Mr. Speaker, I want to turn immediately to the estimates of revenue and expenditure which were placed before the House yesterday. I want to deal very briefly with the actual budgeting and the policy of budgeting. I also want to deal with telecommunications and with the postal services. I also propose to move a suitable amendment.

Dealing with the policy of budgeting, hon. members will note that we are estimating an operating surplus of R50,6 million. Hon. members will have noticed that for the last financial year the estimated amount in this respect was R60,5 million, of which R30,6 million was actually obtained during the year. One will recall that in the previous year the operating surplus was R76 million and in the year before, R82 million. Bearing in mind that the policy behind the budgeting is based on the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission to the extent that the funding of capital should be on a fifty-fifty basis in so far as loans are concerned and in so far as internal funds generated by the department are concerned. I think the department, has tried to keep to this formula that when it gets to the 60:40 ratio we get fairly close to the raising of tariffs.

Looking at the budget itself, in estimating a revenue of R743 million, as the hon. the Minister has done, one obviously has to do a certain amount of crystal-ball gazing because it depends on the economy, on the turnover and on how business is going to take it. One can anticipate at this stage, I think, that we are coming out of the recession and that there should be an upturn in the economy, and that an added revenue could be obtained. In this case I feel that there is too much fat being built into the budget itself. I think there are too many reserves being built into it. I believe that the budget could be pitched at a lower level, particularly if one takes the operating surplus and put it into capital, as we do here. That is R30,6 million. Nevertheless, if we see how the capital is funded we see that we have money on call of the order of R72,9 million. I have a grave suspicion that we have a little nest egg here, that these moneys that are on call, have been put away with the Public Debts Commissioners and that the department is earning interest on it. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us at some stage what the total amount is that is available on this Vote and how much has been taken, as well as how much is over after the R72,9 million has been taken. If we are building a little too much fat into this budget, then if we really want to give the economy a bit of a stimulant, we could find another R5 million which will enable us to reduce the cost of stamps by one cent on each letter. I think that would be the sort of stimulus the economy would be looking for. However, by and large my criticism is that there is too much fat being built into the budget and that we could pitch at a slightly lower level. I am prepared to put my neck out and to say that if this budget were estimated at a deficit we would really finish with a surplus. I think this should be the policy behind budgeting in so far as this department is concerned.

Turning to the question of telecommunications, one can undoubtedly not help but stress the importance thereof, not only in so far as the private individual is concerned, but certainly also in so far as the business community is concerned, because the entire economy—in fact, the whole world and the whole of the country—revolves around telecommunications, revolves around the speed and efficiency of this department which provides the lifeblood of communications to the entire economy. Therefore it is important—in fact, it is imperative—that we have a system which should be efficient, that we look at productivity, that we have an excellent maintenance service and that we can really provide a 24 hours per day service in order to see to it that things run smoothly. It is only when things do not run smoothly that things break down and that the public does not know what in fact is going on behind the scenes. Seeing that we virtually have a monopoly, as opposed to the United States, where there is competition—we have a cartel—there is no one else one can turn to other than the Post Office itself. Therefore we have an added burden upon us there. Therefore we have to give the service that is required. It should be our priority to provide every single person requesting a telephone with a telephone service. That should be our first priority. Coupled with that we should wipe out the backlog of 57 000 telephones.

Turning to the amount suggested by the hon. the Minister to be used in areas like Soweto and Lenasia, we note that an amount of R35,2 million is to be provided annually for a period of five years to cover the backlog and to provide telephone services. This is indeed welcome. What I am pleading for is that our priority should be the provision of automatic telephone exchanges in areas like Soweto and Lenasia. That is what should receive priority for the reason that in many of them there are no adequate police stations, hospitals, ambulance services or fire fighting services. If those factors are taken into consideration, I believe they will get the priority they deserve. An area like Kwa Mashu, for example, which was established in 1958, is an area where Black lawyers practise. It takes one and a half hours for a client to get through to them. It takes them two years to get a telephone in the first place. When one thinks of these things, one realizes the difficulties that are involved. On the other hand, when one thinks of the delays involved in trying to phone through to these areas, one realizes that it must be costing this country a great deal. Therefore the announcement which the hon. the Minister made is indeed welcome. Nevertheless, we would urge that priority be given to areas such as Soweto, Lenasia and Kwa Mashu where these difficulties to which I have referred, arise.

As at 31 March deferred applications for telephones amounted to 57 000. If we provide something line 14 000 telephones per year, it will take nearly four years to catch up with this backlog. That, we think, is too long. We feel that the programme should be speeded up so that the backlog can be wiped out in a period of not more than two years. There should be forward planning in this regard. I understand that there is a forward planning department which has to anticipate the development which is going to take place in areas where telephones will be required. In the case of townships which are to be developed, this section should be able to tell the department when the townships will be ready so that cables can be laid and telephones supplied in anticipation of the demand. The department should not wait until there is a community, waiting for telephones. That demand should be anticipated. With the low rate of township development at present, there should be a lot of slack which can be taken up. Equipment which would have had to be used for these township areas will now be able to be used in other areas where a priority exists.

As regards the question of maintenance, we should see to it that there is a very speedy service as far as this is concerned. Nothing is worse, particularly in an office organization, than the telephone system breaking down, because that firm’s operations then grind to a halt as the result of the lack of communications. It should not take two days for a maintenance team to restore a telephone service. When they do come, one wonders why it is necessary that two technicians should arrive at the same time. Is it not sufficient for one person to undertake the maintenance work? Sometimes it is quicker to get through to the United States or to Australia than it is to get through to Complaints or Maintenance. This is an area to which I think the hon. the Minister should give his attention. After 8 p.m. it is very difficult to put through a trunk call, particularly between Cape Town and Johannesburg, because the lines are overloaded. Attention should therefore be given to this aspect.

I now come to the question of party lines. We have been told that 87% of our telephones are now automatic. One must not forget, though, there is still a remainder of 13%. Most of this 13% is in respect of the township areas where it is often vital for people to be able to establish communications. Party lines are obviously unsatisfactory. There is no privacy when one talks, and when a telephone rings it wakes everybody who is connected to that party line. Generally speaking, this system should be eliminated as soon as possible.

Overseas communications probably constitute one of our most successful fields of operation. I do not think that a charge of R2,40 per minute is an unreasonable charge for an overseas call. I do feel, however, that telephone accounts should differentiate between overseas calls and local calls. The units should not simply be mixed together, because it is then very difficult for people to keep tabs on their telephone calls, especially when a large staff is involved.

I would like to suggest that telephones be made available on the national roads. This would be an essential service to the public of South Africa. If telephones could be provided on our national roads between cities, travellers would be able to obtain emergency services such as medical or breakdown assistance. These telephones could initially be provided every 50 km. Thereafter a programme could be set in train to provide telephones at intervals of 25 km, and later at intervals of 10 km. If we were to do this, it would be appreciated by the public. In this connection one thinks of the stretch of road between Willowmore and Aberdeen, which is a distance of 90 miles. On that whole stretch of road there is not a single means of communication and hardly a blade of grass.

Turning to the question of research, I feel that the installation of a semi-electric system will bring about an improvement on the system we have at the moment, i.e. the CP24 and CP44 systems to which the hon. the Minister referred yesterday. We sincerely trust that his negotiations with France and Germany with regard to the equipment needed and the change-over to an electronic system will be fruitful. There are improvements taking place almost daily in this field. We urge the hon. the Minister to give the House the information, as soon as possible, as to what the cost will be to the country and when the service will be installed. When one thinks of the advances that have been made, I am reminded of a visit to the Bell Telephone System in Montreal. Hon. members may have visited it in 1967. If they had, they would have noticed that more than ten years ago, one was able, by means of a television screen, to see to whom one was talking. At that time one could leave a message on the telephone to the grocer or the butcher, asking him to execute an order. If one went out, the telephone would automatically put through the call to the grocer or the butcher and place the order. The call would then be transferred to the bank and the account would be settled. A Householder was even able to go away on holiday and leave a message on the telephone in terms of which, every morning at 8 o’clock, an alarm would be set off and the garden would be watered. Surely, if that took place 10 years ago, more modern advances must have taken us much further.

I also want to refer to research, and more particularly to the aspect of lightning which is a danger to the country. I think research is necessary in this connection. I think that as far as possible we should put our lines under the ground, and although this is, I admit, more expensive, I think it would pay us, in the long run, to do so. The system of sundowner phones is, I believe, a system that works very well and should be encouraged to a greater extent. One need only think of the 8 000 phones that went out of order in Pretoria to realize how important this is. I suggest that we use radio and television to a greater extent in order to alert the people.

Now let me refer to exchanges. One understands the terrible cost involved in introducing new exchanges, with the concomitant changes, at periodic intervals, in the code digits. This also leads to costs involved in changes to letterheads, etc., costs which are nevertheless unavoidable and necessary.

I now want to turn to the postal services themselves. Although there are 1 550 million items being used per year, the losses in the department have gone from 14,4 million two years ago to 21,3 million. Now it has reached 31,8 million. Measured against operating expenditure, this represents 14,3%, 18,47%, and this year 24,8% respectively, figures which I think are rather high. Although there is the question of increased costs and higher salaries, I think we should, in fact, identify the problem of bottle-necks at the points of dispatch and delivery.

I want to turn now to the new computer system. In particular I want to refer to the visit I paid to the Jeppe Street Post Office and to commend the department on the wonderful computer system which now handles something like 600 000 letters per day and, I think, can be geared to handling something like 1 million letters per day. This computer selects, rejects, faces and cancels. It is quite an experience to see the letters going through the machine at the rate they do, but this speed is dependent upon a number of factors. Firstly it is dependent upon the fact that the postal codes should be properly indicated on the letters, and here I think we must appeal to the public to give us their co-operation by indicating the postal codes on the addressed envelopes. Secondly the public must not place foreign objects in envelopes because that clutters up the system. The system simply cannot take it. Thirdly there is a problem which is not the fault of the public as such. I am referring to the fact that the Post Office handles both closed and open letters. As the open letters goes along the computer chain, it gathers wind and air. The letter then becomes swollen, and once it has become swollen it jams up the machine, the red light goes on and the whole system is held up. There is, however, a way of avoiding this, and I think we should examine this very carefully. I certainly think we could look into the feasibility of this as a solution. If all letters posted were to be closed, that would solve the problem, but we are left with the difference in postage of 1 cent between closed and open letters. This could be remedied, I believe, by changing the amounts of the bulk postage allowances. If we increase the allowance on bulk postage, letters can all be sent closed. I believe we would consequently be doing the Post Office a great service by enabling them to handle more letters in a specified time. This would allow the computer system to work on a much better basis.

I now want to turn to one or two other matters. One of these is medical aid for Black workers. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether medical aid for Black workers has been instituted. This has been a sore point in debates in the past. I believe that this has now been given to Coloured and Indian workers, but I do not believe it is available to Black workers. I consequently urge the hon. the Minister to pay attention to this and to remedy the situation as quickly as possible.

The last matter I want to refer to is that of the wage gap between Blacks and Whites in the service, where there should be equal pay for equal work. In the service the three groups are represented by the ratio 100:87½:67½. There is no excuse for such a distinction amongst the workers in the service, and this side of the House finds it quite unacceptable.

I believe there is enough fat in the budget, that is to say, that there is a sufficient surplus, to wipe this out. I think this should be done as quickly as possible. Although the January increases do help in so far as the ratio is concerned—it is on a basis of 10 to 15 and 17½, that is according to allowances and not basic pay—the improvement is not sufficient. It has been estimated, nevertheless, that 4 464 Black officials in the Post Office, doing similar work to Whites and being paid on average R50 less than the Whites, would require R2,9 million per year to close the gap. Surely we can find the extra R2,9 million to eliminate this and thereby create a really happy and prosperous Post Office service.

With the points I have raised, I hope I have motivated to the House the case for the amendment I move, as follows—

1. (1) provides an efficient, speedy and reliable telephone service;
2. (2) eliminates the backlog of telephone applications; and
3. (3) introduces equal pay and service conditions for employees of all races”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow has moved an amendment, but I wonder whether he was even in the House yesterday when the hon. the Minister delivered his speech. I get the impression that the hon. member is in a totally different world—he does not know what is going on in South Africa. I should say that this budget is definitely the best South Africa has ever had.

I shall return to the hon. member’s amendment later in my speech. I just want to review briefly what has happened during the past number of years. Since 1 April 1975 there have been no tariff increases. In the second place we found that the shortage of telephones we have experienced for years, has been eliminated rapidly, so much so that at the moment there is only a backlog of two months. I think this is a world record. If we compare this achievement with what happened in other countries, we can see how good the position really is in South Africa.

I want to return to the matters which the hon. member has raised. The first point he made, was that the surplus had been built into the budget. In this connection he referred for example, to the financing of capital works from operating revenue. He even went so far as to suggest that postal tariffs be reduced by 1 cent. Surely the hon. member knows that the Post Office has suffered a loss of R32 million in respect of those services. It is precisely that section which shows a major deficit. I want to put a question to the hon. member. If postal services were now to be reduced by 1 cent, who is going to subsidize those services? Where must the money come from to cover that deficit of R32 million? We cannot simply reduce postal tariffs unless we find the required additional revenue.

What about the cash on call?

The hon. member has also indirectly criticized the Post Office budget. I want to tell the hon. member that it has never been so correctly and accurately predicted as the Minister and the department have done this year. In respect of the operating and capital expenditure for 1977-’78, the estimate was R927,2 million. That is 1,1% higher than the amount originally voted. Those are the figures. It is expected that revenue this year will amount to R691,1 million. That is an increase of 1,7%. If one compares the two amounts, the surplus is 0,6%. I wish to assure hon. members that any budget which is within 5% of the estimated amount, is exceptionally good. In fact, on that basis this budget is more than fantastic.

However, I want to come back to our hon. Minister. The hon. the Minister has served us in this House for a number of years. He has announced that this will be the last budget which he will introduce, as he is going to leave us. On my part I want to state today that we are going to miss this hon. Minister. In particular, we are going to miss the excellent services he has rendered. Mr. Speaker, you will perhaps permit me to address a few words to the hon. the Minister and to sketch a few details of his past in order that we may call them to mind and record them.

