Mr Chairman, I am entering this debate at this early stage because I want to single out a few matters in this House, matters which are of cardinal importance.

The Commission is concerned with the proper organisation and the effective functioning of departments. The Public Service must carry out those tasks imposed upon it by the Government as effectively as possible and with as small a number of personnel as possible, who function as productively as possible. The highest priority is therefore at present being accorded to increasing productivity in the Public Service. One must be realistic, however, and realise that a significant increase in productivity is not something that can be accomplished overnight or on a one-off basis. The opportunities for spectacular results are also limited by the fact that 70% of the service rendered by the State is development work. A further 20%of the services rendered are protective services.

The question now is how one increases in a tangible way the productivity of a nurse or a teacher or a police officer. However, it is possible by means of an intensive training programme to equip personnel better to carry out the given tasks more effectively. In this sphere the Commission is engaged on an extensive training programme for the entire Public Service hierarchy. In particular, however, this programme affects the managers in the Public Service. Very good results are being achieved with these training courses and the feedback I receive is that requests for the attendance of courses exceed by far the numbers of officials that can be accommodated.

In its endeavours to attain the objective of its imposed task the Commission for Administration has, however, identified a number of other activities which are now receiving serious attention. The first of these activities to which I want to refer is the function evaluation programme.

Broadly speaking, the purpose of function evaluation is the systematic questioning of the existence of all Governmental functions, in order to ensure that services and functions are only rendered to the extent to which they are really essential and need-oriented. If there is no real need any more for a function or service, it would be senseless to continue with it. In this process various options are presented to departments by the Commission, in order, as has already been said, to reduce governmental functions in a justifiable way and in so doing save personnel and funds. In general, the results that have been achieved are encouraging.

I would urge hon members to read more about this programme in the Commission’s annual report—incidentally, it is in my opinion a good report. A more detailed elucidation is furnished there. The fact of the matter is that effective function evaluation can lead to a considerable saving of personnel and funds.

†Another programme which of late is very much in the news is privatisation and its stablemate, deregulation. In regard to privatisation I hasten to express, on my own behalf and also on behalf of the Government, my sincere appreciation for the assistance given and the interest displayed by the Panel of Business Leaders which was appointed to consult with the Commission for Administration on various matters. Especially as far as the privatisation programme is concerned, these gentlemen, Messrs Dick Goss, Christie Kuun, Warren Clewlow and Dr Pieter Morkel have rendered invaluable service. They will be fully justified in claiming their share of credit for whatever success is to be achieved with this programme.

I do not want to go into too much detail and once again wish to refer hon members to the annual report of the Commission for Administration, as well as to the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation which has been tabled.

I do, however, wish to stress a few important points. The Government is not embarking upon privatising Government functions because it has become fashionable to do so.

All functions or activities to be privatised are being identified by the departments themselves with the assistance of a competent team of officials in the Commission for Administration’s Office.

Those activities which have thus been identified and measured against the criteria approved by Cabinet are then considered by an interdepartmental committee consisting of officials from the office of the commission, the Department of Finance and the Central Economic Advisory Service. The Competition Board is also consulted.

All these recommendations are then considered by the Commission for Administration and, if approved, are formally referred to the Committee of Ministers on Privatisation and Deregulation of which I am now the chairman. If this committee concurs, the proposals are placed before Cabinet for approval. Cabinet’s approval is then conveyed, through the Committee of Ministers, by the Commission for Administration to the departments concerned for implementation. Once again the commission’s office is available for whichever assistance is needed and the Commission for Administration has now also been instructed to monitor the implementation progress.

Hon members will gather from what I have said that this programme is being conducted in a meticulous and responsible manner. As regards deregulation it is my intention as the Minister responsible for overall co-ordination of this programme to go about it with the same circumspection. In this case, as is the position with privatisation, the responsibility in the first instance still rests with the departments concerned and the responsible Ministers.

I should like to give members of the public the assurance that I would welcome any suggestion for privatisation and deregulation. All suggestions will receive due consideration. The procedure to be followed in this regard would be that all suggestions should be directed in writing to the Secretary to the Commission for Administration. Those suggestions will receive immediate attention and will be laid before me as soon as possible.

I do make this promise that each and every suggestion will be thoroughly investigated.

*We are living in a dynamic era in which quite a number of developments are taking place in the constitutional, economic and social spheres. It goes without saying that all this makes heavy demands on the Public Service. Usually very little is said about the major part being played by officials on all levels to make these developments work in practice while they still carry on with their normal activities.

As far as I am concerned, I can give the assurance that my association with the Public Service and the commission has already caused me to see and experience enough to communicate to the public with conviction at all times the outstanding work that is being done by a dedicated corps of officials. This afternoon I consequently want to make an appeal to all hon members to be proud of our officials. With their tradition of independence and impartiality I am convinced that they will maintain their proud record in future too.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity, therefore, to assure the officials that the Government will look after their interests in a fair way. Also to those who are affected by privatisation or by other measures resulting in a reduction of personnel, I want to give the assurance that the Government and the commission will not deal lightly with the future of personnel. In every case attempts will be made to find a satisfactory solution which will ensure that deserving officials are not detrimentally affected.

The pensioning off and in particular the retrenchment of personnel will, when it is in any way possible, only be used as a last resort. Attempts will be made throughout to cause personnel reduction to take place by means of natural attrition, for example as a result of resignations and retirements. Personnel affected by the abolition of posts, and who cannot be accommodated on an acceptable basis together with a function in the private sector, will as far as possible be accommodated by way of relocation, and where necessary with retraining.

Hon members have already taken cognisance of the fact that the present Secretary for the Commission for Administration, Mr Wessels Meyer, has been transferred and appointed Director General in the Administration: House of Assembly, with effect from 1 December 1987. I want to thank him sincerely for his excellent and appreciated service of office with the commission. I wish him a very pleasant and successful time in his new field of activity.

Mr Ian Robson has been appointed in his place. He was born in Pretoria on 17 June 1935, and after his school training he joined the Department of Health on 19 January 1952. Since 15 September 1969 he has been associated with the office of the commission, where he was promoted on 1 December 1985 to the position of Deputy Director General. He has a Masters’ degree in Public Administration, and is a professional member of various bodies.

Mr Robson, owing to his exceptional knowledge of the entire spectrum of the commission’s sphere of activities has made an important contribution to the restructuring of the commission’s broader role in governmental administration. As an expert in the sphere of State administration he has also been intensely involved in the substantial initiatives of the commission over the past number of years. Owing to his expertise his services are also being employed on various committees.

It is against this background that the Cabinet approved his promotion to the position of Secretary: Commission for Administration, on the recommendation of the commission.

I want to congratulate the commission sincerely on its 75th anniversary, and on the wonderful tradition of objectivity and efficiency that has been built up by this body over the years.

In particular I thank Dr Johan de Beer, chairman, and Dr Rassie du Plessis, member of the commission, for their dedicated hard work and leadership.

Finally I want to convey my sincere thanks and pay tribute to the officials of South Africa and all their staff associations, as well as to the Public Service Joint Advisory Council.

Allow me, just before I resume my seat, to thank my predecessor, the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, for the way in which he dealt with this portfolio, and to thank my predecessor, the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, for the competent way in which he dealt with privatisation and deregulation.

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to participate in this debate today as the CP spokesman. It is a great pleasure—I want to make specific mention of this—because as a young student I started my law studies as a bursary holder of the Public Service Commission, as it was known at that stage. I should like to express my thanks in this regard. [Interjections.] Of course I do not want to comment today on the end result.

I should also like to take this opportunity sincerely to congratulate the hon the Minister, who is responsible for the Commission for Administration, on his readmission to the Cabinet and the responsible position he is holding. We wish him everything of the best.

On behalf of this side of the Committee I also want to convey our thanks to the officials who perform this important task. We are thinking in particular of Dr De Beer, the Chairman, Dr J E du Plessis, a member of the Commission, the Chief Directors, Messrs Kluever, Kastner and Theart and Mr G de Villiers, who was appointed fairly recently.

I cannot do otherwise on this occasion but congratulate the commission on their 75th anniversary. They have been in existence for three quarters of a century, and I think during this period a wonderful tradition of service to the Republic of South Africa has been built up. On behalf of the CP I also want to congratulate them most sincerely on this particular milestone in their existence.

I also cannot do otherwise—I do so with great pleasure too—but congratulate Mr Wessels Meyer, who was transferred to the Administration: House of Assembly as Director-General, on this promotion in his career. May this also attest to the service he has rendered in the past.

Obviously I also want to convey the congratulations of the hon members on this side of the Committee to Mr Robson, who has been appointed in his place. We looked at Mr Robson’s curriculum vitaeand we could not do otherwise but recommend that he be appointed to this position.

We took cognisance of the annual report of the commission and we want to make special mention of the aspects in connection with their staff systems and utilisation. It seems to us that the Commission for Administration thinks dynamically and that modern methods are used to keep the State administration functioning at an effective level.

On this occasion we cannot do otherwise but thank all the public servants in particular for the work they have done during the past year and longer in the service of the State. As the Official Opposition the CP also thanks them for what they have done for their people and their fatherland. As the Official Opposition the CP wants to be their friend. We want to have a unique relationship with them. We see it as our duty as the Official Opposition to accommodate the public servants. Democracy requires—I shall dwell on this later—that the Official Opposition like every other political party in a democratic dispensation must have a particular relationship with the public service.

I want to suggest that today we are dealing with the State Administration and the Public Service. In this connection I want to draw a fundamental distinction which frequently appears obvious but which is not fully realised in practice, namely the distinction between the State on the one hand and the Government on the other.

In this connection I want to refer to the definition with regard to State security legislation, which appears on page 6 of the Report of the Rabie Commission. In a modern state and in a modern society we cannot afford to confuse the State and the Government. I want to summarise this briefly for the purposes of this debate by saying that the State is that comprehensive entity which constitutionally includes not only the Government of the day but all opposition parties as well.

Seen in this light, the public servant is not only in the service of the specific government of the day, the political party and the office-bearers in that party, but he is also in the service of the State and of the opposition parties. For that reason today we want to thank the Public Service and all its branches for the assistance the CP received prior to 6 May and also as the Official Opposition during the past few weeks or months. [Interjections.]

On this occasion I also want to address a word of warning to the Government in this connection. It must not want to annex the Public Service and consider the officials to be in the service of the NP only. [Interjections.] Recently we saw specific signs in this regard, and I want to refer to two concrete examples to motivate my standpoint.

Recently during a discussion of the Norweto affair—as it is generally called—an appeal was made to public servants to defend policy aspects in this connection on television. In the past on more than one occasion there have been cases where the Chief of the Defence Force had to explain aspects of policy, whereas in our opinion it was the task of the relevant Minister to explain politically expedient aspects for which he has to assume responsibility in public. It should not be the case, as it appears to us in general, that when there is a political hot potato, it is, for the sake of convenience, left to the official to defend the matter in public.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I have very little time. I shall consider this at the end of my speech.

A modern state needs officials who are loyal to the State, who function effectively to ensure that the State Administration functions at a high level, and who efficiently see to it that the State machinery meets all the requirements of the community. In view of this, I want to point out a few problem areas, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do so in detail.

It is the standpoint of this side of the Committee that we cannot simply have annual increases in the Public Service. We want to state very clearly that we welcome the 12%increase, but the problem is not solved by annual adjustments because the crux of the problem lies in the inflation rate which is too high. If the inflation rate is brought down an increase of 12%will obviously be sufficient, but because the inflation rate is too high an increase of 12%for the Public Service is not high enough.

In the second place I want to refer to what is known as the “loyal relationship” or so-called “allegiance” between the official and the State Administration. I want to underline the following briefly. In modern legal systems—I am referring to European legal systems in particular—the official does not have the right to strike.

I think the Commission for Administration must emerge far more prominently as a watchdog for the State Administration and must exercise a controlling function with regard to structural changes made in the State Administration by the Government of the day.

In this connection I want to refer very briefly to the abolition of the development boards. I think the way in which this took place, did not do credit either to the relevant Minister or to the Commission in its watchdog capacity as regards the State Administration.

Tell us about Suurbekom!

In conclusion I should like to refer to the pension fund matter and ask that this be urgently investigated. The CP is not in a position to say that Dr Wassenaar is correct. Nor are we in a position to say that Mr Visser of the Pension Fund is correct. What is more, I do not think that side of the Committee is in a position to say who is right or wrong, but if there is a shortfall of R7000 million in the Public Service Pension Fund, the public servants are asking in the interests of the country that this should be urgently, comprehensively and independently investigated.

Mr Chairman, firstly I should like to associate myself with the congratulations conveyed by the hon member for Losberg to the various parties. I am not going to repeat all the names now, but I should just like to congratulate him, too, on his appointment as chief spokesman of the Official Opposition on this Vote.

At one stage while he was speaking I was rather concerned because it seemed to me as though we were going to agree on just about everything. I thought I would have nothing on which to differ with him. That would have made me feel rather worried. However, I just want to react quickly to a few things the hon member for Losberg said, particularly towards the end of his speech.

The one point on which I agree with him wholeheartedly is that the public servant is not in the service of a specific sector or interest group. It makes no difference whether it is a political party, a population group, or anything else for that matter in this country; he is in the service of everyone. I hope, when he expresses his thanks to the officials, that he is including the entire public service. As far as the composition of the Public Service is concerned, it is interesting to note that 53%of the so-called Treasury work force consists of Blacks. [Interjections.]

Only 50%!

Consequently there are members of all population groups, who are involved in the Public Service and who all render a service to the whole of our society. We therefore convey our thanks to all the officials of the Public Service.

This afternoon I should like to raise a specific subject, and that is the position of the official as an individual within the large-scale restructuring which is progress. I am referring to the entire reform process and all the policies such as deregulation, privatisation and so on. These subjects are being widely debated in public, and some commentators are inclined to disparage the role of the official. Insufficient recognition is given to the crucial role officials play in the administration of a modern national economy.

It is easy to talk and theorise about new structures, and the debate on these matters is wide-ranging. What causes me concern, however, is that the extent to which these affect the reality of the existence of officials is frequently not appreciated. For thousands of officials, structural adjustments and the debates on privatisation, deregulation and so on, are more than mere theory. They have a material effect on their job security and frequently on the personal circumstances of their lives. These circumstances may consequently have a real effect on the general morale of the officials. In Britain, for example, it was found in the early seventies that when major and urgent efforts were made to modernise and adapt the State administration, and one did not succeed in motivating and persuading the officials themselves to go along with that process, success was not very easy to achieve.

Participants from all sectors in this debate frequently adopt the attitude that the bureaucracy can or must simply be forced in a certain direction. Frequently there is a kind of all-they-need-is-a-firm-hand attitude when one is talking about the bureaucracy.

The person who does not take into consideration that, whatever his plans may be, he must, when all is said and done, rely on people to implement them, may as well reconcile himself to failure. In fact, it is impossible to make drastic structural and policy adjustments without a measure of disruption and in particular uncertainty for the officials concerned. In fact this is illustrated by the traumatic experience for many officials with the rationalisation and structural adjustments in for example the development boards, the Transvaal peri-Urban Areas Board, etc. For many officials these led to personal traumas, and I should like to plead for general compassion for these people who are affected by these essential processes. From my own personal experience I can attest that it is in particular the period of uncertainty and the transition from the one structure to the other that is responsible for traumatic experiences. I also want to plead that the debate will be of such a nature, and will be conducted on such a level that one will not tell an official that he has up to now been wasting his time or has spent his career in vain, but that we shall proceed in a truly motivating way to take these people with us.

