Mr. Speaker, before replying to specific points raised by several hon. members last night prior to the adjournment of this House, I want to link up with a few remarks which I made on the course of the debate so far. Firstly I want to repeat that it is the avowed endeavour of the Post Office to provide greater satisfaction by rendering better services. The Post Office sells its services, and it goes without saying that the better those services, the more readily the public will make use of them and the greater the amount of revenue earned by the Post Office will be. That is why the Post Office has this as its avowed endeavour. In this connection I want to emphasize that the Budget speech which I presented yesterday, and the speeches of hon. members on my side of the House in particular, very clearly emphasized the progress that had been made. In this way the Post Office received a very fine testimonial from them on its activities over the past year. Hon. members on the Opposition side placed more emphasis on certain deficiencies which in their opinion, existed. I accused them of overlooking all the progress that had already been made and of being obsessed with the shortcomings which might still occur. The hon. member for Parktown, for example, referred to the list of deferred applications, the so-called telephone waiting list. But he overlooked the fact that we had already reduced the number on this waiting list from more than 100 000 to approximately 80 000. The hon. member wanted to know when we would be without a waiting list. If South Africa continues to develop as it is developing now, and this development takes place over widely scattered regions, we shall never be without a waiting list. The fact that we do have a telephone waiting list is in a certain sense an indication of the growth which is taking place in South Africa, and the hon. member should consider it in this light.

The hon. member for Umhlanga emphasized the faulty dialling which sometimes occurs, and the wrong number he sometimes hears if he dials a number in some other place. Hon. members will agree with me when I say that the hon. member was to a large extent exaggerating, and I shall not pay any further attention to this complaint.

I should prefer to turn my attention to the more positive points which were raised in the debate. The hon. member for False Bay asked me to lift the veil a little on the progress made with electronic dialling and to give an indication of what was being envisaged in this regard. Phasing out the electro-mechanical system is of course a slow process. After all, the equipment we installed recently and are still installing should first have served its economic purpose, and we cannot therefore change over all at once to electronic equipment. Even if we could afford it, it would still not be a sensible financial policy. Hon. members will find it interesting to know that we are commencing the manufacture in South Africa of the CP24 exchange, viz. the exchanges which make provision for up to a 1 000 lines, next year already. By the end of the decade we hope to be able to manufacture a larger type, the CP44, which will make up to 10 000 lines available, here in South Africa. Obviously our rate of progress will depend on the success we have with local manufacture and the availability of money, which is always a restricting factor.

The hon. members for Parktown, Umhlanga and Wynberg also raised the matter of the employment of non-Whites. What struck me was that these three members seemed to have learnt nothing from the debate we had on this matter last year. Their approach is, on the one hand, that there is a large number of vacancies in the Post Office—in their opinion more than there ought to be—and, on the other, that there is a multitude of Black people whom we simply must employ in those posts.

Those hon. members allege that all we need do is train the people, appoint them to the vacant posts and all our problems will be solved. Last year I emphasized in this House and in the Other Place that the lesson we learnt from the Peddie debate was that there are other factors as well which we have to take into consideration. Apparently these three members did not take those factors into consideration. I can understand this very well, because the people who work in the Post Office are not supporters of their party. In other words, they do not represent the people who experience these problems in the day to day performance of their task. But apart from that, I want to tell the hon. members that the Post Office has to compete with all the other sectors for matriculants and even for pupils with Std. VIII qualifications. When we talk about technicians and electricians, we are referring to matriculants who not only passed their examinations, but who attained a certain level, in mathematics for example, and I want to tell hon. members that these are not people one simply picks up in the street. Therefore it is not so easy to find those people for training, even if one were to launch an actual recruiting campaign. But I think that I have said enough in this regard. The data I have submitted to this House is sufficient to convince hon. members that we have adopted this course and have in fact made considerable progress.

Another point raised by hon. members was the telephone service in non-White areas. I made the standpoint of my department very clear in my budget speech and therefore I need not dwell on this unnecessarily. I said that the factual position was unfortunately that we had to determine our priorities, and if one has to determine priorities and at the same time run one’s undertaking on a business basis, one has to take certain factors into consideration. The availability of money, the availability of trained manpower and the demand for a particular service are all factors which have to be taken into consideration. That is why, considering these circumstances, we have developed the service we render as we have done up to now, but I also said in my Budget speech that we had decided that it was better to leave capital outlay and the system which we were establishing with that capital under-utilized than subsequently to find oneself in the position where a heavy demand had arisen and we were then unable to provide the services. We shall continue to do this, yet I want to tell the hon. member for Parktown that he must remember that all the public telephones in South Africa are also at the disposal of all the non-Whites on whose behalf he was pleading. Therefore he should not try to present an incorrect picture. I am not saying that he is doing this deliberately, but anyone reading what he said could very easily gain the impression that the non-Whites had no facilities whatsoever in South Africa, which is very far from the truth. On the other hand we find the hon. member for South Coast pleading with us to undertake research to see whether we could not prevent domestic servants from using our telephones. Sir, how can an Opposition differ among one another to such an extent.

Next I want to refer to what the hon. member for Wynberg said in regard to the financing of the Post Office. He alleged that we in South Africa were able to keep our postal tariffs low because we had the advantage of the revenue from the telecommunications network, while this was not the case in other countries where, he said, these two services had been separated, so that those countries did not have the benefit of the higher earnings of the communications network. Of course the hon. member was thinking only of America, for that is the only example I can call to mind of a large country where these two branches have been separated. He ought to know that in countries such as England, Germany, France and the Netherlands, these two branches, viz. postal services and telecommunication services are in fact combined. For that reason I did not think much of the argument he raised.

Do they subsidize each other?

The hon. member for Maitland wants to know whether they subsidize one another. If one regards one’s service as a unit, it is inevitable that the one has to subsidize the other.

The hon. member for Sunnyside was reproached with having advocated a tariff increase and it was asked whether he had not merely been used to prepare the way for such an increase. Although the hon. member is the main speaker on postal matters on the Government side, that was not what he was doing at all. He was making an honest attempt to achieve a better balance within the existing order by subtracting on the one side and adding on the other. He advocated cheaper telegram tariffs and said that our telegram tariffs were too high and that that was why the demand had fallen off. On the other hand he felt that we could at least pay more for a letter, and in this way attempted to strike a balance between the two. These are of course suggestions which I cannot accept or reject across the floor of this House. The most I can do is bear them in mind in case the time arrives when we have to consider such possibilities.

As far as the Lukasrand tower is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that work on it is being commenced this year and it is hoped that it will have been completed by 1979. The hon. member also advanced an interesting argument on the Church Square development. I do not want to go into details because I think this matter has already been disposed of and that there is nothing more I can do about it at this stage. He also submitted facts on the unutilized space allegedly available in the Provincial building, according to the investigation of a certain woman. I do not want to express an opinion on this. As far as the existing post office is concerned, I want to tell him that the conditions under which officers are working there are anything but satisfactory and that there is definitely no wastage of space.

The hon. member for Parktown asked whether we were still recruiting staff abroad. We have ceased to do this and have decided to give preference to the development of the potential we have among both Whites and non-Whites in our country. As far as the other scheme is concerned, viz. the training of married women for part-time service in the technical sector, the reaction to this was so negative that we abandoned that scheme as well. He also raised the matter of the wage gap, and I want to inform him that we are making progress with the matter in accordance with the Government’s undertaking that the wage gap would continue to be narrowed wherever and whenever it was financially possible.

The hon. member for South Coast referred to the revenue we obtained by way of agency services. He asked whether we are not earning an insufficient return for all that was being done. The tariff which is being paid is determined in accordance with work-study methods, and the intention is not to enrich ourselves. We are in this way doing important work for other Government departments as well. The Post Office is in the fortunate position that it has about 1 800 post offices scattered throughout the entire country and is able to render very important assistance to other Government departments. The remuneration we receive for the services performed by the Post Office is based on an agreed formula.

He also referred to the savings bank facilities of the Post Office and requested that these should at least be brought on to a comparable footing with those of building societies. The hon. member did not go into details, and I therefore do not know precisely what he meant by it. If a person invests money in a building society, he is also issued with a book. This book must also be handed across the counter to the official behind the counter and a form filled in to withdraw money. Therefore it is also possible for people standing behind or next to this person to see how much he has in that book or how much money he is withdrawing. Therefore I do not know what the hon. member’s problem is. I do not know whether he had in mind that we should have comfortable armchairs there, with young ladies in mini-skirts handing out peppermints, and so on. The Post Office Savings Bank is to a very large extent a place where the small man saves. Consequently I do not think it is necessary for us to go to such extremes. The fact that the Post Office produced such wonderful results in this respect this year, proves that the service it is rendering is appreciated and that the public are eager to make use of it.

As far as commission on cheques is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that if a cheque is made payable to a postmaster or to the Postmaster-General, no commission is charged on it.

The hon. member for Albany advocated using stamp-vending machines to a greater extent. I want to tell him that this is indeed our policy. We have installed a number of them and, in conjunction with the report of the overseas mission to which I have referred, this matter will be considered further. I can say that this mission recommended, inter alia, that the Post Office should make far greater use of agencies. This coincides with what the hon. member advocated. That matter is now being investigated and in conjunction with it the question of more stamp-vending machines will receive attention.

Finally, I come to what was raised by the hon. members for False Bay and South Coast, i.e. the position of those pensioners in particular who retired on pension prior to 1973. I want to say with great emphasis that the Government has been doing its duty towards the pensioners all these years in a very commendable way. If those two hon. members have problems with individual pensioners in their constituencies, I invite them to submit those cases to me as Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions. I could then furnish them with the particulars to prove what I have just said.

Mr. Chairman, I am rather concerned about the hon. member for Rustenburg who, I feel, must have had a sleepless night last night worrying about how I arrived at the conclusion that 146% of the telephones in the Witwatersrand area will go out of order during the course of this year. I made this observation during my speech at Second Reading and the hon. member seemed most concerned. However, it is quite simple. If he would care to refer to my question No. 581, he would see that the hon. the Minister advised me that some 2 645 telephones are reported to be out of order each day in the Witwatersrand area. This, according to simple arithmetic, means that no fewer than 965 425 telephones will go out of order each year. I might add that this is not far short of one million. It is also 146% of the total number of telephones currently in use in that complex. With that, I wish the hon. member for Rustenburg a pleasant night’s sleep tonight!

I would now like to move on to mail delivery, which is a subject all on its own, and one on which we on this side of the House can sustain a debate for hours. Each one of us has a fair share of envelopes bearing postmarks proving that they have taken days, and sometimes weeks, to reach their respective destinations. I would like to refer to two recent examples. I have an earlier example, an express mail letter which was posted to me from Pretoria on 9 September last year and only arrived on 14 September. However, I have got over my annoyance at that one, and will rather refer the House to a letter addressed to me recently by a visiting Canadian member of Parliament. He wrote to me earlier this month from the Mount Nelson Hotel which, I believe everybody knows, is at the top of Government Avenue, here in Cape Town. The letter is postmarked: Cape Town, 12 noon, 7 March 1977. That was a Monday. It was delivered to my box here in the House on Friday, 11 March. This gentleman is a member of the Opposition in the Canadian Parliament. Possibly, that accounts for the milk in the coconut. I do not know.

Nevertheless, yesterday during the Second Reading of this Bill, the hon. member for Benoni handed me a letter addressed to a lady at P.O. Box 153, Cradock. I have the letter here. It is very carefully addressed to a lady at: Posbus 153, Cradock, 5880. The postal code is correct. The size of the envelope conforms to the maximum and minimum standards allowable. There is nothing wrong with it, but simply this: It arrived at the UP offices, P.O. Box 153, Benoni, 1500. Well, I think that 1500 is far removed from 5880. The only good thing about it really is that the letter has arrived safely in the hands of the UP member of Parliament who will now entrust it to our postmaster, here in Parliament House, in the hope that it will eventually get to Cradock. Incidentally, the letter is from the SABC and it could contain anything from a cheque to an offer of employment.

To move on to something which affects my constituency: Some years ago, before becoming a member of this hon. House, I appealed to the hon. the Minister’s predecessor for a reconsideration of the charges levied in respect of telephone services in Glenashley, once they were rerouted through the La Lucia exchange. Glenashley is today part of Durban and finds itself in the unfortunate situation of being closer to the city centre than the building which houses the exchange through which all calls into Durban are routed. Therefore these people unhappily have to pay 8c per call into Durban; also 8c for those that they dial, but get the wrong number. Incidentally, the main post office is a mere 11 km from Glenashley’s post office. Earlier this session I tabled a question regarding the number of applications for telephone services made in the various exchange areas in my constituency during 1976 and the number of applications outstanding. In his reply the hon. the Minister stated—

That is to say the figures for the Glenashley-Umhlanga area—

Imagine my consternation, not to say my surprise, as a result of this reply, because in 1971 or 1972 I was told categorically that all numbers in Glenashley had to be channelled through the La Lucia exchange, and now the hon. the Minister comes along and tells me that a different situation exists. I therefore tabled a further question and, for the benefit of the Committee, I would like to read it. I asked—

The reply was that the number of telephones in respect of (a) was Nil and in respect of (b), 839. The hon. the Minister also went on to say that—

Well, I know that, because that is exactly what happened. Every telephone in Glenashley was transferred to the La Lucia exchange. Then the hon. the Minister went on to say—

I submit that that is pure “hog-wash”. The work was done in one fell swoop, and I suggest the hon. the Minister should make up his mind when replying to questions, because he should not put himself into a position where he has to contradict himself in two replies, as he has done here. I think he should pay penance for that and that penance should be a reduction in tariffs for the services which are channelled through the La Lucia exchange, a reduction to 4c. I am glad to see that the Postmaster-General is smiling at that. He knows that this is my pet aversion. I feel that this will result in a fairer situation for the residents of Glenashley, La Lucia and Umhlanga Rocks, and I make this appeal in all sincerity.

I would now like to deal with the matter of mechanization of mail sorting. In his budget speech the hon. the Minister outlined the advantages of automatic mail sorting and stressed the importance of the dimensions and the mass of mail matter which the machines were capable of handling. The hon. the Minister gave an outline of these dimensions and told us that the piece of mail must not exceed 50 g in weight, must be within certain minimum and maximum limits as far as measurements are concerned and also of a maximum thickness of 5 mm.