Johannes Petrus van der Spuy was born at Reitz in the Free State on 24 November 1912 as the son of the late Rev. J. P. van der Spuy, who was for many years the moderator of the D.R. Church of the OFS. He matriculated at the Reitz High School in 1930, and three years later graduated at the University of Stellenbosch with Afrikaans and German as major subjects. He obtained the Higher Education Diploma at the end of 1934 at the then UCOFS, where he also obtained the M.A. degree (German) Cum Laude in 1942. As a result of the outbreak of the Second World War, he could not avail himself of the Alexander von Humboldt bursary for postgraduate study in Germany, which had been awarded to him in 1939. After having performed relief duty at Dewetsdorp during the first term of 1935, he accepted a high school post at Boshoff, where he taught languages until the end of 1943. After that he was a lecturer in Afrikaans at the Pretoria Technical College for two years before he entered the service of the FAK in 1946 and devoted himself to full-time cultural organization work until the end of 1961. He was for many years a dedicated member of the school board of Witwatersrand Central, the Witwatersrand Central, the Witwatersrand Youth Council, the school committees of the primary schools Auckland Park and Orban and member of the control board of the Afrikaanse Hoër Handelskool. He was also a member of the committee whose aim was the founding of the Goudstadse Onderwys-kollege. After the establishment of that college, he became member and vice-chairman of the first board of control. He also served in the committee which campaigned for the establishment of the Rand Afrikaans University. After the establishment of that university, he also became a member of the board. Before he became member of Parliament for the Westdene constituency in 1961, he was a very active voluntary worker for the NP. Among other things, he was for many years chairman of the NP branch and also treasurer and chairman of the divisional management of the constituency. From the general election in 1966 until March 1967, he represented the Johannesburg West constituency. In March 1967 he was appointed as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Republic of South Africa in Austria, a position which he held until 4 August 1969, when he became Minister of National Education. In October 1969, he was elected as Senator by the electoral college of the Orange Free State. From 21 January 1971 until 7 September 1977, he was the leader of the NP in the Orange Free State. Since the beginning of 1973 he has been Leader of the Senate and from 15 August 1973, in addition to that of National Education, he handled the portfolio Social Welfare and Pensions. Since 26 January 1976 he has been responsible for the portfolios Posts and Telecommunications and Social Welfare and Pensions. He is also a member of the S.A. Academy of Arts and Science. Two daughters were born of his marriage to Miss Talia van Schalkwyk, formerly the librarian of the UCOFS.

Mr. Speaker, that is the history of our hon. Minister. Although he is going to leave us, we shall not soon forget the name Van der Spuy because almost every second day we hear from Magdaleen van der Spuy in Paris. That is his daughter, who is doing good work for South Africa there.

We want to thank and pay tribute to the hon. the Minister today for what he has done for South Africa through the years and, especially, for the Post Office. The hon. the Minister is not letting the department down, because he leaves behind him a well-equipped, disciplined, motivated and dedicated staff on whom he has left his mark, the mark of a refined person. This staff would be a matter for pride for any department and for any country. While we are conveying our thanks to the hon. the Minister, I also wish to convey our thanks and tribute to Mr. Rive and his top management for the excellent and unselfish service—regardless of what the hon. member for Hillbrow has said—which they have rendered South Africa. They have given the staff leadership and training and they have motivated and inspired these people so that for the past seven years, they have been working two hours overtime per week for the Post Office, without any remuneration.

It reminds me of the biblical story of how Jacob had to work for seven years before he could get his wife. The Post Office staff have worked for seven years to earn the system of achievement bonuses. The Post Office staff have therefore shown what true patriotism is by not only working for their own remuneration. Therefore it speaks volumes when the hon. the Minister, at the end of his budget speech and after he has announced the achievement bonuses, can say: “The top management, at their own request, will not share in this.” No department, company or individual can display a greater motivation than this on the part of top management. That is why the department does so well. In all the documents placed before us here, like the annual report, etc., the efficiency of the Post Office staff is discernible throughout. They do not merely sit down and try to get by with the least possible amount of work, but go ahead purposefully and strive consistently to obtain greater revenue for the Post Office by performing all activities at a low cost, achieving greater productivity, rendering finer and better services not only internally, but also abroad, and not only to one section of the population, but to all sections—White as well as non-White.

It is perhaps also fitting that I should refer to the annual report. It is probably one of the finest annual reports ever, judged not only by the aesthetic cover with the lovely flowers, but also by the amount of information contained in the annual report itself. If one goes through it thoroughly, it is as though one were oneself employed in the department. The information is complete, specific, neat, and arranged in a logical order. The speech by the hon. the Minister also shows these qualities. He has systematically, methodically and purposively rendered every single aspect in sequence so that one can read it like a serial. I therefore also wish to express my thanks to them for the excellent annual report.

Even the report by the Auditor-General is—as we would say in the language of auditors—a clean report. If we take into account the amount of money which has been handled and everything which has been done, it speaks volumes that no irregularities are reported in the report, but that the management in the department constantly exercises thorough discipline, internal control and control over finances and general matters. If this is open to criticism of any sort, the Opposition ought to come forward and help us in this respect. It is no good wanting to suggest that we should reduce tariffs and that we should eliminate the backlog in connection with applications for telephones. These things happen quickly and all of a sudden. 87% of all telephones in South Africa are already linked to automatic exchanges. If we keep in mind the size, the area of South Africa, we must realize—we are a developing country and not a developed country like those in Europe—that we still have to cope with many problems in this connection. I think miracles have been performed in this connection and that the fact that the Post Office budget does not contain tariff increases, is an example of this.

Let us see what the Post Office means to South Africa. It is not necessary for me to quote many figures, because we have all the details and anybody who wants to read them can do so. In the first place, the Post Office is a major provider of employment in South Africa. That is something which the Opposition must not lose sight of. This year, the Post Office provides employment to 44 192 Whites and 27 754 non-Whites: a total of 71 946. In 1977, there were altogether 68 902 people in the service of the Post Office. The salaries, wages and remuneration paid to these employees during the past financial year, amount to R274,357 million. By the most conservative estimate possible, the Post Office ensures an livelihood for at least 200 000 people in South Africa.

However, the contribution of the Post Office extends much further than that. A great many more people yet are dependent upon the Post Office for a living. One calls to mind, for example, the medical commitment of R4,7 million which is paid by the Post Office. Doctors and other medical practitioners therefore also derive an indirect benefit from the Post Office. The Post Office also has at its disposal pension funds of R38,4 million. The insurance people and others derive benefits from this. Further, the Post Office uses material and utilizes services to the value of R40,8 million. Except for a small portion which is imported, all the material is purchased in South Africa.

The transportation of mail costs the Post Office R29,3 million, of which R5,9 million is motor transport. The balance of the amount is mainly paid to the S.A. Railways and the S.A. Airways. In this respect, the Post Office is really a major provider of employment to our transport services. The printing cost of the telephone directories amounts to R7,6 million and that provides a lot of work to printers in South Africa. As far as the telephone directories are concerned, we must not forget either that the advertisers in South Africa spend R12 million or more on advertisements in the telephone directories to publicize their products. The Post Office is therefore not only an employer and a user of material, but also a medium for advertising.

In the budget, the capital expenditure of the Post Office is very clearly set out. The expenditure connected with telecommunications is R279 million. It is a fact that most of the requisites for telecommunication are manufactured in South Africa. On page 16 of the Postmaster-General’s annual report the following is said in connection with stores—

In spite of the fact that we have to import some of the telecommunication material for our telephone exchanges, the Post Office has progressed so far that today we are able to manufacture a large percentage of the material locally. As it is we are saddled with a balance of payments problem and it therefore speaks volumes that the Post Office is saving so much foreign currency for South Africa by manufacturing so much material locally.

During the past financial year the Post Office has also spent R26,4 million on land, buildings and housing. Therefore in this respect, too, employment is being provided. The building industry is going through a hard time and it is one of the components of our economy which really needs stimulation. The Post Office has also acted as a stimulant to the building industry. I have already shown that the Post Office is also indirectly a major user of other transport services and material.

The Post Office is, however, also a service department and renders a great service to South Africa. We must not overlook these things. It is because the Post Office staff are motivated to render only the best for the public of South Africa, that we get such good results. Apart from the post and telecommunication services, a tremendous amount is also being done for South Africa on an agency basis. We are inclined to fail to take this agency service into account. Not everything is mentioned in the budget, because vast sums of money are handled by the department. The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, for example, pays out R293 million in pensions through the Post Office. We do not realize what a convenience it is to our elderly people and pensioners to be able to receive their money at any of the approximately 1 700 post offices in South Africa without having to wait in long queues. It is specially arranged by the postmasters that aged people can obtain their money in a very easy and convenient way.

The department also renders a major service to the State. For example, it handles the collection of excise duty on cigarettes to the amount of R187,9 million, and customs duty to the amount of R12,2 million. During the last few years our people in South Africa have been enjoying the luxury of television. The department has collected R28,4 million in television licences and R14,6 million in radio licences. All these matters could conveniently be disposed of at all these post offices. These are all services which the Post Office renders.

R8,4 million’s worth of revenue stamps, R13,4 million in Treasury bonds and R12 million in defence bonds were sold, while R6,8 million was collected in repayment of housing loans. That is an amount of between R600 million and R700 million which is being handled on an agency basis. According to the budget, the profit on the transactions handled by the agencies, is only R233 000. I am not quite sure whether provision has been made in the budget for all the indirect expenditures. I think it would be a good idea if the hon. the Minister and his department were to look into this matter to ensure that we do not show a loss in this respect. They can also enquire into the possibility of other organizations paying more for these services which are being rendered.

The Post Office is a bringer of happiness throughout the world. What is more pleasant than to receive letters and telegrams of congratulation through the post? It is the easiest way in which to communicate with people at such a very low tariff. As far as low tariffs are concerned, I want to compare South Africa and Australia. Australia is altogether comparable with South Africa, although perhaps we still show a bit of a backlog. As far as postal tariffs are concerned, we in South Africa pay 4 cents on a letter of 50 g, while it costs 25c in Australia. We pay 3c on printed matter, as against 25c in Australia. Here, then, we have a vast difference between the postal tariffs of two comparable countries.

I want to compare the cost of telephone calls. For a local telephone call we pay 4c, while people in Australia pay 9c. Our daytime tariff for three minutes is 20c per 100 km, as against 90c in Australia. My reply to the arguments of the hon. member for Hillbrow that we should further reduce our tariffs, is that our tariffs are already far below those of comparable countries.

How can such excellent services still be rendered? We may well look into that. One of the best examples one can point to, is the top management and the Staff Management Board of the Post Office which handles all staff matters. The staff originally fell under the Public Service Commission, but the Staff Management Board, in which the top management of the Post Office serves so that they can themselves look after the interests of their own people, was later established by legislation. They attend to matters such as promotion and the appointment of members of staff to posts in the administrative section, seconding of officers and the implementation of disciplinary measures. I want to inform members that during the past year, there were 34 instances where disciplinary actions was taken, as a result of which 19 members of staff were discharged. That proves that this department acts vigorously and maintains discipline. Where discipline is strong, there is always progress and loyalty because everyone knows what he has to do. That is why the Post Office can boast of productivity, as it can in fact do. Whatever the Post Office can do, it does do. The Post Office is not satisfied merely to have its own investigations. What really impressed me, was what is stated on page 10 of the annual report—

When the department makes use of these professional bodies, there can only be improvement. So much more can be achieved by obtaining and applying the “know-how”—as the English call it. I therefore appeal to the department not to relax its efforts in this connection. Continue to make use of this organization in order to attain greater efficiency and to supplement the knowledge of the department.

These achievements have also been attained as a result of the effective training which is throughout supplied by the department itself. There have been inspections, and the people want to co-operate. It is not only within the department that an intensive training programme is in progress. We also hear, as we heard from the hon. the Minister yesterday, that at the moment there are 274 students studying with Post Office bursaries. We request that that system be continued with.

There are also a few more points which we shall have to look at and which I wish to bring to the notice of the House. In connection with telegrams, the budget for 1978-’79 is R6,78 million, the same as for the previous year. For the year 1975-’76 the revenue was R7,085 million and for 1976-’77, R6,934 million. The revenue from telegrams has therefore decreased. Now I want to ask specifically whether our tariff on telegrams is not too high. Yesterday the hon. the Minister gave us an indication but I think that our tariff for telegrams is most probably a little too high.

There you have it. It is definitely too high.

I want to inquire whether the tariffs should not be reduced. I wish to ask immediately—in this connection I agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow— whether, whereas open letters can be sent at 3c, the time has not come for all letters to be sealed and subject to a tariff of 4c. That should eliminate the problem with the sorting machine. In this way we can recover the costs and thus send cheaper telegrams, and we shall all benefit thereby.

Another matter which we should look at, is the interest burden. The cost of loans and the interest redemptions for 1978-’79 is R95,665 million out of a total of R693,141 million, namely 13%. I think our interest burden is becoming very high. This is due to certain circumstances, namely the disruption of our 50:50 financing, but I shall come to that just now.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether there has ever been a thorough investigation into whether the Post Office should make use of its own buildings or should make use of rented buildings in the case of small and larger buildings. The large post office buildings should however be our own buildings. Will it not be cheaper to lease the buildings instead of building them? That matter must be investigated and we must see if we cannot achieve a good result in that way. We can come forward with ideas. It is the task of all of us to help and advise the Post Office about where we can economize, because it is everyone’s money that we must look after. It will also tie up with the investigation which is already being carried out overseas, where use is made of agencies to render full-fledged postal services. We must just not be in too great a hurry to rent buildings. We must just be sure that we do not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

As far as capital expenditure is concerned, last year 54% was financed by loans as compared to 50%. I feel that 60% is the maximum as it may vary. Whereas it is 59,9% this year, this is in my view the marginal case which we may not exceed. I am grateful that the tariffs have not been increased. I am honestly of the opinion that during the next few months our economy is going to improve slowly. We need only notice what is happening today in the motor industry. That is an industry which is improving by leaps and bounds. There are also other sectors in which tremendous progress is being shown. Therefore, I believe that we are completely justified in accepting what the hon. the Minister has told us, namely that the economic situation in the country will improve within the foreseeable future, and that it was therefore not necessary for him to increase the tariffs at this stage. It is now ten years since the Post Office became autonomous. It is ten years in which the Post Office has been managed as a business concern. I do not want to rub it into the hon. Opposition today, but I do want to point out something to them. At the time, when the hon. the Minister proposed that the Post Office should become autonomous, it was the old UP which campaigned against the autonomy of the postal services. They did not want the postal services to become autonomous. I do not say so spitefully, but I nevertheless feel that I should draw hon. members’ attention to the fact that we are now seeing the good results of what happened 10 years ago. If the Post Office had not become autonomous at the time, if it had not been managed on business principles, it would not have been possible for us today to testify to these results, to an excellent budget and excellent services. The Post Office would still have remained where it was under the old UP régime: a milch cow of the central Government. [Interjections.] Therefore I plead that the Post Office should remain autonomous.

