this situation should be allowed to continue for one moment longer; it is a disgraceful state of affairs.

Secondly, I would like to support the plea made by the hon. member for Berea about telephones in Black and Brown areas. I want to give one or two figures that will complement what he has said. I take an area like Soweto, with very close on a million people living in it. This area has fewer than 800 private telephones and, believe it or not, fewer than 40 call-boxes. Sir, I worked this out to mean that there are 25 000 people for every one public telephone, and about 1 250 people for every private telephone. I believe the situation in the Indian township of Lenasia is almost as bad as it is in Soweto. I come closer to this House and find that in the Coloured township of Bonteheuwel, where there are 43 700 people living, there are exactly four public telephone booths. In the townships of Heideveld and Manenberg, in which there are 60 000 people living, there is not a single public telephone booth, and in Hanover Park there is not one. I think it is true for us to say, as the hon. member for Berea suggested, that this is symptomatic of the situation. Now we know the pressure there is on the Post Office to provide telephone services, but I do believe that we have a situation here which really merits far more consideration than it seems to have been given. If it is true, as we are so often told, that help is as near as the nearest telephone, then all I can say is that help is very far away from countless South Africans in this country.

*Sir, I just have one final matter I want to raise. [Interjections.] No, I do not want to thank anybody; I am complaining. I want to refer to the latest Johannesburg telephone directory.

It is beautiful.

Yes, it is beautiful, but it was two months late, to start with. But that is nothing; we cannot help that. The fact is, however, that nearly 1 000 errors appear in this directory, and to me that seems quite unforgivable. I quote from the Transvaler which is not really known as a friend of the Progs, and I hope hon. members will accept that the facts I now want to quote are correct, because they come from, what we may call a irreproachable source. [Interjections.] I quote from Die Transvaler of last month (translation)—

I just want to quote one more paragraph (translation)—

Then we find that a Post Office spokesman told the Rand Daily Mail that there could possibly be nearly 1 000 of these errors. Sir, one need not have much imagination to realize what disruption errors of this kind can cause. I see the Post Office has undertaken—and I think they have already done it—to rectify these errors. What I should like to say to the hon. Minister is that I hope that the cost of these reprinted numbers will be laid at the door of the original printers, because to have so many errors of this kind seems to me to be an unheard of state of affairs. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us the assurance that it will not be the poor taxpayer who will have to pay for this.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat tried once again to play a little politics, as usual, and in order to do so, he paid his visit to the Coloured and Bantu residential areas. We are so accustomed to this by now that at this stage no one can really take them seriously any more. In any event I leave his in the hands of the hon. the Minister.

We have heard many complaints about our telephone service in this debate. Right at the outset I want to admit that there are problems, but at the same time I want to say that we have a telephone service that is probably as good, if not better, than those in many other countries. My son telephones me from Walvis Bay. He puts in 20 cents and then he tells me everything he has to say. For 20 cents he tells his mother how he is. He is in Oshakati, in the heart of Ovamboland, but for 20 cents he speaks loudly and distinctly to his mother here in the Cape. If that is not an achievement, I wonder what is.

It is true that our telephone and telecommunication services constitute one of our most serious problems today. No one is trying to deny that, but I am prepared to say that our telephone and telecommunication services have fallen prey to the sustained South African growth, prosperity, progress and development. That is what lies behind this problem. The announcement of the new electronic switching system is something which I really want to welcome heartily, because it will provide us with the necessary benefits to enable us to combat our technical manpower problem in the near future. This announcement is in fact an important historical event and it ushers in a new era in the field of telephonic communication. Telecommunications remains one of our biggest problems and in a developing area like my constituency I have many good examples of this. It has a profound effect on everyone, from the industrialist and the businessman to the general public. I trust, therefore, that with the new electronic switching system we shall solve those problems rapidly.