If we want the processes of change to take place as smoothly as possible, it is essential that the period for which the officials are placed on the so-called suspense account is confined to the minimum. What is at stake is far more than the official’s material wellbeing. It is concerned with far more than a mere assurance that his pension is safe, that he will receive another post, or whatever. It is concerned with the total individual and his self-image, and I want to advocate that we consider a holistic approach.

Finally I want to discuss one final misperception which emerged in the debate on the Public Service, structural adjustments and deregulation. I am referring now to the impression created by many commentators that the Public Service was one massive regulating machine, that it was merely geared to regulating. The truth, however, is that if one examines the allocation of functions in the Public Service, one sees that only 10%of the Public Service work force is involved in actual regulation, while 20%are involved in protective services and 70%are involved in what can be described as a development task. In fact, 26,3%of the officials are involved in the educational task. Consequently the officials make a tremendous contribution to the overall development of the country and its society, and I should like to pay tribute to this service rendered by the officials to our society as a whole.

Mr Chairman, we in these benches also join with the hon member for Springs and the hon member for Losberg in congratulating the staff of the Commission for Administration who are moving. We extend our particular congratulations to the present secretary of the Commission, Mr Wessels Meyer, on his appointment as Director-General of the House of Assembly own affairs departments. We are certain his experience and perception will stand him in good stead in those corridors.

Similarly we also extend our congratulations to Mr Ian Robson on his appointment as secretary. We must also add our word of congratulation to the hon the Minister on his appointment to head the Commission for Administration and the Public Service. I was interested in his introductory speech, and particularly delighted that he at least focused attention on the question of function evaluation. I believe it is a very important task, and one at which we in these benches will certainly be looking at most closely.

I note from the report of the commission that, for example, the agricultural produce quality control directorate could in a function evaluation programme be reduced from 750 staff members to 70. We in these benches believe that that is the sort of evaluation that should be done. We are pleased that it is being done. Furthermore, Sir, the report of the commission emphasises that in discharging its responsibility the commission is guided only by two statutory principles—those of merit and efficiency. That is good. That is excellent. That is precisely what we want.

I want to ask this hon Minister what the policy of the Government is in connection with the employment of Blacks in the Public Service. In 1946 an NP member of this House asked the then United Party Minister that very question. This was the then United Party Minister’s reply [Hansard, 1946, Col 5898]

That was the policy of the United Party in 1946. I think it is clear that such a situation does not exist at the moment. We should, however, like from the lips of this hon Minister, 41 years later, a clear statement that this is not in fact taking place—that there is a policy of open promotion in the entire Public Service. We believe that the present structure of the Public Service is open to much questioning. When I say this, Mr Chairman, I want to emphasise that we are not questioning the individuals who occupy posts. Like the two hon members who spoke before me, I want to emphasise that the vast majority of individuals in the Public Service are carrying out their jobs with efficacy and with high efficiency, in the name of all South Africans. I want to pose, however, the question regarding the movement of South Africans—all South Africans—into the senior ranks. Secondly I want to pose the question in relation to salary scales.

Before I proceed to these, however, I first want to say a word or two about the Public Service pension funds. Overall control of these does not vest in this hon Minister or in the Commission for Administration. That, however, is precisely the problem which I hope this hon Minister will address. We believe it is illogical to fragment them from the administration of the rest of the Public Service. It was illogical to have placed them under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Health and Population Development. Here I want to refer to a question I asked in relation to the very issue of buying back service, a matter which is now the subject of some Press attention. It is also broached in Dr Wassenaar’s book. I asked a question in April 1984 and the answer I received was that in 1982 and 1983 over 83 000 public servants had applied to buy back service for pension purposes. Now, Sir, I am concerned that the overall perspective of the Public Service should be and is in the hands—quite rightly—of the Commission for Administration. I believe also, however, that the pension funds and the entire question of pension funds, which do not vest in this hon Minister yet, will hopefully vest in him and in the commission by next year.

We believe that the commission will be far more acceptable as the immediate overseeing authority of the pension funds. The commission is independent from the Public Service, and the structure of advice, recommendation and direction of the commission, we believe, is required in this particular area.

To return now to the Public Service structure, it comprises a total of 865 000 people, 25%being labourers, 28%educators, 9%nurses, 14%service personnel and 23%in other posts. Interestingly enough, Mr Chairman, as far as the racial structure of the Public Service is concerned, it is approximately 33%White, 11%Coloured, 3%Indian and 48%Black.

This is not, however, reflected in the senior posts in the Public Service. In a review of the top eight posts in each of the general affairs departments—I obtained this information by questioning the departments—the racial mix of those top eight posts appears to be: 96%White; 0,7%Coloured; 1,5%Indian; and 1,8%Black. I believe that these figures give cause for concern, not only to us on these benches, but also to the governing party and to South Africa as a whole. I reiterate that we are not questioning the public servant’s ability or merit; what we are concerned about is the inability of the Cabinet to come to grips with the need for equity in the treatment of all its employees and of the South African population as a whole.

This Government has viewed with apparent approval the promotion of Black persons as senior managers and executives of business concerns, but they have not done so themselves. They have not had to wrestle with the problem of where the Black executive lives, or the problem of racial antipathy on the shop or office floor, or the difficulty of inequality as far as school certificates are concerned. The very problem that the business community is wrestling with, this Government is not having to wrestle with in those senior posts in the Public Service. I believe it is high time we saw Black senior personnel in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building and in the bays of this House.

This is a serious problem which has to be addressed not only for the sake of equity today, but also for the future. Let us be sensible; there will be Black directors-general with Black Ministers and even a Black State President. Now is the time to ensure an equitable distribution of our population throughout the Public Service. If we do not do so, the time will come when we shall ask ourselves: Why did we not do so then, three or four years ago?

Linked to this is the matter of employment trends in the Public Service. In the summer issue of Indicator SA, Prof Natrass of the University of Natal indicates that the number of jobs created in the Public Service between 1975 and 1985 totalled 140 000. Of these, 43%were filled by Whites and 20%by Africans. The effect of that was to reduce the overall figure for African employment in the Public Service from 58%to the present figure of 48%. It thus appears, to quote Natrass, that—

Finally, I wish to turn to the salary structure. From the top salary of R119 000 per annum, the bottom rung in the Public Service is R2 133 per annum—or R177 per month—for the labourers. There are 21 standard salary scale levels, of which levels 1, 3 and 5 are for the labourers and level 6 is for supervisory staff.

In this regard we believe that the time has come for a reassessment of those 21 scale levels. If this is not done, then improving the salaries of the people at the bottom—which I know the Public Service authorities feel are very low indeed—will have a ripple effect running right up to the top and costing a staggering amount of money for the whole of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown will pardon me if I do not follow up directly on his line of discussion because I have another very important subject to deal with here this afternoon. I want to congratulate him on his appointment as chief spokesman of this matter. I do, however, want to make the general observation that the hon member and his party should perhaps be less obsessed with colour and not view everything in terms of Black and White and bring colour into every subject.

They should see the situation in South Africa as one large entity in which certain developments are taking place. All of us must give those developments a chance to proceed in such a way that they will be in the best interests of everyone. With these few observations I shall leave the hon member at that. I am certain the hon the Minister will deal with the specific questions he put.

In the few minutes at my disposal I should like to deal with the very important subject of privatisation. I want to wish the hon the Minister everything of the best with this additional task he has received, namely privatisation which, in the overall South African economic set-up, is very important.

I think everyone will agree with me that the economic policy in South Africa, under the direction of the hon the State President, has undergone a significant shift in emphasis. Because the Government clearly realises that stability and confidence in all spheres are essential prerequisites for the successful implementation of constitutional reform, everything possible is being done to promote economic development, to combat unemployment and to raise the overall standard of living of the country’s inhabitants. I think it is very clear that there are visible signs that this happening and the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation is a further example of this. This shift in emphasis is based on the realisation that a system of increasing private enterprise, competition and a market-oriented policy serves the interests of this country better than excessive regulation and state participation in the economy. Consequently the watchwords of the moment are privatisation, deregulation, competition and control of Government spending. I am going to confine myself solely to privatisation, because the hon member for Stellenbosch is going to discuss deregulation. In my opinion the two go hand in hand.

To cause privatisation and this new approach to become a reality, a good understanding between the private and public sectors is very important. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that no one has done more than the hon the State President to improve relations between the private and the public sector. The Carleton Conference, the Good Hope Conference, the Pretoria Indaba and the conference which is still going to be held, testifies to the extent to which the Government is in earnest about placing the economy of this country, in co-operation with the private sector, in such a position that it will be in the best interests of all the inhabitants. That is why the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation is welcomed by this side of the House and is a further important demonstration of the extent to which the Government is in earnest about economic reform.

However, economic reform and privatisation are not something new which are happening only here in South Africa. This has already happened all over the world, and I think we can learn from has happened in this connection in other countries. Although privatisation has been in progress in countries such as the USA, Britain, Italy and so on, for many years, it has not been entirely disposed of anywhere. It should not be expected that it can be accomplished instantaneously in South Africa. I do think that the hon the Minister entrusted with this matter, sits in his office with a list of things which should be privatised, and waits for the first telephone call or letter in order to allocate a state activity to a private organisation.

It will have to take place in view of South Africa’s unique circumstances, which must be taken into consideration. In this way we cannot for example use Britain as an example because in Britain the entire situation was quite different, and in any event they denationalised, while in South Africa the issue is purely privatisation. For that reason privatisation will take place carefully and after thorough analysis and planning.

Another important aspect of this matter is that South Africa has a large Third World component, and therefore a careful balance will have to be maintained between the social responsibilities of the State on the one hand and the interests of the private sector on the other.

Clear guidelines are laid down in the paper according to which privatisation will take place. I am referring to page 11 of the White Paper—guidelines for privatisation, where it is stated that every case of privatisation will be considered on its own and that this could entail the public enterprise must first be made more efficient and profitable in order to obtain the best advantages from privatisation, but without making it artificially more attractive for investors.

It goes on to state:

And finally:

It is therefore clear that privatisation in South Africa will have to be dealt with in a unique way. There is no model anywhere in the world which can be applied. As I have already said, privatisation consequently does not only entail the sale of public sector undertakings, but includes interesting other possibilities such as partnerships, the possible leasing of state rights, the contracting out or the termination of a service or activity previously rendered by the public sector.

What must be borne in mind, however, is that the emphasis must fall on efficient, cost effective service of quality in a competitive environment, in the interest of all South Africans. I do not think that the Government with privatisation, can allow a public monopoly to be replaced a private monopoly. It cannot allow only the profitable sections to be acquired by the private sector and the non-profitable sections left to the State. Consequently, it is not possible to get rid of the public sectors’ undertakings overhastily.

Another aspect which is very important, and to which the hon the Minister referred earlier in his opening remarks—the hon member for Springs also discussed them—is the position of the personnel when it comes to privatisation. I am grateful that the hon the Minister gave the unequivocal assurance that the personnel will be looked after, and that organisations will not simply be privatised without the taking the personnel into consideration.

I am convinced that it will be in the best interests of all the inhabitants of South Africa if privatisation can be tackled in a planned imaginative way, and with the necessary initiative.

Mr Chairman, when one is discussing the salaries or the conditions of service of employees, it is already a sensitive matter in itself, but when one is discussing the conditions of service of public servants, it is an even more sensitive matter. These employees are in a unique situation in which, on the one hand, apart from the normal burden they like all other employees have to bear in their work situation, also have to contend with the fact that an appeal is frequently made to them to make certain sacrifices, out of a feeling of patriotism, in the service and in the interests of the State. Consequently I want to refrain this afternoon from trying to choose sides here in view of the sensational statements that were recently made, inter aliain the newly published work by Dr Andreas Wassenaar, Op pad na ’n luilekkerlandwhich, as one can infer from the title itself, is already a contentious work.

On 30 September 1985 the total number of personnel whose improvements in conditions of service had to be budgeted for in the Improvement of Conditions of Service Vote of the Commission for Administration was 808 677. On 30 September 1986, a year later, it was 865 385. Consequently there was an increase of 56 708 officials, and it is quite clear that the volume of the number of public servants in South Africa in itself gives rise to people speculating on the remuneration package of the public servants, because it really has a significant effect on the spending of public money. Unfortunately it frequently gives rise to reciprocal allegations and accusations between the private and public sectors.

This afternoon I want to confine myself to a few other aspects, which I think will be more constructive and appropriate in the spirit of the debate on the subject we are discussing this afternoon.

I want to say that the following must be generally accepted: Firstly, without a skilfully motivated and organised corps of public servants, no state can function properly at home or abroad; secondly, the conditions of service of public servants play a critically important role in job motivation; and thirdly, every governmental function fulfilled by officials has points of contact with other governmental functions, but has certain unique problems that have to be taken into consideration when the remuneration package for a specific type of work in the Government sector is determined.

This afternoon I want to dwell first on the aspect of job motivation through appropriate conditions of service. I have mentioned that there are allegations and counter-allegations between the private and the public sector on the question of whether or not the government sector in general is better compensated if one examines the overall compensation package. In this connection I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether any well-grounded research on this question exists, which could give us an idea of the overall picture in so far as the average Public Servant and the average comparable employee in the private sector is concerned. If such research results exist, they must be published and we want to know what the indications are.

Furthermore I want to ask the Government what its prognostication is as to the degree to which parity can be achieved between the Government and the private sectors and within what period this will take place.

We know that the service bonuses of Public Servants were reduced by 34%in 1985 and that they were reinstated in 1986, that a salary adjustment of 10%was granted on 1 April 1986, and that another adjustment of 12,5%was granted this year. That in itself, however, does not give us the full picture, and I should like to ask the hon Minister to indicate to us whether the compensation of the Public servant has fallen behind that of the private sector and, if not, in what cases they are still at this stage on an equal scale.

Furthermore I want to raise a few other matters. Firstly there is the question of compensation for overtime work. Recently we have had strikes, hospital strikes and unrest; particularly during the periods when there was a railway strike, there was accompanying unrest. Hon members will recall that there were a large number of public servants to whom an appeal was made and who immediately worked voluntary overtime. A few years ago public servants were compensated for overtime work. This is no longer the case. Now I should like to know to what extent the commission is prepared to reinstate the remuneration for overtime work, particularly during times such as those we have just been through. I think this is a very important factor as far as job motivation for public servants is concerned.

Secondly, I want to point out a very sensitive and unfortunate aspect, and that is the position of the former development boards. These boards were abolished, as long ago as 1 July 1986, by the Abolition of Development Bodies Act of 1986, and that was more than a year ago. I want to know how many of the officials of the development boards have still not been appointed to other departments in a full-time capacity. When are they going to be appointed? In the 1986 annual report of the Commission for Administration it is also stated that not all the service benefits of these officials are going to be retained and that certain of these benefits are going to be done away with. At this stage I want to ask the hon Minister, for the sake of the officials who are very perturbed about their uncertain position, to give an indication of what conditions of service are going to be retained and which of them are going to be done away with.