I can well appreciate the hon. the Minister’s problems in this regard, but I feel he would do well to give this matter greater publicity than it currently enjoys. It is true that we do see posters advertising the fact that standard-sized envelopes must be used if they are to be channelled through the automatic mail-sorting machinery of the Post Office, but I think a greater impact can be achieved were consideration to be given to posting an explanatory leaflet with all telephone accounts. The hon. the Minister will agree that on occasions this method of advertising has actually been used in an effort to recruit staff. This is a fine way of getting the message across to the public. I believe he should do this not just on one occasion. He should do it for a month, then miss either one or two months, and repeat the process. I am firmly convinced of the fact that the aim of the department can thus be achieved. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is also up to the public to co-operate to ensure the success of automatic mail sorting. I should like to see it succeed, and I know that the hon. the Minister, and certainly the Postmaster-General, would also like to see it succeed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the speech of the hon. member for Umhlanga, who has just resumed his seat, was simply yet another reflection of the inability of the United Party Opposition to pass real criticism. The hon. member took up the House’s time by coming here and showing around a few envelopes as so-called proof that there are delays in the delivery of mail. But what about the millions of items of mail that are, in fact delivered on time? He is taking up the House’s time now in complaining about that single item of mail that was ostensibly delivered late. If one posts mail early enough in the afternoon in Johannesburg, it will be in Cape Town the following day. Surely one cannot do any better than this. After all, we have innumerable examples of this.

The fact that we had to divide on an amendment a few minutes ago constitutes further proof of the bankruptcy of the Opposition. When I listened to the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition here yesterday, I felt like the fellow who said he was usually pleased twice when his mother-in-law came to visit: the first time when she came and the second time when she went. I was very pleased yesterday, that I was sitting on this side of the House and not on that side, where I should have had to criticize a budget like this one. For two consecutive years, a Post Office budget has been submitted without rates being increased. In reality—and this is not mentioned every day—certain rates were even lowered last year. This budget was yet another achievement for the Post Office. The Opposition were really completely disconcerted. They had to rewrite their speeches quickly because they had wanted to level criticism at the tariff increases which they had expected, but which did not materialize.

I was pleased a second time yesterday. I was pleased because it was not the Opposition that was governing this country, because if they were governing the country, the telephone services and sources of revenue such as the telex services and the television service would have been in the hands of the private sector. What would the Postmaster-General have been left with then? All he would have been left with would have been the postal service, an unprofitable and labour-intensive service which, down the years, has shown a deficit of R27 million. Who would have to foot that bill then? Then they would once again have had to resort to subsidies and taxes; in other words, the poor taxpayer would have to pay for it. Actually, I was pleased on three occasions and my joy was really very great, because our postal and telecommunications services, key services in the country, are being operated under a Nationalist Government in the interests of South Africa. The budget is a success story and that success can be attributed to a motivated and inspired staff. We, on this side of the House greatly appreciate the fact that the Post Office staff are voluntarily working longer hours and we greatly appreciate their request to close on Saturdays as other Public Service Offices do. We realize, however, that this is a very difficult problem. Certain post offices, particularly some of those in industrial areas, could in fact close on a Saturday, because they do not have many customers. We also know, however, that there are in fact key post offices at which services simply have to be provided on a Saturday. Telephone services and maintenance services often have to be kept up at the weekend, and I want to ask with due deference today that we consider working out a system whereby the staff who have to work on Saturday to keep the postal service going, could be compensated in some way, lengthening their weekend, for example, by granting them Monday as their day off. This is only one way in which these people could be compensated for the Saturdays they have to forfeit. But it should be done in such a way that the service provided is not affected thereby.

I represent an area that is developing very rapidly. It is a very large residential area and consequently, there is a tremendous demand for telephone services. At the same time it is also an important industrial area and, with due deference, I want to express my thanks today for the tremendous expansion and improvement in the quality of the telephone and telex services in the Witwatersrand area, in Pretoria and in the Vereeniging district. I want to express my appreciation for the far-sighted planning and for the development that has taken place in those areas. I would be neglecting my duty were I not also to express appreciation for the patience and co-operation we have experienced on the part of the general public. Every person who desires a telephone has good reasons for wanting one and I want to thank the people for their co-operation. I also thank organized commerce, industry and the Press, who all co-operated during the very difficult years. The past few years have been difficult. The Post Office laboured under a chronic shortage of adequately trained technical staff. This is a problem that has hit other countries and other firms just as hard as the Post Office. Through its extended training programme, the Post Office rendered a great service to South Africa. In 1975, the Post Office spent about R11,5 million on training. The amount has been increased annually. The Post Office has done its share in that regard, but it is unfortunate that the private sector has not always maintained an equally ambitious training programme during that period. Many Post Office technicians were lured away, to the detriment of the Post Office. Despite those problems, great progress was made and I should like to refer once again to the way in which the number of telephones has increased during the past seven years. In 1972 there were 1 659 387 telephones. This year the number has increased to 2 248 000. This year alone 137 000 telephones were added and the telephone waiting list—this has been referred to repeatedly—has dwindled to 80 000. This represents 3,4% of the total demand. Our postal and telecommunications service is something we can be proud of. We can compare it with great success to what is happening in other countries. Certain aspects of this were mentioned yesterday, and I just want to refer to one or two other matters. A telephone installation in South Africa costs R30, whilst in Britain it costs R92, in France R122 and in West Germany R67. The monthly rental in our country is R3,50, whilst in France it is R6 and in Western Germany it is R10,72. The monthly telex rental in South Africa is R42, whilst in Britain it is R78 and in France, R74. But the worst of all, something I could hardly believe, concerns telegrams. In our country a telegram costs 30 cents, whilst in Britain a telegram of ten words costs R2,32. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Kempton Park will forgive me if I do not react to his speech, because I should like to deal with a different aspect of the telephone service.

†We are told by the Postmaster-General in his annual report that the problem of the shortage of telephone cables is still causing the Post Office very real concern. There is a particular aspect of this problem which I wish to raise this afternoon because I think it affects tens of thousands of telephone subscribers, on the Witwatersrand particularly. I refer to the breakdowns in the telephone service, on the Reef in particular, after heavy rains, or what are known on the Highveld as tropical storms. I need not elaborate on the very real hardship and inconvenience and annoyance which is caused by these breakdowns almost invariably after one has had this kind of torrential rain, because everybody knows that these breakdowns occur; they are there for all to hear, or rather not to hear, under these circumstances.

Post Office engineers maintain that lightning is almost invariably the cause of these breakdowns. I must say immediately that I talk as an amateur on these matters. I have, however, taken the trouble to find out what the facts are. I have no doubt that lightning is a factor, but I am assured by people who have expert technical knowledge in this sort of field that more often than not these breakdowns, which, as hon. members who live on the Witwatersrand will know, affect large areas at a time, are caused by the use of cables which are in fact not moisture resistant. What happens is that these underground cables become water impregnated, and a complete breakdown occurs. Hundreds of subscribers suddenly find themselves without a telephone service. I am assured that cable which is water-resistant is available in South Africa. This is cable which is in fact protected against this type of breakdown. I gather that petroleum jelly or some similar substance is used to provide what the experts say is total protection against moisture. This Committee will not expect me to go into any technical details on this matter since I am really not qualified to do so, but Post Office experts will know of these details. I am assured that these products are in fact available and are used in other countries such as the United Kingdom, Scandanavia, Germany, France and many other parts of the world. I think, on the information that has been given me, that the Post Office engineers, in whom we have complete faith, should ask themselves whether they are, in this particular field, taking advantage of the best technology which is available. I believe they should ask themselves whether the cable problems are not in fact caused to a greater extent by water impregnation and by moisture than by lightning.

I would be happy to pass on to the Postmaster-General and his experts any further information I may have on the subject so that he can have his expert advisers look into this matter. I cannot state whether this new technology produces a more expensive cable than that which is at present used by the Post Office, but I should expect that initially, at any rate, that may well be the case. On the other hand I would say that one would have to weigh against that kind of additional cost the savings of money which would accrue to the Post Office through the reduced necessity for maintenance and repair, not to mention the intangible but, nevertheless, very real value to the users of the service. I hope that the Postmaster-General and his staff will accept these views in the spirit in which they are offered. They come from people with a very considerable technical knowledge of these facts and I believe that there must be validity in them.

While I am on the subject of telephones, the Postmaster-General again, in his most informative report, is frank enough to say that the telephone service on the dialled network as a whole “has not yet reached acceptable standards”. We are grateful that there were distinct improvements in various spheres, but there is one sphere which is a cause of great irritation. It is one, I fear, about which nothing can be done. I think that it is nevertheless worth raising because it is something which the public talks about very considerably. I think the Post Office may, by reacting in the right way, be able to reduce the volume of criticism that affect us. I refer, Sir, to telephone users being charged for wrong connections when they are in fact dialling correctly. There is no way of proving this and I know that there are no statistics available. One also knows that dialling is often faulty, but in one’s own experience it is simply a fact that one too often gets wrong numbers through no fault of one’s own. Presumably nothing can be done to improve the quality of this, but I do feel that from the Post Office’s own point of view, some soothing noises from the Minister about the cost of wrong numbers would manage to soothe a few fevered brows.

I would like to move on to another subject, and that is the question of counter service which I believe is a major irritant as far as post offices are concerned. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister, for whom I have a great liking and who treats us all like gentlemen, felt constrained this afternoon to refer to the question of whether Post Office workers belong to this party or not. I would like to assure him that there are thousands of very intelligent people in the Post Office and that very many of them vote for this party, because they are intelligent enough to do so.

That has, however, nothing to do with this question of the dilution of labour or with the employment of people of colour. I spoke yesterday about the frustration and the time consuming queueing which is brought about by staff shortages on the post office counters and I urged therefore the training and appointment of people of colour to man these services. I would like to underline this again, because more than anything—as the Postmaster-General is aware, I am sure—the counter service is the Post Office’s shop window. The Post Office’s image is, I fear, very largely determined by the experiences of individuals at post office counters. I mentioned two very minor irritations and I accept that they are minor. (I cannot raise major issues like our friends across the road who always deal with global issues when they talk about telephones.) I want to raise two smaller issues and I believe that if these two things were removed the reputation of the Post Office would in fact benefit a great deal. The one is to have to queue for stamps at the main post office counters. I think it is an experience that we have all had, when queueing for stamps or tiny services, that there are in fact the three or four windows which give the same kind of service, but which are in fact at that particular stage unmanned, or unwomanned, as the case may be.

Secondly, why can telephone accounts not be paid for after 3.30 in the afternoon? This is another tiny thing, but it is a source of irritation and it is the kind of thing that people talk about. I know that it does not affect many people. If it could be arranged that telephone accounts could be paid after that time, I am sure that it would be a great convenience. Why can savings bank accounts, and those kind of things, not be transacted after 4 o’clock in the afternoon?

There may be valid reasons—I do not know—but certainly they are not obvious to the average member of the public who is inconvenienced by what he regards as an arbitrary rule.

Mr. Chairman, I only have a minute or two left. The hon. the Minister this afternoon again spoke about the savings bank and the savings services. I wonder whether the Post Office should not in fact be attracting a far larger share of the public’s savings than is the case at present. I would say that, despite its competitive rates and its convenient withdrawal system, the Post Office savings services are only getting 2,8% of all savings invested by the public in building societies, commercial banks, the Post Office and savings institutions.

The figure is 3,2%.

Sir, I stand corrected. Nevertheless, I still think it is a very small figure. I suggest—let me hasten to add that I do so on professional advice—that the Post Office should market its savings accounts and its deposit benefits and facilities more aggressively than it is doing at present in order to attract a far larger share of public savings. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown will excuse me if I do not react to his speech. I nevertheless want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that as far as the hours for the payment of telephone accounts are concerned, he must keep in mind the fact that the staff concerned still have to put the books in order and have an opportunity to prepare themselves so that they, too, can at least go home at a specific time. Perhaps this is something one should bear in mind.

Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to confine myself to one aspect of the department’s activities, namely the philatelic services provided by the department. According to the Annual Report, it was apparently in view of the financial aspect of this service that it was put into operation. Then, too, one notes that in the past five years the department’s total annual sales of stamps have increased by R131 000 to R1,5 million. This is a wonderful increase in the sale of stamps for philatelic purposes. Of these, stamps to the value of R134 000 were sold abroad. The sale of stamps abroad, inter alia, in the USA, England and Italy, is stimulated by various agencies there. These sales are stimulated not only by agencies but also by our participation in international stamp exhibitions in countries such as Malta, Spain, Austria and Belgium.

The aesthetic value of our stamps is great, not only in the design of particular stamps, but in the objects that are portrayed as well. Our stamps are indeed a much sought-after product in any stamp collection. Thus, a stamp depicting a pair of lions in the Kruger National Park was proclaimed the most beautiful stamp in the world during 1975. We should very much like to congratulate the department on their wonderful achievement with regard to that beautiful stamp.

I want to make the statement that our stamps for philatelic purposes constitute a useful source of revenue for the department. In my opinion, however, the significance of that section of the department goes much further that. In this regard, I want to refer to the function performed by Intersapa. Intersapa is concerned with making stamps available for philatelic purposes and particularly with providing services to Transkei and various other African States. Intersapa assists with the service by giving advice on the design and the technical side of those stamps. Intersapa does indeed fulfil a very important function, not only in our country but in neighbouring countries as well.

Another facet of this service that I should like to emphasize, is the special significance it has for the forging of links between the Republic and countries abroad. I said earlier that our stamps compared very favourably with the most beautiful stamps in the world. In that regard, I want to refer to the effect our stamps have on the forging of links of friendship between our country and other countries. I am referring to stamps that depict our scenic beauty; the flora and fauna; various sports such as bowls, cricket and golf; places of historical value and historical figures of special significance such as Thomas Baines, Emily Hobhouse—a beautiful stamp—Dr. Malan, Gen. Hertzog, Gen. Smuts and the painter Erich Maier. I also have in mind the stamps that portray achievements in the technical field, for example the automation of mail sorting, satellite communication and so on. These portrayals have immeasurable significance for our country abroad. In addition, they have a significance at home, if we think of the significance they have for our artists in designing particular stamps. I also have in mind the opportunity it affords our children from a particular educational angle, inter alia, the significance stamp collecting has for our children. I am aware of the fact that there is more than one parent building up such a stamp collection for his children, a collection of the beautiful things in life as a legacy to the children of the future. The effect of this on the child can scarcely be measured. It fosters in the child an appreciation of the beauty of life and also arouses in him a striving to preserve those things that money cannot always buy.