When I analyse this matter, I really have the greatest sympathy with the Post Office in the battle for staff that it is waging at the moment. The disturbing shortage of technical and telephone operating staff is really cause for alarm. The present need for highly trained technicians creates an extremely difficult situation that is aggravated by the large number of resignations. To lose 500 trained technicians and telephone electricians and another 497 semi-trained staff in one year is really. …

Alarming.

I say that this is a matter which brings home to us the serious nature of this problem. Then, too, there is also a shortage at the semi-technical level.

What is your solution?

I shall come to the solution if the hon. member would only be quiet.

This is the situation in spite of everything that has been done to prevent it. I can only ask those hon. members whether they have come up with a solution yet, apart from constantly criticizing us. It is the situation in spite of the fact that we have also recruited staff both locally and overseas and in spite of the fact that we have done reasonably well in both campaigns. Our own training programme, including the training of women and non-Whites, has been successful. The Postmaster-General has also succeeded in dividing the work into smaller units so that less highly trained people may be used. Nevertheless there is a shortage. The crux of the matter is that we have a fast-growing system in which more work has to be done by fewer people. An impartial research study carried out in the past pointed to the fact that only 25% to 30% of the technicians trained by the Post Office intend to make the Post Office their career. In other words, between 70% and 75% of the people trained by the Post Office are lured away and swallowed up by the private sector. A very large amount, close to R10 million, is spent on training. It costs the Post Office about R10 000 to train one person. In spite of the effort to solve the problem, I believe that other means will have to be sought, and no time should be lost in doing so. I want to convey my thanks to the loyal people in the Post Office who do not allow themselves to be lured away elsewhere. I want to praise their loyalty and I want to thank them for their dedication, their motivation and for the responsibility they take upon themselves. It is these people who deserve our encouragement and should be praised.

The question now is what can be done. The problem we are facing is, firstly, to get new people and secondly, to retain the people we have. We must face the fact that we can often get the staff, but subsequently lose them. Why do they resign? I believe that the private sector swallows them up because they are paid more there and have to work shorter hours. I should have liked to have the opportunity to discuss the aspect of hours of employment only, but I shall leave that to my colleague who will speak after me. I believe that at this juncture we must concentrate on a really extensive recruiting campaign to acquire staff. We must encourage parents to have their children choose a career in the technical or electronic fields. Technical training must be considered in a more positive light and the idea must be propagated that people should rather follow a career in a technical institution than become a dropout at a university simply because it is the fashion amongst many people to attend university.

However, the most pressing problem is still to retain that staff once we have them. In the first place, more attractive benefits should be made available for workers, particularly the workers on the Witwatersrand. I believe that a special regional allowance should be paid to those who are prepared to work on the Witwatersrand or in other urban areas. I want to suggest that housing benefits, for example a housing subsidy or a rent subsidy, should be made available to them. I believe, too, that a person should be compensated for his years of service in the Post Office. For example, after a man has worked in a a technical field of this kind for five years he could be given a cash sum, and in this way he could be persuaded to remain where he is needed. The people who remain in the Post Office and who are not lured away, deserve to be rewarded because they comprise the Post Office’s most important asset. They deserve that extra bonus or whatever we might want to call it. They are the people who deserve to be pampered by us. In conclusion I want to say that the firms who lure people away from the Post Office should also be harnessed so that they themselves may also contribute towards the training of these people. We must also get such factories to train these people themselves. They must train apprentices in relation to the number of artisans in their employment. I believe that the other people who sell this apparatus and who are unable to provide the necessary training themselves should be required to make a financial contribution so that we may have the money to train the extra people.

Before sitting down, I just want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey the sincere thanks of my constituency, too, to the hon. the Minister and his department. [Interjections.] We were given more than all the members opposite put together. We were given two beautiful post offices. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity of replying to what the hon. the Minister said in the first part of this debate. I want to begin by saying that I now understand certain things which I did not understand before. I remember now that the hon. the Minister used to be an information officer of the Nationalist Party. Therefore I understand why he has always furnished this House with erroneous information. Now I understand why his facts are so often incorrect.

