Mr. Speaker, I move—

It is necessary to request Parliament to approve an additional amount of R84,647,651 so as to meet expenditure up to 31st March, 1968. Of this amount R51,165,871 is in respect of the Revenue Account and R33,481,780 is in respect of the Loan Account.

The amount requested on Revenue Account, is only 3.7 per cent more than the amount provided in the Main Estimates for this year. But if the special contributions to certain pension funds, which amount to a total of R17,000,000, are not taken into account, the picture is quite different and the increase is approximately 2.3 per cent. The amount requested on Loan Account represents approximately 6.3 per cent of the amount voted in the Main Estimates for the current year. This amount, too, includes certain unusual items which, if we were to leave them out of account, would give us a much lower percentage deviation, namely 1.83 per cent, on the Main Estimates for the current year. It is probably not expected of me to go into the various Votes in detail. My colleagues are present and will, as they did in the past, be prepared to reply to any questions hon. members may have.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister is asking us to-day for an additional R51,000,000 on Revenue Account and an additional R33,000,000 on Capital Account. While the House is in Committee we will make inquiries from the respective Ministers as to why these amounts are wanted. There are, however, a few general observations I should like to make.

Firstly, the additional R51 million required for Revenue Account is, as the hon. the Minister says, 3.7 per cent of the original estimate. The hon. the Minister told us that if it had not been for the special contributions to the pensions funds, the amount would have been considerably less. This is so. But the hon. the Minister must realize that every year there is something special in the Estimates. It is no good eliminating one item from the Estimates and then making comparisons. Last year the Additional Estimates on Revenue Account showed an increase of 2.5 per cent on the original Estimates. At that time we asked whether 2.5 per cent was not too high a percentage to ask for in the Additional Estimates. This was the hon. the Minister’s reply:

Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to refer the hon. the Minister to the words contained in Luke, chapter 24, verse 11: “Their words seem to them as idle tales …” But I hope in the light of the remarks of the hon. the Minister last year, he will comment far more fully than he did in his opening remarks as to this increase from 2.5 per cent to 3.6 per cent. Because, if he was relying on the contribution to the pension funds, then I ask him why it was necessary in these Additional Estimates to provide for these amounts for the pension funds. He has provided for the Public Service Pension Fund R10 million; for the S.A. Police and Prison Service Pension Fund R5 million; the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund R2 million; making a total of R17 million. Had these additional contributions been left over until the main Budget, of course, the hon. the Minister would have had a quite different picture.

We know that there had been some actuarial valuations of the Pension Funds which took place in 1963, the reports of which the hon. the Minister no doubt received last year. These reports show that there are greater deficiencies in the funds than there were previously. Before these valuations were received the Public Service Pension Fund showed a deficit of R8 million; the Police and Prison Service Pension Fund, R3.12 million; and the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund, R3.62 million. Since the actuarial valuations which are as at the 31st March, 1963, there have been changes. The Public Service Pension Fund remains at R8 million; its actuarial valuation has not been received; the Police and Prison Service Pension Fund is now R24 million; and the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund is now R8.121 million. One would have thought that the hon. the Minister would have looked at the balances of these funds at the 31st March, 1967 before he asked for these additional appropriations in the additional estimates. The Public Service Pension Fund had R264.6 million in it. The Police and Prison Service Pension Fund stood at R75 million while the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund stood at R44 million. Last year the payments out of these funds were: The Public Service Pension Fund, R12.5 million; the Police and Prison Service Pension Fund R3.9 million; and the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund R2 million. It is quite clear that the hon. the Minister has in these funds more than adequate capital to meet any demands on them. It is nonsense for the hon. the Minister to provide in these additional Estimates R17 million when the money will not be needed for years.

I think the hon. the Minister is making somewhat of a mockery of budgeting when he asks us for these additional amounts. Their proper place is in the March budget. The hon. the Minister knows better than I do that the purpose of the Additional Estimates is to provide funds which are urgently required before the end of the fiscal year. The hon. the Minister I hope will explain to us why he has taken these amounts at this stage. If of course begs the question that the hon. the Minister’s position may be such that he is very anxious to get rid of a very large surplus. Of course we know nothing about that. We are also asked to vote in these Additional Estimates some R2 million odd under the Police vote for equipment, arms and ammunition, an increase of over 60 per cent. I am not querying the amount that is involved. But again I say that it seems to us inexplicable that within a month of the Budget it should be necessary for the hon. the Minister to come and ask us for this additional amount. It seems inexplicable that the amount on equipment, arms and ammunition should have urgently increased by 60 per cent.

The second point I want to raise is this. The figure of R51 million which the hon. the Minister gave us, really does not reflect the true position. What he is in fact asking us to do is to agree to new expenditure not of R51 million, but R61,606,394. Quite rightly the hon. the Minister has used his powers of virement and in addition to the R51 million that he is now asking, he is also going to spend an additional R10,600,000, which he has saved on other heads, on new items which he has presented in the Additional Estimates. And if we work out this percentage, we find that what the hon. the Minister is asking for is not 3.7 per cent of new expenditure, but 4.5 per cent of new expenditure. Now, 4.5 is a very high percentage indeed. Surely the additional expenditure should not be approximately one-twentieth of the Budget? But this is perhaps not surprising, because if we look at some of the items in these additional estimates we come across some very surprising things. Miscellaneous expenses for the Senate have gone up by 40 per cent whilst the postal, telegraph and telephone expenses for the House of Assembly have gone up by 50 per cent. This might be attributable to the ex-Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I do not know when he increased the rates. The item “general” under the Police Vote has gone up 20 per cent, expenditure on postal, telegraph and telephone services by 30 per cent, while the expenditure on detective services have gone up more than 60 per cent. Surely, Mr. Speaker, when the original Budget was drawn up these things should have been foreseen. We can anticipate that there will be items of additional expenditure every year, items which no one could have foreseen. But when you have this extra expenditure on ordinary items of administration, it surely is bad budgeting. I can refer to a host of others—for example: In the Agricultural Technical Services Vote there has been an increase of more than 80 per cent for veterinary field services and an increase of more than 500 per cent in respect of plant pest control expenditure. I concede that these might have been instances where nature took control, something which the Minister concerned could not have foreseen. In such cases we cannot object to the additional expenditure. But let us look at the Defence Vote now. We budgeted to spend R32 million. The Minister has now transferred an amount of R29,999,950 saved on other heads—in other words, he has doubled the expenditure. This is a strange way of budgeting. So I can go on and on. Under the Foreign Affairs Vote there has been an increase of more than 30 per cent in respect of rent and of more than 40 per cent in respect of residential premises. These are not things that happen overnight but should be covered by proper forward planning. This does not seem to have been done here. Under the Justice Vote the item “barristers’ fees and expenses” have gone up by 130 per cent. We realize that it may have been necessary to employ outside barristers but, surely, to a certain extent it could have been foreseen. So, I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to explain to us the reason for these extraordinary high increases.

I want to come to a third matter. When the hon. the Minister presented his Budget for the financial year 1967-’68, he budgeted for a revenue surplus of R50.8 million. At the same time he provided for a transfer of R43.7 million thereof to capital account, leaving on a cash basis—which the hon. the Minister now seems to like, as I do—a surplus of R7.1 million. But, what do these additional estimates now mean? With a surplus of R7.1 million the Minister is now asking this House to vote a further R51 million. Well, Mr. Speaker, you do not have to be an accountant to know that if you have R7.1 million and you want to spend a further R51 million you are faced with a deficit of R43 million. The Minister has given us no indication that there has been any change in the fortunes of the focus so far this year. We can only go by what he told us when he presented his Budget, i.e. that he had a surplus of R7.1 million. Therefore I do not think it is correct for him to come to this House and ask us to vote a further R51 million, so that we end up the year with a deficit of R43 million. I think it is the duty of the hon. the Minister, if he wants us to vote funds over and above the surplus he anticipated when he introduced his Budget last year, to take the House into his confidence. I do not expect the Minister to anticipate his main Budget but we can expect him to tell us that we can vote these amounts without fear and trepidations of disturbing the financial equilibrium of the country. He may add something more, but if not, we are prepared to be patient until the 23rd March.

You are going to embarrass him in a minute.

No. He will not be embarrassed. Wealth has never embarrassed anyone. As far as capital expenditure is concerned, the hon. the Minister has done a little better this year because the figure in this respect is 6 per cent in comparison with 10 per cent last year. At this stage we offer no criticism in regard to the capital estimates but shall deal with the items in detail when we go into committee.

As regards this additional expenditure, the hon. member for Park-town raised three points. I do not intend to react to the last of these three points. That is a matter I shall leave to the hon. the Minister. I realize that this is not the time for a general financial debate, and for that reason I only want to react briefly to the first two points he raised.

The first allegation he made, was that the additional amount the Minister requested here was very large and compared poorly with what it ought to have been. This additional expenditure represents an increase of 3.56 per cent on Revenue Account and 6.27 per cent on the Loan Account. Let me say that as far as this is concerned, the record of the National Government is a good one. Last year the additional expenditure was 2.5 per cent more on Revenue Account and 10 per cent more on Loan Account, and in 1965 the additional amount required was 6.2 per cent on the two accounts taken together. Over the period 1959 to 1964 the average annual requisition was 2.7 per cent. If one calculates this over a period of nine years, one will find that the additional money required every year has on an average been just under 4 per cent. If we compare this year’s 3.7 per cent with that, we shall find that these additional estimates of expenditure do not compare very poorly. We must remember that the Main Estimates are drafted more than a year before the time, and that is why it is impossible to budget for exactly the right amount. In fact, it is impossible to go into a financial year without additional estimates.

What percentage do you regard as fair?

The percentage the National Government is maintaining is to my mind a fair percentage. Hon. members must bear in mind that we find ourselves in a period of inflation, and that the Government has instructed departments to curtail their estimates drastically. If that is taken into account, one finds that these additional estimates are extremely fair. They are for R50 million on an original Estimate of R1,400 million. But apart from this there is yet another consideration. Hon. members opposite are continually pleading that the State should spend less money. Well, in the Main Estimates the State tried to do so, but now hon. members come forward and say—now that we have to request additional funds—that we are budgeting poorly.

While we are talking about percentages, what was the state of affairs in those years when that side still governed the country? In their last few years after the war, until they came to a fall, they had an average annual increase on the Additional Estimates of 10 per cent—over four years—whereas this Government could over a period of almost ten years maintain an average additional requisition of just under 4 per cent. This is my reply to the hon. member for Parktown who said that the percentage was too high and that this was bad budgeting.