I want to congratulate the department on its philatelic service. It is a wonderful venture which, in time, will prove very fruitful. While I am expressing these congratulations to the department, I do want to ask that consideration be given during the year 1978 to a commemorative stamp which would commemorate the opening of the Cookhouse tunnel near Somerset East, that tunnel which will become known as a civil achievement, the tapping of water from the Orange River into the Fish River and down to the Sundays River valley. I believe this is a feat of engineering of exceptional importance which could really be commemorated in this way. I have in mind, too, the citrus industry, which in the early years became established over a long period of time and which earns millions of rands in foreign exchange and provides employment for thousands of people, a wonderful industry which, over a period of decades, has become a fine industry in the Republic. Why can we not issue a commemorative stamp for this wonderful industry as well? I believe that in this way, too, we would make a contribution, not only as far as aesthetic value is concerned, but also in familiarizing countries abroad with outstanding events in our beautiful country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Somerset East has made a fine and interesting speech about the philately department of the Post Office and about stamps in general. All I can say is that I support his plea for a commemorative stamp for the Fish River tunnel, which will divert the waters of the Orange River to the Sunday River.

The Bushberg.

Yes, the Bushberg. It would be a very good thing if this could be arranged. I was also glad to hear the hon. member mention the question of agencies, and it was very gratifying, too, to learn from the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, that these agencies are to be investigated by the Administration as well.

†The hon. member for Parktown mentioned the question of cabling, something which creates problems at times. However, I want to deal with cabling from a different angle. During my travels through the platteland of South Africa I have noticed that many of the old telephone lines—the old type comprising a multiplicity of telephone wires—are now being replaced by cables. What is interesting to note, is that the cables are still hanging clumsily from the telephone poles. I believe that a telephone, for the man in the country, is today a vital lifeline. If we are going to use cables, I wonder whether it would cost that much more to install underground cables in lieu of the present overhead ones, especially with a view to the fact that the former will be safer and far more protected against natural disasters, sabotage, etc. Today it is not very expensive to lay cables or pipelines. There are machines sold at very reasonable prices—I have seen them operating in the Eastern Cape—that can lay thousands of metres of cable or pipelines in one day. I truly believe it is necessary. Telephone cables, when hanging overhead, do tend to be somewhat unsightly. We do talk a lot about preserving the environment and I wonder, therefore, whether the hon. the Minister could not give us the assurance that, where telephone wires are to be replaced by cables in the country, serious consideration would be given to the installation of underground cables.

*Mr. Chairman, there is another interesting matter I wish to raise. On pages 7 and 9 of the annual report I notice that technical training in the Post Office is obviously being offered to ladies as well. I should like to know how many ladies are being trained at the moment. In addition, I should like to know how many of those ladies have already been employed. There are many young ladies at the moment who have passed Std. 8 or matric and who are looking for a job. It is no easy matter for a young lady to find a job these days. Even trained teachers are having problems in this respect. Typists are going through a very difficult time. It seems to me that the only trained lady who is really able to find a job is either a nurse or a computer programmer. The training which is mentioned in the annual report is a splendid one. Just think of the lucky man who marries such a trained girl one day. [Interjections.] If anything goes wrong with his telephone or his television set, he does not have to pay to have it repaired. He has a wife who can do this, and she will do it free of charge. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, just consider the fact that we may get some of these trained lady technicians at places such as Oudtshoorn and Somerset East, places which still have telephone poles. The hon. member for Somerset East or the hon. member for Oudtshoorn may drive down the street and catch sight of such a lovely angel on top of the pole. Surely he will cast his eyes heavenward and think beautiful thoughts. [Interjections.] I am no great supporter of women’s lib of course, but it is well known that women are very quick and dexterous with their fingers and their hands. The electronic wiring which is used here is so much like embroidery that our ladies will very easily adapt themselves to this kind of work, I believe. So I hope that the Post Office will employ a great many of them.

There is another good thing that can be done. Perhaps this part of the Post Office’s activities has not been sufficiently advertised, especially among our young ladies. It may be a good idea for this service which is rendered by the Post Office, as well as the training offered by the Post Office in this connection, to be advertised in our schools, so that it may be brought to the attention of our young people.

There is something else I wish to discuss. First I want to convey my very sincere thanks to the Post Office for one thing in this budget.

†Sir, I think it is perhaps the most important thing in this budget for the ordinary man who often has to stay in an hotel. That is the prohibition on the service levy charged for telephone calls from hotels. I think this is one of the best things that has happened for years, because the posh hotels have had it too good for too long and it is high time that the blatant exploitation of the public is put a stop to. You know, Mr. Chairman, it is not just an exploitation. It can get a husband into trouble when he comes home to his wife after spending a couple of nights at an hotel and received a telephone account of R30 for having made only five calls to a few local friends. The wife might think he was been phoning the world and a dozen girl friends. When you go to pay your account and say you only made two calls, the answer is: “The computer says this is what you owe and that is the amount we are charging you.” There can be no argument about it. We in these benches are very, very grateful for this, and I am sure that the whole of Parliament and the public outside are also extremely grateful to the Post Office for taking this step.

If that is so, why did you vote against it?

I have given a very good reason why we voted against the Second Reading. The hon. member for Sunnyside made us feel so suspicious when he spoke of the extra R10 million and the extra time that we took fright when the hon. the Minister reserved the right to increase the tariffs at a later stage. That hon. member is the one who caused us to vote against the Second Reading. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany will excuse me if I do not react to his romantic problems.

Last year, Fochville, my constituency, changed over to an automatic telephone exchange. I should like to make use of the opportunity to thank the Post Office staff on the manual exchange wholeheartedly for the service they have provided over the years. The price we have to pay for progress, is that we now have a lifeless instrument whereas before, we always had and appreciated voices on the other end. I also want to express my appreciation to the technical staff. When the changeover took place there was a severe shortage of those people, but one can only admire the way it took place despite this, and I should like to compliment them on it.

The hon. member for Wynberg complained yesterday that he had not been able to prepare a speech since he had not received the budget in advance. As far as that is concerned, he has my sympathy, but at the same time I think he at least had a good excuse for not making a good speech. However, the hon. member has no excuse for the useless amendment he moved because he at least had this fine annual report and he also has personal experience of the good service he gets daily from the Post Office and its officials. Perhaps such patriotic behaviour on the part of the staff seems so strange to the Opposition that they are blind to its merits. If the Post Office staff had complained about their working conditions or their salary, which they are entitled to do, I do not believe the motion would have been introduced. I think the staff can at least draw inspiration from that because we all still remember what Gen. Hertzog once said about the English Press.

The Opposition raised a few objections, objections which they stated largely in general terms, which may have been real complaints, but which are definitely not the responsibility of the department. In the first case, the Opposition members complained about parcels that reached their destination in a damaged condition. The Post Office is not a transport department. The Post Office does not see to the packaging of the items that are posted. The Post Office simply receives them at the counter and delivers them. Why blame the Post Office, then, for the poor work done in despatching or transporting the parcel? These are not the duties of the department.

Secondly, the Opposition discussed public telephones and the fact that in the main, the equipment is not in working order. The equipment is in working order when the Post Office installs it, however. The Post Office erects the booths for the very purpose of providing a service it can derive revenue from. However, if we take into account the fact that the costs involved in replacing damaged telephones in booths during 1974-’75 amounted to R374 000, and R201 000 during 1975-’76—fortunately, it was a little less—it is clear that the problem does not lie with the department, but with the public who make use of this equipment. Is it not the duty of the Opposition and those of us on this side of the House, to tell those responsible for this defective equipment that people have to be able to use this service in emergencies? As far as private calls are concerned, is it not strange that only certain people get through to wrong numbers? Is this not due to the way they dial?

There are complaints about accounts, too. I have before me a report that appeared in The Argus of 9 March. I shall not quote it, but it concerns a lady who complains that her account for June was R300. She says that one of her sons is in the Army and that the other has not been at home since April and that she locks her telephone. She then lodged a complaint through The Argus. I just want to point out the way this department deals with such matters. They wrote back as follows—

These are the problems we have to contend with. The Post Office and its staff are doing everything in their power to increase productivity and in most cases it is the user of the service who causes the problems and then complains about them through the Opposition.

Last month there was a mistake in my chemist’s account as well.

In my butter account, too. The hon. member for Parktown complained he could not get hold of the budget in time. I do not believe it would have made any difference to the content of his speech in any event, because as usual, he simply complained once again that the Whites in the department were not being replaced by non-Whites. He is aware—because he, too, has the report of the department—of what is being done to train non-Whites and to equip them for the work they are employed to do. That party is simply intent on having the Whites replaced and will not be happy until this happens.

I think there is one respect in which an improvement could be effected and that is to add the telephone code number next to the name of the exchange in the telephone directory—perhaps this could be done when printing the next impression. At present, the codes appear on a loose page in the telephone directory and if that page is not available one can look up the telephone number but one does not have the code. If only they were printed next to the name of the exchange, it would help a great deal.

In the short time still at my disposal, I should just like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a need in my constituency in Potchefstroom. At present, the area east of the Mooi River is developing very rapidly. At the moment there are 1 350 dwelling units in the Grimbeek and Baillie Park residential areas. All the people living there are dependent on the services of the General Post Office which, as the hon. members will know, is situated in a very short street right next to the through route. Moreover, it is flanked by the police station and the magistrate’s office. Consequently, there is no parking area whatsoever. In the area east of the Mooi River we find the Technical High School, the Gen. Kok School and the Ferdinand Postma High School, all three of which have boarding facilities, and the Baillie Park Primary School is also there. In addition, there is an old-age home and adjacent smallholdings on which approximately 4 500 non-Whites live. The area is therefore very densely populated and it is only with difficulty that people can make use of the service provided by the General Post Office in Potchefstroom at the moment We know that financial conditions are difficult at the moment and we know that the department has cut down on its capital works as much as possible but in my opinion, this is a need that at least justifies investigation and I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would consider it

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Losberg will excuse me if I do not follow his trend of discussion. I wish to put a plea to the hon. the Minister this afternoon in regard to rural services. There has been a fair amount of discussion so far concerning the urban Bantu services, but I have a special case to put to the hon. the Minister for his serious consideration. During last August members of Parliament belonging to the health groups of the official Opposition and the governing party were taken on a tour through the various hospital organizations in Natal and in Zululand. One of the first calls we made outside of Durban was at Mapumulo, where there is a mission hospital run by the Lutheran Church. It was generally conceded that the hospital was well run, but one of the features that we noticed, was the overcrowding of the hospital. It transpired that the hospital was equipped with a telephone. The service was not perhaps all that it might have been, but there was a telephone so that contact with the outside world could be made. Three satellite clinics operated under the control of this hospital in inaccessible spots far distant from the hospital. Certain patients were not really prepared to accept treatment from the satellite clinics, because they felt that in a case of emergency there was no communication whatsoever between the main hospital and the satellite clinics. In some instances it would take a two to three hour walk or horse ride to establish contact between the satellite clinic and the hospital. The hon. the Minister himself has indicated that it would be a difficult and expensive problem to provide telephone services under those circumstances. I believe that the time has come for serious consideration to be given by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications to the feasibility of in some way providing two-way radio services. We were told that one of the service organizations had indicated their preparedness to provide the hospital with some sort of suitable two-way service.

I believe, however, that service organizations have other avenues in which they can do their good works and in such a case the matter should be motivated in the first instance by the Post Office itself. I realize that other departments such as the Department of Health and the Department of Bantu Administration are involved, but I believe that in the first instance it is for the Post Office itself to conduct a feasibility study in this regard. I had a discussion with the Regional Director of Posts and Telecommunications in Natal. He was most sympathetic and agreed to discuss the matter with the Regional Director of Health Services. He placed the knowledge of his technical department at the disposal of the Regional Director of Health Services. There is, however, more in it than just this. I believe that this must be looked at from the point of view of times of emergency, and to co-ordinate health services to maximum efficiency, something must be set in motion now to see whether it will be possible to establish some form of radio communication, be it district-wise or provincial-wise.

One of our next stops was at Empangeni, where we went to the Ngwelezan hospital. This was a large hospital and it was envisaged that there would ultimately be 15 satellite clinics at various distances from the main hospital, all of which would need some form of direct communication with the main hospital in order to deal with emergencies and crises. Here again I felt that something could be done to co-ordinate the services relating to intercommunication between the satellites and the hospitals.

Mr. Chairman, this is not something which has not been put into operation before, because the very people who were on this tour were taken on to St. Lucia Lake, and during the time that they were on the lake in the motor boats of the Natal Parks Board, the two-way radios were operating all the time. People were able to make hotel bookings from St Lucia to places like Hluhluwe over the two-way radios which each ranger had at his side in the motor boats. It also happens that the S.A. Police and the provincial traffic police have some means of communication with their headquarters. At the Edendale hospital too there is direct radio linkage between the hospital and the clinic which operates just outside Hammarsdale.

I feel that this is something of increasing importance. The need is great, and I believe that it will take the strain off the qualified professional personnel who are today being seconded to the various homelands. At present some 196 medical and dental staff members are under secondment from the Republic to the homelands. I trust that the hon. the Minister will give this matter his sympathetic consideration. I realize that it will mean liaison with two other departments, but I do believe that it is a matter of urgency.

Then, Sir, I want to put another suggestion, through the hon. the Minister, to the Postmaster-General, and that is that consideration be given to providing a time zone map in the front of the telephone directory. Reference has been made in this debate to the fact that there are now direct dialling facilities to various countries in Europe and other parts of the world, and I believe that it would be of assistance and convenience to people who use this direct dialling service to other continents, to have easy access to a time zone map so that they know, when they are ringing up somebody in another country, what time would be convenient for that person as well as for the caller from South Africa.

I was very interested to see that the president of Assocom asked the Postmaster-General to write a brief article for the benefit of Assocom. The Postmaster-General, in his usual courteous, efficient and succinct manner, obliged, and I think it was very interesting to read some of his comments. The first one, which I should like to refer to briefly, is the following—

I know that he takes the solving of problems very seriously. He also goes on to say this—

I believe, Sir, that this side of the House has indicated its attitude as far as that particular aspect is concerned.