Hear, hear! I also have a number of them!

Was that before or after you ran away? [Interjections.]

Order!

In this connection I can just refer briefly to a letter I received from one of these officials. The person wrote:

This is the West Rand Development Board—

This letter was written in August last year.

Further reference is made to the fact that these people did not receive a salary increase of 12,5%, although all the other Public Servants did. This is my first point of criticism.

Then this person wrote further:

Then the letter-writer set out how the monthly contributions to this other fund are far higher than those originally deducted for the PSMAA, viz R78,30 per month compared with the R40,75 which was originally deducted for this purpose. The problem this person is experiencing is that as a result of the outstanding contributions that have accumulated in this way, because insufficient money was deducted from this person’s salary for the PSMAA, the new fund on whose list this person has been placed has now informed this person that the membership fees are in areas and that benefits cannot be paid out until the account has been brought up to date.

Finally, I want to ask a few questions with reference to the Estimates themselves. Under the programme “Augmentation of subsidies, grants and financial assistance to state-aided institutions” it is specified that an amount of R173 million is going to be made available to provincial administrations as from this year. Just below that entry the little word “Other” appears, for which an amount of R128 million is being made available. I should like to ask the hon the Minister to indicate what is meant by the word “Other”, and to what this specific items refers. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, during the course of his speech, the hon member for Roodepoort asked whether there were comparative statistics for the income of people working in the Public Service and people in the private sector. I should like to comment that it is one of the basic misconceptions amongst people in this country that one can draw an absolute parallel between salaries of people working in the Government sector and those working in the private sector. This is one of the things which leads to a distortion in most democracies in the world. This is one of the problems which leads, or could lead, to a tremendously high State expenditure. On various occasions the Government has pledged itself to establishing a smaller Public Service in South Africa. Such a Public Service would be more streamlined, and greater productivity could be achieved.

We should like to congratulate the Commission for Administration on their fine annual report, which makes pleasant reading, and which every hon member in this House would do well to read. We also want to convey our congratulations to the chairman of the commission, Dr De Beer, for the recent award to officials he received from the hon the State President. We also want to congratulate Mr Wessels Meyer, who has been promoted to the post of Director-General, and Mr Ian Robson, who now becomes the secretary of the commission.

With the appearance of this report of the Commission for Administration, it is clear that tremendous progress has been made over many years in every field of personnel management and administration, for example, in the field of training, an improved system of management, independent management of Government departments, and the upliftment campaigns in which the Commission for Administration is also involved.

We on this side of the Committee would like to express our gratitude to the officials of South Africa, who have taken hold of the bit under very difficult circumstances in recent years. Many people are under the impression that a country consists of a government, and one often forgets that a government really consists in general of a legislative, an executive, as well as an administrative authority.

The massive changes this Government has brought about in practically every walk of life over the past few years, have had a tremendous impact on South African officials. Officials who had worked for years with the administration of certain laws, suddenly found themselves in a completely new world when those laws were abolished. Whether we talk about the abolition of influx control, or the policy of privatisation, we are talking about policy changes by the Government which have required tremendous psychological and practical adjustments from the officials. We therefore pay tribute to all the officials in South Africa who have not only kept abreast of all these changes, but in many respects have assisted dramatically in steering the process of change and in generating change in South Africa. To me, who represents a constituency where there are so many officials, it is crystal clear that in a country like South Africa it is impossible to effect the changes that have to be made in the fields of politics and economics, and which could be made in the social field, if one does not take the majority along with one.

We are going to stop those political changes!

The hon member for Overvaal need not be concerned. We who represent the majority of the public servants in Pretoria, know that like us, the officials of South Africa recognise the necessity for dramatic changes for our future. [Interjections.]

Order! No, I am not prepared to permit a chorus of comments.

The simple facts in South Africa are that no constitution, no government or anything else for that matter can be maintained by skin colour. This country and the Constitution are ultimately only maintained by what lives in the hearts of all the people of South Africa.

A Black State President as well?

In this respect the officials play an extremely important role.

A moment ago the hon member for Pinetown referred to Black people in the Public Service, but I think he did the Public Service a grave injustice. He need only go to the national states to see what a tremendous advancement programme they have. [Interjections.] Let us be honest: The whole process of upgrading Black people in the Public Service is an evolutionary process, and there is no way any government can uplift people with a kind of tokenism.

We are not asking for tokenism.

Officials are people appointed for their ability, efficiency, experience and competence, and the fact is that there is no statutory prohibition of the appointment of any person to the Public Service who complies with those qualities. I do not think there is any member in this House who, if for example we were speaking about collecting tax and about which official would be most competent to do so, would in any way question whether it should be a White man, a Black man, a Coloured man, or whoever. The only test is who is the most competent person to perform that specific function in the national economy. [Interjections.] If the hon members of the PFP would just wait a little, they would see that as the constitutional changes in South Africa unfold, the entire upliftment campaign for Black and Coloured education, on which vast sums of money are being spent, will result in the people of colour coming into their own according to merit in our Public Service. It is extremely important—this is why the Commission for Administration spends so much time on training—for the Black officials and the officials who work for the other two Houses to possess a very high level of competence. Ultimately we are dealing with State expenditure, and it is only competent people who can handle State expenditure properly.

I want to refer briefly to the report of the Commission for Administration. The commission gave a very good statistical exposition of the number of officials who work in the various sectors in the provinces, and so on. Recently there has been tremendous criticism of State expenditure and the major role salaries and other benefits play in that regard. I want to ask whether the commission would not perhaps consider giving the country a more complete picture, statistically speaking, when they present their annual report in the future. For example, an indication could be given of the total amount spent on salaries, wages, housing subsidies, contributions to medical schemes and funds, contributions to pension schemes and funds, and any other form of direct or indirect expenditure. We must also then look at what percentage of the total State expenditure this expenditure constitutes. The total State revenue, the total State expenditure and the gross domestic product could be looked at. Ultimately it is in the interests of every official in South Africa for us to beat inflation. There is no way any government in the world can keep people satisfied in the long term in respect of a remuneration package if there is constantly an inflation rate of almost 18%, as is the case here. My earnest plea is therefore that everyone, our officials as well, be involved in being made aware of the role of State expenditure in causing inflation. If one looks at it from that angle, I believe we shall obtain very good co-operation from our officials in respect of the Government's privatisation campaign. Ultimately it is no use increasing salaries if the value of money is decreasing. It is therefore essential to try to limit Government expenditure as much as possible, and in this regard the officials of South Africa play an extremely important role. It is important to show one another what the interaction is between State expenditure and inflation, as well as the effect this has in turn on the erosion of the income of public servants.

Finally, I just want to put it to the hon the Minister that the Government should go a long way with the officials. Since we are involved in a process of change, and are on the way to a major change, such as the abolition of the development boards, the officials must be prepared for this and know what lies in store. A large number of officials can then find employment in the private sector, when it eventually becomes necessary. We have fine people in our Public Service, and I believe that if we were to extend our privatisation campaign, we could use some of those extremely competent people very effectively to expand South Africa’s economy. However, it is imperative for the Government to inform these people about this timeously, in order to retain the trust between the Government and institutions when there are steps towards change whereby people will be dismissed.

Mr Chairman, the 1986 report of the Commission for Administration, to which the hon member for Innesdal referred, certainly does make for most interesting reading. I want to agree with him in that regard. I read the objectives of the commission with particular interest and I was pleased to do so. Although I was part of the Public Service for many years I had never before seen the objectives of this commission in print.

It did not always seem to me then, I might add, as if the Commission for Administration was as interested and concerned about the people it employed as its objectives now prove it to be. I find generally speaking that these objectives are most commendable and, no doubt, if they were all attained, we would have an extremely efficient and well streamlined Public Service. Obviously, however, a great deal of hard work has to be done before this standard is reached and at the moment the commission is faced with many difficulties from which it is working hard and must work hard to extricate itself.

Much attention is given in the report is given to the general conditions of service of public servants. Some of these conditions are extremely favourable. One cannot deny for example that the pension scheme is extremely good. However, there are of course extreme frustrations within the service itself, particularly in those occupations which can be referred to as the essential services such as the teaching and medical professions and others. The commission states in its report that it is Government policy “to maintain public personnel’s pay and other service benefits at a level that is reasonably competitive with other sectors”. The problem with this is that the Government now employs so many people that there is simply not enough money available to ensure that this is going to happen. There are many occupations within the Public Service which are not properly remunerated, but the Government seems unable to rectify the situation, possibly because of the hundreds of thousands of people it employs generally and the coinciding already extremely high figure which it costs to employ them all. The Commission for Administration’s budget alone is R9,7 billion.

The Government had been extremely generous in the past in employing people, mainly White males we note, in the Public Service. There is little doubt that this was very much a vote catching mechanism in the past and that it worked extremely well. It has, however, unfortunately resulted in the Public Service now becoming over-burdened with officialdom which certainly does not make for efficiency, or appear to allow for these people employed in essential services and in important posts within the Public Service to be properly remunerated for their work. I therefore want to agree totally with the hon member for Pinetown who referred to the fact that any movement towards the reduction of numbers within the Public Service will be well received, and consequently this party will be watching the progress and the work of the function evaluation programme with great interest.

The commission’s report makes much of its policy of consultation and negotiation. I noticed with interest that the commission has established various bodies in order to consult with them with the purpose of keeping it up to date with the developments in the Public Service “to create opportunities for the commission to air its initiatives”. My honest understanding of the situation is that the Government does not know how to negotiate. It sometimes listens and then ignores the advice; sometimes it will not even listen. We see this all the time.

Unfortunately the same thing applies when it negotiates with its own employees. I can think of numerous occasions over the past years at both provincial and national level where the teaching profession has tried to negotiate with the Government on essential matters of conditions of service. However, these negotiations have not resulted in any improvements, despite the fact that the Government has often said that it acknowledged the important role that education played.

I read with interest an article in the Natal Mercuryof 18 August with the headline “State medical service deteriorates rapidly”. The article read, inter alia:

According to the article 40%of the posts at major hospitals are vacant as a result of the situation. The article continues:

Why are situations like this allowed to develop before they are investigated? Masa clearly informed the commission of the problem well in advance, but only when a crisis point was reached did the Commission for Administration decide to act. The whole concept of negotiation is a problem, and while I am pleased to read in the report that the commission is establishing these bodies which will allow for negotiation to take place I do urge the hon the Minister to give very real consideration to the commission’s negotiating process.

Serious consideration has to be given to the teaching profession’s continual plea to be treated separately from the rest of the Public Service. Many of the conditions of service which may be applicable to much of the Public Service are not easily applicable to the teaching profession. I think for example of such matters as merit assessment. I must stress that while no teacher objects to the principle of assessment as a positive on-going means of improving one’s performance in the classroom, the way it has been applied to the teaching profession, with the tag of merit attached to it, is totally unacceptable.

Teachers have tried to negotiate in this regard, but unsuccessfully. I believe that the teaching profession has to be answered openly and honestly as to why the Government will not move to see it as a separate entity within the broad structures of the Public Service. The function it fulfils is vital and yet the Government would appear to play down its role.

In conclusion, I noted with interest that the Public Service Joint Advisory Council passed a particular resolution at its meeting on 3 December 1985, which reads as follows:

I presume that what they are referring to here is the improvement of human relations among all the race groups employed in the Public Service. I am not aware of what the commission did in this regard, but I am pleased to know that something is being done. In the end the most important way to improve human relations is to treat people equally—equal opportunity of employment, equal opportunity of improvement, an equal salary structure etc. I therefore support wholeheartedly what the hon member for Pinetown had to say with regard to salaries and conditions of service of Blacks within the Commission for Administration. That there is such a disparity in job opportunity and job remuneration at present is appalling and the commission must do all it can to rectify this matter.

We cannot always make comparisons with what happens in other countries or in the homelands, as the hon member for Innesdal tried to do. We must, in fact, worry about what is happening in this country. This, I believe, is the important function of the Commission for Administration.

Mr Chairman, I apologise to the hon member for Durban North for not reacting to his speech. I should like to touch on a completely different matter, namely deregulation. At the start of the debate the hon the Minister indicated that he was now responsible for its overall coordination. This is a very important task which the hon the Minister has been given by the hon the State President.

Deregulation is a remedy which has been used in the USA, particularly since the late seventies, to end economic stagnation. There it was aimed particularly at greater competition, extensive creation of employment, increased productivity and lower consumer prices. Seen in retrospect it was not really such a well-considered strategy, but it nevertheless yielded results which fired the imagination. I want to mention a few examples. Between 1980 and 1986, 76 new airlines were established, and 203 so-called air-commuter services were established. The cost of air transport increased by 15%. In the same period, however, the airways tariff per kilometre dropped in real terms by 8,5%. Since deregulation started in approximately 1978 up to 1984 American air passengers saved approximately 3,5 million dollars as a result of lower tariffs.

The other side of the picture is that it is now apparent that monopolization has increased in intensity and that this is already starting to undermine the position of the consumer. In spite of the entry of a large number of new airlines the market share of the six largest airline companies in the USA has increased since 1978 from 73%to 84%, inter aliaas a result of successive take-overs. The same trend is to be seen in rail transport, road transport and long-distance telephone services. Alfred E Kahn is an economist at Cornell University, and he is generally accepted as the father of deregulation. Even he warned against this trend recently. He referred to it as:

Deregulation has therefore also turned out to be a mixed blessing. This tendency also proves a very important fact, namely that a developed economy can never function without any regulation whatsoever, nor can a single sector in it. Deregulation does not mean a total absence of regulation. While the course of the economy should not be obstructed, it should nevertheless be managed judiciously and carefully. Our Government’s advisers are apparently aware of this truth. This accounts for the official involvement of the Competitions Board in the investigations into deregulation. This is a sensible approach.

In any case we must not depend too much on the American success story. We cannot hope to achieve the same degree of success as the USA. The industrial component of our economy and the number of participants is simply too limited. Even our fundamental motives for deregulation differ vastly from those of the Americans. Their efforts were aimed mainly at air transport, road transport, railways and telecommunication services—all extensive and highly developed sectors of their refined economy.

Our underlying needs are different. As far as I am concerned the first challenge is to get the almost overwhelming Third World sector of our population to share in the benefits of the free market system. This in itself is a formidable task. We must have no illusions. The experience these people—namely our Black communities—have had of this system up to now could not have made them enthusiastic about it. If we Whites feel over-regulated, our Black people cannot but become despondent on occasion.

As regards this sector—other than is the case in the developed sector—we will have to move away radically from all the opinions we have adopted thus far regarding regulation. I want to illustrate this by means of an example—an example which concerns the ownership of fixed assets. Ownership is fundamentally the most comprehensive right any person can have. Essentially it is unlimited. It has no limits. In its most absolute form ownership means that a person can use his property as he wishes. He is entitled to the proceeds from it. He must be able to mortgage it. He must be able to alienate it. If he wishes, he must even be able to destroy it. However, in practice that right is limited—also as regards the use aspect. Ecological considerations play a role in the case of land tenure, for example, as do security considerations. Specific communities also lay down specific standards of orderliness.