†The first of these recurring faults is that he said that the Franzsen Commission reported two years ago. We were debating the Franzsen Commission’s report on 23 March 1972. In col. 4050 of Hansard of 1972 the hon. member for Constantia referred to the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission. In other words, by the beginning of 1972 we were already debating it, so what becomes of his statement that the commission only reported two years ago? There we have one of the incorrect statements.

The hon. the Minister also said that only 19% of the capital budget was in fact revenue. Of course, that is totally incorrect. The contribution from revenue is R47 478 000. If one divides that into R213 million which is the total capital budget, one gets 22%. So there again we have an incorrect figure which he gave to this House officially as Minister. The very R47 million he referred to is 3% more than the figure he reported to the House. Now let us look at the depreciation. He said this varied from 14% to 30%. That is correct? Then one still has to add 50% for appreciation or escalation of costs. Depreciation amounts to R64 740 000. If one divides that into R213 million, one finds that the average is 30%. If one works on a depreciation of 1½% to a maximum of 30%, how can one get an average depreciation of 30%?

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, I shall deal with that hon. member later. I intend coming to him. As I have pointed out, there again we have one of these strange figures which the hon. the Minister has given. Before I come to the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, I want to refer to another matter. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is the policy of his party that any Black person who speaks good English should be reported to the Police for speaking good English. Is that an instruction to eavesdroppers in the Post Office? We have a case where a reporter of a newspaper, a mysterious “kaffir”, who spoke good English, was reported to have been reported to the Police by the telephone exchange. Firstly, how did the telephone exchange know he was a “kaffir” and, secondly, how did they know that he spoke such good English if they were not eavesdropping on his conversation? As a result of that, he was apparently taken to the police station and questioned for some two hours, but that is not the business of the hon. the Minister. What I am entitled to ask the hon. the Minister, however—and I can understand the hon. member for Vryheid getting excited because it happened in his constituency—is whether it is an instruction to, or whether it is regarded as the duty of telephonists, in the course of their duties, to report to the Police when they hear something that sounds like “too good English”. Mangikhuluma noMnumzana lapha Bazotshela amaphoisa ukutu nangu umlungu okhuuma isiZulu? Would I be reported to the Police? How could this White man be speaking Zulu? Surely that is all wrong? Report him to the Police and find out what a White man is doing speaking Zulu! [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. the Minister to tell us what the instructions are in this regard.

I now want to come to some of the other facts which this hon. Minister has kept silent about. The hon. the Minister has failed entirely to answer my allegation that in this budget we are now debating revenue does not, in fact, account for 50% of the capital expenditure but for 55%, while loan funds account for virtually 45%. The hon. the Minister has refused to answer that. He has evaded the issue. In his Budget speech he gave a figure of 50%. That figure is false. I claim that it is false and that the hon. the Minister has ignored that allegation. He is the Minister and he has a responsibility. Five per cent of R213 million is a lot of money out of the pocket of every person who operates a dial and gets a wrong number. The Minister cannot sit there silent and refuse to answer the charge. I charge him with the fact that where he claimed to have balanced a 50/50-capital budget, the Budget is, in fact, not a 50/50-budget. It is a 55/45 budget which overburdens the telecommunications user by charging him 5% more than even the Minister’s formula—and far more than we believe he should be charged. He has failed to answer our allegations of unimaginative recruitment. In regard to the present generation paying for the future, he claims that that has always been the case. That is not true. We today are paying interest on past loans and we are paying 50% of future capital. We are therefore paying for the past, the present and the future. We are paying three ways. We are paying interest on past loans, we are paying for present capital and we are paying for future capital. Again there is no answer. The hon. member for Vanderbijlpark, talking about depreciation, asked where I got 30% from. I got it by dividing a simple figure into another simple figure. If one adds 50% for “waardevermeerdering” one cannot arrive at a 30% average. The average of l½% and 30% comes to about 16%. Add 50% to 16% and one cannot arrive at an average of 30%. Who is bluffing whom? That hon. member had better do his arithmetic. He asked where we get the capital from. In this Budget it is announced that we did not take up a R20 million overseas loan and the Post Office only took up R20 million out of an amount of R58 million in internal loans. The capital is there, waiting to be used. That hon. member is supposed to know about the Railways. Does the hon. member for Vanderbijlpark not know that the Railways have paid interest on every cent of capital since 1910? He cannot understand the difference between a perpetual capital liability and a loan which you redeem. “Redeeming”, for that hon. member’s information, means “paying it back”. The Railways do not pay back their capital, but they pay interest in perpetuity. We are talking about redeeming capital. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Durban Point. He accused the hon. the Minister of having given this House wrong facts, but one envies the hon. member for Durban Point the measure of conviction with which he hurls wrong facts across the floor of this House to his heart’s content.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point in respect of two technical points he mentioned at the beginning of the Second Reading debate. He stood up in a fighting mood and said, in the first place, that the telephone system of the Witwatersrand in particular and of South Africa in general was in a chaotic state. That allegation was made without any motivation in that regard being given by him or any other hon. member on that side of the House. He made a second statement, viz. that the new system the Post Office wanted to put into service, was not an electronic system. This statement, too, was not motivated. He spoke glibly about two-motion systems and cross-bar systems and he referred to a third of this country and a sixth of that country. He said these things glibly without his having any notion whatsoever of what he was talking about. It was very clear that he knew as little about these matters as Tokkelos knew about a tartan track.