Now, Sir, let me come to the question of time. I believe it was the Universal Postal Union that had something trite to say about time and distance being reduced by postal services, but even the Durban Chamber of Commerce has found it necessary to comment upon unreasonable delays in internal postal deliveries. I just want to quote two examples, because I believe that everyone in this House could quote examples of delays. I have here a letter from a MEC, to whom I posted a letter in the House, in the basket here, on a Sunday. His reply reads as follows—

Here is another letter, addressed to me from the member of the CRC in my constituency in Durban. He posted the letter at Dormerton, a post office a few miles from Durban, on 16 February. This letter, which was sent airmail and by certified post, arrived here and was received by me at llh30 on 21 February. I think that is not good enough.

In the few minutes available to me I would like to make a suggestion that could possibly speed up matters without involving the department in additional transport. The hon. member for Wynberg suggested that perhaps post boxes should be placed on buses. I know the department has gone into that question, because a few years ago they gave me a comprehensive answer in this connection. My suggestion is that there should be a post box on every South African Airways bus, so that when the bus leaves the terminal those people who wish for a prompt service can post their letters in the bus which then goes to the major airport. I believe that four or five of the major airports now have post offices operating on the premises. The letters can be sorted there and can then be routed and placed on the appropriate aircraft. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to react to one or two remarks made by the hon. members for Somerset East and Umhlanga. The hon. member for Somerset East proposed that we give some attention to citrus farming in the Sundays River valley with a view to the possibility of designing a stamp. I want to tell that hon. member that speaking as someone on his side of the House, I am worried about this because it could remind me of the dead symbol of UP country. Consequently I do not know whether we would be able to derive any advantage, in the national sense of the word, from this. As far as the hon. member for Umhlanga is concerned, my remark is of a more serious nature. In his Second Reading speech, the hon. member, carried away by his emotionalism, and with the aim of arousing criticism, mentioned the case in which he telephoned someone, and a person he had not wanted to contact, answered on the other end. This hon. member asked the person on the other end to be so kind as not to replace his receiver in the cradle, so that he could get in touch with the right person. I want to state that this is an absolute, gross untruth. If the other person had not put his receiver in the cradle, the hon. member would not have been able to dial. This is an absolute fact. I do not know whether the hon. member did so deliberately or in ignorance but this is a glaring misrepresentation of the factual situation. When one wants to advance criticism, one must remain level-headed. One must state one’s facts correctly.

Have you ever used an automatic telephone? I do not think you have ever seen one.

The hon. member is guilty of the psychological process of projection. Because he is unable to communicate with the four groups within his own political milieu, he wants to try to project this onto the operation of the telephone service in South Africa as a whole.

I should like to approach the Minister with the friendly request that he convey a word of appreciation and acknowledgement on behalf of my constituency for the humane, sympathetic and understanding way in which the executive staff in the Postmaster’s office in Krugersdorp and Johannesburg have exerted themselves in the interests of the taxpayer—I am not talking about the voters—of Witwatersberg. We are aware of the problems that arise as a consequence of the rapid development to the north and north-west of Johannesburg, where national roads and provincial roads are developing and being built so rapidly that they sometimes remind one of a honeycomb. From the technical point of view, the staff are probably experiencing tremendous problems in the sense that cables are cut through or damaged and soil is loosened with the result that water can penetrate more easily and cables can become wet. There is a whole series of technical problems that can arise as a result of this. It has always been my experience, however—I mean this very sincerely—that whenever one telephones the department concerned and states one’s problem, one gets more than the usual measure of sympathetic treatment and in addition to this, if one’s case has merit, one can rest assured that something will be done about it. I am speaking on behalf of 14 000 taxpayers in my constituency this afternoon when I convey my gratitude for this to the Post Office. We know what the problems are; we know how rapidly development is taking place; we know what demands are being made on this department. One simply gets the feeling that the Post Office staff have something more in the sense of pride, in their awareness of the honourable place that the department occupies, and in the sense that they understand the problems of the community they are called upon to serve. We must place on record the fact that we should like to recognize this and that we should like to thank those people modestly yet sincerely.

Out of respect for the staff, I have often had to go and wait for a technician at a certain place in my constituency, simply to show him the way to a stand that he could not find and where he had to render a service. I met him at a specified place and took him there. One feels one has time for staff who also have time for the community they have been called upon to serve. I think that if we as representatives, as well as the general public, were to react in this way to sacrifices, dedication and goodwill, we could perhaps expect even greater, finer and more positive reactions from this team.

I should also like to address the Minister with regard to a recent request of mine. As a result of a single letter of mine, a new post office was erected in a developing area of my constituency, viz. at Wierow Park in Roodepoort North. This is yet another example indicating that I, as a representative, am not expected to pose as a vote-hunter or to go down on my knees and ask for something. I repeat: After a single letter, it was approved by the Postmaster-General’s office and I received my reply. This we respect, and we want to express our gratitude in this respect.

Now that I have emphasized these positive aspects in all modesty, I should like to address every earnest appeal to the hon. the Minister on behalf of the same people. In the areas of Muldersdrift, Broederstroom and Honeydew, the new exchanges that have already been allocated and of which a few have already been completed, have not yet been put into full use. I am referring particularly to the microwave exchange at Lanseria Airport. I think expectations are that it will be possible to commission it in June this year but as far as I know, my voters have not yet been notified about new numbers, applications for a new service or integration with this exchange. Personally, I should very greatly appreciate it, as would the taxpayers in my constituency, if serious attention could be given to this so that these exchanges that have already been approved with a view to providing a better service, could be commissioned. We would appreciate this very much and we know that we need only ask once.

In all humility, I just want to make one more reference, this being to the party lines in the Broederstroom area, where there is more than one subscriber on the same line. In this regard, I want to ask whether we could not have more sympathetic interest in the near future in this regard, in the sense, too, that it will not be necessary to ask twice for this.

Mr. Chairman, I want to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister to subhead 3 of the estimates of operating expenditure, which deals with medical liability. There are one or two aspects which I consider to be unsatisfactory, and I would like to discuss these with him in the few minutes at my disposal. Firstly, on reading through the items in this subhead, one can see how the medical services are diversified. A contribution is made to the Post Office Medical Aid Society. Then there is a contribution to the Public Service Medical Aid Association. The third contribution is to first-aid training. Then there is a further contribution in respect of medical examinations and medical expenses arising out of injuries sustained on duty and contributions of exempted employers under section 74 of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The next item refers to medical treatment and hospitalization of non-White employees in South West Africa, and finally there is a contribution to medical-aid schemes for non-White officials.

Let us deal with the medical aid position firstly. I do not think that the medical-aid scheme for Post Office officials should be discriminatory as it is here. The Minister apparently has a medical-aid scheme for the Whites. Then there is a separate medical-aid scheme for some non-Whites. Am I proceeding too fast for the hon. the Minister?

No, carry on.

Then there is a further medical-aid scheme for non-White officials. There is nothing here which makes provision for any medical aid to the ordinary non-White employees. Besides that, we find a contribution in respect of workmen’s compensation, and here again we find that not all his employees are covered. There are approximately 71 000 people employed—Blacks and Whites—by the Post Office. This is a large enough group of people to be insured by the Post Office itself in such a way as to cover all the eventualities for all their workers for all types of accidents. I cannot envisage any serious accident taking place, except in that small group of people who drive vehicles. The majority of accidents that these people are likely to have are going to be of a minor nature. The call on his own workmen’s compensation fund will therefore be rather small and I think it would be profitable for him to investigate this matter and see whether he cannot be his own insurance agent in respect of Accidents on Duty. It is very important because I think his contribution in respect of workmen’s compensation is a tremendous amount when one considers the type of accidents that do occur in the case of Post Office officials and workers. I also urge him now to extend the medical aid that he has in being to cover all people who work for the Post Office. I am not concerned whether they are White or Black. I am also not concerned what their wage earnings are. They have to be covered. They work for him and it is his responsibility to see that they are covered for any illness they may suffer while they are working for him.

Then I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me—and I am not against giving money to first aid—what this amount of R4 000 entails. To whom is he giving it? Is he paying teachers in first aid or is he supplying equipment? I am sure he has the figures here and I would like to know how he disposes of this R4 000. Why does the hon. the Minister give the Public Service Medical Aid Association R300? It is a small amount, but why should it be his business to supply or to give R300 to the Public Service Medical Aid Association? What is it for? He has his own medical aid. He has a medical aid for Whites and he has a medical aid for non-White officials. Why does he give to the association R300? What is it for? He must have reasons for this and I would like to know what they are.

I also want to know why the non-White officials are covered and not the non-White workers. Does the hon. the Minister not have any cover at all for the hundreds of Black postmen who walk from house to house, sometimes doing two shifts a day? In some places they do two walks a day, in summer and in winter, in sunshine and in rain. What cover is he going to give these people? They work for him; they are employed on a full-time basis in his department. He has cover for all sorts of other people, except for these people. I would like to know from him what he intends doing about it. I am very disappointed that the hon. the Minister has not deemed it fit to alter the medical aid and the workmen’s compensation so that he can bring all his workers into these schemes. I believe that the time has now come for him and for the people who know something about medical aid and workmen’s compensation to come together and to see whether they could not improve the present unsatisfactory conditions.

Mr. Chairman, in his Second Reading speech, the hon. the Minister referred to the Post Office pensioner and said amongst other things that, in his view, the Post Office had done its duty to pensioners during the year. He has also said that individual cases should be brought to his attention. I am quite sure that most hon. members bring individual cases to his attention. I want to refer to two groups of pensioners that have made representations to me.

First of all, I refer to the increase that was given to pensioners in 1976. At that time I referred the matter to the hon. the Minister asking him whether it was not possible for those pensions to be increased from 1st July rather than from 1st October. The reply from the hon. the Minister at that time was that, because of the use of a computer, it was not possible to do that.

That was not the only reason.

I did not get any other reason. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will give me another reason when he replies to the debate. As far as my memory serves me the main stress was laid upon the fact that with the use of sophisticated equipment it was not possible to do that at that time. Be that as it may, when I conveyed this news to certain of the pensioners who had approached me, their response was, as one may well imagine, somewhat cynical. They felt that it seemed remarkable that other departments and other groups were able to be catered for and to be granted increases as from 1st July, but that the same could not be done for Post Office pensioners. I received a letter from an official who is a pensioner. I will not mention his name but am quite prepared to mention his name to the hon. the Minister privately. He sent me a clipping from a newspaper referring to the salaries of MPs, which he underlined and which indicated that “there would be an increase of 10%” and then he underlined “from July the first”. In his original letter to me this pensioner pointed out that he had served 54 years in the Post Office, during war and peace and that he had hoped that, in the same way as he believed that he was well served and cared for during his active service to the Post Office, he and his colleagues would get the same kind of treatment once they had retired. Whatever the grounds for his complaint may be, one thing is clear.

One has only to read the Post and Telegraph Herald to see the number of letters coming from pensioners who are complaining. We all know that with the inflation and the high cost of living those people who are on fixed incomes are the first to suffer. I am quite sure that the Post Office has done a great deal for its servants, but I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister in two areas. Firstly, there is no question that there are pensioners who feel that they were badly done by because the increase was only granted as from 1 October. His response to me was that if it was not possible because of the use of a computer or for whatever other reason, why was it not possible to make it retrospective? Could there not have been some arrangement worked out so that they could actually have received the increase from 1 July even if the money was only paid out on 1 October? I think that is a reasonable request. These people who quite voluntarily are trying to serve pensioners and give up hours of their time travelling to different parts of the country to do this, deserve our consideration. This pensioner writes in very strong words and I think that the hon. the Minister should know just how some of these pensioners feel. I want to remind the House that the man who wrote this letter served 54 years in the Post Office. He writes—

He gives the date and the time—

These are strong words. They are exaggerations and they are very dramatic, but nevertheless it makes a point. That is all that I want to do, to make a point to the hon. the Minister.

Finally, in terms of consideration for pensioners, I would once again like to raise the question of those pensioners who retired before 1973. I hope, very much indeed, that they will also receive consideration.

Mr. Chairman, I do not actually want to follow up what was said by previous speakers, because my time is somewhat limited. However, I should like to tell the hon. member for Pinelands that if I had received a letter like that from him, I would have approached the Minister and I am sure that he would have sketched the circumstances in detail. It would have been better than standing up and making a fuss in this House in a negative way. However, this is typical of the Opposition’s reaction to the budget…

Which Opposition?

I am speaking about the irresponsible Opposition. If one looks at the economic conditions in South Africa, one realizes that this is actually a brilliant budget of which everyone in this House can be proud. Not one of the hon. members opposite made any positive contribution at all towards the budget. Not one Opposition member praised the Minister or the department as a whole at all, but only made destructive remarks. [Interjections.] I spent the whole of yesterday and today in the House and not one of the hon. members on the Opposition side said that the budget, taken as a whole, was a great success.

They just spoke a lot of nonsense!

Of course I am speaking about the irresponsible Opposition. On the one side here we have a party which is responsible and one can really say that when there is something positive, these people at least try to point it out and raise it in the House. [Interjections.] This budget also constitutes conclusive proof of the Government’s policy of parallel development. If one looks at the number of postmasters in South Africa in 1970—I am referring to the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu in particular—one sees that in 1970 there were four Coloured postmasters, two Indian postmasters and 12 Bantu postmasters. In 1976 there were 15 Coloured postmasters, nine Indian postmasters and 58 Bantu postmasters. I think that the hon. member for Parktown asked a question about this, but he would not point it out in a positive manner during this debate or refer to it at all.

I am not referring now to the 20 posts which were transferred to the Transkei after its independence. One asks oneself where those people are who allege that the State intervenes too much in the private sector. One asks oneself how many Coloured, Indian and Bantu bank managers there are. How many accountants and tellers are there? How many non-Whites hold positions in the management of these organizations and bodies, bodies which are controlled by people who, together with the Opposition, are so keen to criticize the Government in every regard. However, I shall leave it at that.