One question, however, continues to trouble me. It is what other people think of the budget. Let us look at what Die Transvaler has to say. That paper’s leading article today carries in large, bold type, the heading: “Model budget.” Let me quote just one paragraph from the leading article—

Mr. Speaker, this is a lovely present. Die Transvaler refers to the achievement bonus of R7,5 million, and states—

This is a wonderful budget. I say to the hon. the Minister: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, it is always unfortunate that the hon. member for Sunnyside somehow happens to wind up his speech on a sour note. It is also unfortunate that he has to choose to do so by attacking the old UP with the accusation that they never supported the thought of the Post Office being independent of the main budget in this House. The hon. member knows far better than I do, because he has been here longer than I have, that the old UP pleaded for that very situation for years. I made some notes in order to comment on some of the proposals that the hon. member for Sunnyside put forward. However, quite frankly, when he finishes up on that sort of note I feel his speech is possibly best ignored. [Interjections.]

I was, however, happy to listen to his tribute to the hon. the Minister, as well as to his very interesting sketch of the hon. the Minister’s background although I cannot wax as eloquent as he does when he claims that the Post Office is a “happiness-bringer”. He said that the Post Office was a “gelukbringer” throughout the world. That, I am afraid, is taking things a little too far. As far as I am concerned, it borders on fantasy.

The hon. the Minister tabled a budget on which he, the Postmaster-General and all the Post Office staff can be heartily congratulated. This budget is one that is going to result in many, “dank-die-Minister” speeches here this afternoon and tomorrow. We had a preview of this in the final words from the hon. member for Sunnyside, but I feel it would be expecting a little too much for me to follow that line. The report of the Postmaster-General for the year 1976-’77, which was tabled some weeks ago, was in my opinion a pointer to the speech that we heard from the hon. the Minister yesterday. To one who has studied recent reports, a golden thread becomes apparent. To one who has read and re-read reports over the past few years, a pattern emerges. It is obvious that since the introduction of sound everyday business management techniques, that introduction has had a more dramatic effect and a greater impact as each year has gone by. There is not a shadow of a doubt that these techniques have resulted in a far higher level of staff motivation. They have resulted in an enthusiasm which has found its way right through the ranks of all Post Office employees. Those of us who make a point of talking to these employees and Post Office personnel have found that there is indeed a spirit of enthusiasm amongst these people that was lacking a few years ago. It is there, and this is a highly commendable situation. I cannot, however, with all deference to the hon. the Minister, allow him to think that he has achieved a 100% pass. I am prepared to concede him an A, or possibly an A plus, but he is still a little short of the magical full mark.

What more than that do you want?

One can always do better, you know. A 100% is the ideal which one should strive for. I do not think that it would be correct to attempt to attack a budget such as this, but I do believe that there is room for some constructive criticism. If criticism is to be construed as bad news, then let me give the bad news first.

Firstly, I notice with some concern that although mail transportation times have been improved, they have not yet by any means reached what I would term peak performance. The Minister has stated that there are certain problem areas. He gave us the assurance that efforts were being made to improve the service. I feel, however, that this matter of mail transportation has become too much of a hardy annual in this House, and I would earnestly suggest that an exercise similar to the aptly named “Operation Commando” which the hon. the Minister referred to in his Second Reading speech yesterday, should be put into effect. To refresh the memories of hon. members, the operation was launched on the Witwatersrand in order to combat the chronic problems of the telephone services in that area. This operation is obviously meeting with no small measure of success. I suggest that a similar task force, made up of the best trouble-shooters in the postal service who deal with posts and deliveries, should be set up in order to identify clearly the problem areas and then to initiate action which will ensure that all mail is delivered within the shortest possible space of time. That space of time, Sir, should be no longer than 48 hours from the time of mailing. While on this subject, I would urge that from this task force a select few should make an intensive study of the problems of mail to and from our national servicemen, with particular emphasis on those who are serving in the remote areas. This study, I believe, could be conducted in conjunction with Defence Force personnel who are responsible for the collection and delivery of mail to the men on the border, because I believe that the time has come for us to grasp this nettle firmly for once and for all. It is no good living in an illusionary world. We have to face facts, and the facts are that families of our servicemen as well as the men themselves are still most concerned about the situation in respect of mail deliveries. There are many of us in this House— and this includes many in the Government benches—who, I am sure, receive complaints from constituents about mail to their youngsters serving on the border and also about the receipt of mail from various points on the border. This is a problem that should be given top priority, and if solutions could be found I am sure it will be conceded that morale, both in those remote areas and at home, would be bolstered considerably.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister dealt, at great length, with telephone services in his Second Reading speech and said, with some measure of pride, that there were 57 000 applications for telephone services outstanding at the end of this month. Here I cannot agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow who said that the backlog should be worked off within two years. To my mind that is still not good enough. I concede that it is indeed an achievement to have reduced the figure so dramatically, but I wish to offer a word of caution. In the current economic situation in which the country finds itself, that figure of 57 000 is exactly 57 000 too many. In the same way I believe that the waiting-list of 560 in respect of telex services is 560 too many. This may seem a harsh statement, but I should like to motivate and justify it. The hon. the Minister has gone to great lengths to point out that in comparison with the previous year there has been little or no reduction in the number of new applications for both telephone and telex services, notwithstanding—and the hon. the Minister makes this point—the slowing down of the economy. He regards this as being an interesting point. I, however, attach a greater significance to it than that because I believe that it proves one thing, and that is simply that when we have an upturn in the economy—and it has been suggested by both the hon. the Minister of Finance and the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs that this is imminent, in fact it can be expected at any moment—the demand for telephone and telex services will increase dramatically. If the demand has remained static during the recessionary period, it must naturally follow that it will “take off” when the pendulum of the economy starts its upward swing. When the moment comes, therefore, unless the hon. the Minister has eliminated the backlog completely and has geared himself for this escalating demand, we are going to find ourselves back at square one as far as our telephone and telex services are concerned. We all know that the pendulum must ultimately swing, and my plea to the hon. the Minister is to ensure that his department readies itself for that day and is able to be ahead of the pendulum for the first time in the history of telephone and telex communications in our country. This could prove a tremendous boon to both the business and private sectors.

Each year we become more and more reliant on an efficient and effective communications system, and we must be on top of the situation at all times, particularly in these troubled times. Having said that, let me add that we shall consequently support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow because the first two legs of his amendment deal with the subject I have just dealt with. We also associate ourselves with the third leg of the amendment because, as we read it, service conditions mean the acceptance of equal responsibility. It introduces equal pay and service conditions for employees of all races. We on these benches read “service conditions” as meaning that all employees will accept equal responsibility. This is part and parcel of the service conditions. On that basis we accept this amendment.

Thirdly, I found the hon. the Minister’s remarks concerning the much-publicized CP24 and CP44 systems most interesting. The hon. member for Hillbrow has expressed concern with regard to the cost of the new systems to come. My concern is in respect of the CP24 and CP44 systems. I well remember—and I am sure the hon. the Minister remembers it better than I do—the memorandum issued in March 1975 setting out the reasons for the choice of the CP24 and CP44 systems. Paragraph 7.2 of that memorandum reads as follows—

I fully appreciate that there have been staggering developments in this field since then, but I feel that I cannot accept the decision in respect of these exchanges without receiving answers to some questions. The first question is: What is the exact amount of the investment that has been made in respect of the now-cancelled CP44 exchanges, and is this amount to be written off? I ask this because the hon. the Minister made reference to the fact that he was able to cancel the first exchange before—and I quote his words—“any significant investment had been made”. Therefore, some investment must have been made. Secondly, how will the CP24, the smaller exchange, of which there are soon to be 16 in service, tie in with the new electronic or digital system envisaged, and will the semi-electronic and fully electronic systems be compatible with one another? I seek the hon. the Minister’s assurance that we will not be faced with the situation where we are currently commissioning new equipment, namely the CP24 system, that could become obsolete with the introduction of the new E10 system and subsequently with the new EWS-D. The hon. the Minister advised us that the new EWS-D may be adopted as the second system alongside the E10. My concern relates to the future of the CP24.

On what page of your notes are you now?

The hon. member need not worry about that. If he wanted to quote figures, he would also have to refer to notes. The hon. the Minister stated—and I quote: “The manufacture of the smaller semi-electronic exchange (CP24) is continuing because it has definite advantages for us and meets a specific requirement.” I should like elaboration on that statement. I feel that he should spell out these advantages and also the specific requirements he envisages.

Having dealt with the bad news, I think I should come to the good news. Firstly, I believe that “Operation Commando” was a bold move and I am sure it is going to prove an outstanding success. It is the sort of thing that many a successful business operation would carry out in order to contain and improve the situation in a problem area. Secondly, mail mechanization is proving a success. There is no doubt about that. Obviously, it is here to stay. I look forward to the day when it can be expanded to all our major cities because of its efficiency and because of the dramatic savings that can be effected in man-hours as outlined to us in the Minister’s statement. Thirdly, the five-year plan for the provision of telephone services to non-Whites in their own areas is welcome.

We hope and trust that the department will be given the full co-operation of the residents of the areas concerned and that the Post Office personnel will be able to proceed with this work without any interference whatsoever. Fourthly, I believe the staff is fully entitled to the achievement bonus that was announced by the Minister. I note that the Minister has given the staff full credit for the important role they have played in maintaining general tariff levels since 1975. We of this party associate ourselves with the Minister’s remarks and warmly congratulate all recipients of this bonus on a job well done. We also note that the top management will not share in the reward and that that is at their own request. This is the stamp, in fact the hallmark, of top management of the highest quality. Finally, it is gratifying to note the hon. the Minister’s assurance that the private sector will be informed well in advance of any tariff increases and that such increases will be kept as low as possible. It is our sincere hope that the status quo will be maintained throughout the coming fiscal year. There is a measure of nervousness when the hon. the Minister makes this observation, because it makes one feel that lurking in the shadows there is the strong possibility that a tariff increase will, in fact, be sprung during the coming year. We hope that this will not be the case.

In the short time that remains I wish to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the eve of his retirement. I wish to congratulate him on the presentation of this, his final budget. I wish to congratulate him on a job well done. The hon. the Minister has achieved much in respect of the three fundamental aims which he set himself on 17 March 1976. Mr. Speaker, I have found him a man who has always made himself available. He was never one to hide behind a lot of bureaucracy and red tape. He has done a tremendous amount in the field of race relations and I wish the ministerial benches were full to hear me say this. He has done a tremendous amount in the field of race relations in that it is during his term of office that we have seen racial discrimination in post offices eliminated all over the country. His successor, the hon. member for Vereeniging, will have a fine example to follow. To both of these gentlemen I convey my best wishes and those of my colleagues in the NRP that share these benches. On behalf of all of us in my party I wish the hon. the Minister, Senator Johan van der Spuy, a happy and contented retirement.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite evident that the hon. member for Umhlanga has turned over a new page in regard to his attitude towards this side of the House. I entirely associate myself with his words of congratulation and best wishes to the hon. the Minister who is now retiring, except that I deplore the fact that the hon. member tried to bring in a measure of racialism by saying that this hon. Minister has eliminated racial discrimination in post offices.

You should be glad.

I did not say I was not glad about it. What I want to say is that it is a natural development of the policy of multinational development.

*I also associate myself whole-heartedly with what was said by the hon. member for Sunnyside when he paid tribute to the hon. the Minister for a task which he accomplished very well. My good wishes accompany the hon. the Minister and I trust that he is heading for a very happy period of rest.

As regards the remark which the hon. member for Umhlanga made concerning the period of two years which the hon. member for Hillbrow envisaged for eliminating the backlog in connection with the provision of telephones, I should like to present certain facts to him. 129 000 new services were provided last year. I hope the hon. member for Hillbrow did not have the idea that it would take only four years to eliminate the backlog of 57 000. As we heard in the speech of the hon. the Minister, hundreds if not thousands of new applications are received every day. Some of these applications are dealt with in a very short time. I admit that there are certain areas where the delay is a little longer than in others. However, in areas where enough telephone connections are available, services are provided extremely quickly.

The hon. member for Umhlanga expressed the fear that the new CP24 system may not be compatible with the existing system. My information is that the system is in fact compatible with the existing system and that the old system will be phased out over the years and replaced by the new, better system. A telephone exchange does not last for ever; it has only a limited life. I assume that, in the years ahead, the department will make optimum use of the existing equipment and that, when it has served its purpose, it will be replaced by a new, more modern system which will meet the demands of the time. The Department of Posts and Telecommunications is probably the institution with the greatest number of clients in South Africa. I doubt whether there is any other body—the Railways, large business concerns, or even the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions— which has more clients than the Post Office. Just think that at the moment there are more than 2 300 000 telephones in use and that millions of postal articles are posted daily. Every one of those millions of people is a client of the Post Office.

The hon. member for Umhlanga sounded a false note when he asked for attention to be paid to the delivery of the post of national servicemen. I must honestly tell the hon. member that, with 16 000 voters, I have not yet received a single complaint from the parent of national servicemen about a delay occurring in their postal delivery.

They come to us, because they are wasting their time by going to you.

The hon. member for Durban Point made a big issue of this last year. He became extremely emotional about it. The hon. member wanted to draw as much political poison out of it as he could, and the hon. member for Umhlanga probably just carried on today along the lines indicated by the hon. member for Durban Point. Every one of us sitting here today is a client of the Post Office since we make use of its services every day. Apart from the petty political complaints, such as those which one hears from the hon. member for Umhlanga, I do not hear my colleagues complaining about the service which they receive from the Post Office. In fact, I think they are delighted with it. If one studies the annual report and considers the budget of the hon. the Minister, I really do not know what hon. members have to complain about. In the same breath I want to say that I welcome the new spirit of goodwill which can nevertheless be detected in the speeches of hon. members of the Opposition. The hon. member for Hillbrow was not excessively critical and the hon. member for Umhlanga was even less critical. I welcome this spirit, because I believe that one should not turn the Post Office into a political issue. The matter is too important to all of us to try and make cheap political capital out of it. I think we should take it out of the political sphere.

I believe that the officials of the Post Office who carry out the service every day will probably be very grateful if we can place their business above politics. It will recognize their services in the sense that Parliament, in its totality, is satisfied with the good, hard work which they do every day, sometimes even without payment. I shall come back later to the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow and is being supported by the NRP.