I should like to tell the House from where he got the information as to our telephone system and especially that of the Witwatersrand supposedly being so chaotic. He got that information from The Star of 8 March 1975, of course. But to expose their injudiciousness I just want to say that that report in The Star gave him two options. He had the option of following the advice of the quasi-experts from abroad who had claimed that our telephone system was in a chaotic state. He also had the option of following the advice of the South African experts, who know what conditions are in South Africa, as far as the climate and the weather are concerned, and then he would not have made such an irresponsible statement in this House.

You are high up in the wonderboom!

I have been on the floor for a long time.

The hon. member for Durban Point made that statement but I should like to point to a few things in order to prove that those people whose advice they follow do not have the necessary knowledge and ability. In the first place, the statement was made that if the quality of the work in the Post Office were to have been of the same standard as that being done at power systems, we would not have had this chaotic situation. This is an absolutely fatal statement to make. Are my hon. friends not aware of the fact that in a power system there is always a duplicate system? If the Post Office had had funds available to duplicate their cable systems, we, too, would not have had this situation. For this we need money, but the moment we ask for money and tariffs are increased slightly, hon. members on the opposite side of the House cry out that money is once again being asked for. They also cry out when we ask for more money for capital equipment. [Interjections.] An hon. member on that side of the House also made the statement that the Post Office should install a type of cable which could stand up to any weather conditions. Now I should like to draw a comparison by saying that it is not possible to have a Blue Train running from Koekenaap to Vredendal. Our Blue Train only runs from Johannesburg and the Rand to the Cape. If we want to have a Blue Train running from Koekenaap to Vredendal, we have to provide the capital for this. Therefore we do not believe that we should establish duplicate schemes throughout the country to prevent these so-called chaotic conditions. These so-called chaotic conditions do not occur under normal operating circumstances. The chaotic conditions to which they referred arose from a natural disaster which had struck South Africa. I do not want to deny for a single moment that there are no shortcomings in our technical world. We admit that there are shortcomings. The Post Office does not have superhuman beings working for it; just ordinary human beings.

The second point made by the hon. member was that this was not an electronic system. I think it was the hon. member for Wynberg who said “electronics is a fascinating job”. He asked why people left the service, as that was the position. When my hon. friend the member for Kempton Park referred to the fact that they left the service because they received more money elsewhere, the comment on that side of the House was, “Pay them more”. However, when tariffs were increased they were the first to make a fuss. I do not know how we are to reconcile these two things.

May I put a question?