The hon. member for Parktown raised, in the second place, the question of the heavy increases in respect of certain items, and he mentioned the pension funds. I do not intend discussing this matter, because that is the function of the hon. Minister in question. But as far as the pension funds are concerned, I just want to remind him that last year he and I served together on the Select Committee on Public Accounts and that we submitted a report to Parliament in which we pointed out to Parliament that there were deficiencies in these pension funds. In fact, the actuarial valuation of these funds—all of which were not yet available at that stage, but are in fact available now—showed that the figures we had submitted to this House had in fact been quite too low, and some of the funds showed much larger actuarial deficits. Now the hon. member says that there is sufficient money in the funds and that there is no risk of their being unable to meet the demands made on them. As an ordinary layman, I do not want to argue with the hon. member about that, but I nevertheless want to tell him that he as a qualified and reliable auditor would attach the necessary importance to the report of the actuaries. Any fund which is actuarially unsound, is after all not a sound fund. Therefore the Minister has to supplement these funds, and now the question is raised: When? It is not for me to say, but if the hon. the Minister sees that he might have funds available for this purpose, then my contention is this: Why should one wait for a new financial year and then have to take a much larger amount, when at a later stage one will nevertheless have to find additional money for the funds; in that case it is better to vote at present a relatively small and reasonable amount so as to keep these funds sound. This is my reply to the second point the hon. member raised. Therefore I want to conclude by saying that we do not accept this accusation of bad budgeting, that we reject it.

I do not think the hon. member for Parktown is very serious in what he said here. I think the hon. member merely regards it as his duty to rise and to say that he is warning against over-budgeting as he called it. But as against that I want to say that over-budgeting or under-budgeting for 2 or 3 per cent, on a budget such as the one we have, is really an achievement under the circumstances in which we are living. The hon. member for Queenstown pointed out that the expenditure side of the Budget is drafted in November or December for the following year. We have to budget here for a period of almost 18 months, and I do not know whether there is a single individual who is capable of planning in advance, within 2 per cent, his own budget for 18 months, n this regard we are dealing with a State that has to estimate its expenditure for 18 months in advance, with an economy in which circumstances change all the time. We are not living in a static period in South Africa. We thank the Lord that we are living in a growing economy in which special items occur all the time. The hon. member for Parktown says that we are talking about special items every year, but there will be special items every year, and we are pleased that this is the case. The day when special items no longer occur, there will be a deadness in our development. I can assure him that in spite of his words of criticism I shall come with special items again next year and the year after. [Interjection.] I am adhering to the principle I stated here Last year, namely that it is the task of a Minister of Finance and a Government to keep its Estimates as close and accurate as possible, but I feel very happy under the circumstances. Although I was not responsible for drafting the expenditure side of these previous Estimates, I nevertheless feel that as far as expenditure is concerned, we managed very well to remain within the limits of the estimated expenditure. In actual fact, 2 per cent or 3 per cent is nothing to complain of in Estimates such as these.

The hon. member spoke about the pension funds. If we know that there are deficits in the pension funds and we meet those deficits even though the amounts in those funds are still very high, I do not know what the country will lose. But if the actuarial reports we received in August show that there are considerable deficits in those funds, why can we not meet them now while we have the money? And this is no secret; I can tell the hon. member for Parktown that we do have the money. Since we do have the money, why can we not meet those deficits now? I think that it is simply sound finance to set aside reserves—even if it is in pension funds—when one has the opportunity to do so. I think that as an auditor the hon. member will agree with me that an ordinary business concern would do that. The hon. member must also bear in mind that these funds which we are now putting in the pension funds so as to make them more sound actuarially, do not represent money that is going to waste. That money is always at the disposal of the State if it wants to borrow it again from the pension funds.

Then the hon. member called attention to certain items of expenditure. I do not want to go into those items of expenditure now. My colleagues will do so when their Votes are discussed. But it is very easy to select individual Votes and to say that expenditure increased here by 50 per cent, or 100 per cent, but then the hon. member should also be fair enough to say that there are items of expenditure that showed a decrease of 50 per cent or 20 per cent, and that the over-all picture we have is very favourable.

Then, the actual question the hon. member put to me, was how it came about that we were now budgeting for a very large amount of money, because it would result in a deficit if we went by last year’s Estimates. Well, I think hon. members opposite are slightly jealous, because we know that we can afford these items of expenditure. We are grateful that our financial position in South Africa is so strong that we can afford this additional expenditure and even much more if we want to. I do not want to mention any figures, but we anticipate that on our Estimates we shall have considerable surpluses which will enable us to afford this additional expenditure.

Motion put and agreed to.

Under sub-head E, “Miscellaneous expenses: General,” there is an increase of more than 100 per cent. Will the hon. the Prime Minister tell us what this amount is for?

Firstly, there is an amount of R5,000 in respect of the State funeral of the late Dr. T. E. Dönges; secondly, there is an amount of R607 representing money wasted as a result of the cancellation of the State banquet that was to be held for the retiring State President. The additional amount of R1,593 is in respect of the presentation that was to be made to the retired State President at the banquet which eventually did not take place, a presentation produced by the Mint and which hon. members know about.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 5,—Police, R7,345,329:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what the reasons are for the increase of R1,460,000 under sub-head B “Subsistence and Transport: General” and also for what reasons ex gratia payments of R1,500 each were made to Weideman and Biaggio.

The hon. member for Parktown referred to this Vote when he participated in the debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply. I think that hon. members on that side can make a very good guess as to why this Vote contains such considerable increases throughout. The reason for this, of course, is that when the Estimates were prepared last year it was impossible to foresee that there would be such an increase in police activities on our borders and also in Rhodesia. This additional amount of R1,460,000 is largely due to the fact that subsistence, motor transport, general transport, etc., in connection with the extensive services to be performed there by the police resulted in increased expenditure. I should like to furnish the hon. member with the details he asked for: Subsistence costs amounted to R500.000. The subsistence costs will obviously be higher when members of the Police Force are sent out of the Republic as was the case during the past months. It is also obvious that there will be a considerable increase in motor transport costs, particularly as a result of the special conditions under which motor transport is used in that territory, for example the lack of good roads, a high rate of wear and tear, heavy fuel consumption, etc. The additional amount asked for in this regard is R935,000. Then there is an amount of R9,000 for general transport. A further amount of R16,000 is included for the purchase of two boats that are being used on the Zambezi River in connection with the activities of the police there.

The hon. member also asked me for what reasons these two ex gratia payments were made. In the case of Weideman the position is that he was a passenger in a Government vehicle which was involved in an accident with a private motor-car. Weideman sustained very severe injuries in the accident, and with the approval of the Treasury, it was then decided that an ex gratia payment would be made to him on account of the pain and suffering he had endured. The relevant amount is R1,500. In the case of Biaggio the position is as follows: Detective Constable Venter, official driver, was involved in a motor-car accident while on duty on 9th December, 1964. The other car was driven by Biaggio. Biaggio was subsequently charged with driving while under the influence of liquor and was in fact convicted, but afterwards a claim was put in on the grounds that Venter had also been negligent to a certain extent in connection with this accident. A claim for R6,667 was put in to begin with. The case was referred to the State Attorney, and eventually the matter was settled and it was decided to make an ex gratia payment of R1,500. …

Will the hon. the Deputy Minister indicate to us what the other ex gratia payments are which fall under su-ex gratia payments are which fall under subas distinct from sub-head B?

I am not in a position to furnish the hon. member with the reason for this immediately. Presumably there are reasons why these items of expenditure have been placed under different sub-heads. The details in connection with the ex gratia payments under sub-head E are as follows: Hon. members will remember that in the case of Muller we have already asked approval for an ex gratia payment of R2,500 in the past. This resulted from an accident which occurred at Elsies River when the services of a certain Mr. Robbemont were called in to help the police in pursuing a suspected burglar. While they were pursuing the latter, Mr. Robbemont. who is not a member of the Police Force, apparently slipped and the pistol which he was holding in his hand went off and he shot Muller. As a result of this we asked for the approval last year of an ex gratia payment of R2,500. The amount being asked for now. is in respect of the legal costs, which were not included at the time. The next case is that of Roos.

On 15th August. 1966. Sergeant S. J. Roos placed a revolver which was an exhibit in a case, in the drawer of the desk of another constable. Constable Fourie. For some unaccountable reason or other the revolver went off. The Committee will just have to accept the fact that it sometimes happens in the case of these young men that fire-arms go off in unaccountable ways.

The reason for this simply cannot be determined. In any case. Constable Fourie was shot through the hand. There were certain expenses amounting to R1,288 in connection with this accident, and it was then decided that an amount of only R100 would be collected from Roos in respect of these expenses and that the balance of the amount, namely R1,188, would be paid by way of an ex gratia payment.

But Fourie was shot.

Yes, but Roos was responsible for it.

But why are you paying Roos then?

This was not a case of payment for pain and suffering; this was a question of responsibility. Roos is the man who handled the revolver and for that reason he was held responsible and an amount of R100 was collected from him.

Who received the money?

The R100 was simply paid in. Nobody got the balance. It is a claim against Roos that was written off. The details of the expenditure are as follows: Workmen’s Compensation contribution, medical costs, salary and allowance. These are costs that were involved here and they had to be defrayed in one way or another. Consequently the Department had to make provision for this ex gratia payment.

Concerning Constable L. H. W. Hornschuh I want to give the following explanation. He put in a claim against the Pearl Insurance Company, but failed to include particulars as to salary, allowances, transport and medical costs in his claim. This claim was subsequently settled between the parties. As I have said, these particulars had not been included in the claim, and consequently provision had to be made therefor. It was decided that provision would be made by way of an ex gratia payment.

The next case is that of C. S. Venter, and this is a very long story. The hon. gentleman on the other side has asked me about it. and I am now going to tell this story.

It is a large amount.