In this connection it is of the utmost importance to bear in mind that our population consists of diverse communities, each with its own divergent needs and standards. It is nevertheless still true that the restrictions on the utilisation of fixed property in our country are frequently determined on the basis of the needs and standards of the most refined part of the community. It is also that part of the community whose standards are exceptionally high—sometimes even excessively high, when compared with those of other developed communities in the world. Our wealthy Whites want to live in peaceful residential environments; there must be no disturbances.

However, this only applies to a small part of the population—the highly privileged and most prosperous part; not those persons who are poor and unemployed and who must battle to survive. They are actually being done a disservice when the standards of the privileged part of the community are forced on them. For that reason I am making representations for us to divide our residential areas throughout the country into, say, three categories, with a view to land utilisation and zoning. Only a Minister who has co-ordinating authority will be able to do this. That is why I am mentioning it here.

In the top category the utilization will obviously be restricted to the residential. In the lowest category the principle of the utilisation of property must be brought back to fundamentals. A person who is entitled to the utilisation of the property must be able to use it for many purposes. He must be able to run a business on it. He must be able to operate a light manufacturing industry on it. He must be able to mend shoes. His wife must be able to make clothes. Of course they must also be able to live there. Only the absolutely essential health measures must be applied.

The middle category can be a mixture of the two. There, in an otherwise residential environment, one can allow the so-called corner café, for example. When we accept and apply this approach, it will be a real breakthrough. It will mean that we will stop merely talking about the fact that we have a dual economy—that of the First World on the one hand and that of the Third World on the other—and will actually accept it too.

This will not be a panacea for all the ills from which our society is suffering, but it will be a realistic point of departure where enterprising people can, without unnecessary restrictions, rise from the lowest level through the middle level to the highest category. If this goes hand in hand with guidance, financial support, education and training, it can open new vistas for people who are now facing a forlorn future.

Our Third World communities that have lagged behind will not chose a free market economic system unless we allow them to enjoy the benefits of this system in the context and within the possibilities of the Third World itself. As far as they are concerned we must virtually turn over a new leaf. In the first place we must forget about all regulation. Then we must determine all over again what matters should be regulated. We must do this with the minimum of restrictions and with the least trouble and expense.

There are two important prerequisites. In the first place we must do this without delay; the matter is urgent. In the second place, when we do this, we must do so in co-operation with the communities themselves, otherwise it will lack credibility. I am confident that the hon the Minister has the ability to make a big success of this, and I wish him everything of the best.

Mr Chairman, speaking after the hon member for Stellenbosch, I should like to turn to the other aspect of the White Paper, namely privatisation. However, I would like to share the thoughts that he expressed regarding sharing the fruits of our country among all citizens. I shall be dealing with that in my speech as well.

It is a curious fact that at a time when Government is looking to privatisation and deregulation as a means of providing goods and services with greater efficiency, Black South Africans are in turn showing an increasing interest in socialism.

Clearly, the benefits of capitalism as we have known them have not been available equally to White and Black South Africans. Equally clearly, Blacks are suspicious and are therefore looking at an alternative economic system. This situation does not differ markedly from that prevailing in the 1930s when many unemployed Afrikaans-speaking South Africans were absorbed into the Public Service. It is, therefore, not strange that Blacks will tend to favour and consider a system in which they perceive more jobs will be made available to them by the State.

Against this background we on this side of the House believe that privatisation must be soundly pursued but with great sensitivity to the needs of the majority of South Africans. Let me emphasise that we fully support the system of free enterprise. Men with equal opportunity and access to the resources of this country must be allowed to use their endeavour and creativity to provide goods and services at an economic price, driven by the incentive of profit. So often interference from the State has frustrated these efforts. Looked at in another way, the more economic functions a government absorbs, the more funds it needs to perform these functions. To meet the rising budget it can either print the money, thus fuelling inflation, or it can tax the productive sector. High taxes start working as a brake or disincentive on the will of people to create wealth.

I wish to deal with some of the theoretical aspects of privatisation which I do not believe is a controversial issue in this House. Clearly we support privatisation provided it meets the test of cost effectiveness. In general, we want maximum cost effectiveness in the provision of goods and services. Where greater cost effectiveness can be achieved by the private sector instead of by the State, and such cost effectiveness is translated into lower prices to the consumer, then such enterprise should be privatised. The key here is that where, through greater efficiency, the private sector is able to meet the consumers’ needs at a price—including a profit—which is lower than that at which the State is able to do so, then such enterprise should be privatised.

In applying this test great care must be taken regarding cross-subsidies which may exist whereby even after privatization the State may be able to meet the demand at a lower price because other State inputs are included at a price lower than economic. Under these circumstances privatization should still be considered but in combination with subsidies to users.

We therefore support privatization but I do want to sound four warnings. Firstly, we must never allow Government to introduce privatization as a means of escaping social responsibility. South Africa needs to spend a great deal more money remedying basic social deprivation before talking about the privatization of welfare services. Such services for the needy will continue to remain a State function.

Secondly, the State must continue to provide essential services which may not be economic on a privatized basis. In effect, the private sector may not wish to provide such services. If they do not do so and if the State does not do so they will not be provided at all.

Thirdly, privatization must not be seen as a means to indirectly increase taxation. By that we mean that where a service is provided by the private sector which was formerly provided by the State sector, it should result in a decrease in State expenditure which in turn should result in a decrease in taxation. If that does not happen, there has been an indirect increase in taxation.

Fourthly, privatization should not merely result in the exchange of a private monopoly for a State monopoly. Monopolies can be privatized but when this happens, there must be proper surveillance, proper audit and public scrutiny to ensure that the monopoly is not being abused at the cost of our citizens.

Finally, we support and encourage privatization provided that these warnings are heeded. However, we are disappointed at the lack of serious commitment in the Government’s White Paper. Similarly, the five year State expenditure plan which provides for a reduction of total public sector expenditure from 38%of GDP this year to 34,5%in 1991-2 is equally disappointing as we would have liked to see faster progress towards privatization.

Mr Chairman, in participating in this debate I must express my regrets that such a short time has been allocated to so important a subject.

I should like to say that in studying the White Paper on Privatization and Deregulation the obvious influence of the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology his officials clearly comes through. In congratulating that hon Minister and his officials on a job well done I must be pardoned if I express reservations regarding the wisdom of transferring this function away from his department. I would also like to express the hope that there will be a further far more comprehensive discussion of this possibility which concerns our economic future.

In regard to this White Paper I wish to state that the Official Opposition will be making full representations in writing in reaction to the White Paper in due course.

Those hon members on that side of the Committee who have had local government or provincial government experience will tell us that privatization is nothing new; that in fact that the transfer of governmental functions to the private sector has been going on for years with the introduction of the use of consultants in many fields such as engineering, transport etcetera. For privatization to be acceptable to us on this side of the House, it must have the prime result of lowering the financial burden upon the taxpayer without, at the same time, causing unemployment and/or the redistribution of wealth from the already overburdened taxpayer into the hands of big business.

The concentrated attention now focused on the whole concept of the slogan politicking of the day via “reform”, “meaningful change” etcetera is a sign of the times in which we live. However, we cannot allow ourselves to be carried away by slogans in our haste to conform with an almost hysterical tide in favour of privatization. We have heard hon members on that side of the House expressing great praise for the officials of department after department, and not without reason. In most instances we are in agreement as far as the performance of the officials is concerned. We must then also guard against the effect that the cause of privatisation may have upon those officials, namely that privatisation does not become a slap in the face to those very officials whose efficiency cannot be questioned.

We must also guard against the possibility of this Government selling up the assets of the people of South Africa, assets which have been paid for out of our taxes, from the people, in order to apply the proceeds to cover up their own past incompetence. [Interjections.] We must also guard against the real danger in South Africa, namely that of the control of these public corporations and functions being transferred from a Government that still has to answer to the voters—although the hon the State President would obviously have it otherwise—into the hands of a private corporation that seldom, if ever, has to answer even to its shareholders.

We will have to ensure that final control is not transferred until we are satisfied that privatisation will not in fact cost more.

The oft-quoted British privatisation campaign is really a bad example because its success has centred around a denationalisation process and not privatisation; in fact, where the privatisation of British telecommunications was effected with great success because of the monopoly held by Telecom, there have been considerable increases in domestic call rates, whereas on the international side, competition has forced Telecom to keep the rates down.

We will have carefully to monitor the controls necessary to ensure that we do not deregulate to the same effect as that other example of privatisation which we are given, namely the USA.

*I should like to quote from a report in Rapportof 19 July:

The report goes on to say that his plea for less State interference and State control over private enterprise, as part of his free market policy, strongly appealed to Americans who were sick and tired of rules and regulations.

In every case in which privatisation and deregulation were proposed, it was believed that the increased competition resulting from this would lead to more efficient services at a lower cost. Furthermore it is mentioned that in several recent opinion polls, the American public has indicated that it wants more control and regulation by the State in order to put a stop to the abuses of the past few years. In other words, only six years after it was introduced, they want to reverse the process and reintroduce the regulations, because of the chaos it has led to.

I shall mention a few examples. Firstly, deregulation has led to delayed flights and poor service on virtually all domestic airlines. Although the public has welcomed lower tariffs, the more than 417 644 delays in one year, as well as the lack of in-flight service, seems to be too high a price to pay. We shall have to give very serious consideration to this.

Let them have it!

They also say that the country’s telephone service has never been the same since the AT & T was broken up. Instead of going down, tariffs have gone up and several new services have proved to be substandard.

After six years, the pendulum has now begun to swing back towards more State intervention in the affairs of the country. This has been the result of deregulation in the USA.

†We shall therefore have to guard against this carefully. We shall have to ensure competition, even to the extent of introducing State bodies to combat monopolistic situations.

There is one area which affects me personally and that is the beer industry. I should like to see the State enter that field and establish a beer operation in opposition to the SAB, because I as a consumer, am sick and tired of their monopolistic attitudes. I am tired of buying flat beer and then having to be stuck with it. As far as I am concerned the retail liquor industry would also be extremely grateful to the Government should this happen.

Drink wine!

I must say we saw it happen with Sasol as well. Within seven months after its privatisation Sasol put the price of petrol up by 40%, after making quite a comfortable profit. We do not need privatisation of this kind.

If privatisation is inevitable—and I do not believe it is as far as major sectors of the public sector are concerned—I would prefer to see a system of shareholding and partnership introduced with a view to spreading the interest in the bodies previously owned by the public sector by allocating it to the taxpayers in South Africa whose money contributed to the establishment of those enterprises in the first place. [Interjections.] This would enable the State to sell up to 49%of an asset and still retain control until it is satisfied that the private sector is providing the same quality of service we presently enjoy from our very efficient State set-up in South Africa. We want the same services at the same price, and we want to ensure that nothing happens to upset the employment balance presently experienced in the public sector.

A further precaution …

Do you agree with the AWB’s policy?

I do not know why the hon member is so worried about the AWB. His party had a partner in crime in the 1940s, called the Ossewa-Brandwag, and they did far worse things than the AWB. Let us cancel that story. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to extend my sincere thanks to hon members for the good-natured spirit in which the debate on these two Votes was conducted. Since I only want to make my reply tomorrow, an agreement was reached with the mutual consent of the Whips that I may now proceed with the SABC. I shall probably run into heavy weather in the process.

Mr Chairman, please grant me the privilege of a short introductory speech. I sincerely want to thank my predecessor and colleague, Minister R F Botha, for the way in which he dealt with the affairs of the SABC before I took over.

I also want to extend my sincere thanks to the Chairman of the SABC’s Board, Dr Brand Fourie, and his board, for their substantial contribution. It is clear that the newly appointed board has tackled its task with diligence and enthusiasm. I also thank Mr J A Eksteen, the Director-General, members of his top management and the entire staff for their diligent work during the year under review. I should also like to thank the numerous writers, directors, musicians, artists, actors as well as the other people not in the full-time employ of the SABC, for their contributions.

When I assumed office I stated the ideals of enriching the religious and cultural services of the SABC. I think the annual report of the SABC indicates that in the SABC great care is taken of the religious needs of our complex community. In this regard I should also like to express my thanks to the two advisory committees of clergymen, one for Afrikaans-speaking and one for English-speaking persons.

Another important development in this regard is the appointment of Dr Jozua Potgieter. He will have a broader liaison and co-ordinating function between the executive and religious institutions, and also between churches and religions. As Brigadier and Deputy Chaplain-General in the Defence Force he maintained excellent co-operation with all the various denominations. As far as cultural enrichment is concerned, much has already been done as can be seen from the annual report. I want to express my sincere thanks in this regard.

Cultural enrichment should still be the watchword, and further steps are contemplated by the SABC, especially in respect of Radio South Africa and Radio Suid-Afrika. When I say that, I do not deny other groups their right to light and even rowdy entertainment. There are enough late time slots and other stations that can serve them but I do not begrudge the serious viewer and listener at least certain time slots when they do not have to suffer under Boy George and Madonna and Co. [Interjections.]

†Earlier this year the hon the State President warned that violence on television must be eliminated as far as possible.

But nothing was done about it.

I am also on record as saying that the substantial decrease in violence on television was non-negotiable. The SABC has not yet fully complied with this objective, but has co-operated well to this end. I can quote the series on Mountbattenas an example. I have in my possession a video showing for ten minutes the most horrible scenes of violence that were cut from this film. Similar scenes cut from Miami Viceand a number of other films can also be shown.

On page 35 of the report hon members will see that audience research figures show that an average of 13 million adults tuned in to 22 radio stations of the SABC during 1986, and an average of almost 10 million adults tuned in to the four television services of the SABC during the year under review. At present we have 23 radio stations instead of 22, and 5 television services including Good Morning South Africa.

Consequently it is self-evident that a fair amount of complaint and criticism must be received by the SABC and my office on a daily basis. We do our utmost to attend to these in a positive manner.

However, it is also fair to state that quite often we also receive kind and sincere letters of appreciation. I trust that hon members will appreciate how Herculean a task it is to cater for the vast variety of tastes and cultures.

*I want to state clearly and unequivocally that, in the light of diversity of our listeners and viewers and the restrictions on the SABC brought about by economic circumstances, for R6 per month, which is the price of two cups of coffee in a five star hotel, the corporation renders an excellent service to the public.

Finally, I want to concede that there is great concern about the financial position and prospects of the SABC. I do not want to evade that at all, and I shall refer to that in my reply.

Mr Chairman, I intend to concentrate on the question of the SABC, and more specifically the financial aspect, to which the hon the Minister referred at the end of his speech.

†Before I do so, I would like to revert to the hon member for Pinetown who inexplicably had to leave the Chamber but who I believe is on his way back. I would like to congratulate him on his selection as spokesman on the Commission for Administration. After all, he and I attended the same school and the same university in Durban. It is fortunate that politically we turned out very differently. However, I would like to congratulate him on his new position.

I want to say that the hon member has got off to a very bad start, because he tried to do a hatchet job on the Public Service of this country during the past few days specifically, and again, to some extent, today. [Interjections.]