If one considers the annual report and one takes the total capital which was employed in 1977, one finds that it amounts to approximately R1 800 million. In 1976 the amount was approximately R1 500 million. This is an increase of R276 million. If one wants to compare the total revenue with the capital which was employed, one finds that the revenue during 1977 was 35,61% of the capital employed. In other words, to earn the 35,61% in revenue, the Post Office had to employ 100% in capital. Many businesses, if they had to employ so much capital and only received a third of it as annual revenue, would probably consider it an impossible task. In 1976 the percentage was slightly higher, viz. 37,28%. As a result of the economic circumstances and some other problems there was a retrogression from 37,28% to 35,61%. If one takes the profit as a percentage of the total revenue, one finds that it was 12,09% in 1977 in comparison with 14,77% in 1976. This retrogression is also due to the economic climate. In spite of the double figure inflation rate the Post Office tariffs have remained unchanged for three successive years. This is really an achievement on which the hon. the Minister, his department, the top management of the Post Office and every Post Office worker, no matter how unimportant he may be, should be congratulated.

In his annual report the Postmaster-General says that this is due to certain factors. The first is the continued loyalty of the staff. This is a fine testimonial for a top official to give to his staff. The second factor is the dedication and enthusiasm with which the staff have accomplished their work in every sphere. Even the hon. member for Umhlanga mentioned the enthusiasm which he himself had encountered amongst individual Post Office workers. One is very grateful for this. A third factor which contributed towards this is the considerable increase in the work load with a minimum increase in staff. This proves that there was much higher productivity in the past year than in the year before. This is really praiseworthy. Other factors are the better utilization of the telephone network, the easing of traffic bottlenecks, a reduction in the fault incidence and the telecommunication revenue which increased at a higher rate than the increase in staff.

The hon. member for Umhlanga was very critical of postal delivery. In my opinion, the fact that 38% of all mail is delivered within one day is no small achievement. The postman does not take the letter in his hand and run with the letter in a cleft stick as was done in the old days and then deliver it in Johannesburg or Cape Town. The Post Office uses other transport media to assist it in this matter. The geography of South Africa creates problems. The Post Office has to cover large distances because we have a big country. I am thinking for instance of the places which those hon. members used to call the “backveld” and where they lost all their votes. [Interjections.] But in spite of all this, 94,4% of all post is delivered within four days. I think that this is a real achievement. I agree with the hon. member for Umhlanga that the delivery of post is not 100% perfect. [Interjections.] The hon. member’s speech was not 100% either. Nothing in the world can be 100%. [Interjections.] The hon. member must not expect the Post Office to be a superhuman or supernatural being which can do things which can only be accomplished in a better world. One must not try to disparage an hon. member. Nevertheless, one must always look back to where one has come from. Then, if one sees that one has progressed, one must look ahead and try to progress further. However, the hon. member must not criticize, because he is looking back and then say that the service is not yet 100%. He must give credit for what has been achieved.

In his budget speech the hon. the Minister announced that a large amount was going to be spent on providing telephone facilities in Bantu townships. I find it very gratifying that these people are also going to be given more facilities. The fact that the Bantu peoples also have a great need for telephone services is proof of the fact that they are able to afford the services. These days they have enough money to afford these services, and they will consequently be provided. I just want to say something about one Bantu town to which the hon. the Minister referred, viz. the town of Katlehong, which is situated in my constituency, a town which I often visit in order to make contact with Bantu leaders. I note that the Katlehong area will be served by surrounding exchanges. There is a whole series of exchanges which will conveniently serve this area.

I now want to talk about my favourite subject, viz. self-service post offices. I was very interested to learn that quite a number of these post offices had been established in recent years and that more were being planned. I want to compliment the Department of Posts and Telecommunications. Quite by chance on 13 October 1973 I encountered the Postmaster-General at a function. In the same year I had started to advocate the system of self-service post offices in the debate on the Post Office budget. In reply to this the former Minister of Posts and Telecommunications told me that this matter would be given attention and that we could have such post offices if possible. The department began to do research and planning in this regard. On 13 October I asked the Postmaster-General what had become of this, to which he replied that the plans which had been presented to him were not to his liking. I then told him that we should get a move on with it. Precisely two months and one day after that, on 14 December 1973, the former Minister officially opened a post office of this kind. It was a real achievement. Now there are already a few dozen of these post offices.

Is it now called the Tony van Tonder building?

No, it is called the Rondebult self-service office. This is a name which suits the Opposition well because they are so round that one cannot get at them.

There is not even a “Pyper the pipeline”.

No, there is not. One cannot say enough about the staff who worked two extra hours a day for seven years in order to make this improvement possible. I therefore sincerely welcome the fact that R7,5 million is going to be paid out in achievement bonuses. The fact that the top management has voluntarily declined to share in these is proof, I think, of their positive attitude.

This country of ours is really blessed in having such dedicated people as the staff of the Post Office. Other departments—and I do not want to criticize—would do well to look at the example set by the Post Office. Since the Post Office has more points of contact than any other department in the country, I wonder—I do not want to criticize and there is no need for the Press or the Opposition to make any deductions from this—whether the Department of Information and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications could not be amalgamated in future, because the Department of Information needs this point of contact in order to bring about a change in attitude. Some people wanted the Department of Information to amalgamate with the Department of Foreign Affairs, but I think it should rather amalgamate with the Department of Posts and Telecommunications because of the points of contact which the Post Office has. This may seem a little farfetched to hon. members, but information on its own does not mean much if it cannot get to those who need it.

To the hon. member for Vereeniging, who is to take over this task from the hon. the Minister, I want to extend my sincere congratulations on his appointment. I want to assure him that we on this side of the House will give him the same loyal support which was enjoyed by the hon. the Minister who is now retiring.

Mr. Speaker, if we continue, as the hon. member who has just sat down and the other members on his side did, to do nothing but tell the hon. the Minister how wonderful he is, he may very well regret that he decided to retire at the end of this month. The worst thing is of course that the hon. the Minister as well as the department of which he is the head deserves all the words of praise. In that respect I associate myself with what the hon. member for Germiston District said, but I do not know whether his suggestion that the department should have a connection with the Department of Information will be received with much enthusiasm by the former department. For the sake of security and for the sake of the dissemination of information during a crisis period it is a completely different matter, of course.

Perhaps the reason why the hon. the Minister decided to retire at the end of the month can be found in item 103 of the annexure to schedule 3 of the estimates of expenditure. This item is: “New General Post Office and administrative offices.” This House voted exactly R25 million for this last year but exactly nothing has been used. Now the hon. the Minister is asking for R50 for 1978-’79. In other words, it seems as though there is some lack of enthusiasm for continuing with this scheme. This is related to the complicated question of Church Square in Pretoria. It is a matter in which the inhabitants of Pretoria take a 100% interest and in which many of the people in the rest of the country also have an interest. Perhaps it would be useful if I said a few words in this regard, not that I want to criticize anyone connected with the problem or wish to suggest any definite solution. Information which has just come to light indicates that work will not proceed in the immediate future, i.e. with regard to the demolition of buildings on Church Square West. The problem there is with the various factors and there are various bodies concerned with the matter. The first body which has an interest in the matter is the province. The province is the owner of the Southern block, south of Church Street West, on which part of the western façade is situated. The Post Office, if I may call it that for brevity’s sake, is the owner of or interested party with regard to the northern block, on which the northern part of the western façade is situated. Since the ’fifties the province has felt that those buildings, the little old buildings standing on the edge of Church Square, should be demolished to make way for a large provincial building on that block. They were of the opinion that these three buildings stood in the way of this development plan, of its whole completion.

The post office on the other side of Church Street West has had a serious lack of space and proper facilities for letter sorting, etc., as well as the service side since the ’fifties. The Post Office has always been prepared—as I understand the matter—to co-operate with the province in order to construct the new buildings on either side of Church Street West as a joint venture and in this way giving an aspect of uniformity to the western façade, obviously without the old historical buildings. However, the Post Office did not insist on demolishing all the old buildings on their side of Church Street West. In order to reach a compromise, this possibility was considered at one stage.

Since then the public of Pretoria has protested very loudly against the demolition of the old buildings, most of which date from the late nineteenth century—I could virtually say from the days of Paul Kruger’s Republic—and the first twelve years of the present century. There was indeed talk at one stage of re-naming the square Kruger Square. That was of course on the analogy of the Strydom Square and the Verwoerd Square, situated further east. That demonstrates how Church Square gives one a good idea of the old days of the SAR in every respect. The public of Pretoria feels very strongly that the buildings of the western façade be left untouched. On the other hand, the province is quite convinced that to preserve those buildings is to stand in the way of development. In the end the Government instituted the Church Square Committee. Its aim was to try and determine whether an intermediary body could not perhaps reconcile the conflicting interest groups, and possibly also help to cause the future development of Church Square to take place in a healthy and aesthetically acceptable manner. After 15 years, however—this debate has been going on since 1963—we have still not made any real progress. We are still saddled with the conflicting points of views of the respective elements. The Government is involved. The city council of Pretoria is involved.

The city council and the public of Pretoria would also like to see the surface area of Church Square being partially converted into a pedestrian boulevard, something similar to the Gardens here in Cape Town. Up to now these plans have, however, not borne any fruit. At the moment Church Square is a bus terminus, a bus depot or a bus marshalling area. The square is quite unattractive to pedestrians and to people who do their shopping in Pretoria, as well as to people who want to relax there. The place is so unattractive that it can pretty nearly be regarded at the moment as a neglected area with something of a slum quality about it. The present circumstances could result in all public interest, as well as the interest of businessmen, flagging, and in their preferring to move away from Church Square a little bit more to the east. That is indeed the direction in which the city centre is expanding at the moment. It is obvious that this can have tremendous disadvantages, especially in view of the efforts to revive the city centre.

What are we to do now? My suggestion, offered in all humility, is that the Church Square Committee, as it will now be reconstituted under the new legislation which was submitted here a few days ago, should receive plenary powers to come to a decision after hearing representations of all the conflicting and interested parties in the matter. I also suggest that all previous resolutions be repealed. I know it will be difficult for some bodies to do so. My plza is, however, that we simply have to start all over again with a clean slate and see whether we can now establish something in a much shorter period than 15 years which will gratify the bodies and persons concerned and will also satisfy the vigilant public of Pretoria.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that I have to converse in this esteemed House with an ex-judge, the hon. member for Johannesburg North. I find it particularly difficult. We are discussing a matter which I do not believe has anything to do with the importance of this budget. What I also find interesting is the appreciation which was expressed for both the Minister as well as the Postmaster-General. I want to believe that the hon. member for Johannesburg North is a consistent person. We know him to be a stable, steady, consistent and purposeful person.

I therefore assume that he will not vote for the amendment, but that he will, in his magnanimity, support this side of the House when it comes to a division. That is what I expect from an ex-judge with such great vision and such single-minded comprehension. We now find that the hon. member is concerned about Church Square. I think the hon. member for Johannesburg North has far more things he can feel concerned about these days than Church Square. That is my honest view, Sir. Looking at that hon. member, it seems to me that he is not a happy man. I can see no peace of mind or calmness.

You are making a big mistake.

I do not think he feels at home in the position he occupies at present, and I feel almost sorry for him. I shall leave him at that. [Interjections.]

I was astonished at the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow, but I was shocked at the support it received from the NRP. This is an astonishing debate, Sir. The main speaker of the NRP is not in the Chamber. I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the new leader of the NRP in public on his appointment. At the same time, however, I want to express my disappointment at his poor political instinct, which led him to support the amendment introduced by the PFP. I do not think he realizes what the implications of the amendment are.

You will allow me, Sir, to refer to the hon. member for Hillbrow and his conduct in this Post Office budget debate. It is interesting to see how a former city councillor conducts himself. He was city councillor of a large and powerful city, I of a country town.

Rustenburg?

Yes, and I am very proud of that town on the slopes of the Magaliesberg. Sir, I found it interesting to see what course of action the PFP adopted. The impression is always given that they are the party which cares about relations in South Africa and the non-Whites in this country. They always give the impression that that is the task and the ideal which they set themselves. But, Sir, why are they not consistent? In these estimates R126 million is being set aside for expenditure in Bantu townships, so that telephone services may be provided in widely scattered areas. I welcome this and I do not begrudge the Black man and the Brown man these services. But then, Sir, the hon. member referred derogatorily to that amount. That hon. member and I served for years in local authorities. Rustenburg had a small town council, yet it had a non-White affairs department. That town council saw to the electrification of its Bantu residential area. What did that hon. member do on the city council of Johannesburg to provide lighting in Soweto?

Nothing!

I want to know the answer to that question, Sir.

We asked for the money, but did not get it.

Then, Sir, it is said that we are not doing enough in the sphere of telephone services. As far as telephone services in the Bantu and Coloured residential areas are concerned, steps are at present being taken under very difficult circumstances. I am saying this in all earnest.

The circumstances might have been different if you had …

If the hon. member for Orange Grove would listen intelligently for a change and use the little he has between his ears, he might learn something. However, there lies his problem. That is why they demoted him from Chief Whip. I do not want to become personal, Sir, because the hon. member will only blush and become very embarrassed.

*What is the position in the non-White residential areas today—and I am asking this question in all earnest—where we would like to develop a calm attitude? After all, the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations is also working in that direction. However, there is a certain element which is making it almost impossible for the department to provide these services. Therefore I should like to pose a polite question to the Official Opposition. Are they trying to use their influence to restore calm in Soweto so that those people may be provided with the necessary services? We wish them to have those services, with all the goodwill in the world. In politics, however, one must have a certain feeling for things. In politics one must know when something is a fine achievement, and then one must act accordingly. It is political obtuseness when one acts against a splendid budget or high-performance budget, as in the amendment introduced here.

Let us see, in the first place, what the reaction of the general public was. I want to refer, firstly, to The Citizen, and I quote—

I quote further—

This is a high-performance budget! However, there was a report I almost could not believe. I was astonished, for in all the years I have been sitting in this esteemed Chamber, I have never heard that young lady of the Sunday Times, Fleur de Villiers, say anything favourable about anything associated with this side of the House. All these years there has been only antipathy, an anti-Government attitude. I should like to quote from the publication Management of October 1977. This is, by the way, a very fine publication. I quote—

I have never hated anyone. This is interesting. I quote further—

I want to congratulate Fleur de Villiers on having written something positive for once in her life, and I think she could follow this up and accord recognition to this Government, which is the only government which can bring about stability in South Africa.

We need only think of the fact that there are 69 000 workers in the Post Office. The Post Office is one of the three big business enterprises in South Africa. There are 69 000 people working there. We must see the wonderful achievements of the Post Office in that light. Despite these achievements, however, we are confronted with an amendment like this, and it worries me.