Yes, it is a large amount. A certain Constable Esterhuizen was on duty as a police van driver in Pretoria on 2nd July, 1966. He saw a collision between two vehicles. The driver of the one vehicle reversed in order to get away, and a constable who was with Esterhuizen in the police van, jumped in before the vehicle and was almost knocked down. Thereupon the vehicle drove off at great speed and the police pursued it in their van in an attempt to detain the driver. I understand that they drove through the streets of Pretoria at a speed of 70 miles an hour at times. The fugitive crossed against red traffic lights at high speed. After a while the police caught up with the vehicle and even fired at it in an attempt to stop it, but all their efforts were to no avail. Eventually the driver of the leading vehicle collided with a pole round a corner and then collided with oncoming traffic. The vehicle then came to a stop, but the driver jumped out and ran away. Constable Esterhuizen fired shots in the direction of the running man and also ran after him. He could not stop him and then fired in order to hit him. He did succeed in hitting him, but unfortunately the man was so seriously wounded that he died three days later. A criminal charge was brought against Esterhuizen as a result of the fatal shot which he had fired, and a judicial post-mortem examination was held. The magistrate found that there had been no negligence or default on the part of Esterhuizen and that he had acted in the execution of his duties. Mrs. Venter, the widow of the man who had been shot, put in a claim through her attorneys on the grounds of her husband’s death, and after lengthy deliberations it was decided to assist her, and in the light of all these circumstances it was decided to make an ex gratia payment of R10,000 to her. The deceased left behind his wife and three young children.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 7,—Education, Arts and Science, R1,202,500:

Mr. Chairman, under sub-head H we find reference to technical colleges. I wish to know whether these are advanced technical colleges under the new scheme or are they the ordinary vocational technical colleges?

The increase of more than R500,000 is attributable in the first place to the fact that a sum of R201,990 was added to the basic subsidy as a result of the new legislation. In addition there is an amount of R2,240 in respect of language instruction for immigrants. Salary adjustments in the case of the technical colleges amounted to R466,000. There was also a vacation savings bonus of R44,000. This gives us a total of R714,000. However, savings affected in respect of subsidies and interest on the redemption of loans for college purposes amounted to R21,000; on subsidies in respect of interest on loans for the erection of departmental buildings, R70,000; and in respect of financial help for bursaries for educational courses and free education not taken up, R57,000. This explains the increase of R565,000.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister tell us more about the ex gratia payment to A. I. E. de Villiers under the sub-head E?

Mr. Chairman, this is a case of a bursary received by Mr. De Villiers. He was a trainee teacher and had been admitted to the teachers’ training course at the Pretoria Technical College on 1st February, 1965. There he received training for one year at the expense of the Government. By agreement he had to serve as a teacher for three years after the completion of this training. He was placed at a technical high school from 1st January, 1966, and he requested that his services be terminated on 31st December, 1967, when he would have completed two years’ service. The total cost of his training, i.e. his salary, allowances, and course fees, amounted to R2,316. In terms of a Treasury authority he owed the Department one third of this amount, i.e. R772. He paid this amount. The Treasury then ordered the balance of R1,544.47, representing two-thirds of the debt owed by him, to be remitted in his favour.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 12,—Government Printing Works, R36,000:

Can the hon. the Minister explain to the House why there is this ex gratia payment of R30,000 to National Salvage?

Mr. Chairman, the Government Printer gets rid of waste paper by tendering for its removal. They called for tenders for a lot of waste paper which they wanted to get rid of, and National Salvage submitted a tender. After its tender was accepted, National Salvage discovered that it had tendered for too high a figure altogether because the paper mills did not want to pay as much for the paper as it had expected, and as a result it withdrew and cancelled its tender. In other words, it could not carry out its tender obligations. The Government Printer again called for tenders, and much lower tenders were then received. This R30,000 is a fictitious loss because someone had over-tendered and could not meet his obligations in terms of the accepted tender, and consequently it appears here as an ex gratia remission. The Government Printer obtained legal advice, because he wanted to take action to recover this money. The legal advisers advised the Government Printer rather not to put in a claim because it would only entail expenditure while they would not be able to recover their costs in any case. That is why this was paid by way of an ex gratia payment.

What was the amount of the original tender?

I think that the original tender was for an amount of R30,000 but I am not sure of the exact amount. I am informed that the real loss amounted to R24,000. The original amount was therefore actually R30,000.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that the real loss amounted to R24,000. Why then did he make an ex gratia payment of R30,000?

The original R30,000 was in terms of a contract which had not been executed. We then called for another tender. The second tender, which was accepted and carried out, does not come into the picture at all.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that the original tender amounted to R30,000. He then accepted another tender. But the Government Printer must have been paid something in terms of the first tender. The amount concerned therefore is the difference between R30,000 and whatever amount they got in terms of the tender. I must say that I do not understand the position in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister must be able to give us a reply in this regard. While he goes through his figures I just want to point out to him that if he wants us to grant this amount of R30,000, it means that the price of the tender must have been written off. But he must have received some payment for this waste paper. I quite understand that there must be a lot of this kind of paper to be got rid of in this Department.

Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member wants me to give him all the particulars, I shall gladly do so.

A contract which had been concluded with National Salvage, was cancelled with effect from 1st November, 1966, because of the fact that the contractor had failed to pay within 30 days for the waste paper which he had received. New tenders were called for and only two were received, one from National Salvage and one from Cape Salvage. The former tendered at R4 per ton for unbaled paper and R7 per ton for baled paper. The previous tender had been for an amount of R9 and R19 per ton, respectively. Cape Salvage’s tender was for R8 per ton, but applied only to the paper which was available in Cape Town. Its tender was therefore accepted in respect of Cape Town. As far as the rest of the country was concerned, there was no choice but to accept the tender of National Salvage. Because the tender price was so much lower than before, the State naturally suffered a loss. But in view of the difficult position in which National Salvage found itself, it was decided to write off the loss after legal opinion had been obtained. Consequently there was an amount of R7,000 which had to be written off as a loss last year and Parliamentary authority is now being requested for the remission of the other R30,000. It was therefore a total of R37,000. The amount in respect of last year was R7,000, and this year it is R30,000.

Mr. Chairman, can the Minister tell us why Cape Salvage can pay R8 per ton and National Salvage only R4 per ton?

That the hon. member must ask the firm itself.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the hon. the Minister correctly, National Salvage originally tendered at a relatively high rate per ton and then defaulted on the contract. They were then in respect of all areas outside Cape Town given the contract at a much lower price per ton. I should like to know whether it is correct that they were given the tender at a much lower price after they had defaulted on a previous contract.

Mr. Chairman, if I understand the hon. member correctly, he is saying that National Salvage received two tenders.

Cape Salvage first tendered at a relatively high price and then disregarded the tender. Then it received the tender from the Department at a much lower price.

As regards the paper in Cape Town, the tender was carried out by Cape Salvage. There was a difference between the prices of the tenders of Cape Salvage and National Salvage. I explained the position in this connection a moment ago. The Government Printer again had to call for tenders in respect of the paper outside the Cape Town area. National Salvage was the only firm which tendered for this; consequently the Department had no choice but to grant them the tender at that much lower price.

Mr. Chairman, can the hon. the Minister just tell us what the amount was which National Salvage mentioned in its tender before it defaulted on the agreement. In other words, what was the amount in respect of which National Salvage was committed before it undertook the tender of R4 per ton?

I have already replied to that question.

Would the Minister please explain the position in this regard once again?

The hon. member can read it in Hansard.

Mr. Chairman, if what the hon. the Minister tells us is correct, the original tender by National Salvage amounted to R37,000. This was the original amount because afterwards R7,000 of this was paid. The Minister is trying to justify the difference of R30,000 by putting it in the Estimates.

If the hon. member will read my reply, he will understand the position.

If I understood the Minister correctly, he said that after certain paper had already been delivered, National Salvage defaulted. Can he tell us how much paper was delivered and whether it has been paid for?

The hon. member can table that question.8

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister going to answer our questions? I am not at all amused by his saying that the hon. member must table his question. It is our prerogative in considering these Additional Estimates to ask Ministers for replies and to keep on questioning them until we get those replies. We have not had replies to our questions from that hon. Minister yet.

Mr. Chairman, in his reply, the Minister intimated that certain paper had been delivered to National Salvage and that the contract with them had been cancelled because they had not paid for that paper. Can the hon. the Minister now tell us how much paper was delivered, what the amount concerned is and whether it has been collected?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to …

Order ! The hon. member for Transkei has had his three turns to speak on this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move that the House report progress on this aspect of the Vote to obtain some clarity in this regard. We have the right to ask questions about this additional expenditure and the Minister is making a joke of the whole matter. The purpose for which we are in Committee is not being served. I therefore move—

Upon which the Committee divided:

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

Tellers: P. S. van der Merwe and H. J. van Wyk.

Motion accordingly negatived.

There may be a very simple explanation for it; but I cannot understand why there is an item of R30,000 down here at all. In other words, on the face of it, an amount of R30,000 must be paid out, and on the facts we have had the Department concerned was to have got in an amount perhaps in excess of that figure, and now it is getting in a smaller amount. Why then must an amount which appears to be an outgoing amount, be voted? If the hon. the Minister would make that clear, it would help us very much. *The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR: A contract was entered into with National Salvage at a certain price in November, 1966.

What was the price?

I have read out the prices. I shall read them out again if hon. members want me to do so. According to the document of tender, payment had to be made within 30 days. Because they failed to do so, the contract with them was, of course, cancelled, and then new tenders had to be called for. Only two new tenders were received.

But what was the old price?

If the hon. member will give me a chance, I shall reply. [Interjection.] Only two tenders were received. The one was from National Salvage and the other from Cape Salvage. They are not the same people; they are two different firms. National Salvage then tendered at R4 per ton, unbaled, and R7 per ton for baled paper. Their previous tender was for R9 and R19, respectively. Cape Salvage’s tender was for R8 per ton, but it was only in respect of what was available in Cape Town, and they got the tender. As far as the rest was concerned, the Department had no option but to sell it at the second, reduced tender price. This is the difference between the first tender, which had not been carried out and the second one, which was carried out, but at a reduced price. That accounts for the difference of R30,000 which appears here.

I should like to ask just one question: Is National Salvage a public company or a private company?

I do not know.

I just want to ask one question about something which is not clear. If the State suffered a loss of R30,000 as a result of the failure of a company to honour its contract, is that company then not responsible for paying compensation to the State? What steps have been taken by the Department to recover that amount?

I have already replied to that question as well.

Mr. Chairman …

I am sorry, but the hon. member has had his three turns.

Have I understood the hon. the Minister correctly. That when he was advised by his legal advisers, he was told that National Salvage was not worth suing, and yet at the same time they were able to re-tender for an amount which even on the new basis, would be considerable, namely some R10,000

or R20,000? It does not seem to tie up. Were they a firm of substance or not? That is the information I think we want.

I wonder whether the Minister could tell us how many tons were sold or offered for sale.

The hon. the Minister said that the actual loss was R24,000. Is that in fact so? One gathers that ths is a book entry in the accounting. But was the actual loss R24,000? And if it was, why is it put down as R30,000?