I want to return to what this department does. It is forever being said—and has been said today, too—that too little is being done and that there are not enough telephones and so on. Then we see that this department has a communications programme of R23 million for providing telephones to urban Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. In Soweto and on the Witwatersrand alone, 6 831 Blacks, Coloureds and Indians have placed their names on a waiting list. The programme will cost the department approximately R5 million. In the Cape alone the Post Office will spend about R14,8 million on telephones for Coloureds alone. However, one will never hear anything about this.

Are there at least a few in Kimberley too?

Speak about Peddie, man!

The hon. member for Albany cannot talk. He does not come from Kimberley. He is still suffering from a Peddie delusion.

If we take a look at the population explosion and the projection of the total population in 1970 to the years 2000 and 2020, we get alarming figures which show that whereas there were 21 million people in South Africa in 1970, there will be 47,6 million in the year 2000 and more than 72 million in the year 2020—Whites, Coloureds and Asians. If this projection is correct and we look at the total expenditure incurred by the Department of Posts and Telecommunications for all population groups, I merely ask—and I am not making an accusation— whether, with a view to the immense population explosion which is already at hand, we can provide for sufficient training in the postal services for the various population groups, so that they can serve their own people, the Indians, the Coloureds and the Bantu. Speaking of in-service training, I just want to put it clearly that I have the greatest appreciation for what the department has done in this connection.

I want to quote the following sentence from this very comprehensive report: “440 officers completed an orientation course and a further 2 018 attended organized lectures on sound human relations.” At the moment, human relations are more important for us in South Africa than many other aspects, and the Post Office has also played a very major role in this connection. In South Africa, as in the rest of the world, the delivery of mail seems to be a major problem. However, it is not yet as great a problem in South Africa as it is in other countries of the world, because in some countries it takes weeks before post is delivered while in other countries it is not delivered at all. I wonder whether the answer does not lie in installing letterboxes at a central business centre in all residential areas which are opened, so that there does not have to be any delivery of post to houses or offices.

Mr. Chairman, in the short time at my disposal I have a surprise for the hon. member for Kimberley South and if he will but listen, he will hear what that is. One can do nothing else but welcome the refreshing candour of the Postmaster-General in his annual report. It is a masterpiece of frankness, of forthrightness. He tells us exactly what the department has done, what its shortcomings are and what is being done to overcome those shortcomings. I found this approach most refreshing, and I want to congratulate the Postmaster-General on a very fine annual report. It is informative, it is imaginative and it is evidence of what a live wire should do in a live wire department. It is so different from a dead Government which relies on these people to do the work for them without giving them leadership. Apart from being factual, the Postmaster-General in his report faces up squarely to his problems.

He tells us in no uncertain terms where he thinks the quality of the service has not reached acceptable standards. He makes no bones about it. The hon. the Minister is truly fortunate in having a Postmaster-General of the calibre of Mr. Rive and so is the country. I hope the influence and the example of Mr. Rive will permeate throughout his organization, down to the lowest counter-hand. The Postmaster-General is a public relations officer of no mean quality and I wish it would rub off on to some of his counter-hands and even on to the hon. the Minister himself. I want to quote from the report about the priority mail services on page 19—

We are agreed on that point—

That is Durban, Cape Town and Johannesburg—

I have here two priority mail letters. The one was posted in Johannesburg on 15 November 1976 and was received in Durban on the 16th. It was addressed to a company in Jacobs and the box number and postal code were given. However, it was received at Jacobs on 30 November. Why it took 14 days to travel from the Durban central post office to Jacobs, a question of a mere six miles, I do not know. It was delivered to the company to which it was addressed on 2 December upon which the managing director wrote—

The other example is a letter which was posted to the same firm on 26 November 1976 from Johannesburg and was received in Jacobs on 13 December. My point is that these articles are supposed to be delivered by hand at a specific counter. Surely they could have told the person there that it should be sent by express mail and not in the ordinary way. Alternatively the person at the other end should have been told to go to the main post office in Durban to fetch it there and not at Jacobs. It requires only a little extra attention without any extra expense to anybody at all. It is all very well saying that they should know what the regulations are, but this was a new service and in this case the innocent receiver suffered as a result of not receiving his mail in time. Unfortunately time does not permit me to have another gripe.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the previous speaker for the positive point of view which he displayed in the course of his speech. There can be no doubt that the Post Office has once again provided a good service to its country and its people. They have set an example for everyone of us by their dedication, their willingness to serve and their loyalty. They deserve our sincere thanks for this.

Since staff and productivity go hand in hand, I am grateful for the efforts which the Post Office is constantly making to increase productivity. Continual attention is given to the training of workers, in the technical sphere in particular, in which there are 3 000 technicians and telephone electricians in various stages of training at the moment. The technicians are trained for a period of three to four years and the telephone electricians for a period of two to three years. It is important that we should bear in mind that it costs the Post Office approximately R14 000 to train one technician and it costs approximately R9 000 to train one telephone electrician. Certain factors are taken into consideration when calculating these amounts. Firstly, attention must be paid to the purchase of equipment which is needed for the training of these pupils as well as to the salaries paid to the lecturers. Since the pupils receive their full salary during their training, this must also be taken into consideration.

The Post Office college at Olifantsfontein, where the training takes place, also deserves mention. The training of pupil technicians takes place here. There are 77 lecturers and approximately 1 200 pupil technicians receive training annually by means of three semester courses. At the moment there are seven hostel units which can accommodate 500 pupils. The pupils pay only R30 per month for board and lodging, while the department makes an additional payment of R16, since the cost per person amounts to R46.

Special mention must also be made of the special courses and seminars offered for managers and supervisors. A total of 5 874 officers have already attended these courses and seminars.

There is a training centre in all the large centres of our country. The pupils receive their full salary during their training period. The special courses and seminars are offered effectively by the staff head office in Pretoria. There are five lecturers in Pretoria who present the courses on a full-time basis. The courses last a week and 12 to 15 people attend a course. Their travelling and accommodation expenses are also paid by the department.

The optimal utilization of workers is another factor by means of which productivity can be increased. This is done by applying scientific methods of selection whereby an attempt is made to place every new employee in particular in a work situation which suits his ability and interest. In this way it is ensured that he is properly utilized from the very outset, and this contributes towards the contentment and higher morale of the officer.

Another determining factor in the increase of productivity is the department’s realization of the necessity of academic study. This is aided and promoted by means of bursaries for full-time and part-time study to afford its officers the opportunity to study. Full-time bursaries amount to R1 000 per annum and part-time bursaries to approximately R300 per annum. The Post Office also pays the class fees of the officers who want to follow diploma courses at colleges for advanced technical education. In 1977, 126 bursaries were granted to officers.

Another factor by means of which productivity can be improved, is by preventing those officers who have already qualified from getting out of touch with their particular specialized spheres. To ensure that they keep abreast of the latest developments, in the technical sphere in particular, the officers are regularly sent on refresher courses. Approximately 20 refresher courses are offered by the Post Office college annually, with an average attendance of 80 people per course.

Another factor which can assist productivity, is that of regular investigations by work study teams in order to improve working methods and to streamline working procedures. This assures an effective service to the public.

I think that one would be failing in one’s duty if one did not mention the fact that the morale of the staff is high. I want to prove this statement by referring to the following facts.

Firstly, there is the self-control displayed by the staff as regards salary increases. They realize the economic condition of the world in general, and that of South Africa in particular. Despite the financial pressure, there is no agitation for higher salaries. The officials have the greatest confidence in the Government and know that they will receive their rightful share as soon as it is at all possible.

Secondly, due to the prevailing shortage of staff, greater burdens are being placed on the shoulders of the available staff. However, they accept the additional challenge in a positive spirit and are prepared to work harder and do more than is expected of them.

Thirdly, for more than six years the staff, both Black and White, has been working voluntarily for two hours per week longer than they are expected. If the White labour force alone, numbering approximately 43 000, is taken into consideration, this has the following effect: At 104 hours per annum per officer, 4 472 000 hours per annum are being worked. Over six years this means 26 832 000 hours extra. At an average of 44 hours per week, one person works 2 288 hours per annum. Expressed in working years this means that the staff have already worked an extra 11 727 working years. Had they not done the additional work, the Post Office would have had to appoint additional staff. At a conservative estimate of a salary of R5 000 per annum for one official, it amounts to R58 635 000 over six years. Therefore, by working the additional two hours per week, the staff has saved the Post Office, and therefore South Africa too, approximately R58 million over these six years.

There is no better example of economic sacrifice in South Africa than this one set by the staff of the Post Office. It is indeed an act of economic patriotism. I trust that the day will soon dawn when thanks and tribute will be paid to this excellent, loyal staff in a tangible way, by means of salary increases.

Mr. Chairman, I think that the hon. member who has just sat down made a valuable contribution to this debate. He highlighted what I consider to be an important part of the Post Office’s activities, viz. the training of technicians and technologists. I should like to side with him where he said that in this particular regard the Post Office does render a good service to the country.

In the few minutes I have available to me, I should like to raise a small problem with the hon. the Minister. I refer to the question of parcels that go astray. Another hon. member pointed out that his biltong parcels did not always arrive. Sir, if the hon. the Minister of Agriculture decided out of the goodness of his heart to send me a parcel of biltong, I think that it would be testing the Post Office to the limit if I were to expect that parcel to arrive. Biltong is something very special and I do not think we can complain if biltong goes astray. However, I do think that there are many instances where parcels do get lost. I wonder whether the control the Post Office is able to exercise is sufficient to ensure that, when a parcel is lost, a proper search is made and that the reason for its being lost is discovered. I want the hon. the Minister to tell me whether it is ever found when investigations are carried out into the loss of parcels that such losses occur repeatedly at the same post office. It occurs to me that irregularities or carelessness may arise time and again at the same post office. I believe that this aspect of the matter should receive the attention of the authorities.

I do not think it is necessary that one should register all the parcels one sends through the post. Generally, I believe people have confidence in the ability of the post office to deliver their letters and parcels. However, it is distressing when on occasion these parcels do go astray and one is not able to get any kind of assurance from the post office as to the reason why it was lost, but simply a letter in which it is stated that a search has been made but that no reason for the non-delivery of the parcel can be given. I believe that in an otherwise very efficient service something can be done to improve this situation.

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to have a few minutes in which to participate in this debate. Let me also thank the department right at the outset for its fine annual report and for everything it has done during the year.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my custom to raise matters in this House which affect my constituency as such. However, I want to make an exception today and ask for something for my constituency. For many years we have been asking that a new, larger post office be built at Stilfontein. That town, the finest town in the Transvaal, has expanded immensely in recent times. I have no complaints about the telephone services there. The department looks after Stilfontein’s requirements in this regard very well. The people who live there do not wait very long for a telephone. Although I realize that the economy of our country may perhaps not allow it at this stage, I want to ask that the new post office for Stilfontein be built as soon as possible. It was planned many years ago and, as far as I know, the plans have already been drawn up. The necessary land was also purchased by the department many years ago. I do just want to ask that if the department can obtain the necessary finance, a new post office be erected at Stilfontein as soon as possible. The present post office is definitely inadequate at this stage. It definitely cannot meet the needs of the people there. If one takes into consideration the amount of money and the number of articles of mail dealt with by that post office every day, I definitely have good grounds for asking the department and the hon. the Minister for a new post office to be built as quickly as possible.

There is another matter which I should also like to raise, something which stems from my great interest in the activities of the department. This is the out of date way in which the department still goes about extracting and cleaning cables. One only has to look at the vast number of Bantu labourers which the department has to employ in order to remove the cables—which are very long—from their channels and then rub them clean with waste. This is still how cables are cleaned today before being wound up on a reel.

After all, we have extremely clever people in this country of ours. Now I want to address a request to the Postmaster-General to consider placing an advertisement in the Press, an advertisement in which people are invited to design a machine by means of which the cables can be pulled from their channels and cleaned, while they are being wound onto the reel. It will have to be a machine which cleans the cables while they are being removed from the channels and wound onto a reel. I believe that we have the technicians and the brain power to design and develop a machine like this cheaply. After all, it is a tremendous bother to pull a cable of between 10 km and 12 km out of its channel, wind it on the real and after that to rub it down by hand. I do not know if money is being saved by cleaning the cables in the present way. I do believe that my mechanizing and making use of other technical methods of cleaning the cables, the vast number of Bantu labourers being used for this task at the moment can be reduced considerably. I am not really suggesting this plan because it bothers me so much as because I am convinced that it could be to the advantage of the country.

Last but not least, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that Stilfontein has waited patiently for many years. If necessary, Stilfontein will continue to wait patiently. The hon. the Minister is aware of the request for a new post office which have been made. I request him please to see to it that Stilfontein gets its new post office as soon as possible.

Mr. Chairman, most of the hon. members who participated in the debate during the Committee Stage, expressed their appreciation for the work which Post Office staff is doing, as well as for all they have achieved. Obviously I am very grateful for this. On behalf of the staff of my department I take cognizance of the thanks and appreciation which was expressed and I shall also convey it to them. I believe they deserve all the praise meted out to them here by hon. members.

Other hon. members made various suggestions. Of course it is not possible in a debate of this nature to evaluate, accept or reject all the suggestions, but I want to give this hon. House the assurance that all these suggestions will receive consideration. I want to refer, for example, to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Losberg, a suggestion in regard to code numbers which should precede the ordinary telephone numbers. Although not at this stage, that suggestion could nevertheless be considered once the telephonic code numbers have been fully standardized and no further changes will occur.

†I can give the hon. member for Berea the assurance that his suggestion concerning a time zone map is acceptable. I think it is quite an interesting idea and I thank him for it.

*Furthermore various representations were made in this debate by hon. members who wanted certain services to be provided, representations to the department to pay special attention to certain developing areas and to have certain things done as soon as the financial circumstances in the country made it possible. I can tell all these hon. members that as far as the planning of services in the Post Office is concerned, the Post Office is keeping abreast of the developments which are taking place in every town and every region and is consequently taking the needs into account on a priority basis. Provisionally I want to leave those aspects at that. Nor do I want to go into specific representations which were addressed to me here at this juncture.

†Mr. Chairman, as I listened to the hon. member for Umhlanga, I wondered whether he realized how fortunate he was to be able to quote two examples of delayed delivery of mail. I say fortunate, because if one considers the millions of postal articles that are being handled every day, he was indeed fortunate in being able to site two instances about which he had reason to complain.