Firstly, I want to refer to the third leg of the amendment before dealing with the other two. It reads: “… introduces equal pay and service conditions for employees of all races”. In all fairness to the Government I must say that it is in fact the Government’s policy to narrow the wage gap. We are doing this consistently, and I challenge the hon. member for Hillbrow to prove otherwise. I do not wish to mention all the activities and sectors in this House today, but if this were to be applied immediately in all of them, we would cripple South Africa’s economy. I challenge that hon. member to prove otherwise. People must think before they create expectations among people of another colour. People should use their common sense before they do this type of thing. If it is done in the Post Office, the Railways and all sectors may ask for it.

It must come.

I should not like to raise the matter of the mining industry, but if this had to be done in the mining industry, I want to say that some of the biggest companies in the mining industry in South Africa would be crippled. We have said that it is our policy to narrow the wage gap, and we are implementing that policy. The ratio at present is as follows: Whites 100, as against Coloureds 87,5 and Blacks 67,5. Therefore we are consistently engaged in narrowing the wage gap, and I think that this is right and fair. However, in the process of narrowing the wage gap, one should never lose sight of people’s productive capacity. This should be the primary consideration. Hon. members would do well to take note of the technical training which people of colour who are in the service of the Post Office receive. I believe that as they receive this training and gain experience in the directions in which they are being trained, we will ultimately be able to attain the ideal of paying equal wages. However, when hon. members want to enforce this, they are doing not only the Whites but also the non-Whites of South Africa and injustice because it would immediately cause an economic recession, with its attendant unemployment. With all due respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this amendment is irresponsible. It is irresponsible to create expectations among people for whom everything which is humanly possible is being done. I am referring now to what the Post Office is doing for the non-Whites. They can testify to this as well. If hon. members were to talk to the non-White servants of the Post Office, they would tell them that they are busy, but they are happy in their work and that their knowledge is being expanded and developed and that they are grateful for that. In future hon. members must avoid allowing these expectations to develop in people in whom they are really not as interested as they pretend to be.

I have said that the Post Office has achieved a wonderful success. One must bear in mind that the Post Office, a business organization, has announced no tariff increases, at a time when problems in respect of capital formation are being experienced throughout the entire world. One must take into consideration that when a business enterprise requires capital today, it has to raise short-term loans at high rates of interest in the present political climate in South Africa. That is the present trend. Throughout the world tariffs and the inflation rate are escalating. Consequently any business undertaking finds it difficult to obtain capital today. Nevertheless the Post Office came forward with a sound formula. What is that formula? I want to compare certain tariffs in support of my statement. Let us consider the price index from 1967 to 1978. If we put the index figure for 1967 at a 100, then it went up to 232 in 1978. In the case of the Post Office the index figure went up to 163, which is far less than the cost of living figure. In the case of the Railways the figure went up to 244,7, in the case of Iscor to 258 and in the case of Escom to 275. Let us compare the tariff increases for the present year. In the Post Office there are no tariff increases, while the Railway tariffs rose by 8,6%, the price of steel 9,5% and Escom’s tariffs by 15%. If one analyses these figures, it is interesting to see that the hon. the Minister, as far as his staff is concerned, achieved a hat-trick. This is a tremendous achievement, and one could compare it with any other Government undertaking. I would go so far as to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that you could even compare it with the private sector. Then one will find that this is a success story. There must be no doubt about that. Managerial ability is also important.

However, I want to return to the amendment. In it the hon. member requests the Government: “… to provide an efficient, speedy and reliable telephone service”. That is an unfair insinuation, Mr. Speaker, if one thinks that in South Africa there are no fewer than 2,369 million telephones. Of that number 87% are connected to automatic exchanges. There is a waiting list of 57 000 telephones. I recall the days when we argued here about a waiting list of 120 000. At the time the hon. the Minister predicted that the situation would get even worse because we were engaged, after the Franzsen Commission report, in building up an infrastructure. That was the late Mr. Basie van Rensburg. He had the honesty to say that the waiting list would become even longer because we were building up an infrastructure for the Post Office. His words have come true. What is the position today?

The waiting list is 28% shorter than last year. I am now going to make a statement, Mr. Speaker: The day when South Africa no longer has a telephone waiting list, I shall be worried about the economic situation in my country. We will then begin to stagnate. Stagnation will then have begun to set in, and we shall begin to look like those two parties. In a healthy economy it is a service which one has to render, and one will have a waiting list. The material aspect of the waiting list is, however, the time one has to wait. The ideal I set myself—and it will probably be many years before this can be achieved—is 48 hours. I believe that it should be possible to provide any person with a telephone service within 48 hours. This will require years of work, but I believe that it is an ideal one should strive after. You must realize, Mr. Speaker, that in spite of the fact that the waiting list has been shortened by 28%, we are still receiving the same number of applications, as the hon. member for Umhlanga said. The number of applications was the same as in previous years. Consequently the economic recession has not affected the number of applications. I believe that the waiting list of 57 000 should not be advanced as being a detrimental factor in the budget. On the contrary. It is an indication of this country’s growth potential and economic stability for the Post Office which constitutes a challenge for the future.

As far as capital is concerned, I think we should adhere as closely as possible to the Franzsen Commission report, viz. the formula of 50% from revenue and 50% from loans. But there are circumstances which justify adjustments, and I think that a ratio of 60% to 40% is not dangerous at all for the simple reason that we have a Post Office Savings Bank service. That is a service from which the Post Office may obtain loans at an interest rate of 8,75%. This is at least 25% to 30% less than the present borrowing rate. In other words, the Post Office Savings Bank Service which we have in South Africa, with a capital of R648,7 million, is a very important source of capital to allow development to take place in South Africa. The private sector, the banks and the building societies, have no need to fear this. At present investment in the Post Office Savings Bank represents 3,7%. If it remains below 5%, I do not believe that it constitutes any danger that it will affect the banks of building societies or any other financial institution. That is why we must attempt to encourage the public to make use of this facility, with its 2 000 investment points.

The most important of all the factors remains the management, however. Since 1970 the 69 000 Post Office officials have worked two hours per week without remuneration. This is an example to the rest of South Africa. It is an achievement. Do hon. members know what it means? It means 26,8 million man hours of work done free of charge for that object to which they attack primary importance. An amount of R58 million has been saved in this way.

There should not have been any amendment in this House today. We ought to have been nothing but grateful and to have paid nothing but tribute to what has been done in this regard. I like talking about this, the future of our country and I always try to be objective. I have an unshakable faith in the future of the country, and I would go so far as to say that at least R3 000 million will be spent on telecommunications in the coming decade. I want to express the hope that this is going to be electronic telecommunications. I find it a pity that, in view of the present situation in the world, the possibility of boycotts against South Africa exists. If we are able to put the electronic system into operation in South Africa, it would be in the interests not only of the Whites in South Africa, but also of the non-Whites. It is a far cheaper system, for which far fewer buildings are required. It is a system which can be installed more easily, and which can render a cheaper service. Such a system could be of tremendous value to South Africa and all its people. I trust that the countries in which the electronic equipment is built, i.e. France and West Germany, will come to realize that, if they were thinking along the lines of withholding this equipment from South Africa, they would in that case not only be doing the Whites in South Africa an injustice, but the non-Whites as well. In this regard I also wish to sound a warning. The countries that think they can withhold this equipment from South Africa must remember that this nation is an interesting one.

We accept challenges and they should not be surprised if, in the field of electronics, we come to light with our own formulas and with our own patents. Then we would not have to pay for any patent rights, manufacturing rights or any other rights. We would then be able to manufacture the necessary electronic equipment in South Africa ourselves. If this nation is driven into a corner, it can achieve wonderful things, as we have already demonstrated to the world in the case of many other commodities.

I do not like being negative, but there is one aspect which worries me in regard to the entire set-up of the Post Office. It is our post offices as such. In particular I find a shortcoming in the post office buildings which are being erected, in the sense that they do not function very effectively. I am speaking from experience. Approximately ten or twelve years ago a post office was built in my own town, and within a few years it had to be rebuilt and adapted.

Is that not the MP’s fault? [Interjections.]

The buildings had to be reconstructed at great expense. Since the officials of the Post Office know precisely what they need, and in view of the new direction of the hon. the Minister of Finance, in accordance with which cut-backs are being effected on major capital projects—and I agree with that 100%—a uniform post office for the whole of South Africa ought to be designed in the department itself. It can be adapted aesthetically for the various areas, provinces and climatic conditions, but we should work in a direction which puts efficiency first. A post office should be built in a way which takes into consideration the planning for the future. Provision should be made for that in the planning and in the construction of such a project. In my opinion this is one of the few deficiencies to be discerned in this budget. I want to content myself by congratulating the hon. the Minister sincerely on his hat-trick. I also want to congratulate his staff. I believe that the Post Office has set an emulable example, an example which all of us may rely on.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rustenburg started very calmly and I am not going to quarrel with him today. The hon. member mentioned casually that he was shocked that the amendment which has been moved, is being supported by the NRP. I just wish to point out to him that the amendment also embraces the policy of the NP. Therefore there should be no problems in that regard. It is for technical reasons alone that the NP cannot support the amendment. It is, after all, a Government budget. But the amendment also includes what the NP strives for, and furthermore the hon. member for Rustenburg intimated this.

†All the amendment asks for is efficiency, the elimination of the backlog and equal pay for equal work and responsibility. This is the present policy of the Post Office and what the Post Office is aiming for. In fact, the Post Office has gone a long way towards implementing what the amendment is asking for. As such we have no difficulty with the amendment except that we would have worded it perhaps a little differently. The hon. the Minister will, in fact, concede that the amendment incorporates some of the ideals that a Minister of Posts and Telecommunications ought to set for himself on becoming Minister of this particular portfolio. The hon. the Minister has had a distinguished record of service both locally and abroad. He has always dealt with us in an open, sincere and efficient manner and for that we are grateful. We have not always agreed with his political outlook, but now that he stands on the eve of retirement, we should like to wish him and his family a very happy and contented retirement. We wish him all the best for the future and thank him for having done his work so efficiently.

In regard to the new incumbent, the hon. member for Vereeniging, we would like to welcome his appointment. We have no doubt that he will make an unqualified success of his portfolio. Parliament is a strange place in that there are so many hon. members who come and go. Some go even before one has met them. The hon. member for Vereeniging, however, is an hon. member whom some of us have got to know particularly well by virtue of the committees we have served on, overseas trips, discussions, etc. [Interjections.]

The Opposition has no say whatsoever in the choice of Cabinet Ministers, but sometimes the Opposition holds thumbs for a particular hon. member especially when we believe that that hon. member can enrich, not only the Cabinet, but also the quality of government in South Africa. The hon. member for Vereeniging was one of those for whom some of us held thumbs. Therefore we wish him well and luck in his new portfolio. We know that he will acquit himself well of his task.

The Postmaster-General and his staff have presented a budget of which they can be proud. The Postmaster-General has not only set out the achievements of his department, but has also set out its shortcomings. In this way he has given us a very balanced picture of the operations of the Post Office in general. The loss on postal services, as hon. members know, has increased from R4 million in 1975-’76 to over R21 million in 1976-’77. For the current financial years the loss is projected at R32 million. This is a most serious matter as this is a very substantial loss which must be reduced and eliminated as a matter of urgency. This sort of loss has an adverse effect on the budget as it means that the telecommunication service has to subsidize the postal service in the Post Office.

We are told that during 1977 senior officials or officers of the Post Office went overseas to study and acquaint themselves with the present position in European and other countries. I hope the hon. the Minister will allow us an insight in the report of these senior officials and for that matter I would ask him whether this report could not be tabled in Parliament so that we can see what the findings of the senior officials were in this regard. One thing that comes to mind is that the Post Office can undertake delivery services for other agencies and so save fuel, costs and overheads. At many homes there are separate delivery services. In fact, at some homes two English newspapers, one Afrikaans newspaper and the post are separately delivered. There are numerous other smaller delivery services. Could the Post Office not investigate the feasibility of combining at least some of the delivery services on a paid-agency basis? This could be an additional source of revenue to the Post Office and it would be a better utilization of the manpower we have available.

The fact that the waiting list of approximately 80 000 telephones as at 31 March 1977 has now been reduced to 57 000, is very pleasing. It is absolutely vital however that the entire backlog of 57 000 telephones be eliminated and that every effort be made to give each of the thousands of people sharing party lines their own telephone. While I am on this point, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how up to date this backlog of 57 000 telephones is, because it may be that many thousands of people who have applied for telephones in the past are no longer interested in telephones or have been accommodated in some other way. It would therefore be interesting to know how up to date these figures actually are. If one could eliminate this backlog, the hon. the Minister can calculate for himself the extra millions of rands in revenue that could be received from people who would willingly pay for a telephone connection and who would also willingly pay their telephone accounts although many people, including myself, gripe when we receive our telephone accounts. However, for those who do not have telephones it would be a privilege to receive a telephone account. Many businesses complain of a shortage of customers and under-utilization of facilities whilst the Post Office finds itself in the reverse situation of having 57 000 customers hanging on the line waiting for telephones.

We appreciate the operation known as Operation Commando and the work done towards the elimination of the backlog. We are grateful to the officials and all those who took part in the organization of Operation Commando. The elimination of the backlog in deferred applications should be an absolute priority. We should like an indication from the hon. the Minister as to how long he foresees it will take before this backlog is eliminated.

The other matter I should like the hon. the Minister to explain to me is the item: “Agency Services.” This should be a profitable source of income to the Post Office and yet it seems as though the Post Office is receiving inadequate remuneration to the extent that it is subsidizing other Government departments. According to the annual report, the total turnover of the agency services undertaken by the Post Office on behalf of other State departments increased to R577,8 million while in the 1976-’77 financial year the Post Office was paid R2,9 million for performing these services. I want to mention some of the services the Post Office had to perform for this R2,9 million. They include the payment of pensions, the sale of cigarette duty labels, the collection of customs duty, the issuing of radio listeners’ licences, the sale of revenue stamps, Treasury Bonds and Defence Bonds, and the collection of rentals and loan redemption on housing loans. The Post Office is in addition the sole selling agent for the Defence Bonus Bonds. R2,9 million on a turnover of R577,8 million is approximately a half percent. I should imagine that from this half percent the Post Office has to recover all its overheads such as, firstly, the cost of the stock, secondly, the cost of the premises carrying the stock, thirdly, the cost of advertising, fourthly, the providing of staff, fifthly, the cost of despatching stock to various branches, sixthly, the cost relating to collections and lastly covering losses they may suffer—one can continue indefinitely with this list. Surely these agency services must be running at a loss to the Post Office?