I would like to refer hon members to two articles which appeared in The Argusand The Daily Newson last Thursday and Friday respectively. The heading in The Daily Newswas: “Burrows slams Civil Service: Riddled with major problems”. The article in The Argussays: “Civil Service Closed Shop”. It also has a very fetching photo of the hon member with his angriest expression trying to look like the “angry young man” he is always trying to be.

I think the sweeping statements and generalisations that that hon member came up with in these two articles do not redound to his credit at all. I think public servants will justifiably be rather sceptical about his bona fides when he deals with them in the future.

A second question arises apropos this, namely, why the hon member chose to pre-empt this Committee and the discussion of this Vote by us. I would like to ask if in fact he holds this Parliament and its Committee in such contempt that he prefers to use extra-parliamentary platforms, like the media, to discuss these matters a mere 72 hours or so before he has the ample and correct opportunity to do so in this House. [Interjections.] I would say that that hon member owes this House an explanation and an apology. [Interjections.]

*An important matter, which is also mentioned in the annual report of the SABC and to which the hon the Minister has just referred, is the question of the SABC’s finances. This is a subject of great interest to the public, and I should like to discuss it today.

Before dealing with specific information in this connection, I should like to remind this Committee of the fact that the SABC operates under special circumstances in this country, circumstances which are peculiar to South Africa. I wish to refer to only two such factors. The first is that we have large and sparsely populated rural areas, where viewers may rightly expect to receive a service of the same quality as urban viewers. In addition, there is the need for broadcasts in different languages for various groups and minority groups. I mention both these aspects at the outset because both have serious financial implications for the SABC and more specifically for its operating expenditure.

†When talking about the finances of the SABC, there is good news and bad news. I would like to deal with the bad news first, because I think one should get it behind one. The first point I wish to make is that in view of its declining income the SABC had operational losses of R27 million in 1985, and of almost R28 million in 1986. The projected deficit for the current year will be of a similar order. This is a serious situation, no matter from which angle it is looked at.

The second piece of bad news, I believe, is that the ratio between the income from advertising as opposed to income from licence fees—these are the two sources of revenue available to the SABC—has shifted towards advertising to an extent which I think is unhealthy; in fact, it shifted to 71%revenue from advertising and 29%from licence fees in 1986, compared to a ratio in 1980 of 60%revenue from advertising and 40%from licence fees. In Western Europe the ratio is on average 30%revenue from advertisements and 70%from licence fees. In the United Kingdom it is 58%and 42%respectively. In the United States, of course, it is 100%from advertising and 0%from licence fees, which I think is a situation which we would all agree is too ghastly to contemplate.

I believe, however, that our present ratio is bad news because it has resulted in too many advertisements on television, and it has also resulted in the SABC taking an ever-increasing slice of the available advertising cake to the detriment of the printed media, which play a very important role in our society.

Is this a party propaganda lesson?

I am trying to be serious and constructive, so the hon member for Dakar Central will excuse me. [Interjections.]

*I concede that these operating deficits have created the impression that the financial affairs of the SABC are not being properly handled. However, I submit that this impression is not borne out by the facts and that the SABC is indeed handling the situation in which it finds itself in a responsible manner. Incidentally, I think that recent reports about a television actress who received R18 000 without having done any work because the programme director wanted someone else for her role but the SABC was contractually bound and had to pay it, are not conducive to an image of financial discipline, whatever the merits of the case may have been. However, I am sure that the SABC will do what is necessary to counteract the creation of such an unfortunate image and any incidents that may give rise to it.

I have said that there is good news too, as far as the finances of the SABC are concerned, and I should like to outline it very briefly. Firstly, the increase in operating expenditure in 1986 was limited to 7%, representing a real decrease of 11%in one year and amounting to just over a third of the inflation rate. Secondly, in terms of its rationalisation processes, the SABC has abolished almost 1 500 posts, and at the end of 1986, the staff of the SABC was in fact 15%smaller than two years ago. As far as capital expenditure is concerned, there have also been drastic cuts and provision has been made only for essential expansion, especially in rural areas. It is expected that capital expenditure in 1987 will be about half of what it was in 1986. These are positive management achievements by the SABC, although the SABC is still taking a critical look at the cost structure of all its services, so that further steps may be taken in that connection as well.

†Unfortunately there is some further bad news in this respect, in that the SABC is basically facing what one can call a structural problem in its financing, and cost-effectiveness—probably quite a number of people will be talking about this today—cannot solve that problem on its own. In my view the structural problem arises from the fact that licence fees have fallen so far behind as a source of revenue, as I pointed out earlier. As a matter of interest, if licence fees had kept up with the inflation rate, they would now be R160 per year instead of R72, and this would have generated additional income of R170 million for the SABC which would consequently not have had any financial problems at all.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip. [Interjections.] It was a commercial break. [Interjections.]

†The fact of the matter is that the SABC’s books can only be balanced by one or more of the following three steps, or a combination thereof: Firstly, drastic cuts in the quality of television programmes and further reduction of local programmes with its negative effects on our local talent and TV film industry; secondly, more advertisements and; thirdly, higher licence fees. In my opinion the first two options are unacceptable. I contend that the SABC should seriously consider raising television licence fees even further in the interest of the quality of our television services.

The hon the Minister referred to the present cost of licences and that it amounts to R6 per month. He considered what that could buy in terms of coffee. However, I would just like to point out that one daily newspaper costs a family about R15 per month; two tickets to Newlands or to the cinema will cost R12 or more. [Interjections.] Yet the SABC gives viewers numerous rugby matches and films in one month and this costs, as the hon the Minister said, only R6 per month.

I would like to submit that if, for example, television licence fees could be increased by R2 per month, therefore R24 per year, and if one multiplies that by the 1,9 million subscribers, the operating deficit of the SABC will be virtually wiped out. In my view there are no soft options in this situation. Anybody who stands up in this Committee and delivers sanctimonious pronouncements on how bad the deficits are but is not prepared to come up with specific workable alternatives, is being hypocritical and very superficial. That is exactly what I am anticipating at this early stage of the debate from certain hon members.

I said and I do believe that there are no soft options if we want to protect our own entertainment artists and the character of our television services. We should all help the SABC to achieve this end.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon member for Umhlanga. In my opinion he made a very responsible and a very constructive contribution, and I believe the hon the Minister will reply tomorrow to the matters the hon member raised.

In this discussion this afternoon on the Vote of the SABC I should very much like to pay tribute to and thank everyone involved in the external radio service of the SABC. This will also be the theme of my speech this afternoon. Although these people are not often in the limelight, they are doing work which is of inestimable value for South Africa.

These external radio services of the SABC broadcast for approximately 210 hours per week in 11 different languages to countries in Africa, the Middle East, Western Europe, Britain, the USA, Canada and Latin America. In the broadcasts to these countries comprehensive, well-balanced and factual news on South Africa in particular is broadcast. Information is disseminated on the positive policies South Africa is adopting in order to improve the quality of life of all its inhabitants. Information is also given on the multi-cultural and multi-national character and composition of the population of South Africa, its economic power and industrial potential, its progress and achievements in the fields of science and technology, its history, and the ideals of the various population groups. In short, it attempts to give the outside world a true and cross-sectional picture of the life and the expectations of South Africa and all its people. These overseas radio services also inform South Africans abroad about events in South Africa, and in a calm but very determined manner they refute the untruths about South Africa which are being noised abroad.

Last but not least, religious programmes are broadcast by these services, which are of great value to listeners in both Africa and Europe. From reactions received to these religious programmes it would appear that they are particularly highly thought of in countries like Kenya and the Netherlands.

Now the question can justifiably be asked whether these external radio services of the SABC exert any influence. To this one can unequivocally answer yes. One of the greatest authorities on broadcasting in Africa, Dr Peter Orlik, wrote the following about this in a book entitled Broadcasting in Africa. He said:

I have also been informed that it is a well-known fact, and that the present Director General of the SABC can confirm, that most deputations from Africa at the UNO in New York regularly tune in to the news on Radio RSA to get an idea of what is actually going on in the rest of Africa.

In every communication process the success of that communication can be measured by the feedback. It is interesting to look at the number of letters the external radio services receive from listeners regarding their broadcasts. Between January and December 1986, 54 686 letters were received from countries in Africa alone. The total number of letters received was 87 315. After the introduction of extended Africa services in English, French and Portuguese on 3 May 1987, in June 1987 there was an increase of 48%in letters from listeners in Africa compared with June 1986.

In view of this I was therefore disappointed to hear that the amount requested to run the overseas radio services for the period from 1 April 1987 to 31 March 1988 has been cut by 17,5%from R20 190 000 to R16 661 000. I can understand this problem, and the hon the Minister referred this afternoon to specific financial shortfalls. However, this cut-back will inter alialead to services having either to be curtailed or discontinued. In the past the Netherlands service was curtailed, and the consequences were catastrophic. I went through this experience myself, because at the time I was personally involved with that service while I was studying in the Netherlands. That service had to be reintroduced later at very great expense, and it took years to build up the morale of the staff again.

Hon members must also bear in mind that The Voice of America, Radio Moscow, Deutsche Welle, the BBC and many other services have already entrenched themselves worldwide. On 25 March 1985 Johnathan Power wrote in The International Herald Tribunethat the large international broadcasting services had lengthened their broadcasting times from 2 000 hours per week in 1950 to more than 10 000 hours per week in 1985. This is what we have to compete with. Regarding the cut back on the budgets of overseas services a former Director General of the BBC, Sir Ian Jacob, had occasion to say the following:

These words could be applied directly to the South African situation. We will also have to think very carefully about the consequences before we start cutting back on this budget.

In the meanwhile the ANC is succeeding very easily in getting transmitters in European countries to disseminate their message of hatred and hostility towards the present dispensation and the existing order in South Africa. In 1982 the Netherlands made it possible for Radio Freedomto establish a transmitter there. Our information is that all the radio services together, with the exception of TROS and the EO, have placed 60 co-workers at the disposal of the ANC to operate the services of Radio Freedomas well as possible.

Radio Freedom’sservices have also extended to Africa, because they have acquired broadcasting facilities in Zambia, Tanzania, Angola, Madagascar and Ethiopia. The onslaught on South Africa by overseas radio stations has increased tremendously since 1984, even in Western countries. South Africa will have to reply to this and that is why our voice must become louder and not softer. Every possible channel of communication must be kept open and utilised. This afternoon I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to consider the possibility of increasing this extremely important Vote, and not reducing it. The cut-back on the budget for radio services can affect us so adversely that money will simply not be able to repair the damage done.

Mr Chairman, I must say the hon the Minister enjoys expensive coffee, but I want to tell him that the overwhelming majority of the viewers of television services are ordinary people, people like us on this side of the House, and not the fat cats on that side of the House. [Interjections.] These ordinary people turn to the television services for their entertainment because they are not able to afford expensive entertainment. They certainly cannot afford coffee at R3 a cup.

And five-star hotels.

I regret that the hon the Minister did not reply to the points that we raised during the censure debate. He had been briefed that we were going to raise the question of the SABC at that time and he had certain answers prepared for us, but they were not the answers to all the issues we raised on that occasion. My main complaint was that in spite of assurances by Mr Riaan Eksteen and Mr Sakkie Burger on 8 February that all parties would have ample time to put their views, the SABC relentlessly pursued a programme of promoting the interests of the NP during the course of the general election, and in fact became an integral part of the NP campaign. [Interjections.] During the course of that speech I gave a number of examples—that was on 22 May—and there is no need for them to be repeated here today. We never asked for equal time; all we wanted was fair treatment.

In passing I would like to tell the hon the Minister that I observed the British elections in England for a period of 10 days in June of this year. I was greatly impressed by the way in which the BBC and ITV handled those elections. It was an exercise in professional, impartial, democratic television work. The SABC has a representative in London and I hope that they ask him for a report on how events on this nature are covered in a fair and balanced way.

They do not want to be fair.

Yes, I am not sure that they want to handle matters like this in that particular way, but I have no doubt that they will be fascinated to discover how it should be done.

On 22 May I said that equal time was not the issue but rather the selection and presentation of news and views. Opposition parties have no facility for presenting their own views adequately on television. We in the PFP would prefer to present our own point of view in our own way rather than have the NP’s agents at the SABC present our policies and strategies as they perceive them to be. It was that particular point I hoped the hon the Minister would respond to and not the issue of the percentage amount of time given to each party, which in fact I had not raised. However, he had a long list of percentages which he read to the House and which the SABC that evening on their 18h00 radio news bulletin carried without any reference to the fact that the SABC had been criticised for the manner in which they presented PFP views. This is typical of the way in which the SABC conducts the news bulletins.

During the course of the general election the SABC had got itself into a mode out of which they still have to emerge. Therefore any item of news which appears to promote the views of the NP is used in as prominent a position as possible. Any item which will reflect on the PFP is used to excess. For example, I would say that the Van Rensburg and Van Eck defections were followed by lengthy interviews and numerous news items drawing the attention of the public to what was seen as the plight of the PFP.

However, a well-publicised meeting of the federal executive of our party was held this past weekend. It enjoyed considerable interest in the printed media and has resulted in renewed, positive interest in our party. For this reason the SABC would not report or comment on the comprehensive statement made by the hon leader of my party at the conclusion of that meeting, because it shows the PFP in a positive light. They will not refer to it because it does not promote the interests of the NP. What should happen is that my hon leader should be interviewed at great length on Network, as the outcome of that meeting is of great interest to a large number of South Africans, both those who support the PFP and those who follow the affairs of our party.

I have come to the conclusion that if one wants to know what is going on in South Africa, and indeed in the rest of the world, one must not only tune in to the brainwashing efforts of the SABC, but one must also turn to other forms of information such as the enlightened Press and other radio stations. In this connection I just want to mention one point in particular. There was a disgraceful performance last weekend by certain elements in our country regarding the death of Rudolph Hess. The media has taken this up at great length but the SABC has not reported on this issue at all and has not reported on the public outrage and the complaints of the hon member for Yeoville and the issues he has raised in that connection. It is not to their advantage to show this or to bring up these points of view and I should like the hon the Minister to explain why they have not responded to this issue.

Mr Chairman, on following upon what the hon member for Johannesburg North said, I should like to tell him that the hon member for Springs will deal very happily with his allegations relating to time and treatment on the SABC as far as his party was concerned during the election.

*Mr Chairman, there was a certain amount of criticism from the opposition side about the functions of the SABC. Although there is always room for improvement in any organisation, for a minute or two I should like to emphasise the positive contribution made by the SABC to South African society as a whole.

Not only is the SABC an important means of communication, but it also furnishes a community service. Here it is not merely a question of finance, but also one of community service. By means of radio and television the Corporation fulfils a great need amongst its listeners and viewers. Its activities influence the lives of millions of South Africans who reap the benefits in an untold number of ways.

Mr Chairman, permit me to refer to a few aspects of the community service furnished by the SABC. It is with great appreciation that we are conscious of the fact that South Africa still sets great store by Christian values and civilised Western norms. In its programmes the SABC endorses and promotes a Christian pattern of living, whilst at the same time ensuring that what is presented does not offend those who think differently.