*Mr. Chairman, this matter has many facets, of course. It is easy to complain here about a letter which was delayed, something which a few other hon. members also did. The fact of the matter is that hon. members do not have all the information at their disposal. On which basis for example does the hon. member accept that a letter was posted on a specific date? Let us assume that the letter to which the hon. member for Umhlanga Rocks referred …

No rocks!

The hon. member for Umhlanga then. How does the hon. member know precisely when that letter was posted? Our experience has been that most letters are posted a day, or even two days after they were written and dated by the writer. The only reliable clue is the date stamp in black ink. I want to emphasize this. This is the Post Office stamp. There are many letters which are despatched by firms which make use of their own franking machine. The date stamp of a franking machine does not necessarily agree with the date on which a letter was posted. There is other equipment as well with which letters are stamped in red ink. The date of that stamp cannot necessarily be accepted as the date on which the letter was posted either. Therefore there are a lot of factors involved. To judge from the expression on the face of the hon. member for Umhlanga it seems to me that he has discovered a black stamp on the letter in front of him.

Both bear black stamps.

It may well be. I concede that. Nevertheless I want to say that no problems can be solved by presenting examples of letters which were delayed to this House here. If the hon. member had brought that letter to the Postmaster-General or to me immediately, an investigation could have been instituted to establish what happened and what caused the delay. Therefore I regret to say that we can achieve nothing by doing what the hon. member tried to do here.

The hon. member for Umhlanga asked that we give greater publicity to the use of envelopes of a standard size. This is very important, and we are doing so. I referred to this in my Budget speech. However, I think that we can begin to do this best by persuading the manufacturers of envelopes mainly to manufacture envelopes of a standard size. In this way the problem could eventually solve itself. We must accept, of course, that there will be growing pains in the automatic sorting of mail matter. But I have every confidence that we will eventually iron out all those problems.

The problems in regard to the exchanges at La Lucia and Glenashley are matters which we should rather try to solve among ourselves. We shall not be able to solve them here in this House, for although I have the questions which he asked in front of me, I do not have all the particulars at hand. We could perhaps try to iron out the hon. member’s problem after the debate.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to the breakdowns which are being experienced as a result of cable problems. The fact of the matter is that previously we used lead-sheathed cables which were far more resistant to wind and weather, but, naturally, were far more expensive. In the past few years plastic-sheathed cables have been used in South Africa as well as overseas. These cables are far cheaper, but are quite durable and can give good service. However, they also present certain problems. In the first place, there are special requirements for installation. Particularly when they have to be joined, it is very important that this work be done below a certain temperature, for if a small crack occurs in the plastic sheathing, it is inclined to become larger as a result of traffic and earth vibration. In this way water can eventually penetrate the crack and cause a breakdown in the service. In time we have learnt from our experience of course, and I want to give the hon. member the assurance that the Post Office engineers are solving this problem.

Last year I referred to what was being done and what had been achieved in regard to preventive maintenance. Before the rainy season commences, the cable system is inspected, so that essential work may be disposed of before the rainy season. In this way any faults which may arise are prevented. The Post Office has already made progress in this direction, and the hon. member may rest assured that we shall cope with the problems.

The hon. member asked why the Post Office only transacted financial business up to a certain hour. However, is it not the practice in any financial institution, for example a bank or a building society, to have a closing hour for business? In the Post Office the officials have to balance their statements and take the money to a place for safe custody. That is why a specific closing time is necessary, whether it is earlier or later, to make it possible for the officials to do this work.

While we are talking about cables, I also want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Albany. He complained about our overhead cables and maintained that these cables should preferably be below ground because they are far safer there. Of course the hon. member is correct as far as this is concerned, but the fact of the matter is that on the main routes the Post Office prefers to make use of the microwave system, which is far less fallible than even underground cables are, because underground cables can be damaged by vandals. Microwave is of course expensive and it is a slow process to put it into operation throughout. On rural routes, however, we are still compelled to suspend the cables on the existing poles and make use of the existing wiring. Heavy capital expenditure is involved, and therefore we cannot maintain two parallel systems.

The hon. member for Albany made another very interesting statement. He was very interested in the women we are training as technicians. In his imagination he saw all the pretty women hanging from the poles and repairing the wires. If he ever visits the training college at Olifantsfontein, he will see that when those women have their overalls on and are standing in front of the lathes or the other equipment with which they are working, and he takes into consideration that it is fashionable for many young women today to wear their hair short and for many young men to wear their hair long, it is very difficult to ascertain whether it is a man or a woman standing in front of the lathe. He must therefore not expect too much in this regard.

The hon. member for Berea submitted a plea for better communication in the rural areas. In particular he referred to the need for better communication which exists at certain satellite clinics of larger hospitals. The Post Office is only too ready to investigate such cases, but the question is from whom the initiative should proceed. If such a hospital were to approach the Post Office and say that they had a great need for such liaison, the Post Office would be quite prepared to see whether it cannot provide such a service. In this case it actually depends on from whom the initiative will proceed.

The hon. member for Rosettenville touched upon a very important matter. He asked what the R4 000 earmarked for first aid training was being spent on. Pupil technicians and pupil telephone electricians are expected to receive at least one year’s training in first aid. The organizations giving those first aid classes are the St. John Ambulance Brigade, the Red Cross and the Noodhulpliga. The R4 000 is paid to these bodies for the training with which they are providing our officials.

The other matter to which he referred is really very important. He referred to the appropriation which is being made for medical schemes. He knows of course that in terms of the Public Service regulations officials may become members of the Public Service Medical Aid Association. Most Post Office officials are members and a large portion of the amount which occurs in these estimates is earmarked for that purpose. He will also know that the Department of Coloured Relations and the Department of Indian Affairs have established medical aid schemes for Indian and Coloured employees and that the Post Office has agreed to this. That is why we are also making a contribution in the case of these categories of persons. As far as Bantu officials are concerned of course, the Workmen’s Compensation Act applies to them as well, but a separate medical aid scheme for them does not yet exist. That was actually what the hon. member’s plea was concerned with. He asked that the Post Office should do this unilaterally, which is of course something we cannot do. This is a matter to which the Department of Bantu Administration will give attention so that, if it is introduced, the entire Public Service and all its branches may be incorporated in such a scheme.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central referred to lost parcels and asked whether the problem was not that in many cases these parcels went astray at one and the same post office. When one is dealing with the human factor one is always dealing with human fallibility. That is why the Post Office is very careful to keep a watchful eye on all the branches of its services to ensure that irregularities and abuses do not occur. The question of lost parcels is one of the aspects to which close attention is given to establish whether the place where such losses occur frequently and repeatedly cannot be identified. The hon. member may therefore accept my assurance that the Post Office is keeping an eye on the position.

The hon. member for Kimberley South referred to the availability of points from which the public may collect their own post. This is precisely what the Post Office is envisaging with self-service units and we are expanding this system even further.

The hon. members for Kimberley South, Bloemfontein East and some other members raised the matter of the particular significance of the training of staff, training not only to enable them to perform their daily task better but particularly training in regard to sound human relations. To the Post Office training is a matter which is taken very seriously, because it must primarily render a technical service and also because the staff has to work with so many different people, for example with the aged and with sick people, in many respects with difficult people, with children and with non-Whites. The officials of the Post Office really deserve the appreciation of everyone for the way in which they are coping with this difficult task.

The hon. member for Pinelands raised the case of a pensioner. The hon. member might just as well have discussed it under my Social Welfare and Pensions Vote, but since he has raised the matter now I shall discuss it briefly. The reason for pensions being increased as from 1 October and not as from 1 July was not due only to technical problems but also to the availability of money. The hon. member must not lose sight of this fact. The hon. member must remember that the increase did not come out of the pension fund to which this employee contributed for 54 years—if he did in fact contribute to it for such a long period. The money comes out of the pocket of the taxpayer, and Parliament voted it. At that stage we were not able to vote more money so that the payment could be made as from 1 July. That is the explanation in that regard. Many old pensioners argue that they rendered a good service over a very long period and therefore they ought, today, to receive a pension which a person would receive who occupies the same position at the present salary. Of course it is not humanly possible to do this. The pensions of the old pensioners are augmented from time to time, not from the contributions which they made, because they are already receiving the full benefits which flow from that, but the pensions are augmented from the taxpayers pocket by way of funds voted in this Parliament. I want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands to bring that particular case to me so that I can have a calculation made of what has been done to afford relief to these specific pensioners. He and the pensioner will then quite probably be surprised to see what the Government has in fact done. But we cannot make any progress by discussing the case across the floor of this House.

Schedules agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

Mr. Speaker, I move subject to Standing Order No. 56—

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister replied to the Second Reading debate, he unfortunately did not furnish answers to very important questions which I had put. Amongst other things I put questions about the profit motive as compared to the service motive. In addition I put questions about the provision of services, especially the provision of services at less than cost. I also put questions about the Post Office network, about the time spent on the delivery of mail matter, about the times of delivery and about a number of other questions of interest. The hon. the Minister gave no reply to any of these questions. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister does not want to reply to them or whether he thinks that he can push the Second and Third Reading stages of the Bill through without replying to these questions. I do not know what the position is, but I do think that I am entitled to answers. If the hon. the Minister did not hear what I said the first time, I shall repeat the questions and then the hon. the Minister can reply to these questions now in the Third Reading debate. I think that I asked fair and basic questions and that they are questions which must be answered so that we may know whether we are being provided with a post office service which we want and whether the service which is being provided is the sort of service which we do not want. I am sorry to say this, but the impression which I gain is that he is not really very interested in the Post Office. I am very sorry to say so, but a Minister ought to be interested in a department of which he is the Minister.

†Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the questions which I put to the hon. the Minister. I asked the hon. the Minister whether it was his policy that there should be a profit at all cost or whether he considered the service motive the most important one in the Post Office and that he would therefore be prepared to provide services at less than cost. If he were prepared to provide these services at less than cost, would he be prepared to consider an approach to the Treasury to subsidize the services? I feel that the way in which the subsidizing of those services is being done at present, is no*t the correct way namely to milk the telecommunications account to subsidize the postal services account. I have had no answer to that. I made a very fair suggestion to the Minister. I said that I personally would be perfectly satisfied for a start if he went to the Treasury and said: “I would like you to forget about the interest that we pay you, the amount of almost R12 million per year that we have to pay you on the permanent capital.” I would be satisfied with that as a start. I think it would be a good start, but I have had not a peep out of the Minister.

I would like to know whether he believes that he must in future provide further services in the Post Office at less than cost. I want him to tell me what criterion he is going to use in providing these services, because we are not satisfied with the services that are at present being supplied at less than cost. We think there should be more services and I sketched all these services in my Second Reading speech, but I have not had a reply from the hon. the Minister. I would like to know these matters. I think it is very important, not only for this House, but also for the Postmaster-General and the whole department to know what is in the Minister’s mind. I think I know what the Postmaster-General would like to do, but unfortunately he cannot take part in this debate. I very much would like to know from the Minister whether he shares the views of the Postmaster-General. However, until we know what the position is we cannot be certain whether the Post Office is going to be conducted in a proper fashion or not.

There is also the question of the Post Office network. Of course, this is also part of the question of providing services at less than cost, because if you wanted to expand the network, you would obviously have to establish post offices which would not be profitable. I would like to know what the Minister’s view is on that point. I think it is very important that we should know what the Minister says whenever the Postmaster-General suggests to him that three or four new post offices should be established in an area. Does the Minister say: “I am very sorry, Mr. Postmaster-General, but you cannot have them, because they are going to be run at a loss?” For heaven’s sake, if that is his point of view, he must say so. Then we will know what we have to deal with. He does not, however, say a word. What does the Minister say about the very important question of communication, communication by letter, the written word, and one of the most important communications that can be sent from one person to another? He has nothing to say about the time that it takes to convey such a communication or the time that it takes to actually deliver it. He also tells us nothing about delivery times, whether he can do this more often than once per day, nor does he tell us what his projection is for the future. I think those are all very important matters and I believe that we should have answers to these questions.

I am coming to the conclusion that the hon. the Minister, notwithstanding the fact that he does not take any interest in his department, also does not know what goes on in his department. In his reply to the Second Reading debate this afternoon, he referred to a matter that was raised by the hon. member for South Coast. The hon. member for South Coast, you will remember, was talking about a very interesting development in the Post Office, which he called “the Post Office laboratory”. Part of that laboratory is called the “telephonometric laboratory”. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows about this, but this is what the hon. member for South Coast said, referring to this laboratory—

He was quoting almost verbatim from a very interesting journal, called Postel, which is produced by the Post Office, for the month of February 1977. That is where the Postel article says that “this department hopes to prevent staff of an employer making long-distance calls without his knowledge” and that is why he is going to use this. What happens? The hon. member for South Coast puts this to the hon. the Minister, says to him in fact: “I am so glad you have a laboratory. Even if you do not know about it, I know about it and I am very glad you have it. This is the sort of thing that laboratory is doing.” What does the hon. the Minister say in reply? He accuses the hon. member for South Coast of not wanting non-Whites to use telephones.

Oh, no.

He must read his Hansard. Then he will see that that is what he said. It is high time the hon. the Minister took an intelligent interest in his department. Not only that, but he must take an intelligent interest in the debates in this House that affect his department. I do not believe we can allow this debate to go on like this. I have had no reply to the very many points I have put to the hon. the Minister. I have had no replies whatsoever. I must now go through another year without having had a single reply. It seems to me that the only thing I can do at the conclusion of this debate is to dictate a nice long letter to the Postmaster-General asking him please to tell me what the Minister has to say about these various questions since the Minister himself is as silent as the night.

Mr. Speaker, having listened to all the speakers on the official Opposition side, I want to say for the record that there was only one of them who was insulting, i.e. the hon. member for Wynberg. He thought fit to say that the hon. the Minister was purposely evading his questions, that the Minister does not know what is going on in his department and that the hon. the Minister does not show an intelligent interest in his departmental functions. I want to tell that half-strength party that it is high time it showed an intelligent interest in the hon. member for Wynberg and asked itself whether it is still worthy of him or vice versa.

Throughout the debate the hon. member for Wynberg and the official Opposition adopted the attitude—this also came to the fore in their amendment to the Second Reading—that the standard, quality and convenience of the services of this department were inferior and inadequate, judging by the money paid for those services. In other words, they adopted the attitude that the services are inadequate and that too large a sum of money is paid for them. I want to state categorically that this is an unjustifiable and almost scandalous accusation that attests to sadistic irresponsibility.