No, I do not have the time to reply to a question. The hon. member said it was not an electronic system. I wonder if I were to take the hon. member for Durban Point to an electronic system whether he would be able to recognize it as such. I do not think he will be able to.

How about a bet for a case of whiskey?

Mr. Chairman, there are three systems. There is the ESK 10 000 and there are the CP24 and the CP44. The only difference between those three systems is that the CP44 system has internal programme control. The other two systems have wired logic. [Interjections.] In the military electronics world we say that an electronic military system should be made “Coke-proof”; in other words, the users destroy it with Coca-Cola. However, it seems to me that we shall have to say that a Post Office electronic system will have to be made U.P.-proof, because they know nothing about it; they only destroy it.

I want to conclude by referring briefly to the tariffs. Hon. members opposite alleged that tariffs had been increased to yield more money. However, if they had analysed the tariff position, they would have noticed that the unit cost remains 4 cents but that the time one receives for 4 cents has been reduced. This has two effects. The load on the dial system is decreased since one is now compelled to speak for a shorter period. If one makes a small calculation, one sees that the possibility of a reduced loading system is 25%. This means that the possibility of 25% more traffic being carried is built into these tariff increases. This is what is involved and not simply a matter of collecting more money.

I want to make the following representations to the hon. the Minister. These representations come from the Post Office Association of the Peninsula. They are the only Government body not working a five-day week. They ask whether the hon. the Minister will consider allowing them to work a five-day week as well. They do not want work fewer hours, but they want to compensate for this by working longer hours during those five days. If this is not possible they want to know whether the hon. the Minister will consider this being done on a scheduled basis; in other words, that the system remains open for six days, but that certain staff members will work only five days per week on a rotation basis. These are the representations made by this association.

Lastly I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I notice that there are 565 outstanding telephone applications in my constituency. I also notice that there are only 95 outstanding telephone applications in the whole of the Free State. I wonder whether it will not be possible for us to transfer some of those fine technicians from the Free State to Wonderboom so that we may make up the leeway.

Mr. Chairman, one of the cheapest services offered by the Post Office is the rental of post office boxes. This is a very inexpensive service and also an essential service bearing in mind that not every township in some of our faster developing areas has a postal delivery service. There are many areas in my constituency which will probably not for many years have postal delivery services owing to their outlying nature as well as to the size of the properties. In such areas the proximity of a post office or post office box facilities is most important. While I appreciate that not every outlying suburb can enjoy postal delivery services, I cannot understand why post office boxes are in such short supply. Take for instance Rivonia and Woodmead. These are fast-growing communities that are long established. For many years now it has been extremely difficult to rent a post office box in these areas. All the surrounding areas with the exception of Bryanston, which is not convenient, are fully committed as far as post office boxes are concerned. Many people in this area are forced to share boxes as far as the collection of mail is concerned.

Do they share dog boxes?

No, post office boxes. As I have said, the rental of these boxes is very reasonable; it is only a pittance, and I am sure that aspirant box renters would be quite prepared to pay more if a more adequate supply of these boxes was made available. I shall be pleased if the hon. the Minister would give some consideration to this matter to see what can be done.