I do not have time to start comparing collection charges by outside agencies, but I feel that a very fair and equitable thing to do would be to increase the charge from ½% to 2½% which last year would have yielded R14,5 million instead of R2,9 million. The additional funds would have placed the Post Office in an excellent position to market the Defence Bonus Bonds far more effectively than has been done to date. It might even have assisted the Post Office in appointing other sub-agents such as, for example, the banking institutions, to assist them in marketing these bonds. In my opinion the underpaying of agency fees is tantamount to the Post Office subsidizing other Government departments, and, of course, the user of the Post Office services picks up the tab in both the short term and the long term.

With regard to the Officials who have resigned from the Post Office, we have heard that 7 713 officials resigned from the permanent and temporary staff in 1977. This must cause concern for very many reasons. Firstly, the Post Office must have made a very substantial investment in the training of the officials and therefore the department must suffer a severe financial loss as a result of these resignations. Secondly, it also affects efficiency, because new staff have to be trained to take over the work of experienced staff. Thirdly, many of these 7 713 officials possibly found their way into the private sector, and with our employment situation being what it is at the moment, it is not advantageous to the economy to find these people filtering back into the private sector. I have no doubt that the hon. the Minister’s department is constantly investigating this matter, because, in fairness, they have reduced the resignations from 10 354 to 7 713 in 1977. However, I think that a permanent departmental committee should investigate this matter and they should investigate it in depth. In future, the number of employees from the various categories of workers who have resigned and left the service should be classified so that we can get a far clearer picture of who is actually leaving. I think that everything possible should be done, despite what has been done in the past, to contain this particular situation.

I think there could be an enormous saving if the Post Office were to make use of private agency services. The hon. the Minister mentioned in his speech that they had thought of using private agencies instead of laying out so much money for capital works. In addition to the saving on capital works there would also be a substantial saving on manpower. It would also provide private enterprise with the additional turnover which so many of them need.

The last matter which concerns me is that in the hon. the Minister’s speech it was pointed out that we shall be obliged to buy expensive and costly equipment from overseas firms. In that regard I want to refer directly to what the hon. member for Rustenburg said about purchasing material from overseas firms. In view of the difficulties in the event of embargoes, the foreign firm must be obligated in the original contract to supply spares or parts, and that obligation must either be irrevocable or such a high penalty must be imposed that compliance and the provision of supplies cannot be avoided. It is not possible at the present moment to suggest an all-embracing guarantee, but I feel that the following matters should be considered. Firstly, the foreign company’s contract must be endorsed by the Government concerned as to the fulfilment of the original contract, also in regard to spares. Obviously the foreign Government cannot guarantee the finances of the overseas firm involved, but they must guarantee not to interfere with performance. Secondly, penalties must be imposed over and above the normal penalties for non-compliance. Thirdly, the Post Office must consider, in addition to calling for tenders for goods and supplies, also calling for tenders to include separately the manufacture of the parts in South Africa. In other words, after receiving the tenders, the department may decide to accept only the goods and services, whilst retaining the option of also accepting a tender for local manufacture.

In conclusion I want to say that we on this side of the House are very pleased that Post Office tariffs were not increased.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Walmer made a very responsible speech, and most of what he said cannot be defaulted. As regards the last aspect he touched on relating to equipment from overseas and the purchases of other manufacturers, I believe that the factors he mentioned are relevant. I believe that these are the very factors to which the hon. the Minister referred in his speech and concerning which there will have to be clarity before further steps are taken with regard to a new electronic system.

As far as the amendment by the hon. member for Hillbrow is concerned, I find it very odd. The hon. member devoted the first part of his speech to stating why he thought there was a tremendous surplus built into the budget and that tariffs should therefore be reduced at this point. Just after that he said that the reason they could not support the budget was that the Post Office had not succeeded in eliminating the wage gap. He is therefore asking for more money. He says that the Post Office must accelerate its programme. How it is to do this without money it is difficult to say. Then, however, the hon. member for Hillbrow goes on to maintain that where expansion possibilities are being predicted, in the non-White areas in particular, the Post Office must initiate major capital works in advance, for example the laying of cables, the installing of equipment and the construction of telephone exchanges. Surely these are also things that cost money. Now, however, in his proposed amendment the hon. member for Hillbrow wants all these new sources of capital built into the programme. At the same time he argues that we should reduce the tariffs. It is quite impossible to understand the logic of the hon. member’s amendment.

Mr. Speaker, allow me, too, to refer to the statements concerning the hon. the Minister made earlier by hon. members. When a project or a programme goes well, it is recognized that this is due to its sound leader. There is a saying that every orchestra has a conductor. I think it would be very appropriate to refer to the Postal Administration as an orchestra with a conductor in the person of the hon. the Minister. Of course every orchestra has another important member, viz. the leader of the orchestra. If we refer to the hon. the Minister as the conductor, then in the same breath we can refer to the Postmaster-General as the leader of the orchestra. If I may speak on behalf of the orchestra I think it is appropriate to say to the hon. the Minister that we do not believe that the orchestra will soon forget this conductor who has led it for the past few years. The hon. the Minister has been a conductor who has given his orchestra outstanding leadership.

I believe that having introduced this budget, our hon. conductor can lay down his baton with great pleasure and satisfaction.

It is generally accepted that the origin of the Post Office is in the East. Once upon a time in the East there was an important nobleman called Abu Jafar. He regarded the institution of the post office as very important. I should like to quote what he said—

At the conclusion of the career of our hon. Minister, and on the occasion of the introduction of this budget, these words apply equally to him. However, I do not think the Postmaster-General need feel unhappy because I have called him the leader of the orchestra. It is interesting to note that when the Free State acquired a Postmaster-General in 1854, that Postmaster-General had to attend to other portfolios as well. He was not merely the Postmaster-General. He was also Auditor-General and Attorney-General. In return for attending to all these duties he received annually a meagre £275. [Interjections.] Therefore I am of the opinion that our Postmaster-General will be able to attend to the duties of leader of the orchestra without difficulty. I believe that by introducing this budget the hon. the Minister has beaten a very proud record. For the third consecutive year he has introduced a budget in terms of which there have been no tariff increases. At the same time he tabled a report with which we have very little fault to find in the administrative, financial and technological spheres. This is also evident from the very meagre criticism we have heard from the other side of the House.

If we are to analyse this budget, we must look at the Post Office tariffs over the past few years. When we do so we find that from 1967-’68 to 1969 there was no increase in postal tariffs. In 1970 there was a 6% increase, and in 1971 an increase of 28,3%. In 1972 there was no increase. In 1973 the increase was 9,6%, whereas in 1974 there was again no increase. In 1975 we had an increase of 9,4%, and over the past three years there have been no increases. Indeed, if one analyses the 1975-’76 budget and takes into account that the all-air postal service was introduced in that year, one can almost state that the Post Office tariffs were in fact reduced in 1976 and not merely kept constant. To what may we ascribe this achievement, viz. that for three years the Post Office has succeeded in avoiding tariff increases? It may be ascribed to the fact that in recent years the Post Office has developed the ability to analyse and identify its operational problems in the technological, economic and labour spheres in a very practical and realistic fashion. With its feet solidly on the ground it has considered these problems and in many cases has already succeeded in finding solutions for them in both the short and the long term. It has also been prepared to do something about these problems. In this regard we must accept two basic things. Here I come back to the speech by the hon. member for Hillbrow in which he said that we should introduce all kinds of fancy services in the Post Office. He said that we should use the phones to irrigate the neighbours’ lawns. I think he only omitted to say that we should give the telephones brooms so that they could sweep the sidewalks at the same time! If we look at the basic aspects of the Post Office we will realize that it is the first fundamental responsibility of the Post Office to provide communication between consumers of Post Office facilities as effectively and cheaply as possible. In other words, the 2,3 million telephone and telex subscribers must be able to communicate with each other in the cheapest and best way. That is the goal, in plain English. The second fundamental responsibility of the Post Office is that it must get the 748 million postal articles handled annually, to their destinations in the quickest and cheapest way. Looking at these two requirements, and viewing them against the background of the report and the budget, we have to realize that basically, the Post Office meets this need. The luxury services will come in time, but such luxury services cost money and before such services can be introduced there must be a demand for them. As long as there is no demand for them, such services cannot be introduced or justifiably be implemented.

Sir, let us look at what has occurred over the past year in regard to the 2,3 million telephone subscribers. These 2,3 million subscribers have made 5 800 million local calls over the past year. One has to take a careful look at these numbers. The other day I read a decimal point wrongly. When one does that, one destroys one’s whole argument. 5 800 million local telephone calls were made by the 2,3 million subscribers. 1,8 million telephone calls have been made to African states over the past year and more than 3 million calls at an average of 6 minutes per call have been made from South Africa abroad. The important aspect is that it must be possible to make those calls at any time of the day or night and in any weather conditions. However, what is equally important is that many thousands of those calls must also be made simultaneously. People do not want to wait for others, unless the terminal telephone is engaged. One call must not be first cut off before another can be made. It must be possible to make calls simultaneously. In those two basic principles of dialling and simultaneity lie the Post Office’s two technical problems. The first is the problem of being able to dial. In other words, all subscribers want to be able to dial simultaneously, and the Post Office must make it possible for them to do so. To be able to make the necessary calls from one centre, city or town to another, or from South Africa to countries overseas, it is necessary to have systems of transmission enabling the Post Office to channel the calls simultaneously. Now we come to the first aspect, that of dialling. One of the hon. members referred to this. I think it was the hon. member for Umhlanga. Not merely from a technological point of view, but also in view of the present economic circumstances, it has become necessary to cease installing our existing electro-mechanical systems and to replace them by a more modern type of equipment. Furthermore, over the years the existing installations must also be replaced by modern equipment. Over the years the Post Office has instituted many in-depth investigations into the possibilities. When we refer to modern equipment, we refer to basic electronic systems. The matter was investigated and three years ago recommendations were made concerning the CP24 as a mobile unit. In my opinion the hon. member for Umhlanga has not read the report to which reference is being made here, because if he had only read that report he would have found in it the answers to the questions he put to the hon. the Minister. Everything is in that report. He would have ascertained the aim of the CP24 and the reason why it is still usable at this stage. He would also have learnt about the compatibility of the CP24 with our existing system and also with any future system. It is all there. However, the Post Office does not intend to go ahead with the CP44 at this stage and in this connection it is important to realize that communications electronics is probably among the most complicated and sophisticated types of electronics in the world. It is therefore not a simple matter to evaluate such systems. That is why, in my opinion, we in this House must take note with appreciation of the ability of the Post Office staff to revoke their 1975 decision on the CP44 and to tell the House that in view of the new technological development they are prepared to alter their decision in favour of a more modern, compact and comprehensive electronic system. Such decisions are not taken merely for one year or five years. Once the programme starts we have terms of 10, 20 or 25 years. The more modern system to which I refer is of course the E10, and the EWS-D to which the hon. the Minister referred. I believe that the Minister, the Postmaster-General and his staff will agree with me when I say that such decisions are not simply taken because it is a matter of technological importance. There are far more important factors involved in those decisions. For example, the first is that this new electronic system entails a far smaller capital outlay. We are aware that the space that will be taken up by this system will not be a mere 1% or 2% less than the space required by the old system, but will be as much as 5 to 10 times less. We are aware that this system has a much lower power consumption and that these systems are far simpler—this concerns manpower—to maintain and therefore also far cheaper to maintain.

In other words, the existing technology which the Post Office has decided on fits in neatly with the economic pattern in which we in South Africa and the world find ourselves today. I think this is a very fine example of the farsightedness of the Post Office in the technological sphere, a farsightedness which contributes towards the fact that it was not necessary for the Post Office to increase tariffs this year.

As far as the transmission section is concerned, we know that it is impracticable to link every telephone in South Africa directly with every other telephone in South Africa or with every other telephone in the outside world. We know that in practical and technological terms this is virtually impossible. That is why it is important that our Post Office should have transmission systems which enable the greatest possible number of calls to be made simultaneously on every channel for transmission purposes. If we look at what the Post Office has done in this connection, if we look at its overhead lines, which are somewhat out of date, and at its underground cable systems with higher potential, if we look at the coaxial systems and the radio communications, if we look at the outstanding microwave network which at present extends throughout the whole country and, finally, if we look at the satellite stations, we come to the conclusion that in this regard the Post Office has once again, with vision and farsightedness, made provision for transmission systems not merely to meet the internal demand but also to enable the Post Office to make contact with virtually any communication system in the entire world at this moment. In other words, there is not a communications system in the world with which the Post Office is unable to communicate by means of its existing transmission systems. It is truly a feather in the cap of the Post Office that, with this farsightedness and with the capital investment which these systems demand, they have nevertheless been able to avoid tariff increases this year.

By means of these systems we are already linked with 184 countries abroad. If one also takes into account our television capabilities and our radio capabilities with these systems, I want to make the statement that with this farsightedness of theirs the Post Office has placed a small country like South Africa among the communications giants of the world. I think that this House ought to pay this tribute, too, to the Department of Posts and Telecommunications and to take note of it with interest, because it did not come of itself but by way of hard and dedicated work. There are still a number of examples that could be quoted. For example, there are the savings aspects with regard to the computer system referred to. We can also refer to the savings aspects with regard to the mail-sorting machines. In this way we can form a comprehensive picture of the way in which the Post Office had succeeded at the technological level in establishing systems capable of efficiently rendering the service for which they were introduced and so being able to render the service at the lowest possible tariff. However, we could go further. The Post Office carries out its task and meets its obligations in precisely the same economic climate as all other enterprises in South Africa. That is surely a fact. We cannot dispute it. The Post Office carries out its task in precisely the same economic circumstances. The Post Office is experiencing the same problems in regard to its capital requirements as all other bodies. I do not want to compare the Post Office with other bodies, because there is enough within the Post Office with which the Post Office can compare itself. The Post Office can blow its own trumpet, rather than compare itself with other bodies. After all, the Post Office is encountering the same problems with regard to price increases. There is the price of fuel, the price of electricity and the cost of labour. Surely all these are factors subject to price increases, and they create the climate in which the Post Office has to provide its service.

If we consider the contributions made by the financing policy of the Post Office to enable it to avoid tariff increases, it is clear that the goal and the endeavour of the Post Office is to meet 50% of its capital requirements from self-generated sources in terms of the recommendation of the Franzsen Commission.

If we look at the financial year 1977-’78, it is apparent that the provision of capital from self-generated sources amounted to 46%. In the financial year 1978-’79 the figure was 40%. Apart from the 46% of capital provided from self-generated sources, the Post Office nevertheless succeeded in redeeming R41,358 million in loan debt. This in itself is an achievement because what it amounts to is a saving of interest. This entails pro rata so much less interest for the Post Office to fit into its operating expenditure account.