Just before I come back to this and prove my case, I want to dwell for a moment—and focus attention—on the illogical chopping and changing of the official Opposition, over the past two years, when it comes to Post Office matters. Let me begin by saying that in 1975, during the Post Office budget debate, there was a very fierce attack on the Government because of the fact that tariff increases of 7,6% had been announced, even though those tariff increases were considerably lower than the inflation rate prevailing at that time. What happened in 1976? There was an inflation rate running into double figures, and throughout there were cost increases, but the department worked a miracle by announcing no tariff increases. The department was given little or no thanks by that side although, it is true, the staff was thanked. What is happening in 1977? Here we have a repetition of what happened in 1976. Once again there is an inflation rate running into double figures, and once again no tariff increases whatsoever have been announced.

Apart from the hon. member for South Coast, who expressed his appreciation to the staff and spoke with appreciation about the philatelic services, there was no acknowledgment by that side, in so many words, of the department’s achievements. I think that is absolutely scandalous. I also believe that over the past two years hon. members on the other side have literally made fools of themselves. I say this because of certain allegations they made in the Post Office budget debate. I should like to begin with the previous main speaker on Post Office matters in the official Opposition, i.e. the hon. member for Durban Point. I should like to quote, from Hansard, 1975, col. 2888, a few words concerning the amendment the hon. member for Durban Point moved at the time. The relevant section reads—

1. (1) the proposed method of financing capital expenditure will—
   1. (b) necessitate ever-increasing tariff rises in every following year.

He looked into the crystal ball and saw that every year would bring increases. However, what happened? 1976 has come and gone and we are well into 1977 and there have been no tariff increases. On the contrary, there has been a tremendous improvement in the quality and extent of the service, but what is more, there have been tariff reductions while the Railways’ rate structure, the ordinary tax structure, the world-wide tax structure and economic conditions deteriorated tremendously in those two years. How can one make such allegations? Let me go further. We then found ourselves with a new philosopher on that side. A new main speaker on Post Office matters came along, and what did he say in 1975? I quote from Hansard, 1975, col. 2908, what the hon. member for Wynberg said, and with that I come back to the specific accusation he made a few minutes ago. In 1975 he said—

He said, at the time, that the Post Office should strive to make a profit. He also said—

That was the specific attitude of the hon. member for Wynberg. What in fact, happened? The hon. the Minister announced that in respect of the present financial year there would be a meagre surplus. The department also budgeted for a small profit for the next financial year, i.e. 4,1%; in other words, this is quite in accordance with the attitude of the hon. member for Wynberg. That is exactly what he wanted. What did he say during the Second Reading debate, however, and what did he say a few minutes ago? He is now changing his tune completely. He said that if one’s aim is profitability, one must inevitably neglect the quality of one’s service. He is now doing a somersault. If one’s idea is to make a profit, one inevitably neglects the quality of one’s service. His advice is: Improve the quality and supplement the shortage with a subsidy which must be obtained from the Treasury. How can one do such a somersault in the space of two years? First he says there should be a profit-seeking motive, and now he says exactly the opposite.

The problem with the Opposition is that they really expect a super-service. They expect the best possible postal and telecommunications service in the world, and they expect it at the lowest possible price in the world. Surely those are two incompatible extremes. An efficient postal and telecommunications service is one of the prime essentials for any country and any people, and as a service organization it is without equal. There can consequently be only one objective for the efficient running of a postal and telecommunications administration, i.e. on the one hand to establish the most efficient service possible and, on the other hand, to try to do so in terms of the lowest possible cost structure. What is important is that at all times a sound balance must be maintained between efficient service on the one hand and the relevant cost structure on the other.

I therefore want to allege categorically that the Post Office has had outstanding success in performing a tremendous task in the midst of cost and salary increases. It succeeded in doing so because, in 1975, it stated that 1976 would be the productivity year. It did, in point of fact, achieve that objective.

It suited its actions to its words, and what did the Post Office do to curb costs? It postponed capital construction works which would not affect the development of essential infrastructure services. It introduced measures to save on building costs by eliminating luxuries in buildings. It allowed less overtime and curtailed travelling costs. It did not fill certain vacant posts. It replaced labour intensity with mechanization. It introduced improved training methods, but it also impressed upon the need to work economically with materials and stationery.

The Opposition’s allegation of a poor quality service is reduced to a virtually ridiculous statement. When one has analysed the present budget and had a look at the advance planning it contains, one gets an image which is a direct contradiction of the allegation that our service is poor. There may be an exception, here or there, as far as poor service is concerned, but the allegation is a direct contradiction of the general good quality of the service of this department. In this budget provision is specifically made for continuous, sophisticated modernization of equipment and the replacement of obsolete equipment. There are numerous examples of this. There is the mechanization of postal services, the system for the electronic processing of data, the mechanization of accounting and the elimination of the usual mistakes that can creep in when the human element is involved. There is the ultra-modern surveillance equipment controlled by computers. This year a milestone was also reached with the installation of the first labour-saving and space-saving electronic CP24 telephone system, the announcement of the advent of the push-button telephone system and, together with that, the phenomenal development of local and overseas dialling facilities. Do these achievements not specifically attest to the dynamic progress this department has made— in particular during the past year? Consequently I must involuntarily ask myself why the official Opposition and the other opposition parties do not display some gratitude and pay tribute to the exceptional achievements of the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. Why was no mention made of the elimination of 15% of the complaints in connection with faulty telephones during the past two years. This happened in spite of the fact that during the past year alone the turnover in telephones increased by 15%. Why is there no reference to the fact that South Africa’s telephone growth rate, as a percentage, is higher than that of the USA, the United Kingdom, East and West Germany, Switzerland and other countries which obviously have more telephones than we do? Why is no mention made of the remarkable progress in the elimination of telecommunications faults in the Vaal Triangle? That bottleneck was with us for many years. The elimination of those bottlenecks has already been achieved by the motivation of workers in that area and by entrusting them with specific personal responsibilities. Why was no mention made of the fact that the cost structure of our telephone and postal services is one of the lowest in the world? And why was no mention made of the fact that we have budgeted for savings bank funds to increase by a further R184 million? That money is not only employed for the departments’s own capital needs, but also for the furnishing of a service to the approximately two million people who have savings accounts at the approximately 2 000 post offices in South Africa, post offices where young and old, rich and poor, White, Brown and Black can make use of these particular facilities.

The exceptional efficiency of the Post Office certainly goes hand in glove with the dynamic thinking and the dynamic action of its staff. The exceptional productivity achieved during the past year, the exceptional way in which women were drawn into the service—today women occupy 35% of the White posts for technical and clerical assistants—the exceptional way in which Brown people, Asians and Black people have been recruited, trained and placed in responsible posts—so placed that no friction can develop and that responsible work can be entrusted to them—are evidence of the Post Office’s primary task which is nothing but the furnishing of a service. People of all population groups have been trained, in the first place, to perform duties in their own areas, and secondly in those other areas where there is a tremendous shortage of manpower. They have been placed there, in the first place, for the express purpose of performing a service, and for no other reason.

Like numerous speakers before me, I should like to pay tribute to the postal workers. I want to thank them for the many sacrifices they have had to make. I pay tribute to them all, the Postmaster-General, the Staff Management Board and all the workers, for the exceptional way they performed their task in the past year. Without their dedication there would probably never have been the achievements referred to. In the few minutes left to me I just want to focus attention on a few exceptional achievements to illustrate what postal workers are doing and what sacrifices they have to make, frequently in the face of serious dangers.

Firstly I want to refer to the field post office at Grootfontein. Postal workers have to work there in uniform, with a pistol at their sides and R1 rifles to hand. [Interjections.] Their clients come in with a gun slung over their shoulders. They are people who work day and night … [Interjections.] This is a serious matter and hon. members do not need to make any comments. Those postal workers worked day and night to deliver the post as quickly as possible to the men who served on the border in the interests of our country, and for that we get those snide remarks from that side! The post was delivered as quickly as possible to the men on the border in order to boost their morale.

I should like to refer to another occurrence which was the result of natural disasters. I am referring to 29 March 1976, when, in the space of 36 hours, as much rain fell at Walvis Bay as would normally fall in a period of four years. Postal workers had to work day and night while mechanical pumps pumped out inspection holes.

Lastly I want to refer to the Post Office officials who gained world-wide renown for the impressive service they furnished to the hundreds of Pressmen who were in South Africa during Dr. Kissinger’s visit. The Post Office provided every possible facility, on a 24-hour basis, for the Press room which was set up in the Burgerspark Hotel. So efficient was the service than when a journalist, who had handed in a very long report that had to be sent by telex to America, returned 20 minutes later to correct a mistake in the report, the officer was able to inform him that the report had already arrived in America.

I just want to say that in the coming year the Post Office staff, imbued with motives of furnishing a service, will also perform duties of an exceptional quality. The public will also be expected, in their turn, to co-operate and express appreciation for the sacrifice and the productivity of the Post Office workers.

Mr. Speaker, the only reaction I have to the speech made by the hon. member for Durbanville is that he sounded annoyed with us, but I do not understand his annoyance. Apparently, he does not know the rules of Parliament. After all, we are here to criticize the Government; that is our job. [Interjections.] If this debate had to depend on what hon. members on that side have got to say, the hon. the Minister would have been asleep by 3 o’clock yesterday, because if the Opposition as well as his own side had to praise him, he would have had nothing on which to reply. However, what reaction do we get from the hon. the Minister when we criticize him? Nothing, not a word. The only reaction I got from the hon. the Minister was to be accused falsely or incorrectly by him and to be labelled as a racist. However, the questions we raised were not answered by him. [Interjections.]

I think the hon. the Minister owes us an apology. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister owes me, particularly, an apology. I gave full credit to the Post Office, its staff and the Minister for what has been done in the past year. I quoted from the report of the Postmaster-General and congratulated him on it. The only reason why we could not react more to the hon. the Minister’s speech was that we never had a chance to look at it and discuss it.

I think that was fully explained by the leader of my group, the hon. member for Wynberg. This is not the way in which the budget debate concerning the second most important department in the Government ought to be conducted. I cannot see why the hon. the Minister cannot give us decent and full replies to our questions. We ask questions, but get no replies, except from hon. members opposite who are insulting and have a lot to say. For instance, I asked the hon. the Minister to explain to us about these agencies, the work the Post Office is doing for other Government departments. He fobbed me off by saying that that matter had been fully investigated and had been agreed upon, but he did not say whether it paid or not. He still has not given me an answer. I should like the hon. the Minister to let us know in some way what it is costing, for instance, to collect and distribute old-age pensions. He has not answered any of those questions. He criticized the hon. member for Wynberg for saying that the Post Office is cutting down on services and that because of the flourishing position of the finances of the Post Office, they should not be cutting down on services, but should be extending them. I fully agreed with that. I realize—and I am sure everybody else realizes—that there are Post Office branches which are not paying; they are running at a loss, but they do render a service. I cannot believe that these must just be closed down willy-nilly when they start showing a loss. Our argument is that many of these post offices should be retained to provide a service to the people in those areas. I know of post offices in the country which run at a terrific loss but the people have nowhere else to go. They have no transport and if such a post office is closed, a service is lost to them. I realize that we must carry the loss. We as the Opposition are not going to grumble if it is shown as a loss on the balance sheet or in the budget. We realize that these things have to be paid for by those of us who benefit by these services. We also groused about the inequality in the service. It is not recognized, for instance, that the person in a city has post delivered to his house and his post box, whereas we in the country have to collect our post from the post office which is sometimes 15 or 20 miles away. We pay exactly the same postage as everybody else in South Africa. Is that fair? That is not taken into consideration.

The hon. the Minister also never answered my question on philately. I managed to squeeze in a minute, through your kindness, Sir, to refer to philately and how it should be advertised, but the hon. the Minister never answered me. I put a request to him.

He is a numismatist, not a philatelist.

He can afford to be a numismatist! [Interjections.] We asked whether it is not possible to send a travelling band around the country to go to the big agricultural shows and the schools to advertise or to give a philatelic exhibition to draw the interest of more people and to show what is being done by the Post Office. This is requested by the association. Surely the hon. the Minister can consider this. He could have just told me that it would receive consideration. Instead he ignored my question.

I regret that the hon. the Minister reacted to our criticism in the way he did. Our criticism was meant to be constructive and not destructive. We hope that the little criticism we have been able to express, will be to the benefit of the Post Office and the public.

Mr. Speaker, we have definitely had a very interesting debate. At this late stage of the debate this afternoon something has taken place which I would have not thought possible. It is absolutely amazing to me that the hon. member for South Coast who is usually so calm and peaceful could become so out of breath and excited here. [Interjections.] Now I do not know whether it was the hon. member for Wynberg who succeeded in getting the hon. member so excited. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Durbanville said, and that is that it is tragic that the chief spokesman on the Opposition side should want to make a case against the hon. the Minister this afternoon in such derogatory language. In Afrikaans we have a saying that one fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer. This is precisely what is happening here this afternoon. That hon. member asked questions which, to my way of thinking, are not worth answering.

I should like to refer back to the course of this debate. I have followed the debate attentively through all its stages, the Second Reading, the Committee Stage and Third Reading. I formed certain impressions. In the first place, I should like to refer to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister which I want to sum up as an excellent report, indeed a success story. It testifies to three aspects in particular, and these are purposeful planning, dedicated staff and a sound financial policy. While the hon. the Minister was delivering his speech, my thoughts went back to the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech which he made last year in which he announced his policy as the new Minister of that particular department.

I looked up the speech and found that amongst other things, the hon. the Minister mentioned the following three aspects according to which I want to judge the activities of the past year. The policy which the hon. the Minister laid down last year contained, inter alia, the following: Firstly, the provision of essential services in the most economic way for the promotion of efficiency and the development of a sound economy; secondly, a tariff structure which should be kept as low as possible in order to fight inflation; and thirdly, the creation of favourable working conditions, conditions of service and training opportunities in order to spur on the staff to achieve the highest possible productivity. If I were to judge the situation in posts and telecommunications and the annual report on the basics of the policy laid down by the hon. the Minister, I would come to the conclusion that the department has had signal success in keeping to the provisions of the policy.