The second matter I would like to raise, is in regard to the problems being experienced by some of the 4 000 residents living in the Lombardy East and Rembrandt Park suburbs of my constituency. These people live within the municipal area of Johannesburg. This area is, however, served from the North Rand exchange which is situated in the Kempton Park area. It is far to the east of Johannesburg. The results of this situation are twofold. Firstly, these people, most of whom work in Johannesburg, who shop there and use the facilities there, whose friends and acquaintances are nearly all in Johannesburg, make 90% of their telephone calls to people in the Johannesburg area. However, taking all this into account and because of the system that is applied, the names of these people are not listed in the Johannesburg telephone directory. They are listed in the Witwatersrand telephone directory. Therefore if one wants to contact somebody in Lombardy East and does not know his telephone number, one cannot find the name in the Johannesburg directory. One ’phones the department to ask them to find the number and one is told that that person’s name is not in the book at all. Very few people even think of looking in the Witwatersrand directory. These people in Lombardy East are therefore people who are lost to the community. Not only are they lost, they also have to pay more to be lost. These people in this area are penalized tariffwise as nearly all their calls cross the exchange barrier. They are therefore charged for two units instead of the normal one. Consequently the telephone accounts of people living in this area are considerably higher than those living elsewhere. I realize that these problems do arise from time to time. After having investigated the matter, the hon. the Minister told me about the difficulties by way of correspondence. I would, however, like to ask him to have another look at this matter. Perhaps he may consider allowing residents in these two areas, in the circumstances, at least an additional free entry of their names in the directory in which they want their names to appear. It seems that they have to be in the Witwatersrand book, for which they have to pay, and the Minister has said that if they wish to be placed in another book, they have to pay an extra fee. Because of the circumstances, I would ask that these people be allowed a free entry in the Johannesburg directory, because that is the directory in which they wish to have their names. I would also be most grateful if the Minister would investigate the possibility of giving some relief in regard to the higher tariffs being paid by these people for what, after all, are just local calls.

Sir, I just want to reply briefly to the hon. wonder member for Boom. It rather sounded to me as if he had eaten too well of the fruit of his own tree this evening. He spoke about the cable system.

It does not become an old man to be silly.

I am not being silly, Sir; some of the hon. member’s arguments were silly.

†When the hon. member says that we are talking about climatic conditions in South Africa which differ from climatic conditions anywhere else in the world, it shows how stupid his argument is. The cable system which failed in the last heavy rains on the Witwatersrand, failed because of excessive dampness in the joints of the cables. This was not denied by the Post Office. I have certainly not seen any denial. The hon. the Minister says that they had to move men from the Free State to the Transvaal to help with this sort of work. I know that men were moved from all over the country, but climatic conditions such as were encountered there—excessive moisture—are surely encountered all over the world. We have had charges by immigrants who are now working here, who say that the cable system is decrepit. I have not seen that denied. Sir, we are told that we are going to invest R182 million, or something like that, this year on new services; we are told that the most sophisticated equipment is being fitted to a cable system which is archaic and out of date. What is the point of it? It is like taking a new motorcar engine, putting it into an old jalopy and still being saddled with trouble. The Minister has not told us what is being done about the problems with the cables. We have seen this article in The Daily News in which a certain person asked these questions and was given some answers by a local source or authority on the Witwatersrand, but not one of these answers really explained what was going to be done about the faulty cables. He talks about having fitted new cables; this we can understand. When a new line is being installed, then of course the latest quality cables are being used, but what is being done about the old cable which breaks down every time it rains or every time there is a change in the weather? This is a question which the hon. the Minister should please answer for us.

Before sitting down I must say that I was very disappointed in the hon. the Minister’s reaction to my question about what was being done to burnish the image of our savings banks. The hon. the Minister expressed a solicitude here for the building societies, a solicitude which I do not think was really befitting. I wonder if the hon. the Minister will support the building societies when they ask for the same taxation concessions as those which have been given to the Post Office.

Mr. Chairman, I start with the hon. member for Parktown who again raised, inter alia, the question of telephones in Soweto. I should like to tell the hon. member what the present position is. Recently provision was made in the automation programme for the establishment of automatic exchanges with 1 000 lines each at Iketlo and Orlando: then provision was made for 600 lines at Kwa-Xuma and Tshianelo; for 400 lines at Naledi. It is expected that automation of the first-mentioned two exchanges will take place during 1980 and the other three during 1981. As far as the existing hand telephone service is concerned, there are 734 telephones in the area, and I may also mention that 533 additional services have already been authorized and will be provided gradually.