I am sorry to say that we are still waiting for a reply from the hon. the Minister. I have before me now the Hansard record of the debate that took place in this House last year, when this amount of R7,000 mentioned by the Minister was discussed. He told us that at that stage this was the estimated amount of the loss which had been incurred through the failure to carry out this contract. Now he comes with a further R30,000, and he comes with exactly the same answer, word for word, which he read out in the second reply he gave, which is here in this Hansard. Where does this R30,000 come from now all of a sudden? And there are other questions which require answering too. What sort of paper is this that is involved?Is it waste paper, or paper which is unsuitable, or is it paper which has been used? There are many questions but the Minister will not answer. Is there any use in putting questions in this Committee at all?

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 14,—Public Works R335,000:

I want to. know the details of the increase in the general repair services and in the minor works and alterations services.

In connection with the general repair services I want to furnish the following details to the hon. member. The revised estimate is R5,377,963, the original estimate was R5,210,000, and the increase is R167,963. An amount of R62,000 will be defrayed from savings on other sub-heads, with the result that an amount of only R105,963 requires to be voted. This increase is necessary for the purpose of carrying out essential and urgent repairs to a large number of buildings which are in a dilapidated condition and which would already have been replaced had funds been available on the Loan Vote. These repairs are necessary to maintain these buildings in a fit state for occupation. The fact that many of these buildings date from the previous century and that many others are more than half a century old, means that they constantly require more and more attention. Then the hon. member also asked for details about sub-head M. In view of the increase in building costs and problems experienced in connection with the financing of new minor works, the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Department, granted approval for the restriction in respect of new minor works for which the Department may call for, consider and accept tenders from contractors on the approved list, to be raised from R12,000 to R15,000 per annum per service per site where the valuation of improvements on the site does not exceed R1 million. Owing to the practical problems experienced with the minor works restriction per annum per service per site in meeting the needs of client departments occupying large complexes of buildings on one site, the Treasury, on the recommendation of the Department, also granted approval for the joint restriction on more than one new minor work on the same site to be based, with effect from 1st April, 1967, on the valuation of improvements on the site, as indicated below—

1. (i) Where the valuation of improvements on a site exceeds R1,000,000 but is less than R3,000,000, R25,000;
2. (ii) where the valuation of improvements on a site exceeds R3,000,00 but is less than R4,000,000, R35,000;
3. (iii) where the valuation of improvements on a site exceeds R4,000,000 but is less than R5,000,000, R45,000;
4. (iv) where the valuation of improvements on a site exceeds R5,000,000, R60,000;

provided that no single service which will cost more than R15,000 shall be undertaken on any site.

Further reasons are the curtailment of major works on Loan Vote B, necessitating the conversion of existing accommodation in order to meet the most pressing needs, the normal expansion of Government Departments, and urgent services called for by Departments and provision for which had not been made in the minor works programme.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 15,—Social Welfare and Pensions, R18,983,400:

Under Sub-head J there is reference to the contributions to pension and provident funds, and under General there is R1,589,000 being asked for. We shall be grateful if the Minister would give an indication as to the reasons for this additional amount. Then as regards “Special Contributions” the hon. the Minister of Finance gave an indication as to the reasons for the allocation of some R17 million to the Public Service Pension Fund, the S.A. Police and Prisons Service Pension Fund, and the S.A. Permanent Force Pension Fund. These, you will observe, Sir, are all new amounts. The Minister of Finance also mentioned the question of the actuarial valuation of these three funds. I was hoping that the Minister responsible for this Vote would be able to give further details in regard to the position of these three funds. I understand that the actuarial report was in the hands of the Minister by August last year. We would like to have further details in regard to how these items were arrived at, amounting to R17 million.

I should like to have an explanation regarding these three amounts being asked for the three pension funds. Is it because the actuarial calculations were not in order, or does it mean that the Government is agreeing to the suggestion of public servants that the Government should take over half their subscriptions?

The Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is engaged in the Other Place, but I think I have sufficient information at my disposal to satisfy the requirements of the two hon. members in respect of sub-head J. The total amount involved is R18,983,400. The reasons are as follows: (a) The amount provided in respect of the new pension fund for non-Whites was under-estimated. In the original Estimates provision was made for R1 million, but current expenditure indicates that the annual expenditure will be considerably more; (b) a large number of salary adjustments were made as a result of the new salary structure, which meant that the increase in the Government’s contributions to the funds was larger than had been anticipated; (c) the amounts in respect of normal scale increments were also under-estimated slightly; (d) as far as the provident funds are concerned, the membership increased beyond expectations, and on account of this and the fact that contributions in respect of normal scale increments had been under-estimated, inadequate provision was made for this item; (e) the shortfalls which occurred in the Public Service Pension Fund when the pension rights of Indian teachers were transferred as a result of Indian education having been taken over by the Department of Indian Affairs, are being met from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Provision for these shortfalls was made in the previous financial year, but the majority of these cases were only adjusted in the present financial year, with the result that the provision in respect of the items concerned is now inadequate; (f) in carrying out the valuation of the pension funds the actuaries found that there were shortfalls in respect of the funds concerned. In order to meet these shortfalls the following contributions have to be made to the funds: (i) The Public Service Pension Fund, R10 million; the total actuarial shortfall amounts to R51,700,000; (ii) the South African Police and Prison Service Pension Fund, R5 million; the total actuarial shortfall amounts to R24,016,000; and (iii) the South African Permanent Force Pension Fund, R2 million; the total actuarial shortfall amounts to R8,121,000.

I understand that this is only the initial payment.

Yes.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 16,—Treasury, R200,000:

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister how this item arose and what it comprises.

This item of R200,000 is in connection with the R.S.A. savings campaign. As hon. members know, we launched this campaign last year in September, and we took the advice of public relations experts who guided this campaign. The total costs in connection with the campaign—-advertising costs, Press, radio, placards, posters, production costs—are estimated at about R200,000 for this particular year. I could give the hon. member a breakdown of the costs. We think that this money has been well spent because of the success that we have had with the campaign.

Is the campaign to stop now?

No, the idea is to continue. This campaign in any case will continue until September. We envisage that we will always have some form of savings campaign on the same lines as the present campaign, but it might vary according to the circumstances.

Vote put and. agreed to.

Revenue Vote 21,—Inland Revenue, R107,061:

Will the hon. the Minister tell us what these three new items are: Stamp duties: Trust Bank of Africa Ltd., R7,139; Death Duties: Estate late H. R. Mosenthal, R85,548; and Income Tax: Transvaal Associated Hide and Skin Merchants (Pty.) Ltd., R14,374?

These are rather lengthy explanations but I will try to be as brief as possible.

Some time ago the Trust Bank of Africa Limited, at the request of the Registrar of Banks, issued certain unsecure debentures. The interpretation which was placed on this circular by the Trust Bank of Africa Limited was that the limit had only to be taken into consideration at the time of issue of the debentures. As a result of this interpretation the Bank issued debentures to the Trust Finance Corporation to the value of R4½ million, which amount was within the prescribed limits at the time of issue but subsequently moved beyond the limits due to a substantial increase in the Trust Bank’s liability to the public. As its liabilities increased the debentures had to be increased. In respect of the issue of these debentures, stamp duty amounting to R11,250 was paid to the Receiver of Revenue, Cape Town, for which a receipt was issued. The Trust Finance Corporation in its turn sold the aforementioned debentures to the public in units of R100. Seeing that it was the intention of the Registrar of Banks that the limits had to be observed after the issue of the debentures, he insisted that the debentures should either be redeemed or otherwise the paid-up capital and reserves had to be increased sufficiently. In view of the fact that the Trust Bank did not see its way clear to increase the paid-up capital and reserves the Bank decided either to refund the debentures or to convert them to fixed deposits in those cases where the persons to whom the debentures had been issued preferred to do so. These fixed deposits were also stamped. On the date on which the Trust Bank was informed that the debentures had to be withdrawn, debentures to the value of R1,644,600 had already been issued to the public, while debentures for R2,855,200 were still in the Bank’s possession and had not yet been issued to the public. At no stage did the Bank therefore have the use of the full amount of the R4½ million. The Trust Bank applied for a refund of an amount equal to the stamp duty on the debentures which had not yet been sold to the public.

The stamps had not yet been cancelled?

They were cancelled. As the Bank did not receive any payment in respect of the R2.8 million debentures which had not yet been sold to the public, the Secretary to the Treasury has approved of a refund of R7,139 as an act of grace, subject to prior parliamentary approval being obtained. The stamps were cancelled and they made no use of them.

As far as the amount of R85,548 is concerned, the position is as follows: A certain Mr. Mosenthal died in Britain. At the time of his death he had an interest in a certain trust created by a certain Mr. William Mosenthal. Both were resident in Britain. This trust had certain shares in South Africa and when Mr. H. R. Mosenthal died we in South Africa taxed him in respect of death duties in relation to the shares which belonged to the trust. Afterwards it transpired that Britain had also taxed him since he was domiciled in Britain at the time. South Africa and Britain have a double tax agreement. We took legal advice from which it appeared that actually we had no right to tax him because he had already paid the tax in Britain.

In the case of the third item, this company was formed in 1950, since when they have carried on the trade of buying, selling and salting hides and skins which it purchased from various abattoirs. From 1954 onwards it had the sole contract for the purchase of hides and skins taken from the freshly slaughtered animals at an abattoir in Botswana. The hides and skins obtained in Botswana were sold in the normal course of business to the company in South Africa and the proceeds were included in the company’s income and subjected to South African tax. In 1964 the Botswana authorities took the view that in terms of the double taxation agreement between South Africa and Botswana the company was maintaining a permanent establishment in their territory and that they were entitled therefore to tax a portion of the profit attributable to the sale of the hides and skins obtained by the company in Botswana. Botswana claimed a part of the tax and their request was acceded to.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 25,—Health, R1,925,000:

I would like the hon. the Minister, if he can, to explain sub-heads K, L and N. Under sub-head K, “Medical Poor relief”, the additional amount asked for is R400,000. Under sub-head L, “Tuberculosis: General Expenses” there is an increase of R1 million, and under sub-head N, “Other Infectious Diseases: General Expenses” there is an increase of R100,000. Is this increase of R100,000 particularly due to the spread of venereal disease which is apparently spreading generally throughout the world?

Under sub-head B,-“Subsistence and Transport” there is an increase of R175,000. Is this money going towards the payment of subsistence and transport for district surgeons and district nurses, or is it for some other persons or groups of persons?