Religious freedom is respected and a high standard of morality is maintained. Against this background religious programmes are broadcast in various languages. The dissemination of the Christian message accounts for a large portion of each day’s broadcasting time. Time is allocated to all the recognised churches. Millions of people who cannot attend church services, for various reasons, have an opportunity to tune in on a Sunday to church service programmes and programmes such as Kruis en Kroniekand Lifestyle, and also programmes for the aged, the physically handicapped and the unemployed. This aspect of the service, aimed at promoting the spiritual welfare of all South Africans, plays a very important role in combating the communist onslaught on our country.

There are also other spheres in which the SABC furnishes community services. Training and education are examples of this. According to the 1986 annual report of the Department of Education and Culture of the Administration: House of Assembly, the SABC is now working, in conjunction with the education department, to promote the national film library. This co-operation enables the national film library to bring the latest available educational technology to the attention of the public and those who might possibly make use of it. All educational programmes are also planned scientifically, with a view to vocational guidance.

The National Road Safety Council is making use of the SABC’s facilities to launch an educational research project involving road safety. Publicity is given to this during the Easter and Christmas period, a fact which has, I think, already saved many lives.

The language programmes Siyafundaand Dumelanghave inspired many White viewers to start learning an Nguni or Sotho language. I think that this community service will make a major contribution to improving human relations in South Africa. A great demand for the videos, cassette tapes and work-books are proof of the great interest these programmes have, in fact, engendered.

Teledata is now available in the PWV area too, and as far as educational programmes are concerned, we welcome the increase in last year’s amount, an increase of R1,352 million in the present budget.

†Mr Chairman, yet a further community service rendered by the SABC is the service to the all-important agricultural community in South Africa. We all know that farmers are always going to be richer next year. Through programmes like Landbouradioand Calling All Farmers, the SABC has concentrated on promoting a natural grazing strategy, and soil conservation, and encouraging modern farming techniques. Programmes on overcoming the effects of the drought, the locust plague, financial aid to farmers, weather forecasts and warnings of approaching cold fronts have been of inestimable value to the farming community.

In the field of sport the SABC fulfils a very impressive role. In 1986 full coverage was given to the Comrades Marathon, the Million Dollar Golf Tournament, the All Blacks rugby tour and the Australian cricket tour. There was also direct satellite coverage of Grand Prix racing and Wimbledon tennis. As a golfer I was impressed to note that the SABC is the only television service in the world that has actually recorded a hole in one and that by our own Gary Player. We also enjoy, in the comfort of our homes, magnificent programmes on music, drama and ballet.

Advertising on TV and radio provides the SABC with a substantial income but it also affords financial institutions, industry, commerce and tourism with valuable promotional publicity. If I could be constructively critical today, I would like to say that the SABC should look at the quality of some of the advertisements which, in my personal opinion—I stress the word “personal”—are immature and really an insult to the listening and viewing public’s intelligence. The SABC is, of course, not responsible for the content of the advertisements. That is the private sector’s responsibility. The board of the SABC could, however, perhaps look at the actual content of the advertisements.

Finally I want to pose the following question: How far does the community service stretch? The SABC, as the hon the Minister has mentioned, has 13 million listeners to radio every day. It broadcasts in English, Afrikaans and nine Black languages.

Further surveys show that some 10 million members of the public are daily viewers of television.

So, despite criticism, some of which is justified—mostly it is not—I believe that we as South Africans can be extremely proud of the SABC and the service it renders to our country. I have much pleasure in supporting this Vote.

Mr Chairman, I briefly want to congratulate Dr Jozua Potgieter on his appointment and his new function. We sincerely hope that he will perform this function in the way he is supposed to. In the second place I cannot do otherwise but congratulate only those members of the SABC who made a contribution to impartial telecasting and reporting by the SABC.

Mr Chairman, this is an important debate for the CP. The CP accuses the SABC of being the unabashed propaganda arm of the NP Government … [Interjections.] … and of being an unabashed propaganda arm for this fatal political direction in which this Government is leading the country. As a matter of fact it is the view of this side of the Committee that the NP can only remain in power with the assistance of the SABC. [Interjections.] The past election proved this unequivocally; I shall deal with this matter fully at a later stage. [Interjections.] Without the SABC the NP is lost. [Interjections.]

† In fact, the SABC’s 1986 annual report is an exercise in self-delusion. It gives us no cause for jubilation. It is a sad occasion when the SABC states in its official report to Parliament that it in fact favours Government policy. Certain statements in this report bear extremely close scrutiny.

Who wrote that note for you?

In fact, the statement in the report that 73%of the Whites believe everything they see on television makes the position of the SABC’s pro-Government policy even more lamentable, and this is a searing indictment of the SABC’s so-called—and I quote—“sense of responsibility”.

They haven’t got one! [Interjections.]

When there is a shortfall of R27,9 million in the budget of the SABC, this means that this shortfall can only be supplemented by an increase in licence fees. We have already opposed this by way of a Press statement and the time has now come to elaborate on it. I just want to say that the poor viewer must always bear this heavier burden.

Allow me to say something about the statement in the report of the hon the Minister that the SABC renders an excellent service for R6 per month which is the price of two cups of coffee in a five star hotel.

Who frequents a five star hotel?

Of course the question immediately arises who frequents a five star hotel. However the moral question is why I must pay television licence fees so that those funds can be used to oppose my standpoint. [Interjections.] Surely there can be no morality in a system where a person must pay licence fees which are misused to oppose his own political standpoint to which he is entitled in a democratic dispensation. [Interjections.]

As far as I know thus far no mention has been made of the conditions attached to the television licence of the SABC. I should like to submit the Gazetteof 15 June 1979 to hon members. In this Gazettethis Parliament promulgated a certain regulation by way of the power it had vested in the then Minister of National Education. Just consider what has become of these regulations and the conditions attached to the licence fee!

The first condition is that by means of its licence the SABC will afford all the national communities of the Republic of South Africa the opportunity to achieve total self-realisation within their own cultural and social milieu. When this condition which the SABC must meet, is tested against what is happening in practise, we see something completely different. We see a process of integration by means of advertisements. I want to illustrate this by means of two specific examples, viz the so-called “Black Forest” advertisement and the “Fiesta” advertisement. [Interjections.] We do not want to make unfounded accusations.

Secondly, we want to state unequivocally that the SABC, through many of the films which are televised, is assisting the integration process in this new South Africa, about which so much is being said. We need only refer to Saturday evening’s film, The Imposter, which not only started up an integration process as regards mixed schools … [Interjections.] Yes, and now hon members are laughing about this, as if this facet does not mean anything … [Interjections.]

Order!

In that film a love affair between a Black girl and a White boy was depicted. [Interjections.] When my children want to know from me what I think about such a situation, must I blame this on the SABC or the Government? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members cannot all participate in the debate at the same time. Hon members must please stop giving a running commentary now.

Mr Chairman, it actually goes further than that. I want to refer to condition (d) of this licence. This states that the SABC must reflect the newsworthy events of the day in the Republic and abroad factually, impartially and without distortion, clearly and unambiguously. We want to refer to a few examples to indicate that the SABC has not complied with this condition attached to its licence. Unless this Parliament is prepared to reprimand the SABC about this, the time has come for this to be done in another way. [Interjections.]

I am using recent examples in order to indicate that we could mention many more examples; as a matter of fact we have collected many examples. However, I shall confine myself to a few of these examples. A few evenings prior to the election there was an interview between Mr H D K van der Merwe and the hon the Minister responsible for the SABC. Whereas Mr Van der Merwe was aggressively interrupted and cross-examined by the relevant broadcaster, Mr Kolie van Coller, in the part of the interview in which the hon the Minister participated the broadcaster did nothing but nod his head in agreement as if he wanted to say …

Yes, Master!

… “yes, Master, we hear what you are saying, Master; we will do what you say, Master”. In that way he of course also influenced the voters. [Interjections.]

You have hit the nail on the head, Fanie! [Interjections.]

The wheel is turning!

If this is an example of the clear, impartial, undistorted facts and reporting which is presented to the electorate, which had to make the most important decision in South Africa’s political history on 6 May, then preserve us from the kind of impartiality that is being referred to here. [Interjections.]

We can take this even further. I can refer to the debate last Friday in which the hon member for Lichtenburg participated and in which he made a speech which made a very great contribution to the agriculture debate in South Africa. It was not concerned with partition. It was concerned with the elucidation of the problems of the farmer on the basis of the problems we are experiencing in agriculture at the moment. This speech of his, which even received recognition from the hon Minister concerned, was not broadcast anywhere by the SABC. There was no report on it by the SABC. It is as if it is feared that if the CP’s message were to get through, the Government might find itself in the dilemma that this party, which in its second general election became the Official Opposition for the first time, might become the Government of the country at the next election. [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry to interrupt the hon member, but his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am merely rising to afford the hon member for Losberg an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip for the opportunity. [Interjections.] Then the question arises: What are we doing about this process of Americanisation which is being carried out by way of television? We make a big fuss when the combating of communism is at issue, but we do nothing when programme after programme, film after film and advertisement after advertisement, based on this American model, is brought into our living-rooms and we must put up with this. I want to ask the hon the Minister what he tells his children or his grandchildren when he, like I, must explain scenes which appear on the television screen, which I cannot believe are in any way beneficial for the morals, the moral behaviour and the education of our children. [Interjections.]

I think the time has come for the SABC to become a member of the Media Council. We are asking the hon the Minister why the SABC is not a member of the Media Council. Is the SABC too afraid to be tested in this way? If it is not too afraid, it need not flee from the Media Council. We are asking the hon the Minister why the SABC cannot be tested by the “fairness doctrine” which is applied in American constitutional law. If they want information on the “fairness doctrine”, I can give them the documentation I have here. [Interjections.]

The CP says that the SABC is making an absolute mockery of the condition attached to the licence. They are laughing at Parliament. I am saying this with all due respect. The time has come for this highest Chamber in the country to appoint an ad hoccommission to investigate the financial dilemma in which the SABC finds itself, as the hon the Minister has admitted; the staff problems of the SABC; and last but not least, the reasons why these licence conditions, which are nothing but the right of the country, are not being complied with, and are simply being ignored. Who is the SABC simply to ignore these conditions and set itself above these conditions as if it is not committed to them?

His Master’s Voice!

That depends on your reputation.

We also want to ask seriously that a so-called media ombudsman be appointed as a permanent …

Order! An hon member is passing remarks here. Those remarks must cease at once. The hon member knows to whom I am referring.

The time has come for this House to consider appointing a permanent ombudsman, who must see to it that the SABC plays its impartial role and that the conditions for its licence are met.

†Last but not least, if the SABC wants to be truly credible it must remove itself from within the narrow parameters of credibility which it has set for itself and it must without delay appoint at least two well-known Conservatives to the SABC board.

No, you do not read English well enough!

To the best of our knowledge the SABC does not work with seats, but with listener numbers. The Official Opposition represents 560 000 voters. [Interjections.] We also want to see the day dawn when we get our rightful share in this connection. We do not only want to be negative about the SABC. We also want to make a positive contribution, but we also want to be recognised for what we are, namely a political party which for the first time in its existence participated in the general election and became the Official Opposition.

Our hon leader wants to be respected as the Chief Leader of the Official Opposition. We all want to be respected for what we are, in order to make a contribution towards a better South Africa, and not in a unilateral way, as if power-sharing is the only political direction by means of which peace and security can be achieved in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Losberg has just very effectively destroyed the only partner they ever had. It was their partner in the election and in their activities and actions. The CP does not have a daily newspaper as a mouthpiece and the only time when they are really in the news is when the SABC gives them news coverage. [Interjections.] If the negativity that radiated from the hon member for Losberg’s speech is representative of the attitude of the CP towards the SABC, their spokesman, in my opinion, succeeded wonderfully this afternoon in destroying the partner they still had in the SABC. [Interjections.]

I want to dwell on a second point made by the hon member for Losberg. When one takes into account the number of seats that the CP and the NP represent here respectively and makes an analysis—the hon member for Springs will refer to this in detail later on—of how much time is given to reporting CP events, it is actually a … I am almost inclined to look for a word that I may not use. What the CP says about the SABC being a public propaganda arm of the Government is simply not true, because the facts contradict that, and the hon member for Springs will provide further proof. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Losberg also said something that upset me very badly. He spoke about the licence conditions and said:

Do you want to get a fright again?

The AWB! Eugène Terre’Blanche!

I should just like to know from him what these other means are to which he referred, because he did not elaborate on them. [Interjections.] He merely suggested something, and I can guess that he means that he will make use of the AWB. [Interjections.] It is their military wing, which in season and out of season … [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow this stream of interjections by the CP. It must cease immediately.

It is therefore a confirmation of the fact that they will use their military wing, the AWB, to carry out this threat. It is indeed a disquieting situation.

The hon members for Losberg and Johannesburg North referred to the two cups of tea or coffee which the hon Minister used as an example. Now this is merely an example chosen by the hon the Minister. It is surely not the only example. If one chooses any example to illustrate what the R72 that one has to pay annually for a television licence—which amounts to R6 per month—can be compared to. I could say that it is as expensive as one rugby ticket, for one person to attend one game. If one looks at the way Northern Transvaal plays rugby, it is really worth the money for the whole year. [Interjections.]

Sometimes I think that for a moment we lose the sense of wonder at what the television gives us. Sitting in one’s lounge one can watch the best sports in the world as if one were sitting in the best seats. One receives the best seats for the most important boxing match and for rugby matches. I can continue in this way and speak about the variety offered by the SABC, and all that for R6.I think it is the cheapest entertainment in the world. [Interjections.]

When one listens to the hon members who discuss the SABC here, it is very clear that it is not possible for the SABC to satisfy everyone at all times.

The PFP wants to claim the SABC for itself and wants it image and policy to be broadcast most of the time—their leader must be given enough opportunity on Network—and the CP wants to claim it for itself. I think the SABC is succeeding in an excellent way in giving a balanced account of what is happening in South Africa.

Of the NP.

Perhaps these hon members who say that the SABC is biased or NP-oriented, are either being wilful or they watch very few television programmes, because it is simply untrue.

The SABC has a three-fold function. Firstly, it has to inform people and disseminate information, and because South Africa consists of different population groups the SABC has to take all these population groups into account when programmes are broadcast. Secondly the SABC must provide entertainment. It is simply not possible for the SABC to satisfy every person’s individual taste all the time. Some people will want to watch sport the whole week, others will want to watch classical music, others will want to watch light music and others pop music.

And you people want to watch Pik Botha.

The others will want to listen to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the hon the Minister of Finance or the hon the Minister of National Education. That is true, and there are also people who would like to listen to them. The hon member is quite right. [Interjections.] There are also those who want to look at cartoon strips …

No, I do not want to watch the CP.

Incidentally, they may perhaps attract more attention.

The SABC is a medium that also has to provide opportunities for relaxation. I therefore want to say today that if one takes an objective look at the composition of all the different radio and television programmes of the SABC, it is indeed wonderful that they manage to maintain a balance in keeping everyone happy in a South Africa which does not consist of a homogeneous group of people—there are different groups of people who have different tastes and different cultures.