On the other hand, we have formed certain impressions from the speeches which the hon. Opposition delivered during the debate. Firstly there is an impression of double talk. The hon. member for Durbanville has already discussed this effectively. There is evidence of an attempt to criticize, but throughout all this, recognition of the good services which the Post Office has provided over the past year shone through nevertheless. Furthermore the Opposition was quite obviously disappointed because there was no increase in tariffs; a disappointment they were unable to conceal. Indeed, the hon. the Minister himself has already pointed out how the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg makes this quite obvious. The fact that the hon. member spent a great deal of his time attacking the hon. the Minister for allowing the debate to proceed to the Second Reading speech immediately and because he did not receive the speech earlier, illustrates this very clearly. I think that this is very clear evidence of the hon. member’s admission of his inability to criticize the activities of the department and it is also evidence of his inability to advance any worthwhile criticism of the success achieved during the year.

The annual report is evidence of the fact that there were numerous successes during the past year and hon. members on the other side of the House naturally found it very difficult to criticize this at all. This is why hon. members raised petty complaints, like calls not being put through correctly, certain articles of mail not reaching their destination in time, post needing to be collected more often, etc. In my view the official Opposition really put on a pathetic show. I now want to quote the amendment of the hon. member for Wynberg and point out how ludicrous it is. The amendment reads as follows—

I wonder what is really so clever about the amendment, as it was referred to by the hon. member for South Coast. I do not think there is anything clever in it at all, indeed, he has been too clever by half. This is about all and I shall try to prove it in a moment. The amendment attacks the standard, quality and convenience of services in the light of the charges which the public pays. What are the facts? The number of staff has increased by 2,1%; White staff by 0,6% and non-White staff by 4,5%. Compared to this small increase in the number of staff we find that 131 000 additional telephones have been installed, telephones which have been linked to the existing network. The waiting list decreased by 11 500 to 93 480. The number of inland call units increased by 1 053 million or 23,5%. As regards exchange connections, the number increased by 74 145 or 6,9%. Furthermore, 531 280 new services of all types were provided. Telex call units increased by 10 984 or 7,5% and this was accomplished with only a small increase in the number of members of staff. Furthermore the mass of domestic airmail increased by more than 12% and the mass of airmail to foreign countries by 7%. One of the largest and most complex computer controlled mail sorting systems in the world was commissioned in Johannesburg on 17 June 1976. It is capable of processing between 90 000 and 150 000 mail items per hour. In spite of so many additional services and expansion of activities the staff of the Post Office increased by a mere 2,1%. After all, this attests to full utilization of labour and it also attests to a disciplined, dedicated and motivated staff which can boast a particularly high degree of productivity. What a ludicrous statement, then, is contained in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg. Therefore it would be ludicrous to attack the standard and quality of the staff as such. Furthermore the policy of the department is also aimed at subjecting candidates to scientific selection in order to bring about maximal utilization. In this way 1 145 candidates were subjected to selection tests during the year under review.

It may be added that a programme of in-service training is being carried out. In the past year 994 officers received in-service training. Furthermore it is important to note that 2 018 lectures on maintaining sound human relations were presented. This definitely attests to the exceptionally high quality being maintained by the Post Office staff. Furthermore, at least 51 work study investigations were undertaken in order to bring about productivity; the investigations concerned the streamlining of work procedures, eliminating duplication of work and determining staff requirements at higher achievement norms. This is a fine example of planning and of the purposefulness of the Postmaster-General and his staff in providing the best possible service to the public. Therefore, as regards the staff an exceptionally high standard has already been set.

Let us take a look at the buildings and telecommunications equipment. We find in the budget that R16 million was spent on buildings, while R195 million was spent on telecommunications equipment. After all it is very clear that these buildings were erected and the telecommunications equipment installed for the convenience of, and a better service to, the people who are served thereby.

In conclusion I want to point out that financially speaking, in spite of the high rate of inflation, the year under review can be considered a very successful one. True to the recommendations of the Franzsen commission, it was possible to finance 54% of the Post Office’s financial requirements as regards capital expenditure from internal sources. The budget submitted for the following year does not contain any tariff increases, as hon. members tried to indicate. Indeed, this testifies once again to the extremely efficient management, management which is founded on thorough planning. The operating expenditure for the 1977-’78 financial year increases by only 7,5%, while the capital expenditure increases by a mere 10,4% and this is so despite the inflationary conditions in which we find ourselves. Here, too, the department can boast the exceptional achievement of having again financed everything, not by means of external loans, but from internal sources, except of course for the R120 million from the Post Office Savings Bank and National Savings Certificates and the R29 million from available short-term loans. This gives us a percentage of 56,2%. After all, this is an outstanding achievement for the postal services.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Virginia started his speech, I hoped that he would restore a little calm to the House, but unfortunately he started blowing hot and cold, and then hot again. He suggested that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Wynberg, was laughable. However, at the close of his speech I felt that the content thereof was equally laughable, and pathetically so.

I want to deal with a couple of subjects in respect of which I trust we can find accord across the floor of this House.

Firstly, I want to deal with the building projects. The Postmaster-General’s report tells us that during the year under review 32 major building projects were completed and that 76 buildings were under construction at the end of the year. The majority of the buildings were intended for the expansion and improvement of the telecommunications network and also for the replacement of old and unsuitable post offices with a view to greater functional efficiency, thus enabling the Post Office to improve its service to the public, to create more pleasant working conditions for the staff and to increase productivity in general. I want to talk about the older buildings belonging to the Department, the buildings that I feel depict the architecture of yesterday, the buildings that I feel we should preserve—not demolish. Wherever possible we should make every effort to restore these buildings. We should make every effort to modernize the interior while retaining the shell because the shell is a thing of beauty. I am sorry to have to say this, but look at the pathetic attempts that are being made in Adderley Street to depict the architecture of yesteryear with those hardboard gables that are being put up. This is what we have to rely on today to show us what life was like in the years gone by while we have, and the Post Office has, buildings that can be preserved. I want to mention one in particular. I want to talk about the Centrex Building in Durban. We understand that this building is due for demolition. It is a building that has quite a short façade. The main entrance to this building is in Field Street and it is bounded on either side by Pine Street and Commercial Road. There is no reason on earth why the building behind could not be modernized, or even demolished if need be, and then rebuilt while the façade with its beautiful architecture, that I do not think can ever be repeated, is retained. I think this is vitally important. This is the sort of thing that the hon. the Minister should turn his attention to when he considers the demolition of old buildings and the replacement thereof by what are sometimes nothing more than glass and concrete edifices that do not inspire any sort of feeling in anybody.

From this side of the House I want to close tonight’s debate on what I think will be a note of unanimity and that is on the subject of our own post office here in Parliament. I wonder how many members are aware of the fact that the post office in Parliament is a post office in its own right. It has its own postal code. I want to say to hon. members that if they want to save a day in the delivery of their incoming mail they should have their mail addressed to: The Houses of Parliament, 8007 and not to: P.O. Box 15, Cape Town, 8000, or to: The Houses of Parliament, Cape Town, 8001. This post office has its own postal code and I am sure that if our mail is directed to: The Houses of Parliament, 8007, it will get here a day earlier. The Postmaster-General nods his head. He agrees with me. I can have no finer authority than that.

While dealing with this post office, I would like to say a few words of praise to our postmaster here in Parliament, also to his staff and particularly to the ladies and gentlemen who man the extremely busy telephone exchange in this building. I feel that these words of praise will not be out of place. I feel all hon. members in this House will join me when I say that these people are extremely efficient and that they are courteous at all times and that we should have nothing but praise for their efforts. We are grateful for what they do on our behalf.

Mr. Speaker, two of the three opposition speakers who participated in this Third Reading debate reproached me for not having replied to their questions. The problem with the hon. member for Wynberg is that he is not only deaf, but has a short memory as well, for we settled the matter on which he wanted a reply from me long ago. I replied to certain aspects in part last year during the budget debate, in part during the consideration of the Post Office Amendment Act and also during the present debate. Let us take the case of the financing of the Post Office. I mentioned the possibility that representations may be made to the Treasury for a subsidy so that I may provide services below cost price. The hon. member for Sunnyside replied to that. In my reply to the Second Reading debate I stated expressly that the hon. member for Sunnyside had replied effectively to the representations made by the hon. member for Wynberg and that I had agreed to our accepting the recommendations of the Franzsen commission as a guide-line, viz. that we should try to finance 50% of our services with loan capital and the other 50% with self-generated revenue. What this implies is very clearly that we are not in favour of the hon. member for Wynberg’s idea of a subsidy from the Treasury. Last year he also came forward with the idea that I should approach the Minister of Finance to exempt me from the 6% interest I have to pay on the R199 million permanent capital. I told him at the time that when the Post Office became independent, that was the price it had to pay for everything it had received from the State. In my opinion this is a very fair amount for such extensive assets. As far as I personally am concerned, I feel that 6% interest on that amount under the present circumstances is not a very heavy burden for the Post Office. In any event it is not a matter over which I have any say; it is a matter which obviously rests with the Minister of Finance and the Government.

Only last year we debated the question of profit and service in this House. The hon. member then adopted an entirely different standpoint to the one he is now adopting. The hon. member for Durbanville showed up that hon. member very effectively. In fact, since last year the hon. member has done a complete about-face. Last year he said that we wanted to ensure that a profit was written into the Act, and then wanted to increase the tariffs in order to make large profits. Today he has an entirely different story. I made it very clear in the Budget speech that the Post Office put the motive first and that it was prepared to render certain services at less than cost price. The postal services are being rendered at a loss of R27,5 million. I said that we have to accept that a measure of subsidization from other branches of our service, for example from our telecommunications services, was justified. It is stated thus in my budget speech; that is the standpoint I stated. Now the hon. member comes here and says that I did not reply to his questions.

As far as the construction of new post offices and the closing of others is concerned, the hon. member for South Coast, in my opinion, adopted a more sensible standpoint. I have information in front of me which indicates that this is indeed a world-wide problem and that we cannot simply continue to maintain post offices simply because they already exist although they have in reality already become obsolete in the sense that very little use is being made of their services. There has to a measure of rationalization in the industry, and that is what the Post Office is trying to achieve. The Post Office has no intention of simply closing down post offices haphazardly, but must, after all, have regard for services for which there is no longer such a demand as there was when the post office was established. When there are new developments which lead to post offices being constructed in the immediate vicinity the Post Office will construct new post offices where the need for them exists, even if it knows that it will not be able to operate many of them solely from the revenue they earn. With that, I think, I have replied to the question which the hon. member stated repeatedly.

I said earlier, and again this afternoon when I resumed my reply to the Second Reading debate, that the Post Office is striving to give satisfaction through better service. This also implies that it has to provide specific services on a non-economical basis and it shall continue to do so, but hon. members should be mindful of the fact that limits are being set to the extent to which such services can be continued. From time to time rationalization of the services will have to be applied in the industry.

The hon. member also referred to the time it takes to deliver letters. This is not a problem which is unique to our postal system only. It is a problem with which the postal services throughout the entire world have to contend. I want to tell the hon. member that, although we have proof of the fact that letters which were posted in Johannesburg were delivered within 12 hours in the Cape, I do not want to maintain that this is the level of our service throughout. Our aim is to deliver letters within 24 hours. As I have said, however, this is our aim, but one does not necessarily achieve one’s ideal in all cases. I want to admit candidly that delays do occur. This afternoon we were given examples of such delays. But I want to submit that those delays are exceptions, and that in general the Post Office is in this respect as well providing a reasonably satisfactory service.

The hon. member also referred to the speech made by the hon. member for South Coast yesterday in which he raised certain matters and praised what was being done in the research division. He referred more specifically to the trunk barring circuit. In the research centres of the world there are many things which are desirable and may be utilized to good effect, but which, for a variety of reasons, simply cannot be put into operation. So, too, there are in our own postal service research results and inventions which cannot put into operation at this stage. We have not even reached the stage at which we have electronic dialling throughout South Africa. As yet we are only in the initial stages. Before we have made the necessary progress we cannot use such sophisticated equipment on a meaningful scale. This is my reply to the matter which was raised by the hon. member for South Coast.

I made another note here: “Philately; mobile display unit.” It is impossible for me to reply specifically to every point raised during the short time at my disposal. I said that several hon. members had made suggestions and that we would consider them. After all is said and done, those suggestions are all recorded in Hansard, and I made a note of them here. Those suggestions will be considered. Some representations which were addressed to me I could not simply accept or refuse. They will have to be considered when we are able to do so at leisure.

I really think that the problem the Opposition had in this debate was that they had so little which they could really criticize that, instead of making a positive contribution and sharing in the discussion of the progress that had been made, they made the mistake of concentrating on the isolated cases in which the service could be improved, cases which we readily conceded.

I do not think that the hon. member for Wynberg raised any further points today which deserve a reply. However, there is one point to which I want to react, namely the attempt which he repeatedly made to drive a wedge between the Postmaster-General and myself. He is like a naughty child who runs to his mother to complain when his father does not want to let him have his own way. I want to tell him, and he must remember this, that the Postmaster-General will not give him any reply or will not do anything for him in terms of his commission with which I would not agree and conversely I shall also undertake nothing on behalf of the Post Office with which the Postmaster-General is not satisfied in terms of his commission. The sooner the hon. member realizes this, the better it will be for him. Therefore it is of no avail trying to play the Postmaster-General and myself off against one another. He will achieve nothing by doing so; his attempt was completely transparent.

I come now to the hon. members for Durbanville and Virginia, who furnished a very fine survey of what the Post Office has done. I am greatly indebted to them for having done so.

†I also thank the hon. member for Umhlanga for what he said with regard to the staff of the parliamentary post office. I think we owe them a debt of gratitude for what they are doing. Therefore I wholeheartedly associate myself with his remarks in that regard.

*As far as the maintenance and preservation of old historical buildings are concerned, the hon. member made my heart glad, for as Minister of National Education this was one of the ramifications in that department in which I was very interested. The Post Office is not indifferent to this matter. As far as the renovation and modernizing of the old historical Post Office in Durban is concerned, we have already spent R1 million. I do not know the building to which the hon. member referred, the Centrex building; I do not know what the circumstances there are, but it is one of the suggestions of which I shall take cognizance and which we shall cause to be considered.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—