Let me deal first with the increase under sub-head B. The increase is due first of all to what the hon. member suggested, namely payments in respect of full and part-time district nurses to the extent of R10,000; secondly, it is due to the transport of indigent patients to and from hospitals, to the extent of R165,000. It is also attributable to the increased travelling by more district personnel and to the rising motor transport costs. At the same time it is also due to the higher railway tariff and the greater demand for services.

The increase of R400,000 under sub-head K is due to three factors: firstly increased fees and allowances for medical services to the extent of R50,000; medicines and dressings or allowances in lieu thereof, to the extent of R320,000, and family planning services to the extent of R30,000. The increase is attributable to the enhanced supplementary fees payable with effect from the 1st January, 1967, to part-time district surgeons, and the higher charges charged by dentists for dental extractions. The demand for these services is continually increasing and can unfortunately not be controlled. The cost of medicine at the same time continues to rise. In addition to this, the drug allowances of part-time district surgeons are revised annually, and on the strength if our statistics these have had to be increased. The last item which I mentioned, namely R30,000 for family planning services, is due to the considerable progress which is now being made with the extension of these services in the Bantu areas.

Dr. A. RADFORD: Does that include birth control?

It is for family planning generally and not only for guidance on birth control Then the hon member asked me to explain, if I could, the extra expenditure of R1 million. Of this amount R600,000 is a refund to local authorities and R400,000 in respect of magisterial cases—those cases where the magistrate is really the local authority. It is also due to the higher tariffs at provincial hospitals in Natal and to the hospital fees for non-Whites having been increased from R4 to R6 per day with effect from July, 1967. In addition to this the number of TB sufferers receiving treatment on an in or out-patient basis is continuing to increase and, consequently, hospital fees also continue to rise as use is being made of new and expensive drugs. The hon. member will know that we are now using entirely new drugs, drugs which are very expensive.

In regard to the R400,000—this is due to the high tariffs at provincial hospitals in Natal and also at S.A.N.T.A. centres. As I said, the number of patients was rising continually and the cost of that is reflected in this.

Could the hon. the Minister explain the increase of R250,000 in item A—Salaries, Wages and Allowances?

This is due, firstly, to the remuneration of private medical practitioners who act as locos for district surgeons and are remunerated on a session basis; secondly, to the increase in establishment; and, thirdly, to the filling of vacant posts for which no provision had been made in the main estimates.

How much of this expenditure is due to the employment of additional health inspectors whom the Minister had to employ in connection with the administration of the general health regulations promulgated last year?

I can only say that it is in respect of 241 additional posts. I do not know how these posts have been allocated.

Is any part of this expenditure due to the employment of additional health inspectors?

Order! The hon. member may not suggest reasons; he may only ask for reasons.

Let me re-phrase my question, Mr. Chairman, and put it to the Minister this way: Is any part of this expenditure due to salaries paid to additional health inspectors …

Order! The hon. member is again suggesting a reason.

As I have said, it is not possible for me to say exactly what these posts are. All I can say is that this expenditure is in respect of an additional 241 posts.

Vote put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 29,—“Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, R514,200”:

Mr. Chairman, can the responsible Minister give us an explanation for this additional amount of R514,200? Can he explain what properties are being expropriated? I am referring to sub-head L.

Mr. Chairman, the provision on this Vote would have been reduced by R12,000 in the second revised estimates, had it not been for the fact that the Treasury, on 5th February, 1968. requested that an amount of R526,200 be included in respect of the payment of a contribution to the Cape Town Foreshore Board. This amount was in respect of expropriation costs for properties required for Boulevard East. When virement is applied as regards the decreases and increases it results in a net shortfall of R54,000 on the General Estimates. In other words, R526,200 had to be appropriated for Boulevard (East). I just want to inform hon. members that the Ministers of Finance and of Lands decided in 1958 that a contribution not exceeding R550,000 should be paid to the Cape Provincial Administration in respect of the expropriation of private properties required for the construction of Boulevard (East) which is an access road into Cape Town. The amount of the contribution was calculated at 50 per cent of the calculated value of R1.1 million of these private properties. This was approved on condition that the costs involved including interest and redemption, would eventually be debited to the Government’s share of one-third of the net profit derived from the sale of land in Rogge Bay. Consequently. on 29th March, 1958, the Cape Town Foreshore Board was granted a special loan by the Treasury for the purpose of meeting claims in this connection. Up till now the Board has already paid an amount of R526,219 to the Cape Provincial Administration and the provision which is being made here now. is for the purpose of refunding this amount to the Board.

Mr. Chairman. it seems strange that we have to vote this money. It is a new item. The Foreshore Board was originally established to sell ground and the profits derived therefrom were to be used for the development of the Foreshore. I, and I think many other hon. members, am surprised that we are now being asked to vote money for the expropriation of properties in view of the relationship with the other authorities. The Foreshore Board is a selling unit and it makes substantial profits, as an investigation of its books will reveal. Yet the Treasury is now being asked to provide money to assist in the expropriation of ground for a road to join the Foreshore. I wonder what ground is going to be bought because the Foreshore Board controls only that ground which was reclaimed from the sea. Can the Minister explain to us why we are now being asked to vote money to a board which derives its income from the sale of properties?

Mr. Chairman. I have already explained the matter to the hon. member. I have explained that the Foreshore Board, which sells the properties, has not sold all the properties yet. In terms of a contract a large portion of the income derived from the sale of the properties goes to the Cape Town City Council. The money required for Boulevard (East), which forms part of the development of the reclaimed area, has already been approved so that the road may be built there, and the Government and the Provincial Administration will help to provide that money for the purposes of expropriation. That money has already been paid out by the Provincial Administration. The Government now wants to meet its obligations and refund the money to the Provincial Administration while the Board does not have the money as a result of sales.

Does the hon. the Minister accept the fact that the Foreshore Board is there to sell property? It is well-known that it sells properties at a considerable profit. Surely the understanding was that the profits it made from these properties would go towards the development of roads and reticulations systems. If any money is required to be contributed as a result of a joint agreement to which the Minister referred, should it not come from the profits made from the sale of land? Why is the Treasury now being asked to pay towards the costs? We are now being asked to pay over money to a board which should really live on its own fat and which makes a considerable profit.

Mr. Chairman, the money is paid to the Cape Provincial Administration. In the meantime the Foreshore Board has paid the money to the Administration and the Government now wants to compensate the Board. That is the position. The point is that the Government is entitled to one-third of the income derived from the sale of plots on the Foreshore. This money is paid over to Government funds. The Government entered into a contract with the Provincial Administration for the construction of the Boulevard. I shall explain it again to the hon. member. In 1958 the Ministers of Finance and of Lands decided that a contribution not exceeding R550,000 should be made to the Cape Provincial Administration in respect of the expropriation of private properties required for the construction of Boulevard East, which is an access road into Cape Town. The amount of the contribution was calculated at 50 per cent of the calculated value of R1.1 million of these private properties. This contribution was in respect of the purchase of properties situated on the site where the road had to be built. This was approved on condition that the costs involved, including interest and redemption, would eventually be debited to the Government’s share of one-third of the net profit derived from the sale of land in Rogge Bay. In terms of Treasury minutes dated 3rd March and 29th March, 1958, a special loan was granted to the Foreshore Board in order to meet claims in this connection. Up till now the Board has already paid an amount of R526,219 to the Cape Provincial Administration in this connection, and the provision which is being made here now is for the purpose of refunding this amount to the Board. Surely, this is clear—I do not know what the hon. member’s difficulty is.

Vote put and agreed to.

Progress reported.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name—

Mr. Speaker, as this will be the first major debate in which the new hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs will be taking part, it is only appropriate that we on this side of the House should congratulate him on his appointment to the new post. We bid him welcome and wish him well in solving the great problems that are facing him. I hope, at a later occasion, to pay an appropriate tribute to his predecessor, who, although he did not accomplish much, at least reached a height which I do not think the present Minister will be able to reach, and that is causing a great boom on the stock exchange on his resignation.

We have a new Minister. I believe that we can now have a new approach to the problem of television and that we can approach it with a clean slate. The public statements we have had from the new Minister have led us to believe that he has a more forward looking view in regard to matters such as these. He has already stated that he is an opponent of the crabbed verkrampte type of conservatism. That leads us to the hope that we might be hearing some good news here this afternoon. I certainly share the doubts of those people who do not believe in the existence of the curious political hybrid known as an “enlightened Nationalist”. I see good signs, however, that the Government is moving out of its palaeolithic age into the neolithic age which is at least a step forward. With that step forward I believe that we can approach this problem of television in a new light.

I do not know whether you were listening to the radio last night when the announcement was made that that wonderful South African girl, Karen Muir, had equalled her previous world record. The broadcast announcer stated that at that moment a television team was taking a television film of Karen Muir equalling her world record. That was meant for the rest of the world, but not for South Africa. Can you therefore understand why it is that the listeners of South Africa are becoming frustrated, bitter, even angry at this state of affairs when they cannot see the great things being achieved by their own sportsmen and representatives of this country? Only after some time did we Members of Parliament have the privilege of seeing a film of the colour television show of that other great South African, Dr. Chris Barnard. But we were in the minority. Weeks ago, millions and tens of millions of citizens in other countries of the world saw that great man in action, felt his personality and were proud of South Africa and of his achievements. We shall be represented, I am very glad to hear, at the Olympics this year. Millions and millions of people will see our athletes in action. But I doubt whether we shall see it. We shall only later see something in the bioscopes and cinemas of our country. Our cricket and football teams will be achieving great things this year in the local and international spheres. But again we South Africans who are proud of those people and who would have liked to see them in action will be prohibited from seeing them. Can you then blame us for saying that in this refusal to give South Africa television we find something utterly disgraceful after all these years? Therefore my appeal here this afternoon is that we should take this new approach. Let us first of all find the one point on which I am sure we can all agree, and that is that television is inevitable. Television will come to South Africa, sooner or later. I want to know whether there is a single hon. member on that side of the House who does not agree with this statement.

[Inaudible].

The only exception would appear to be the hon. member for Carletonville. He is of course a bit of a lone wolf. I understand that he is starting a new newspaper of his own too.

Order! That has nothing to do with the motion.