Looking at the overall picture as regards the capital position in the Post Office, we see that the capital account amounts to R1 328 million. If we do a calculation it is apparent that only 36% of that capital is financed from loan capital. Of that 36%, only R55 million represents foreign loans. If we complete that picture it is evident that a substantial saving was effected here and that this arises out of a sound financing policy.

Looking at the expenditure on interest, one’s eye is struck by two items in particular. One is the R19 million which the Post Office paid in interest. The other is the R11 million which the Post Office paid in dividends on its fixed investment of R199 million. I think the time has now come—and I think every hon. member in this House will agree with me— that the hon. the Minister of Finance must take a close look at this issue again so that it will no longer be necessary for the Post Office to pay interest or dividends on this amount. I think the rate is 6%. Indeed, this amount forms part of the vast financing capital of the Post Office. I cannot see why the Post Office should still have to pay interest on that amount at this stage—10 years after it became autonomous. I think the Post Office must be exempted from this.

As far as the operating expenditure of the Post Office is concerned, I have already referred to the various …

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but will he not just ask the hon. the Minister at the end of his speech when Delmas is going to get an automatic exchange? [Interjections.]

I promise the hon. the Minister that I shall do so. However, at the same time I shall have to ask the hon. the Minister to consider who should be the new MP for Delmas. [Interjections.]. When I look at the capital expenditure of the Post Office, I do not think the capital account of the Post Office can afford a new automatic exchange for Delmas. [Interjections.]

Looking at the operating expenditure of the Post Office we find outstanding examples of how the Post Office is subject to the same escalations as any other enterprise. Furthermore, there are fine examples of how it has effected tremendous savings in the process. Looking at the salaries of Post Office officials from 1975 to 1978, the amount voted for this purpose rose from R204 million in 1975 to R323 million in 1978. This represents an increase of just 59%. The amount voted for transport rose from R21 million to R29 million. This represents an increase of just 24%. The amount for maintenance rose from R18 million to R40 million. This represents an increase of 122%. This shows that the Post Office has succeeded in limiting its own expenditure to the minimum without abandoning the quality of its service. This is the aspect which the hon. member for Hillbrow overlooks entirely. The Post Office has achieved savings but at the same time has not forfeited quality.

I briefly want to take a closer look at the tariff structure of the Post Office. If we compare the increases—and I have read them out to the House—with the present cost of living and the rising rate of inflation in South Africa, we find that the tariff increases since 1973 have averaged to 5,9% as against an 8,9% increase in the rate of inflation. Hon. members are aware that the inflation rate has been in double figures since 1973: 11,6%, 13,5%, 11,1%, etc. If one converts the data to an index with 1973 as the base year, the tariff has increased by 57 points whereas the rate of inflation has increased by 121 points.

I therefore want to make the statement that the Post Office has succeeded in saving on its operating costs and also making its productivity far higher than the rate of inflation.

The hon. Whip is now hurrying me and I shall therefore conclude by saying that we on this side of the House can say to the hon. the Minister with pride that we accept the budget just as he has submitted it. I hope that in the years that lie ahead the hon. the Minister will look back with pleasure and happy memories to the golden years of his portfolio.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Wonderboom referred quite often to the matter of tariffs and I shall return to that matter. The hon. member also made a plea that the hon. the Minister should speak to Treasury about the R199 million permanent capital on which the Post Office pays a 6% annual dividend. I think, in all fairness, that one should also bear in mind the fact that this R199 million was originally loan capital. It was only in 1972 that this amount was converted into permanent capital, and from then onwards the Post Office benefited from it to the extent of approximately R7 million as it was no longer called upon to redeem part of that loan. Therefore we should also, at this stage, look at the matter in its global context, because in spite of anything else, the Post Office is in fact making a profit from its telecommunications services, and perhaps, at this particular point in time, the need of the Treasury is far more greater as far as the Post Office is concerned.

I am also very pleased to have the opportunity of participating in this debate as it is the last time the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telecommunications will be handling the Post Office budget. When I came to Parliament in 1970 the hon. the Minister had just been appointed as Minister of National Education, and I have had the privilege to participate in virtually all the debates that he participated in first as Minister of National Education and later as Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. I would like to join with other hon. members in wishing the hon. the Minister a happy retirement. Perhaps I, like the hon. member for Umhlanga, will remember the hon. the Minister for the fact that during the time that he was Minister of Posts and Telecommunications some change was brought about in the approach towards petty apartheid in post offices. I can remember that on 6 August 1974 I made a speech in which I pleaded for the abolition of petty apartheid. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor answered that under the NP it would not happen and threatened me that I might not be re-elected if the people of Durban Central should know that I was pleading for the abolition of petty apartheid. However, on 6 August 1976, two years later, I saw in a Sunday newspaper that the Postmaster-General had announced that petty apartheid would be abolished. I shall certainly remember the hon. the Minister from that point of view. [Interjections.]

I would like to come to the question of tariffs. A number of hon. members have referred to this aspect and have said that the hon. the Minister will be remembered for not having increased tariffs for the three years that he was in charge of this portfolio. While one is naturally pleased about that fact, I think one should try to get the question of tariffs into perspective. First of all, I want to say that one of the hon. the Minister’s predecessors, notably ex-Minister Albert Hertzog, was able for a much longer period to avoid increasing tariffs. In 1971, when we had an all-round drastic adjustment in tariffs, mention was made of the fact that with a few exceptions the same tariffs had been in force for a period of 11 years and longer. [Interjections.] In all fairness, I must concede that the sixties were times which were financially far more difficult and that all this happened before the Government accepted the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission in respect of the self-financing of capital development. As a result of the acceptance of the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission of course, the whole issue of tariffs changed because it was seen then as a source for the financing of capital development. We should, however, see the whole question of tariffs in its true perspective. For instance, when drastic tariff increases were announced in 1971, a certain undertaking was given. I would like to quote from a memorandum which was issued at the time—

It is now common knowledge that that promise or undertaking never materialized. What happened was that considerable increases were effected in May 1973 and also in April 1975. If we look at it on average and bear in mind the original intention not to have any adjustment for a period of five to ten years, we see that not to have increased tariffs for three years is therefore not such a great achievement. Under the circumstances one feels pleased about it, but this shows how bad the situation in South Africa has become. When we are doing the things which we promised we would do, people sit back, clap their hands and say: “Look how well things are going”. This is the reaction although we are not even fulfilling the promise. There you are, Sir. It is a fact that the tariffs have already been raised twice in that period of five to ten years.

The matter which worries me about tariffs, is that nothing has been done to maintain a viable Tariff Stabilization Fund. The time to have done so should have been the years immediately following an increase in tariffs because those are the years during which one can provide for subsequent lean years. It was in 1971-’72 when this ideal was mooted by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. Although I have the feeling that it is perhaps already too late and that the opportunity to build up a viable Tariff Stabilization Fund has passed, I nevertheless would seriously recommend to the hon. the Minister that he should try to make a move in this respect. Tariff increases always comes at the most inopportune time economically. If a viable stabilization fund exists, this can be avoided and the adjustments can then be made more gradually. This may then also, of course, prevent the inflationary spiral which an allround adjustment of tariffs will trigger off. It is important that we should see this as being as important as trying to use surplus money for capital development.

In respect of the steady improvement in telecommunications services, I wish to say that for once an early prediction has come true. It was predicted that from 1973 the backlog would be arrested and then gradually be reduced. This has in fact been happening. However, an effective telecommunications service is a prerequisite for a progressive and growing economy. While the backlog of 57 000 telephones seems small when one compares it with past figures, it must still be regarded as being what it really is, namely a retarding factor in the economic development of the country. Considering the tremendous capital expenditure on telecommunications services, which this year amounts to 88% of the Total Capital Expenditure, and also the enormous capital investment in the telecommunications system, the annual profit still leaves room for improvement. There can be no room for complacency. The Post Office has to be run on modern business lines. It should in actual fact be engaged in the effective marketing of its services. As long as any backlog exists it cannot dare to claim to have entered that phase of its activities. It is not yet ready for it.

What still worries me are the danger spots we find in the Post Office. When one looks at page 1 of the report, one will find that out of the eight services three are minus factors, viz. the postal services, money transfer services and the Gentex services. These problems have to be tackled. I want to plead that an in-depth study be done to see how one can reshape the postal services in this country. However, first of all, any reshaping should be preceded by comprehensive consumer and market research.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central has made the interesting suggestion that a stabilization fund should be established by the Post Office. This is obviously a matter which might well be considered by the hon. the Minister and which might well have some merit. Both the hon. member for Durban Central and the hon. member for Wonderboom talked about tariffs. At the outset I should like to join other hon. members in expressing my great relief that the hon. the Minister has not found it necessary to raise postal and telephone tariffs. The hon. the Minister said that he had every justification for an increase in tariffs because of considerable losses on certain services and the low self-financing ratio, but that he did not do so because he was reluctant to do anything at all that would increase the inflation rate and do harm to attempts to bring about some form of economic recovery in South Africa. I only wish other hon. Ministers had a similar sense of responsibility towards the well-being of South Africa when it comes to increasing tariffs in other departments. I particularly like the very positive approach by this hon. Minister in suggesting that an upswing in the economy could stimulate traffic and therefore increase revenue, and actually budgeting for this. In other words, he showed confidence in the recovery power of the South African economy instead of being a defeatist. Obviously he is not prepared to accept inflation as being inevitable. Other departments have not followed his example. I think we can say that this budget was designed to fight inflation rather than accelerate it. I do hope that other hon. Ministers will take note.

I think we can say that this was a good farewell budget for this hon. Minister. I, too, should like to associate myself with the remarks made by various hon. members, the remarks of good wishes to the hon. the Minister who will shortly be retiring. I, in the short time that I have been in this House, have always found him to be a most courteous Minister and one who has always given due attention to every query that has been raised. We hope that his retirement will be a very happy one.

The hon. the Minister himself gave bouquets to the Postmaster-General and his staff and I think that these were well-deserved bouquets. I, too, should like to congratulate them. I think that they have done very well in spite of the Government that they have controlling them. Having handed out the bouquets, I feel it is necessary to put forward a few words of criticism. We have read and we have heard of the tremendous technical advances that are taking place in the department and we are aware of the tremendous effort that has been made by the Postmaster-General and his staff to give us a much more efficient service. However, I must say that this is not always apparent to many telephone users. Complaints concerning the quality of the postal service also continue to come in. I must say that whenever I have had occasion to approach the Postmaster-General with any complaints or special requests, results have been forthcoming. In fact, they have been quite spectacular on occasion. Considerable and immediate attention has been given to these complaints. On the other hand, I think that hon. members will agree with me that there is a constant grumble from members of the public. As far as telephones are concerned, these complaints range from the difficulties in getting dialling tones, to continual crossed lines, continued connection to numbers that bear no relation to the number dialled, and wrong numbers. I live in an area on the Witwatersrand where it sometimes takes me up to 20 minutes in the morning before I can get a dialling tone. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Agriculture who wants his automatic exchange in Delmas is able to get lines a little faster than I sometimes can in my home on the Witwatersrand. Having finally achieved a dialling tone, one often gets connected to a wrong number, a number totally different from the number required, so much so that it really cannot be attributed to faulty or incompetent dialling. On top of this, the trunk-lines between Cape Town and Johannesburg have been so overloaded that a call sometimes, in circumstances like this, takes up to two hours. I am very pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister that this will shortly be a thing of the past and that more trunk-lines will be available. One can imagine the frustration of trying to make a call under these circumstances. Strangely enough, although I have these difficulties in the morning in my area, it does not happen in the afternoon. Then one can get a dialling tone easily and one has no troubles at all.

The point that I am trying to make is that in the eyes of many members of the public the telephone service is inefficient. They do not care that it is now possible to dial a number in Liechtenstein, in Luxembourg, in Australia or in Ireland. They do not really care that you are able to get Abu Dhabi on the telex. All they want to be able to do is to be able to pick up their telephones and to get through quickly with a minimum of trouble to the number which they have dialled.

In 1975 we heard with a tremendous fanfare that we were going to have a very much more efficient telephone service in that we were going over to the CP24 and CP44 systems which were semi-electronic systems which would result in tremendous improvements. We now hear that this is not going to happen. We are not proceeding with the CP44, and certainly the reasons for this appear to be very good reasons. There have been what the hon. the Minister described as “staggering developments” in the field of micro-electronics. We can only hope that the new digital switching systems, the E-10 and EWS-D, added to an extended use of the CP24s, will be the answer. We have lost time because we have changed our minds. We can only hope that there will be no further delays. I gather that round about 1980-’81 we shall be in a position to see the results from these new systems. We hope that there will be no further delays in the improvement in the quality of the telephone service. It is all very well to have a good budget, but this does not necessarily mean to say that we have a good telephone service.

In the very short time at my disposal—as this debate is just about to end—I should like to join with the hon. the Minister in saying a word of thank you to the Union Castle Mail Steamship Company for the more than 100 years of foreign ocean mail services. Over the years this service has been of immense benefit to South Africa. In a way it is rather sad to see it go. We do hope that containerization will result in efficiency in this direction too, that the teething troubles will shortly be overcome and that the trouble that has been experienced with the mail from Britain and elsewhere will soon be over. We have, of course, had a strike at Southampton. That has been part of the trouble. Nevertheless, I hope that the teething troubles will shortly be over.

Mr. Speaker, most of the hon. members who took part in the debate expressed their appreciation for the achievements of the Post Office during the past year. I am very grateful for this, because this year has actually been a very important year in the history of the Post Office. The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to the fact that the Post Office had been functioning independently for 10 years this year. For this reason it has been a fine recognition of the fact that the Post Office has—in the words of the hon. member for Wonderboom—proved itself by fulfilling its basic function of creating telecommunication possibilities, and can therefore advance confidently along the road that lies ahead.

The officials of the Post Office are not here, of course, and have not been able to hear it themselves. I should therefore like to acknowledge it on their behalf. I referred in my Second Reading speech to the fact that the credit for this fine achievement really belongs to the top management and the motivation of the whole corps of Post Office workers. I should like to emphasize this fact, and I thank hon. members for having mentioned it in the debate.

Most speakers also referred to my approaching retirement. I do not want to say anything about that at this stage. I may come back to it later, at the end of this debate. At the moment, there is only one remark I want to make in this connection. When the hon. member for Sunnyside was giving a biographical sketch of me here, it occurred to me how much harm one man can do in a short lifetime. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Johannesburg North has found another reason for my retirement. He asked whether the Post Office project at Church Square in Pretoria might be the reason for it. I want to reassure the hon. member. Church Square has absolutely nothing to do with my retirement. The reason for my retirement is simply this: Unlike the hon. member, I know when and how one should stop. [Interjections.]