The hon. member for Durban Point swung into action with his usual drama, which is very close to the melodrama of his colleague, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, and made a calculation for us of how this depreciation in the depreciation formula really was a fact and that I had actually deceived people by those means, not so? I think this is the point he wanted to make. To my mind it is a blunder to compare the amount provided for depreciation, viz. R64 million, with the amount provided for capital, viz R213 million, and to say that the percentage we have calculated here, is incorrect and that that is deceit.

No, I said it was unrealistic.

You did not only say that it was unrealistic. This depreciation is not calculated on the capital investment we have to make for the coming year. It is calculated on the capital assets one has. That is why I now have to furnish the hon. member with information, now and for the future, information which will be recorded in Hansard and to which he will be able to refer in future debates, so that he may not make the same blunder in future. The depreciation takes place according to the following percentages, and I am now going to mention various items. In respect of buildings and housing, it is 2,5%; on motor vehicles it is 17,5%; on office and data processing and mail handling machines, it is 10%; on telephone subscriber services it is 5%; on exchange cable systems it is 3%. In this way the series continues and each asset we have has been given a different percentage, including those we are now going to purchase with the R213 million being voted in this Budget. Now, if depreciation is calculated according to these percentages, it amounts to R43 million. Now the 50% is added, which adds another R21 million, in respect of the following—I want to read this just for the sake of the record so that we may have it in writing: A surcharge of 50% is added to the total amount as calculated above, as provision for the replacement of assets at the higher costs which will apply when they have to be replaced, and for the possible earlier replacement of assets as a result of technological development. This accounts for the amount of R21 million, i.e. the half one adds to it, and this gives one this amount of R64 million in respect of the assets one has.

May I put a question? Could the Minister please tell us to what value those different percentages mentioned by him apply? In other words, on how many million is it 10%, and how many 24-%?

That is information I am unable to furnish at this moment, but what is of importance is this. Take buildings and housing, for example. We can get that figure for you. The department can give it to you in a day or two. Now, what is the amount? Say it is R30 million for buildings, or whatever the amount may be. The 2½% applies to that amount. But what counts is the percentage in respect of those amounts which can be asked for in this House at any time. Surely, hon. members may put questions throughout the session, for example: What is the value of the telephone switching equipment; what are the foreign services; what is the telegraph subscribers equipment, in respect of which it is 7%? This is what it means, viz. 7% in respect of that type of item which one has. This makes up this amount of R43 million to which is added this amount of R21 million, or 50%, giving you this total of R64 million. This is the basis on which this system is applied.

I shall have to make haste so as to reply to matters raised by other hon. members as well. The hon. member for Wonderboom pleaded for an extension of the five-day working week. This is a matter which deserves our sympathy. I may point out that we have already granted permission to certain officials to be free on Saturdays. This is already being done on a reasonably large scale. However, everybody cannot be free. At the moment we are making a country-wide survey in this regard for the very purpose of ascertaining whether the essential services we render on Saturdays cannot be reorganized so that we may release even more officials from duty on Saturdays. However, I doubt whether we shall ever be able to release all officials from duty on Saturdays, because there are important and essential services that have to be rendered to the public.

Does this flow from the plea I made last year?

I hope not all pleas made by the hon. member are founded on such faulty statements as those which we have just had about depreciation.

†The hon. member for Sandton raised the question of the shortage of private boxes at certain post offices. We shall look into the possibility of providing additional boxes at the offices he mentioned and shall write to him in due course. I shall also look into the question mentioned by him in connection with Lombardy East subscribers to establish whether anything can be done about it.

*The hon. member for Parktown again raised the question of wages for Blacks. It is Government policy to narrow the gap. That this has not taken place as rapidly and as dramatically as we should all like it to take place, is something we have to accept. However, it is very difficult to narrow the traditional, historical gap to any marked extent within a short period, but I want nevertheless to give the assurance that it is the policy of the Government to narrow it. With every salary adjustment, as in the case of the last adjustment, we see to it that we move in that direction purposely. I want to give the assurance to this House and to everyone concerned in this matter that the Government will continue with the process of narrowing the gap.

With this I think I have dealt with all the matters that were raised.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.