Except for the hon. member for Carletonville there is not a single other member who does not believe that sooner or later television in South Africa is inevitable. I believe that it is a very great step forward which we have taken. Our problem now is therefore not whether we should have television. Our problem is how we should get it. And here I believe we can act constructively in the months to come. After all, television is nothing new. The first television broadcasts took place 30 years ago. Those were public broadcasts. To-day—and I wonder whether we realize it—there are in the world as many television sets as there are telephones. I did not know it myself. But it is a fact and has been established. In the United States of America there are alone 70 million television sets. Recently 400 million people in 14 countries on five continents saw a single television broadcast in which the President of the United States of America was involved. Television is infinitely more than just a medium. And I think intelligent people realize that it is not only a luxury. I can quote to the hon. the Minister the words of—I think this person is a supporter of his—Professor P. C. Coetzee of Pretoria in an article in Dagbreek some time ago. He said the following—

This distinguished professor classifies television with the invention of writing and printing as amongst the three great cultural events in the history of mankind and in the history of the world. We cannot and we dare not ignore television in this country.

It is indeed a pity that one still has, on an occasion such as this, to enumerate some of the benefits of television. Surely they should be obvious. Surely one should realize that one cannot act like king Canute and hold back the waves. Its value in the educational, entertainment and news spheres is incalculable. We have had a previous motion here this year on the educational value of television. I shall therefore refrain from saying much about that on this occasion. I can only point out that it has recently become known—I believe after that motion was discussed—that in London this year and towards the beginning of next year no less than 1,300 schools will have closed circuit television where they do not have it to-day. That is just one small example of the expansion of educational television throughout the world. Already there are 28 universities in Great Britain alone which have the closed television circuit for educational purposes.

If we only think of what we are missing in the field of say entertainment, sport—I have mentioned Karen Muir and I could mention Gary Player—music, symphony concerts, folk music and visiting celebrities. All these we could see and enjoy in our homes. Listening to a concert or to a theatre production over the radio to-day is like going to a concert hall or a theatre blindfolded. If we have television we will see as well as hear what is happening. Think of the value of television in regard to news. Think of how the great events are immediately communicated to the rest of the world through this medium. In America to-day the viewers can follow the war in Vietnam, see the actual shooting within 12 hours or less after it occurred. We could have seen the inauguration of our new State President in a few weeks time. Privileged ones, a few of us, will see it. But how we would have liked the whole of our country to see this distinguished occasion. We could have viewed the shipwreck off Mouille Point and the opening of our atomic reactor. It would have been one of the great actual news events seeing people being rescued by helicopters on television itself. Presumably hon. members who are laughing would not have cared to watch it. I had the privilege of seeing it personally that day. I was most impressed and I think they would have been impressed too had they seen it on television.

Think, too, of the great opportunities television could offer to our own artists and writers. How it could propagate the cultural interests of all language groups in our country. I think of how it can improve the image of South Africa about which we are all so much concerned. I am sure that the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation would favour the introduction of television if he could see the Olympic Games in South Africa or our rugby players wherever they may be in the rest of the world, because when he was Minister of Information he made great use of television. To-day his successor is doing the same thing. I think also of the immigrants. If the immigrants have one complaint, it is that in their usual loneliness they miss television. It is the one thing which they had overseas and which this fine country of ours cannot offer them. In many cases it has been the reason why immigrants have gone back to their mother country. I have here a cutting from Die Transvaler where an immigrant in a letter to the newspaper says just that. He refers specifically to immigrants from Holland. They are going back to their mother country because they miss television.

One can also think of the great advantages it can have for the electronics industry in South Africa. Technicians will have to be trained and our small electronics industry will be able to expand with new knowledge. Even from the ranks of the Nationalists words are coming in favour of television. Recently the Nationalist Administrator of the Cape Province, Dr. Nico Malan, went overseas. When he returned he stated that a television service, if properly controlled, could he of great benefit to South Africa. This is a sensible and a fair statement. Some time ago Mr. Gert Claassen, a Nationalist member of the Provincial Council in Natal, wrote a long article in favour of television for the Natal Mercury. It appeared under the following heading: “Nationalist puts case for T.V. in South Africa”. He even called for a crash programme in regard to television. Even in the ranks of the Nationalists therefore there are growing demands for television. Despite all the denials on the part of the Government and in spite of all that they have been doing to frustrate the introduction of television, the signs exist that inevitably television must come. Closed circuit television is becoming increasingly popular. There are several hundred television sets in use in South Africa to-day. Several hundred closed circuit television systems are in use today. The Groote Schuur Hospital has a closed circuit television as well as some of the gold mines and the organizations investigating the sink holes in the Western Transvaal. We also have closed circuit television in the Cango Caves. Some businesses have it and the stock exchange is getting a closed circuit television system. So, television is taking hold of South Africa even if it is in this limited field.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member. Are the hon. member and his Party in favour of State-controlled television or commercial television?

I do not see why the one should exclude the other. Springbok Radio is State controlled but still has an advertising service. Why can we not have both together? Both systems can be included in one television network or each system can be operated separately. I am glad to answer questions from the hon. member for Randfontein because he is a distinguished front-bencher of the Nationalist Party. He is in fact their propaganda secretary for the whole of the Republic. We can therefore regard anything that comes from his lips as being the “ware Jakob”. I therefore trust that when he rises to speak on this motion he will be very careful about what he says.

The seven large radio factories in South Africa are ready to manufacture television sets at short notice. They can do all the necessary wiring of the circuits. All they will need to import is the television tubes and a few other important components. The fact is that they can build T.V. sets in South Africa. They are capable of starting production within 24 hours. A company has even been registered in South Africa to deal with T.V. rentals. Incidentally, we often hear about the great cost of television sets, but in Britain to-day television sets are not bought, but rented. 70 per cent of the television sets in Britain are rented at a fee which covers service. This ensures that one has a new set all the time. It can also ensure that one need not incur great expense when there is a change-over from black-and-white to colour television. 190 channels for television were granted to South Africa four years ago. This was done for the introduction of television and not for F.M., as some people say. The National Film Board of South Africa has four television units— one for the Department of Information, one for the Department of Defence and two others. It has said that it is prepared to make television films for distribution in South Africa, should the S.A.B.C. or the Government call on it to do so.

Last year the South African Tourist Corporation continued its good work in showing television films throughout the rest of the world to advertise South Africa’s tourist potential. Last year the South African Tourist Corporation showed no less than 1,060 telecasts in North America alone. These were viewed by 40 million people living in North America. This shows that there are people in South Africa who realize what the value of television can be to South Africa and who believe in it as a system of information and a form of entertainment. And if the Government itself believes in television, why then is this great benefit still being withheld from us?

I therefore say that we must adopt a new approach to this problem and the problems associated with television. I want to admit freely that there are problems in this regard. There are some problems in connection with the introduction of television which are greater in South Africa than they may be in some other country. But let us also accept the fact that television must come and start working now on how to get it going. Let us make our plans for its introduction now since it must inevitably come sooner or later. I think that first of all we should clear our minds of the misconceptions we have heard in the past. I see the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs is leaving the House. We must clear our minds of the misconceptions that the Government has been spreading throughout the country in regard to television. Some classic statements have been made in this regard. I think that they are so classic that they can bear being repeated. I think especially of those made by the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and by the hon. member for Innesdal. Let us look at a few of them. Dr. Hertzog said:

Are there really hon. members on the other side who are prepared to swallow statements such as that? They have swallowed such statements in the past and I feel that they need no longer do it. Here is a statement by the hon. member for Innesdal:

If television is so bad, are we trying to make of the Americans a mindless mass by using television as a secret weapon, by showing 1,060 shows to them a year? I do not believe that that is the Government’s intention. Let us get rid of these misconceptions. I have here another statement by the predecessor of the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs in which he told of scenes of poisoning appearing on American television influencing the youth. I quote from Hansard of the 19th February, 1965, column 1516:

It is no wonder that the previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and myself, as well as most of the hon. members on this side of the House, were never on the same wavelength when it came to the discussion of television. I am therefore so glad that we have a new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs with whom we can discuss this matter sensibly, without him using arguments of the kind I have just quoted.

I said that there are some real problems in this regard. Let us look at some of them. Naturally one is the problem of costs. I want to commend the hon. the Minister for his forthrightness and honesty a few days ago. I asked him whether he had made any investigations or whether any Government subsidized or sponsored organization had made any investigation into the costs of television. He was forthright in his reply and said “no”. That means that no one can say to-day with real honesty and truth what television will cost South Africa. Any figures which we hear in this regard this afternoon—and I believe that the hon. member for Randfontein has some very fanciful figures to quote to this House— can be taken with a pinch of salt. I should like to know on what authority he bases such figures, should he start quoting figures, because the Minister has said that no official estimate has been made of what television will cost. We have heard strange estimates, taking the running costs only, of television, apart from the capital cost. Dr. Hertzog once estimated the running costs a couple of years ago when he addressed the Bellvillese Sakekamer at R12 million. Some time ago the hon. member for Innesdal estimated that the running costs would be R50 million a year, and when he spoke about colour television he arrived at a figure of R300 million a year. It shows how fanciful these estimates are, R12 million, R50 million and R300 million, and whatever figure the hon. member for Randfontein will mention to us when he speaks. These are wild figures.

Can we really say that it will be so difficult to find the money for television? We were all here a few minutes ago when in a very short period this House voted R84 million for necessary expenditure, enough to carry the running expenses of television for six or seven years. This R84 million was for unforeseen items, but it was blithely voted here this afternoon. We remember the startling incident earlier this session when the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration spoke about his Bantustan policy and said that that policy would be carried out, no matter what it cost. Take the case of an ordinary lonely pensioner or householder or an isolated farmer who asks the Government for television. The reply is that he cannot get it because there is no money. But if the Bantu overlords of the Transkei demand money, they are told to go ahead, it does not matter what it costs. No wonder the country is getting frustrated.

We have all made our sums in regard to the cost of television. Here is mine. I am not saying it is an accurate estimate. I accept the figure of R12 million a year for the running costs as given by the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs to the Bellvillese Sakekamer. How can we cover those running costs, which will also include the interest on the capital for the additional equipment which will have to be bought? I believe that if we have 500,000 television sets in this country, which is not at all an impossible estimate, and you charge a licence fee of R15 per set, it will give you an income of R7.5 million a year. Add to that advertising for 30 minutes a day at R250 per minute, and that will come to another R5 million a year, which already gives you an income of R12.5 million a year, sufficient to cover the administrative costs and to give a profit of R500,000 a year. This is not a fanciful estimate. After all, remember that there are 600 private television stations in America today, all running at a profit. Rhodesia’s three television stations are running at a profit. I believe the last dividend declared by Rhodesian Television Limited was 12½ per cent, and that is a small country. But I am not going to lay down the law in regard to what the costs are or what they should be. I say the time has got to come for us to investigate these matters thoroughly, because we are all agreed (with the exception perhaps of the hon. member for Carletonville) this afternoon that television must come.