We have heard two new chief spokesmen here today, two hon. members who acted on behalf of the NRP and the PFP respectively. I should like to congratulate them on their new responsibility. For both of them it was the first time they had to act in this capacity, and they had the difficult task of criticizing a very positive budget. Since this is the first time they have acted in this capacity, and at the same time it is practically my last speech in this capacity, I undertake to be gentle with them.

The amendment moved by the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition, which, with a single reservation, is supported by the NRP, really surprises me, because that amendment makes absolutely no sense. Several speakers, including the hon. members for Rustenburg, Walmer and Wonderboom, have referred to it and pointed out how untenable this amendment really is. In the first place, this amendment only takes cognizance of “contemplated improvements”. They found it convenient to ignore everything which has been achieved and the progress which has been made in this very direction they are advocating. The hon. member for Walmer put it very effectively. He pointed out that much of what is advocated in the amendment is in fact an ideal which the Minister himself can have for his department. This is so; our achievements prove that we are moving in that same direction. But, Sir, in my opinion the most absurd thing about this amendment is that while the Opposition parties specify three aspects in respect of which they want progress before they will approve of this budget, each of those three aspects requires enormous amounts of money for achieving that progress—and that they do not want to agree to. Now I ask you, Sir: What sense does this amendment make? They plead for better services, but they also want to withhold the money which is necessary to start providing those services.

Let us come closer to the arguments advanced in the debate. The hon. member for Hillbrow began by referring to the budgeting policy. It may be a good thing that he raised this in his first speech, as it is probably that he is not very well informed about the budgeting policy, or even the overall policy, of the Post Office. Several speakers on this side of the House referred to the guidelines laid down by the Franzsen Commission, namely that we should try to provide 50% of our financing ourselves, and should obtain 50% of it by means of loans. The history of the past few years proves that the Post Office has tried to adhere to this fairly strictly. When we exceed 60% in one direction or another, this is a danger sign, and we must heed it in order to prevent ourselves from getting into trouble on this account in the future. This is a very important guideline which we follow and which we shall continue to follow in the future, because I believe it to be a sensible policy to follow. Several speakers have elaborated on this subject and I do not want to discuss it any further.

The mistake which the hon. member for Hillbrow made was to say that there was too much fat in this budget, i.e. he says that we are hiding profits in the budget. However, what he is not taking into consideration is that the money received from the public by the Savings Bank and savings services of the Post Office is really trust money which, in terms of Treasury instructions, we have to invest for the most part with the Public Debt Commissioners. Some of it is invested on a long-term basis, while some is invested on a medium-term and some on a short-term basis. So this is not really a profit which we are keeping on reserve. It is trust money which we keep until such time as we have to pay it back on demand. If he had taken those facts into consideration he might not even have asked that question.

In the third leg of his amendment, the hon. member referred to equal pay and service conditions for employees of all races. It has been made quite clear by several speakers on my side that this has long been the policy of the governing party and that considerable progress has been made in this connection. But, Sir, what was the policy of the city council on which he served as a member of the executive committee? When he had the chance to do this, what did he do about it? Now he reproaches the Government for not doing it, while we have gone a long way in that direction. I am much closer to the standpoint of the hon. member for Umhlanga. Equal pay remains our ideal, but obviously only in accordance with productivity. Sir, we cannot keep on increasing salaries and improving service conditions without taking the productivity of the workers into account. This is in fact a point on which the Post Office takes a very strong stand. What bothers me about the approach of the hon. member for Hillbrow was that he complained about the services in the non-White residential areas, as if it were a privilege we were withholding from the inhabitants. The Post Office has long realized that the need for telephone services in particular will increase in the non-White residential areas as these people become more prosperous, and the Post Office has planned accordingly. We have made considerable progress in this connection. What I did not like about the hon. member’s standpoint was that instead of making a pleas for better understanding on the part of the inhabitants of the non-White areas, by pointing out to them the cost of the infrastructure which is being created there and the importance of maintaining those services, he represented it here as being something which they are entitled to and which we are not giving to them.

I want to mention a few facts here in connection with the telephone service in Soweto. During the riots the whole Iketlo exchange was completely destroyed. One construction vehicle, not a military or police vehicle, but a vehicle of the Post Office which serves those people, was set on fire and four others were very seriously damaged. Our overhead wires were almost all destroyed and telephone posts were chopped down and burned. The apparatus in the telephone booths was repeatedly plundered. In spite of all those difficult circumstances, however, our workers tried to go there to maintain emergency services. Obviously we had to do this in consultation with the police, and the policy actually advised us to keep out of there for eight months, eight months after June 1976. They denied us all access to Soweto during that period. That hon. member, who was a member of the Johannesburg city council and who also served on the executive committee of Johannesburg, knows better than most other hon. members in this House what the circumstances there were, so I do not think he should have raised that point. [Interjections.] We went so far as to prevent White supervisors from entering Soweto and we sent non-White supervisors into Soweto to see that the work was done. However, the production dropped so sharply that we had to ask the Whites to go in there again and to supervise the work which had to be done there. The fact that we are holding out the prospect of R126 million for the next five years, that the planning is there and that we have done what we have already done ought to be proof, to hon. members on both sides of the House, to South Africa and to the world, of our goodwill towards those people. It ought to prove that we are prepared to give them something, but in exchange we expect them to appreciate what we are making available to them with a great deal of money and in very difficult circumstances.

Some of the other matters mentioned by the hon. member were described by the hon. member for Wonderboom as “fancy goods”. That is quite correct. Emergency telephones along the main roads are possible. We can introduce all those things if we can find the money for them. However, if one wants to reduce tariffs on the one hand and on the other hand one wants all these fancy goods, I do not know how the two can be reconciled. I agree with the hon. member for Wonder-boom. What we need in South Africa is, firstly, the very best telecommunications system we can create with our means and manpower. Afterwards we can start thinking about luxury articles.

What about Delmas?

As far as Delmas is concerned, my reply is that if my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, can motivate an automatic telephone exchange for Delmas and can send me a map on which Delmas is shown, I shall give attention to the matter. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow asked whether it would not be possible to specify foreign and domestic telephone calls separately on the accounts. Unfortunately, the measuring apparatus does not allow for this. It registers according to distance and duration of time, and no distinction is made between the two.

The hon. member for Sunnyside referred to the telegram tariff and thought that it might be too high. I want to tell him that we lose approximately R7 million a year on our telegram services and that we have to do everything in our power to keep that loss as small as possible. Therefore a tariff reduction of this item is not a practical solution to this problem. However, I want to assure the hon. member—and this is my reply to the hon. member for Durban Central as well—that these problems receive the continuous attention of the Post Office and that we hope to find solutions to them eventually. The hon. member also asked whether it would not be cheaper or more advantageous to rent than to build ourselves. Of course, this depends on the circumstances. Sometimes one cannot find a suitable building to rent and then one is forced to build oneself. However, I can assure the hon. member that this aspect is very seriously considered before we take any decision.

The hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the postal service and emphasized the need for improving it. I said in my Second Reading speech that we are not satisfied with the postal service ourselves and that improvements are essential. With a view to this we have sent a mission overseas. We also have a permanent committee which goes into this problem and has already brought many interesting facts to light. I referred to this, too, in my speech. We have identified the problem areas. We have also used the computer to help iron out many of these problems. The hon. member for Walmer asked whether the report concerned could be made available. It is of course a departmental report which is not available to members of Parliament, so it will not be submitted to them.

Then the hon. member for Umhlanga referred to the decision we had taken not to proceed with the CP44 exchange, but to switch over to the French and German fully electronic systems. The hon. member for Wonderboom gave me very welcome support in this connection. He pointed out the foresight shown by the Post Office by reconsidering a decision which had been taken and had even been announced in this House. The facts of the matter are, as the hon. member for Wonderboom has explained, that the systems are quite adaptable to the existing electro-mechanical system and also to the fully electronic system we hope to have in the future. The CP24 which we are using at the moment and which for quite some time we shall be using even more extensively than we are at the moment, will have to serve its term, of course, as will the old systems we already have. As far as the CP44 is concerned, we have not incurred any great costs in this connection yet and the manufacturers have not laid any claim against the Post Office in order to recover anything from us because of this decision. In fact, they themselves suggested that we look into this matter again, and therefore we have not incurred any costs in this connection.

The hon. member for Germiston District suggested that the Department of Information and the Department of Posts and Telecommunications might be linked because the Post Office has the connections. Unfortunately, this is a matter for the hon. the Prime Minister to decide. I have no say in this.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North referred to the meagre R50 which is being provided for in the budget in respect of the post office complex at Church Square in Pretoria. I want to assure him that this is only a nominal amount to keep the item in the budget. The fact of the matter is that the Post Office had high ideals in the days when we had plenty of money in South Africa. At that time, the ideal was to erect a large complex on that splendid site on Church Square which would accommodate all the various branches of the Post Office and which would include the main post office.

In the meantime, however, things have changed a great deal, and when we saw the escalating cost of this project, the Post Office realized that it could not afford it. We approached the Cabinet about the matter, and hon. members have probably taken cognizance today of a statement issued by the hon. the Minister of Public Works. I think the note which he sent to the hon. member for Johannesburg North while he was speaking had a bearing on the statement. The purport of the statement is that the Cabinet has in fact decided that the Post Office is being relieved of the earlier obligation to build that large and expensive building there and that the Post Office may submit alternative plans to the Church Square Committee. This committee will then consider the plans together with those of the provincial administration. In this way, the real but altered requirements of the Post Office will still be provided for. Although this will not be the ideal arrangement, it will be quite functional and therefore good enough for the Post Office.

The hon. member for Walmer spoke about conditions which we should impose on the French and the Germans in connection with the manufacture of the two new telephone systems. Obviously I do not want to say too much about this matter because it is a fairly sensitive one. However, I want to point out that all the conditions one can impose and all the built-in guarantees do not always give the certainty that one will achieve the desired effect. For the Post Office it came as a shock that the French cancelled certain contracts—it is true that these were arms contracts. Therefore we must make sure on our side that if we proceed with this system, we have the certainty that we shall in fact be able to build and maintain the exchanges here. We must arrange our side of the matter in such a way that we shall not land in any difficulties. I want to assure the hon. member that this is exactly what we are going to do and that we have already gone a long way in that direction. However, the French are engaged in a general election at the moment, and we must first wait until the election is over to see who is going to come into power there and how the authorities in France are going to react to these matters. However, we shall obviously ensure that our interests are protected.

The hon. member referred to the waiting list for telephones, as did several other speakers. At the moment the 57 000 is a fairly accurate figure, the most recent figure available to us. It is also reliable. The waiting list of telephone applications is not a constant list which is kept apart and worked at. As fast as applications are granted, new ones are added. In other words, this is really a rotating list we are dealing with. The best guarantee we have that we shall shorten the list is that we are doing everything in our power to lay the cable networks, especially in the areas where the need exists, so that the necessary services may be provided. However, the hon. member for Rustenburg pointed out very effectively that a waiting list for telephones is really an indication of economic growth. On the Opposition side, precisely the opposite was alleged, i.e. that there cannot be any economic growth if there are no telephones. That is also true, for this is an essential need. That is so, but there can be no question of eliminating the backlog of telephone applications as requested in the amendment. There will always be a waiting list as long as there is growth, and for that reason, the amendment does not show a realistic approach to the problem.

The hon. member also pleaded for more expensive agency services and said that the Post Office could increase its revenue by charging more for its services. The Post Office provides these services mainly for the benefit of other State departments and not so much to make money out of them. We are doing so on an agreed basis. The intention is to provide a service and to ensure that we do not suffer any loss in the process. In other words, we just recover our costs, plus perhaps a small amount to cover overheads.

Reference was also made to the tariff record of the Post Office, and I believe that hon. members pointed out very effectively that the cost of living figure had risen considerably more than the tariff structure of the Post Office. The hon. member for Durban Central tried to detract a little from this achievement, but in the light of the comment I have received from better informed and more responsible sources in this field, i.e. from commerce and industry, I should prefer to rely on their judgment. I could read telegrams in this connection, but time does not allow me to do so. The circumstances which prevailed in the ’sixties are so different from those of today that we cannot compare them.

The hon. member also referred to the fact that we still had to pay interest on the fixed capital of R199 million. Of course, the Post Office would be glad if it did not have to pay any interest on this capital. However, it is an arrangement which was made at the time when the Post Office obtained its independence. All the same, as the hon. member said, the Post Office has since then had the advantage of using the capital at an interest rate of 6% a year and has in fact done good business. If I were to approach the hon. the Minister of Finance in this connection, I might not be able to make out a good case.

The hon. member also referred to the desirability of establishing a rate stabilization fund. He rightly said that the best time to start such a fund would be after there had been considerable tariff increases. This has not happened in the past because the Post Office has the advantage of a Post Office Savings Bank, which has a very stabilizing influence on its finances. This is why we have not established such a fund and do not consider establishing it.

The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to certain problems which were still being experienced with the telephone service. It is true that there are still some problems. I am afraid that there will always be problems with a highly developed service such as the telecommunications service. However, I want to tell the hon. members that in recent years there has been such a tremendous drop in the occurrence of such problems that it does not really serve any purpose to refer to a few aspects of them as if they represented a shortcoming in the whole system. In fact, by means of preventive maintenance, by planning and modernizing, by streamlining services in various fields, by tracing faults, wherever possible, with electronic equipment, and by increasing the capacity of our system, we have done so much to iron out these problems that they are disappearing. It would have been much better if the hon. member for Orange Grove, whose constituency is situated in the hills of Johannesburg, had admitted that Johannesburg suffered from storms and floods during the past season such as it had not had for many years. I think the Post Office technicians deserve our thanks for what they did in Johannesburg and in other places in the country to solve those problems so quickly and so effectively.

There is one matter which I do want to mention in the five minutes left to me. The hon. member for Hillbrow referred to a medical scheme for the Bantu workers of the Post Office. The Post Office has medical schemes for its Indian and Coloured workers. We have considered the introduction of a medical aid scheme for Bantu workers as well. However, we have found that the Bantu workers receive such a cheap, reasonable and efficient service at the provincial hospitals and municipal clinics that the need for a medical aid scheme of their own has not been proved beyond all doubt. Since the Bantu are still employed in the lower cadres of the Post Office service at the moment, it is also highly questionable whether such a scheme would have any viability. However, it is a matter which is under consideration, and when the time for it is ripe, the Post Office will not hesitate to do for the Bantu employees what it has already done for the other employees.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I have not overlooked any important point. If so, I shall reply to it at a later stage.

Mr. Speaker, I move—