As far as the SABC is concerned, I particularly want to express myself with regard to the television medium of which Daniel Woorstin said: “Of all wonders of television, none is more remarkable than the speed with which it came”. South Africa has had television since 1974. Over the years there have been a number of investigations, in the same way as there were certain studies and investigations throughout the world, and I want to make a brief reference to that, since it has become clear that watching television has become the most general human activity world-wide. I want to provide a few interesting facts on this to indicate what place television is occupying in the life of human beings.

In a study that was carried out, it was found that the number of hours that std 5 pupils spend on an average per week on the different subdivisions are as follows: The playing of sport, 4 hours; the practising of hobbies, 3,4 hours; listening to the radio, 12,1 hours; homework, 10,9 hours; and television, 23,4 hours. If one bears in mind that a primary school child attends school for approximately 27,5 hours per week, and compares the 23 hours with that, one sees is that a junior school child spends a significant amount of time watching television. That is why parents and the community could well ask with concern what influence television has, particularly on younger children who are exposed to it for such long periods. When the written and printed word appeared in the past children did not have access to books before they learned to read. Television, however, is a medium offering stories in images and sound and the child therefore has access to it from a very early stage. Therefore it must of necessity have an effect on the child.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon Whip of the Official Opposition.

It is therefore fair to ask whether the behaviour pattern of the child is influenced. One of the aspects that has been receiving attention since the fifties in the USA particularly, is the amount of violence occurring in television programmes. The hon the Minister also referred to it. The question is being asked whether it has a negative influence or any influence at all on the younger children who watch it. This is a valid question if we take into account how many hours children in particular spend watching television.

It was found in an analysis made in 1954 that in American television programmes a form of violence occurred an average of 11 times per hour. Later investigations showed that violence had even increased in frequency. Studies on the influence of violence also showed that there was a definite correlation between the extent to which violence occurred in programmes and to which children were exposed to it and the aggressive behaviour among younger children. We therefore take grateful note of the fact that, as the hon the Minister said, the SABC is also mindful of limiting programmes that contain extreme forms of violence. There is another facet that one has to bear in mind, however, and I also want to mention it to the hon the Minister. It cannot only be the SABC that has to be responsible for ensuring that violence does not occur in its programmes, because there is a tremendous increase in the use of videos which, according to surveys, are being used increasingly by teenagers in particular as a form of entertainment. In South Africa there are also that can receive Bop TV as well as M-Net. If we are serious about combating violence, it cannot in my view be really effective if only the SABC receives strict rules to which it has to keep if all the other forms of the same kind of relaxation are not all judged by the same yardstick. In conclusion …

Hear, hear!

It was such a good speech that the hon member gave me the opportunity to speak again and now he says “Hear, hear” when I want to stop. [Interjections.] I do not understand the hon member at all, just as I do not understand their policy.

Order!

You must come along so that I can teach you properly!

Order!

I want to conclude by conveying my sincere thanks to the SABC and to the board and management of the SABC for the excellent and balanced programmes that they provide under very difficult circumstances for all the viewers in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, although the hon member for Sunnyside has in my opinion already dealt most effectively with the arguments of the hon member for Losberg, I just want to return to one aspect of his speech. That is that the hon member for Losberg reproached the SABC for not fulfilling its cultural obligations function in terms of its licence. He also reproached the SABC for advancing integration in South Africa by means of advertisements and films. He also accused the SABC of Americanising our society. The hon member for Losberg in fact alleged that the SABC is involved in a process of equalisation that wishes to undermine the culture of the Afrikaner.

In one respect I agree with the hon member for Losberg and that is that the Broadcasting Act of 1976 does in fact determine that the SABC has to compile its programmes with due consideration for the interests of the English, the Afrikaans and Black cultures. If one takes a realistic look at the cultural diversity of the South African society, one has to concede that the SABC most certainly serves the most diverse groups of listeners and viewers in the world. To illustrate this I refer to the fact that radio programmes are broadcast in 11 different languages and television in seven. This makes exceptional demands on this media.

Now there is this criticism of the hon member for Losberg and the same criticism was also expressed time and again outside this House in the public Press and other spheres that the SABC in terms of its licence was neglecting its cultural obligations particularly with regard to Afrikaans as a language and the Afrikaner culture. Amongst other things reference is made to the local Afrikaans productions on TV, simulcasting and advertisements. It is also said that the SABC neglects serious or classical music in its programmes. It is the standpoint of the SABC, as expressed by the hon the Minister, the chairman of the board of the SABC and also its Director-General, that the radio and television programme content is aimed at the advancement of every group’s cultural identity, its history, its traditions and its language. As I said at the beginning, viewed against the background of this cultural diversity, the SABC is not always able to satisfy everyone’s preferences. Let us admit that just amongst Afrikaners alone there are so many differences about what should be offered and what should not be, that it is an impossible job to satisfy everyone in the process.

Although we all agree that it was difficult to grow used to the commercials or advertisements on Radio South Africaor Radio Suid-Afrika, after experiencing it in practice for 18 months one has to concede that these two stations still show the same cultural basis as they did before January 1986, when the use of commercials on these stations had begun. This afternoon the hon the Minister also referred to the cultural deepening that is taking place on these two stations.

There is also the recrimination that classical music is being neglected. This recrimination simply does not accord with the facts. Radio South Africa, Radio Suid-Afrikaand also Radio Allegrotogether devote 34 programmes to classical music before 11 o’clock in the evening. The SABC in fact makes a welcome contribution to and stimulates the pursuit of serious music through its music competitions and other musical activities. There are numerous examples of that which one could mention. I particularly want to refer to the choir competition of the SABC—the TV choir competition, which in my opinion gives an exceptional impetus to choir singing in South Africa.

While I should like to give recognition this afternoon to the good work that the SABC does in the area of serious music, I want to ask the organisation—SATV in particular—please not to forget about Bloemfontein when it comes to its music and cultural performances.

Where is Bloemfontein? [Interjections.]

For the past year and longer choir, singing and music concerts were held in this city—the capital city of the Free State, for the information of the hon member for Innesdal, which our viewing public in my opinion would very much have liked to have seen if only they had had the opportunity.

Every week Radio South Africa devotes at least half an hour directly to Afrikaans as a language in programmes such as Kloutjie by die Oor, Hoe Praat die Boere?, en Die Taal wat ons Praat. The latter contains not only practical language guidance with reference to viewers’ enquiries, but also contains contributions on the origin of Afrikaans, its position today and its features. Some of our most qualified linguists contribute to this programme.

There is also the recrimination to which I referred earlier that there has been a decrease in local Afrikaans productions for television. However, if we examine the average percentage of local content over the past five years, we note that more than 50%of the programme material in Afrikaans is produced locally. This is the ideal which the SABC set for itself from the beginning. Furthermore—this is something that we often lose sight of—the programmes that are dubbed into Afrikaans have not only created a cultural growth point, but have also brought about an industry that provides hundreds of Afrikaans actors, directors and translators with work.

There is the recrimination that Afrikaans is not being accorded equal treatment as a result of simulcasting. These allegations once again do not accord with the reality. [Interjections.] Scientific research has proven that a significant percentage of Afrikaans and English-speaking viewers prefer to hear a television programme in its original language. This is a fact that we have to bear in mind. We must also take note of the fact that the original soundtrack of the dubbed programmes are broadcast on the radio. No original soundtrack that is produced in Afrikaans is translated into English or broadcast by the radio as a simulcast.

Suffice it to say that the SABC is not in the process of undermining Afrikaans through its practice of simulcasting. To sum up I can say that we can be critical about television, particularly with regard to Afrikaans. We must nonetheless remember that the Afrikaans language and culture is strong and pure. I therefore want to state unequivocally that exposure is not a threat to it.

Mr Chairman, …

Let them have it, Wynand!

… I just want to associate myself briefly with the hon member for Bloemfontein East in that I think the SABC is in fact doing good work as far its cultural task is concerned.

I just want to ask myself whether the SABC indeed reflects South Africa as it is in its news services and its actuality programmes. We have a whole series of media. If I look at the newspapers, I concede that each one has its own standpoint, including its own political standpoint. However, it covers an entire spectrum through the various newspapers that exist. Whether one is speaking of Weekly Mail, South, or New Nation, Die Patriot, Die Afrikaner, or Die Stem van die Boerevolk, Die Burger,or Cape Times, Die Vaderlandor The Natal Mercury, each has its own standpoint. In this whole, however, a spectrum and a message come through those media which reflect the entire community.

Now it is being argued that the SABC is also entitled to its own standpoint. I think one could adopt certain political editorial standpoints. I think the SABC is free to do so. However, as regards the presentation, of the news selection, as a monopoly it has a responsibility to reflect a broader spectrum of South Africa and to say what is in fact happening there. In the first instance, I do not want to indulge in party politics, or say whether this or that party is being favoured.

In his speech the hon member for Losberg gave a great deal of attention to the degree to which the CP is supposedly being neglected. He also said that they represent more than 500 000 voters. He must at least bear in mind that South Africa has approximately 30 million people.

There are other channels, too.

No, we are speaking about the SABC and the news services themselves. If I look at that, the question I want to ask is what is being reflected, what is in the news and what is not in the news. The hon member for Sunnyside said he thought the SABC was performing a fine task by showing what is happening in the country. I think he is in fact relying on what he hears from them when he says that, since it is clear that he does not take cognisance of anything more.

I just want to mention two examples in this regard. The first example has a bearing on something which happened two weeks ago. The Sunday evening just before the NUM strike began, there was no reference to it on TV, whilst the events leading up to it were given a great deal of attention in the written media, and in the Sunday newspapers in particular. No reference whatsoever was made to the impending biggest strike ever, by the largest trade union, in the gold mining industry, what is more.

I want to mention another example. We regularly see little pictures on television which are shown in main and lead reports—Snow Storm in Indiana. We do not read about this in any of the newspapers. In any case, I think that if one were to ask the public at large what Indiana is, they would think they were a few chaps imported by Minister Pik Botha to beat up Joe Clark. [Interjections.] We do not even know where it is.

I am afraid the SABC does not fulfil this obligation in respect of news services and actuality programmes. The question now is who one must quarrel with. Must one quarrel with the SABC and its board, or is there another filter or medium through which news is selected? I am afraid there is a truth in this second part of my question.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he is prepared to tell us in this Committee whether the SABC and its board are conducting their activities and fulfilling their functions under the Act and in terms of the regulations that apply to them, or whether they are fulfilling their obligations in accordance with guidelines which the hon the Minister presented to them, with the approval of the Cabinet, or at whatever level.

I want to make one final remark, once again in reaction to the speech of the hon member for Bloemfontein East. When we speak of the identification of culture, we must not become obsessed with Black and White, as the hon member for Losberg views it. To me, the Bill Cosby Showis the best programme on television, and I suspect the same applies to his supporters in the Free State, as well as the farmers in the rural areas. The Black people in the urban areas form the largest viewership of Dallas. We can identify with Bill Cosby, not because he is Black, but because he conveys part of a culture, in his Black family, with which we can identify. I am grateful that the SABC takes the trouble to present programmes like this, where we can in fact identify with something of value, and not on the basis of race.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Randburg will have to forgive me, because I am not going to react directly to his contribution. I should also like to refer to the SABC news services, but in an entirely different vein to the criticism which that hon member expressed. In the course of my speech, however, I think I shall deal with some of the aspects he touched on.

It was barely ten years ago that I left the news service as a news editor, after having had the privilege of serving in its parliamentary service. Most of us make contact with the outside world for the first time through the medium of the SABC. When I was a child, if I remember correctly, news time and church time were times when silence had to reign. In the rural areas today the SABC is still the most important source of information for a news-hungry public. The SABC is the most important guest in most of our houses, and furthermore, the news service, with its ramifications, is the most important source of information for the whole of South Africa.

I should not like to deal with the surveys which were recently conducted by Rhodes University into the objectivity or otherwise of the news services at the time of the general election.

Order! Hon members must please speak more quietly. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Another hon member will in fact deal with that, and those hon members who are so eager to assert that the SABC did not perform its duty, will then have to contend with scientific facts. I do just want to say, however, that if the SABC can maintain its objectivity at such an emotional time as a general election, it would be practically absurd to accuse it of any subjectivity of any nature thereafter. That is why I found the report in Die Vaderlandof 20 August extremely amusing, and I am pleased that the hon member for Losberg has now enlightened us properly on this matter or rather that he has taken us into his confidence. I want to take him to task for having alleged that the SABC is promoting a process of integration by means of integrated programmes. Before I come to that, I want to say that we were out in the bundu over the weekend, and I am really grateful that the SABC’s licence has not yet been withdrawn and that we could in fact hear how things went in the match between WP and Transvaal.

Let us look at the facts in respect of alleged integration. To this day, the SABC news services still recognise all language and cultural groups by broadcasting news not only in their own languages, but also in their own idiom. In this respect Radio News, for example, is one of the most comprehensive radio news services in the world. Aside from the various television news programmes, Radio News broadcasts no fewer than 280 news bulletins per day in 20 languages, 12 of which are Southern African Bantu languages. If that is not a recognition of the requirements of the cultural variety of our entire subcontinent, then I do not know what is. Is it fair, then, to say that the SABC is promoting integration?

The point I want to make, is that the object of the SABC’s news service is to keep the South African public constantly informed of news-worthy events on the local, national and global scene, in a reliable and balanced manner, having full regard to modern demands as well—I want to make this clear—as the wishes and needs of the country’s various language and cultural groups.

If the effect of this information were to be that people were influenced in one direction or another as a result of actual facts, then surely the critics should not find fault with the medium. After all, it is no good shooting the postman when your girlfriend has sent you a letter breaking off the engagement! When all is said and done, an information medium must convey the bad news as well, and apparently the realities and the facts are bad news to our opposition parties.

Order! I hear several members all talking at the same time, and that is definitely not in order. The hon member for Germiston District may proceed.

Let us look at the philosophy in accordance with which the SABC operates its news service. I shall just quote one or two extracts from the news service philosophy:

Perhaps this is the answer to the statements the hon member for Randburg made.

In respect of public affairs and news commentary, at which most of the criticism is being directed, I just want to quote a few points from the SABC’s philosophy and have them placed on record. The object is to present information factually and without distortion within the South African context and to relay newsworthy events in a balanced manner, but with fairness towards various interest groups, with topicality as the determining journalistic criterion. The second point which is very important—I hope the hon member for Randburg is listening—is not to offer any platform for the promotion of radical or revolutionary change and always to serve the best interests of the democratically minded communities.

People’s democratic communities!

The PFP should put that in their pipe and smoke it.

That excludes the NP.

Another objective is to constantly recognise the multiplicity of the South African society as an indisputable fact and to affirm the protection of minority groups. Minority groups could, of course, include the PFP as well. After all, this is one of the media which still pays a little attention to them from time to time.

This philosophy is applied in a level-headed manner whenever skilled copywriters have to read through the approximately 800 000 words which are received every day from news agencies, the seven regional offices, the parliamentary team, foreign correspondents in London, Washington and elsewhere, and its own correspondents in the larger centres, as well as from paid news correspondents. I think we ought to gain a greater appreciation of the magnitude of this task when we consider that a total of 40 000 of the 800 000 words are written in Afrikaans alone after they have gone through the sifting process. It must also be remembered that those 800 000 words do not all represent strictly true news, but also contain copy which has originated in propaganda agencies in Africa and in totalitarian states. Consequently the SABC’s news service is also flooded with disinformation on South Africa. The news personnel have to separate the wheat from the chaff and broadcast the good material.