There is the problem of manpower. Let me admit that, too, but are we not exaggerating that problem? The whole of the Rhodesian system to-day is run by only six qualified engineers. The rest of the technicians—and there are quite a large number of them—have been trained, and I have been told that it took only a few months to train them. But if we come up against the question of the manpower shortage, should we not put against it the inestimable advantage of having dozens and dozens of fully trained electronic technicians available in South Africa, who can also be used in other spheres, once they have been trained in television?

The problem of programmes has also been mentioned. Will there be sufficient programming to run a bilingual service? I admit that it is a problem, but I want to know what we are doing to meet that problem, seeing that we are agreed that television is inevitable. Why has nothing been done about that? One need not go to Hollywood, to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, to Warner Bros. or to the National Broadcasting Company for television programmes. There are no less than 250 large firms throughout the world, running from Sydney in Australia to Salisbury in Rhodesia, in New York, Berlin and Italy, large concerns supplying material for television to-day. There will not be a dearth of material. I take it the problem will be that we will have to translate many of these programmes into Afrikaans, but even that is not an insurmountable problem. The television service in Switzerland caters for three different languages, French, German and Italian. Canada has a bilingual service in the French provinces. Belgium has a bilingual service, in Flemish and in French, and Flemish is very much like Afrikaans. Apart from its being a closely related language, it is also the language of a limited group and not a world language as such. Yet the Belgians have solved the problem. I am not saying we should adopt the same solution in this country, but I say again that we agree that television is inevitable, so let us start investigating this matter as soon as possible. After all, for a newscast of a football game or a cricket game, you do not really need two different channels; you do not really need two different television systems. You only need the one channel, and you have the one commentator in Afrikaans and the other commentator in English. You have these two commentators to-day on the ordinary broadcasting system.

There is a new argument which has recently been used against television, and that is that there are so many other priorities in this country. I believe that that is a specious argument. It is, I go so far as to say, a dishonest argument, a weak argument. After all, when sound broadcasting started in South Africa, the first Nationalist Government was in power, and they did not tell the country that a dam had to be built in the Orange River and Iscor had to be established, and that these were priorities which we must first have before we could have a broadcasting system in South Africa. They had the guts to go ahead with it, and good luck to them. The same applies to Escom. Did anybody say that we could not have a broadcasting system because Escom first had to be built? Did this Government in the past say that we could not have Radio Bantu or Springbok Radio because they first had to build Sasol? These are important matters, naturally, but why exclude television and say that it is so low on the priority list that we cannot do anything about it to-day? Each Minister has some or other great project in mind to which he would like to give priority. I believe it is an aspect of wise statesmanship that one should seek in one’s actions, one’s legislation and one’s deeds the greatest happiness of the greatest number. I should like the Minister to mention to me one project which will bring greater happiness for a greater number of people in the country than television. Let us think about that before we start talking about priorities. No, there are other motives—I am not going into them—why the Government has in the past refused to give us television, motives which I believe are not as honourable as one would like to call them, motives involving newspaper advertising in newspapers sponsored by Government leaders. It has been admitted by the Minister’ predecessor that it would affect the Afrikaans newspapers, and that is one of the reasons why television should not be introduced.

We also heard another argument: Let us wait for colour television, which is just around the corner, and do not let us waste our money on black and white television at the moment. Sir, I am not rejecting that argument completely, but eight years ago the then Prime Minister told us in this House that colour television was just around the corner. I am quite sure the Minister himself and hon. members opposite do not yet know when colour television will actually be practicable in South Africa. If I am told that we cannot have a decent colour television system in this country for the next 10 years, then I say that is a very good argument for going ahead with black and white television immediately. If, on the other hand, I am told: My information after full investigation is that in 24 months’ time we can have a good colour television system in South Africa, I am personally prepared to wait those 24 months, if I know that after that we would have a good television system in colour. It is a question of finding out what is the best, but it needs finding out, and that is something the Government is not doing.

I want to say something about a new method in television broadcasting which is being used in the rest of the world to-day, the Telstar and the Comsat communications system. Now, a great deal of nonsense has been spoken about this. Basically, the Telstar system consists of satellites moving with the earth around its axis from which you can beam television broadcasts from one country to another covered by the cone of that satellite. I said a lot of nonsense has been spoken about this. I want to refer to some of the costs mentioned in some of the newspapers in South Africa in connection with such a satellite. Apparently a Government spokesman—was it the hon. member for Randfontein?—told a Natal paper that it would cost something like R200 million to have our own satellite. What nonsense, Sir! Here I can give exact figures. I have here a communication which I got from the Satellite Communication Corporation itself, and this is what it says on the front page. It says that the cost in orbit of the Early Bird satellite is only seven million dollars, or R5 million, and not R200 million. Where do these nonsensical figures come from? But why should we put up our own satellite? We already have one. At the present moment 22,300 miles up in the sky there is a Telstar satellite covering Africa, South America, the western part of the U.S.A. and the whole of Europe. In other words, any country in this area can beam a television broadcast to another country if it has the necessary base station and if it has permission to do so. We are part-owner of that satellite. We are a member of Comsat. We can demand the use of those channels, and these Telstar satellites are being improved year after year. The 1970 model will be able to carry 86,000 telephone conversations simultaneously, and they can carry 24 simultaneous colour television transmissions. This is the development of the future; this is what we can use and what we should try to use. For that we naturally need local stations, earth stations, which magnify the signal they receive from the satellite. By 1970 there will be 40 such stations throughout the world. Ten of them will be in Africa. Why cannot we have one of those stations? It will not cost even the R7 million that is usually estimated for such stations. I have a letter here from the C.S.I.R. in which they say that we already have such sensitive equipment at our radio space tracking station—I believe it is in Pretoria or Johannesburg—that we can receive television broadcasts from satellites approaching the moon. We can do that to-day. We have most of the basic equipment for that to-day. We need not worry therefore about too large a cost in this regard.

Sir, my time is up and I think I shall now conclude. I want to repeat that I think we are all agreed that the introduction of television is inevitable. I believe it would be a dereliction of duty, it would be blindness, it would be political insanity to do nothing in order to prepare for the introduction of television, and to prepare for it now. Let us therefore prepare; let us start by having an urgent investigation. I quite frankly would prefer the appointment of a commission, not to investigate whether the introduction of television is necessary, but to investigate urgently what priority must be given in regard to the introduction of television within a stated period of time. This commission could then evaluate the position and put forward a solution with regard to the problems of cost and manpower, with regard to the alleged danger to health and the availability of programmes. But above all, my final appeal is: Let us do it now.

We have now heard the annual motion of the hon. member for Orange Grove here. The hon. member comes forward with this motion each year. This year there were only two changes. The first was that his speech was not interspersed with personal attacks on the Minister because, as it happens, there is a different Minister. The second difference is that he is going to receive precisely the same reply as he did last year from the mouth of a different Minister.

Mr. Speaker, in brief I want to say the following about television. I want to begin by saying that nobody on this side of the House has ever said that we will never, in the history of this country, have television in any form. There has never been a general denial that we will ever make use of television in any way. It would be foolish to say anything like that, and it has never been said. Television has its advantages and it has its disadvantages. When the pros and cons of television are weighed up, it is the duty of a responsible government to take all the pros and cons and all the implications into account and subsequently adopt a sensible and wise attitude, and this attitude can fluctuate from time to time, depending upon quite a number of factors.

My main objection to the motion by the hon. member is that in the first instance he is asking for television to be introduced immediately. He concluded his speech with the words, “Let us start now”. If we were to introduce television immediately the question as to what it is going to cost would at once arise. As far as the question of costs are concerned, there are two aspects which we must take into consideration. If you were to introduce television based on advertisements, as the hon. member is apparently prepared to accept, it means that you must cover your expenses by having advertisers pay for advertisement time. In this regard I want to quote a few figures from a very authoritative source which I have at my disposal. I am not only quoting from last year’s television costs in Britain from the book, “B.B.C. Hand Book, 1967”, I am also quoting from private notes which I made in the presence of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who is my witness, while we were paying a visit to the B.B.C. Television last year and spoke to their chief expert in the field of technical development. [Interjections.] I call the hon. member for Bezuidenhout as witness, because I want him to contradict me if I am not speaking the truth. This is the source I want to use, not an investigation in loco. In the first place I shall furnish hon. members with the costs according to the B.B.C. television personality himself. I can furnish his name as well, because he was friendly enough to sign my book. I am referring to Mr. Allan Skeanpton of B.B.C. Television. I mention in the first place the present costs of advertisements, and I am referring here to the television on channel No. 9, which functions entirely on an advertisement basis. Tariffs for advertisements vary in Britain from £250 per minute, during dead periods, to £2,500 per minute in specific periods when there are many listeners. It works out an average of £1,000 per minute. The advertisement costs in Britain are R2,000 per minute over the B.B.C. advertisement television. They determined the costs per hour of television at more or less £6,000. That full costs has to be covered of course, and it has been worked out by technicians and experts that one cannot use more than six minutes per hour for advertisements, otherwise the programme is dead; the viewers simply do not want to keep on viewing. Therefore those six minutes must cover the costs of six £6,000 per hour, and the costs of television therefore work out at £1,000 per minute. In spite of these costs, television in Britain last year, on an advertisement basis, worked out at a loss of £5,212,000 according to this book. [Interjection.] The hon. member can dispute this matter with me as much as he likes afterwards. I am confining myself now to the facts which were determined in Britain. This is the first aspect. What is associated with this is the purchase of land for television stations throughout Britain, the renting of buildings, the erection of new buildings and of new stations, the expansion of technical equipment, the payment for programmes, fees for artists and writers, etc. I shall go deeper into the costs aspect of television in Britain in a moment.