The total airtime of news bulletins on radio and television amounts to no fewer than 28 hours a day. Viewed against this background, it is almost ironic that an organisation such as the SABC’s news service, which is run by experts, should be criticised and prescribed to from so many unwelcome quarters. There is one fact, however, which is as plain as a pikestaff and which I should like to put to the hon the Minister and to the SABC, and that is that when the day dawns on which the news services succeed in satisfying everyone in all areas, it will not have succeeded in its directive and in its aim of keeping viewers and listeners fully informed. Radio South Africa and the SABC-TV reach more than 40 million people every day with their news services and thereby to a large extent satisfy the information needs of an entire subcontinent.

This news service has to compete against a number of propaganda stations in Southern Africa which have one objective only, and that is to discredit South Africa. The SABC must be congratulated by this Committee on the manner in which it has retained its credibility. Even to this day, it serves as one of the most important sources of objective information on the entire continent.

On behalf of this side of the Committee, I want to thank the SABC and to tell them to continue to promote the truth. After all, the truth will prevail in the end.

Order! I want to make it very clear to hon members that if they converse in such a manner that the presiding officer can follow their conversations word for word and hear what they are saying to each other, they are conversing too loudly. If the presiding officer then asks hon members to lower their voices they must not simply carry on. If this continues I shall be obliged to name hon members by their constituencies. The hon member for Germiston District may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. Perhaps they should join the SABC so that they may speak on their own.

Yes, that is true.

I want to tell the SABC that in the end the truth will surely prevail. I want to tell them that their task is to inform the general public in a factual and objective manner. We are telling the news service to carry on in this manner, without fear and without paying any heed to ill-founded criticism. Considering the licence fees we pay for the quality of the product we receive from the SABC, we are getting a bargain.

Mr Chairman, as one could expect, an attempt was made in this debate by the spokesmen of the governing party—I am referring to the hon members for Sunnyside and Germiston District in particular—to portray the SABC as a fair and unbiased medium which does justice to all political parties and which is not in any way trying to promote integration. All one can say about that, is that only the blind and the deaf in our midst would not be able to see or hear it. Apparently there are many blind and deaf people in the ranks of the NP. However, the hon member for Losberg dealt with this matter very thoroughly, and I therefore want to leave it at that.

To begin with, I want to say something about the religious programmes of the SABC. I think the SABC deserves some appreciation for the ample time that is allocated to religious broadcasts on radio and television. Worship services, epilogues and family devotions satisfy a great need, particularly among our older people. Nevertheless, something happened during a service broadcast over the radio last year to which I should like to draw attention, and I should like to believe and accept that this was an unfortunate exception.

Order! I have to appeal to the hon member for Sea Point, if he wants to hold a caucus meeting of his party, to hold it elsewhere.

Seeing that they are all together it may be a good idea. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must not trifle with the Chair. The hon member for Brits may continue.

I am referring to the service which was broadcast on 2 November 1986 from a congregation of the Hervormde Kerk in a Pretoria suburb. It is common practice, after such a broadcast service, for the minister concerned to be provided with a commentator’s report. In this report an evaluation is given of inter aliathe contents of the sermon, the minister’s voice quality, the logic of the presentation, and language usage. In this sermon the theme was as follows: The striving to reach upwards in search of God, is fruitless; man must be made receptive to the descent of God from above. Christ is central to this movement from God to man. Everyone who is familiar with the Bible, will have to acknowledge that this is true, and that it is even a central truth in the Scriptures. What was disturbing, however, was the fact that that commentator’s report had the following, inter alia, to say about the sermon:

1. 1. Die Ínhoud is ’n baie sensitiewe saak. Sonder om kompromieë te bepleit, dink ek dit was ’n verkeerde tema.
2. 2. Die tema kan aanstoot gee vir ander gelowe.
3. 3. Sonder dat hy drasties is, beweeg die prediker dalk op dun ys om oor die ander godsdienste te praat—veral in hierdie dae.
4. 4. Ek dink die boodskap en sy inhoud—hoewel waar—was te onsensitief vir hierdie sensitiewe dae. Hoekom nie plein bekering preek nie? Dis die ware geloofwaardigheid, dan nie?

Aside from the fact that the commentator, who is supposed to evaluate the language usage of the minister, was himself guilty of poor language usage in this report, I should like to make a few observations in this regard.

Firstly, South Africa is still a country in which the Christian religion serves as a norm for all sections of society.

Secondly, the truth, as contained in the Word of God, is not bound by the constraints of time. What held true in 1948, is still true in 1987—whether this is offensive to some people or not.

Thirdly, the compiler of the report is obsessed with the possibility that offence may be given to other religions—as opposed to other Christian churches.

Fourthly, religious freedom is recognised and respected in South Africa, but only the Christian faith enjoys official recognition by the SABC.

Fifthly, there is a very important difference between religious freedom, which we recognise, and religious parity, which we can never recognise. Religious freedom and the official recognition of other religions are two different things.

We do not deny the freedom of everyone in this country to practise his religion as he sees fit, but in so doing, we are not implying that religious parity exists in our country or that it is justifiable. Although it is fair to expect of a minister on the SABC radio or television service not to give offence to other Christian churches, the same requirement cannot be laid down in respect of other religions.

In this regard I should like the hon the Minister to make it clear what he meant when he announced this afternoon that Dr Joshua Potgieter would have “a broader liaison and co-ordinating function between management and religious institutions, as well as between churches and faiths (gelowe). What precisely does he mean when he talks about faiths? Does he mean other Christian churches, or other religions? If he means other religions, then I ask him to enlighten us during his reply as to what is envisaged with this. We are not prepared to support a dispensation in which there is official recognition of other religions and religious parity within the SABC; in fact, we want to make it clear this afternoon that we shall oppose it with all the strength at our command. [Interjections.]

I also want to dwell for a moment on the question of violence and aggression on television. It has been found in various overseas studies on this subject that there is a direct relationship between exposure to violence and aggression on television, and the subsequent behaviour of people who have been exposed to it. In one such investigation it was shown that it is an accepted method in television material to murder someone in order to solve certain problems. According to this study, the question may rightly be asked whether this might not influence regular television viewers to solve their problems in this manner as well.

An American newspaper maintains that by the time the average American child leaves school, he has already witnessed 18 000 murders on television, as well as detailed incidents of arson, robbery, fraud and bomb blasts. Surely such an experience in a child’s life cannot but have a negative influence on his entire personality.

I have also done a little background reading on our own situation in this regard. The most recent studies I could obtain, were those contained in HSRC research dating from 1978 in the case of TV1, and 1983 in the case of TV3. As far as TV1 is concerned, the incidence of aggression is highest in those programmes containing an element of drama. The percentage of the total broadcasting time allocated to this type of programme increased from 19, 3%in 1976 to 28,7%in 1978. [Interjections.] As for TV3, it was found that the drama programmes shown before 8 o’clock in the evening—that is to say, the time when most children are exposed to them—contained the highest incidence of aggression and violence. What is particularly revealing, however, is what happened in sport programmes. As far as sport is concerned, 14%of the total broadcast time allocated to sport on TV1 in 1978, and 21, 7%of the time allocated to it on TV3 in 1983, was devoted to scenes of aggression. I believe this is something to which we should pay serious attention.

Furthermore, from an educational point of view, it is also not a healthy state of affairs for our children sometimes to have to witness, sometimes for minutes on end, how a famous tennis star is unable to control himself, and how he refuses to accept the umpire’s decision. It is harmful to our children to see their heroes in two rugby teams become involved in a group boxing match and physically attack and assault one another in front of thousands of people on the pavilion and hundreds of thousands in front of their television sets. One can only guess how negative an influence this has on young and receptive children.

Of course, the SABC cannot be blamed for such an incident during a live transmission. What we do expect, however, is that they will pay some earnest attention to incidents of aggression and violence whenever they do have control over them.

People, and particularly children, become accustomed to violence and aggression if they are continually confronted with it. If one is confronted day and night with murder, bombs and arson, it is only logical that in due course these acts will no longer arouse any repugnance in one. In this way we could be co-operating, unintentionally, in raising a generation which has no respect for the lives and property of other people. We should like to hear how much progress has been made with the project to keep violence and sexual promiscuity out of SABC programmes. As television has now been with us for more than a decade, we believe that a comprehensive investigation should be conducted into the influence of this medium on our society.

Mr Chairman, towards the end of his speech, the hon member for Brits tried to broach a variety of subjects. I want to react firstly to the question of violence. In his introductory remarks earlier today, the hon the Minister also referred to this issue and indicated to what extent violence had already been excised from certain programmes. He referred specifically to the programme series Mountbatten, from which quite a number of violent scenes had been cut. I want to recommend to hon members that they make arrangements with the SABC to go and have a look for themselves at the scenes that were cut. As a study group, we took the trouble to go and look at the problems the SABC has to contend with in cutting scenes like these from films while still maintaining a coherent whole and not destroying it altogether.

To drag the issue of tennis players who cannot behave themselves and rugby players who exchange blows into the discussion on violence, is in my opinion taking things too far. [Interjections.] If we were to try to adhere to all the criteria the hon member laid down here, we would only be able to watch Liewe Heksiefrom morning to night. Life does not only consist of Liewe Heksie,however, but of far more than that. [Interjections.] I agree that one should restrict violence, and particularly unnatural violence, to an absolute minimum, but violence nevertheless remains a part of reality.

What about the Blonde Spioen?

Oh, you are becoming such a bore with the Blonde Spioen. I shall let you have her telephone number and address, or else I could ask your former candidate in Springs to introduce you to her.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member entitled to address another hon member directly?

Order! What is the point of order?

Mr Chairman, my point of order is that I object to the fact that the hon member for Springs is addressing another hon member directly instead of doing so through the Chair. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Overvaal is not wrong, but I want to associate myself with the hon member for Springs and say that if the presiding officer were to guard against any infringement of the rules in this Committee, it would be virtually impossible to conduct a debate, because so many rules are infringed. The hon member for Springs may continue.

I just want to say in passing that according to the manner in which the hon member for Losberg behaves in the Committee, the name “Losbek” would apparently be more appropriate for his constituency.

I now want to come back to the question of violence. Although I agree that excessive violence, and particularly unnatural violence, should be kept off the TV screen, it is also true to say that violence is nevertheless a part of life. Violence occurs in everyday life, such as those aspects of it which merit news coverage, for example. Provided one deals with it correctly and in good taste, people will in fact, even find it fascinating. Everyone of us has at one time or another told our children the story of Little Red Riding Hood,and one compels the attention of one’s child far better if one tells him how gruesomely the blood flows when the wolf’s stomach is chopped open, and so on. After all, it is part of human nature, and it will not serve any purpose to try to place people in the proverbial strait-jacket. One must face up to reality.

This immediately brings me to another statement the hon member for Losberg made. According to him, the SABC has now become the direct propaganda arm of the NP. The hon member also made the almost amusing remark that the NP came to power in May only through the help of the SABC.

I said, “could stay in power”.

The hon member for Losberg warned us against the surfeit of Americanism which is supposedly being forced on us. Shortly thereafter, however, he asked that the SABC be subjected to the “fairness doctrine”, which is merely another Americanism. He therefore selects only those things which suit him.

He has been brainwashed.

What he is doing, is illustrating precisely the dilemma of a medium such as the SABC. An institution such as the SABC, by its very nature, deals with spiritual assets (geestesgoedere) and when one is dealing with those, one has to contend with such things as taste, judgment, artistic feeling and news selection. Every day, kilometres and kilometres of telexes filled with news reports arrive at every newspaper office and also at the SABC. The news staff of every media institution must naturally make a selection during the course of the day. The moment one makes a selection, there is a subjective choice involved. We cannot escape that.

Like the time you killed Die Transvaler.

Of course I had to make choices in the days when I worked at Die Transvaler. My choices suited the hon member for Brakpan at the time, because he was still a member of the NP. That was before he absconded. [Interjections.] The point is, he agreed with it at the time. The problem is that one must, of necessity, make certain choices. Whenever one of us makes a choice regarding news, no one else would be able to compile that newspaper or that news bulletin in precisely the same way. It is not humanly possible. For that reason, hon members must accept that this is the luck of the draw, as the English say, and that the Government of the day is the biggest newsmaker as far as politics and the administration of the country are concerned. For that reason the Government will receive the greatest amount of news coverage.

I want to deal with this matter in greater detail. Reference was made to figures. If the SABC had had such a tremendously large influence on the results of the election, then on the basis of the news coverage which the NP received—as far as news and public affairs are concerned—it should only have received 45%of the total support of the electorate. The fact is that the NP received 52,4%of the total number of votes.

It was the Progs who voted for you. [Interjections.]

Hon members of the CP may engage in as much fancy footwork as they like, but the fact is that the one hon member of the CP who received the most exposure on TV—I am referring to the hon member for Brakpan, who appeared often, particularly in the election slot which was broadcast in the evenings on Network—did not fare so well in the election. What was his majority? His majority was smaller than mine. I did not appear on television once. Television and television coverage do not create a product for one. [Interjections.] One must formulate a saleable policy and then market it. [Interjections.] However, to insist that television or radio, or whatever medium, must sell it for you, simply does not make sense. In any event, the public do not go for nonsense, regardless of who dishes it out to them. [Interjections.]

The other interesting phenomenon—let us forget about the news selection that is done—is that the one programme on television at the time of an election which should be the most objective, is precisely that election slot during which the spokesmen of the various parties put forward their parties’ standpoints on various subjects, without any news value being attached to them.

†The hon member for Bryanston also complained. Maybe he should be very thankful that the SABC and especially television did not give them even more coverage, because in that slot on television they got 20, 5%of the coverage, …

I did not say that.

… they and the NRP together, because they formed an alliance. They got 16%of the final vote. The fact of the matter is …

I did not speak at all.

I apologise. I meant the hon member for Johannesburg North.

The fact of the matter is that they should not blame the SABC for their weak strategy, for their entering into an alliance that did not spell out their own policy positively.

*At one stage we heard a tremendous amount about a survey and a study that had been conducted at Rhodes University.

Order! I regret to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip for the opportunity of completing my speech.

Koos wants to cross over!

Mr Chairman, the statement I was making, was that at one stage we heard a great deal about a survey which had been conducted by the Department of Communications at Rhodes University into election coverage by the SABC. The hon member for Sandton in particular made frequent reference to it. He practically acted as a spokesman for them, and we have reason to believe that this study was to a certain extent initiated by the PFP. However, they have become strangely quiet about that survey. The question now is whether the PFP were not pleased with the results, because the results of that survey correspond very closely to the figures I have just provided, which are the results of another survey which was done. Perhaps we shall hear more about this from the hon member for Sandton during tomorrow’s debate, and we shall then be able to debate it with him at greater length.

I want to conclude by asking the hon members of the CP a question. They have so many complaints about the coverage given by the SABC during the election. They say they were neglected. My question, then, is: Why did the hon leader of that party thank the news staff of the SABC after the election? How does that work?

They were given hopelessly too much time.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.