The second aspect is the following: The alternative is that the State should introduce television itself on the basis of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, with a body such as the Board of the South African Broadcasting Corporation, which functions independently, and then make an attempt to cover the costs from licensees. Once again I should like to quote the British figures to the hon. member. In Britain there is at present, according to the figures furnished to us, almost 15 million television licences. Britain has a population of 55 million, and if one considers that four people sit around one television set. then practically the entire British population has television coverage. The licence fees at present amount to £5 per annum, and will this year be increased to £6 per annum. In addition almost 3 million licences are being issued to persons who do not want television in their homes, and who only take out radio licences at a cost of 14s. per licence. Mr. Speaker, that is the cost in Britain. But as is indicated in this book, there is a loss on this service of £6,452,000 per annum. And that is apart from all the additional costs. Let us transfer these same figures and numbers to South Africa. I am going to compare the situation in Britain with the situation in South Africa, and I am going to confine myself to the economic side of the matter only. In Britain, as I have already said, there are 55 million inhabitants, of which 15 million have television sets. South Africa has a total population of 18 million people, and we must remember that very few of our Bantu will be able to afford television. I think I am putting the figure exceptionally high when I say that 200.000 television sets will be purchased in South Africa. Let me now take the argument further, using this as a basis. Britain itself covers less than one-fifth of the surface area of South Africa. As the hon. member knows, if he knows anything about the technique of television, television is specifically linked to a maximum radius of 60-70 miles. As soon as the State has to control television and financing, one cannot merely provide television for the thickly populated urban areas, for then all taxpayers are paying for it and one has to provide a service to every taxpayer in the most outlying areas of South Africa; otherwise one is not being fair. One will therefore have to distribute a network of television stations throughout the Republic of South Africa, which is going to cost five to six times more than at costs at present in Britain because one has to cover a greater surface area.

How does Australia manage?

Australia is managing in her way. I have nothing to do with Australia. Australia can decide on its own priorities. A responsible government in South Africa is deciding upon its priorities; it is that government’s affair and that government’s task. I say that we in South Africa will have to make television available to every part of South Africa. The costs in that connection, if I make a rapid calculation and as favourable a calculation as possible for the hon. member for Orange Grove’s point, will be at least R40 million in the form of purely capital investment, simply to take the first step and introduce television. The running costs, once again calculated on the basis of Britain which broadcasts for six hours per day, will be R18 million per annum in South Africa; these are the costs in connection with technicians, staff, etc. The programme costs, once again in comparison with Britain, will be at least R30 million per annum. Initially a capital investment of R40 million will have to be made, which is going to cost us R88 million in the first financial year, and then we only have one television channel, and South Africa is a bilingual country. Afrikaans and English will therefore have to be treated on an equal basis, and that could mean that a good deal of the costs would be doubled. But what about all our Bantu races? Are we going to give them precisely the same television as the Whites? Are all the horse-opera films which are shown on television to Whites going to be shown to the Bantu as well? Are you going to do that, or are you going to be sensible and follow the policy of South Africa in that respect? I am asking the hon. member for Orange Grove whether he wants to give the Bantu precisely the same programmes?

If we in South Africa want to make provision for television for every taxpayer in all the outlying areas of the country for Afrikaans and English-speaking people and for the six, seven or eight different Bantu population groups, for the Coloureds and for the Indians who will all be entitled to that, then we regard it as foolish at this stage to spend so much money on something we can do very well without and be none the worse off. I have already said that it would cost R88 million per annum for television on one channel only. For that R88 million, if I assume that a house can be built for R8,000, 11,000 houses can be built for Whites. Should we not give preference to that rather than to television? Is that not more important than television? Should we not rather accommodate our people than spend money on this? If we take the water situation and the periodic droughts in South Africa into consideration, can we afford wasting R88 million per annum on a luxury item such as television? If we take the vulnerability of South Africa, in the sphere of crude oil, into consideration, is it not essential that we should rather spend R88 million per annum on stockpiling oil or undertaking research, or prospecting for oil?

Mr. Speaker there are so many priorities that I simply cannot understand how the hon. member can come here once again with his foolish arguments. But I want to return to his proposal that television be introduced immediately. We are just getting over the worst of the inflation situation in South Africa. The hon. member suggests that we should introduce television immediately.

That we should appoint a commission immediately.

In other words, he wants our business men to get to work immediately and begin publicizing and selling this luxury item amongst our people. Mr. Speaker, the average price of an ordinary television set. receiving black and white, not colour television is R200 in Britain: here it will probably be more expensive. If 200,000 people are going to purchase television sets, then that hon. member’s motion means that the public will have to pay R40 million for television sets, at a time when we are just getting over the worst of the inflation. Is it desirable, is it wise and clever of the Government to place our people in a position at this stage where they can purchase a luxury item? I am asking the hon. member a simple question: Is it desirable, is it essential?

Are you opposed to it?

I maintain that it is foolish to introduce television service into South Africa at this stage. The word “immediately” in the hon. member’s motion makes the entire motion immediately unpractical, impossible and completely unnecessary. In general it is foolish.

I now want to deal with a further argument of the hon. member. Television is at present still developing. When I was in Holland recently television broadcasts in colour were made there for the first time. We were in a position to see it, and the image was distorted and vague. In that country’s television there are numerous things which are not at all what they should be yet. Does the hon. member now want to force us to introduce black and white television broadcasts in South Africa, a service which is on the way out in all the television countries of the world? Or does he want us to introduce the incomplete and unperfected colour service now, which would entail that we will have to incur expenditure on experiments and replace our sets at a later stage, etc.? What a foolish motion this is! This side of the House maintains, let us be wise, let us first wait until television has been perfected, technically and otherwise, and then we can consider it again.

My time, as arranged by the Whips, is almost up, but before I resume my seat I would like to make a last remark. No government would be so foolish as to adopt an unrelenting attitude in respect of this matter and keep on saying “No”. But my attitude is unrelenting—I adhere to this strongly, the Government adheres to it strongly: We cannot, we dare not accept such a far-reaching mass medium, with all the problems and complex situations which it would entail before we are able to counteract the prejudicial effect it will have effectively. I have mentioned capital, finances and the fact that the service is not technically perfect. But what about the manpower, can we tackle such a project? In Britain, according to the information at my disposal, 22,000 people are employed in the television service. In South Africa we would have to have more stations than is the case in Britain. Can we afford to give up 20,000 to 30,000 highly specialized people for a television service?

I think the hon. member’s entire motion is misplaced; it is quite unasked for. He may as well cease agitating for such a service. This Government is responsible enough to introduce the right kind of television service when the time is ripe and when such a service will be of real benefit to us. But until such time it is the duty of this Government, as a responsible government, to keep this service out of the country in the interests of us all.

Mr. Speaker: having listened to the hon. member for Rand-fontein, one might suggest or ask whether he in fact replied on behalf of the hon. the Minister. It sounded very much like that to me.

The Minister can reply for himself, don’t you worry.

I should like to start off by adding my compliments to the Minister on his assumption of office in the new department. I think he will find his portfolio a most difficult one and it will take him some time to put right the wrongs that have been committed in that department in the past. I feel a Minister has been appointed whose personality might help to a large extent to right some of those wrongs.

The hon. member for Randfontein said the Government must in the first instance consider all the aspects involved in a television service: the costs, the good and the evil of television. It seems strange to me that the Government, after all these years, still have to consider all the aspects, namely the costs, the good and the evil, etc., connected with television. It seems they are taking a long time to make up their minds on this particular score.

The hon. member also said there was the question of costs to be considered, and made great play of the cost of television in the United Kingdom. The figures he quoted were published in a certain Natal newspaper where all the costs and figures were set out, and we have had full opportunity of examining them. One of the points he made this afternoon was that it costs R2,000 per minute for advertising time on T.V. in Britain. But he did not compare the cost with the cost of newspaper advertising. One inch of advertising in a British newspaper costs ten times more than it does in South Africa. The reason is the higher circulation figures in Britain. So, these costs are completely relative. One cannot have it both ways. It costs more to advertise over the commercial radio overseas than it does on Springbok Radio in this country, simply because overseas there are more listeners. If the hon. member for Randfontein cannot appreciate that after his free trip overseas, then I cannot help him. [Interjections.]

The costs have nothing to do with circulation.

With all the high costs of television in Britain, I am sure the hon. member for Randfontein did not find a single person in Britain who suggested that television should be scrapped because it was costing the country too much. I am sure nobody would make such a suggestion. I am curious to know why he quoted the figures and the high costs relevant to the British service, but did not tell us about the low costs in Mauritius, where one also finds television.

Moreover, Mauritius has television in two languages. Also, the hon. member did not tell us about the costs of the Rhodesian television service. He did not quote the comparative figures.

There is no comparison as regards costs.

Oh, no. The hon. member also said the Government must tell the public of South Africa that it cannot spend its money on television. Perhaps the hon. member has some secret information; perhaps he knows the Government wants some more money when the Budget is presented in a couple of weeks’ time to spend on Bantustans and other projects. I want to tell the hon. member that the people of South Africa have quite enough common sense to know how to spend their money without any advice whatsoever from him.

For many years the Government’s opposition to television has been based entirely on moral grounds, namely that such a service would be harmful, it was a little bioscope, it was corrupt, it made the British Empire fall and it made the Dutch lose the East Indies. Another objection was that it was in the hands of the liberals. These were the reasons why the Government in its “wisdom” decided that we were not old enough or wise enough to have the advantage of television. But now, in their new “outward” way of looking at things, in keeping with the new image they are trying to create in the world, they feel this is no longer a good excuse for not having television in South Africa. They had to think of new reasons. Of course, the hon. member for Randfontein is an expert in this type of thinking. The whole basis of the member’s speech was that the latest objection was based on economics: We cannot have television because of economic objections based on moral reasons, the dangers confronting our children, and so forth. I think the hon. member for Orange Grove has more than answered the hon. member for Randfontein as far as the figures are concerned. I think he has more than answered in advance objections based on figures which the hon. the Minister might be able to advance.

The Government is continually telling us that we are the richest country in Africa. But it seems strange to me that this richest country on the continent cannot afford television.

We do not want it.

I will come to “we do not want it” just now. A report which appeared in the Sunday papers states that the B.B.C. radio transmitter in Francistown, which closed down at the end of last month, may one day help to bring television to Botswana.

It “may”.

Not only “may”—they at least are doing more than we are doing, namely investigating the possibility of television in Botswana, as the report goes on to say so. If the hon. member would like to see it, I will show it to him. In other words, the richest country in Africa cannot afford television, so that side says, but a country like Botswana can. I cannot accept that this is so for economic reasons, as suggested by the hon. member who has just sat down. If they are economic, then they are so in an entirely different sense and not in the usual sense of the word. The entirely different sense is this. If television is introduced in this country, then obviously only one section of the community will lose something, and that section is the Nationalist Party. It will be detrimentally affected as far as the monetary interests it holds in the Afrikaans Press will be damaged. If the Nationalist Party did not have such wide Press interests in South Africa, we would have had television years ago, and they know it.

What about the Argus group?

The Press of both language groups will suffer if television is introduced, and the Argus group knows that as well as anybody else. Only the objective newspapers in South Africa will be able to weather the storm and survive. Most countries in the world to-day have television, in case the hon. member for Randfontein does not know. Experience has shown that in those countries the better papers survive and, after a short initial setback, indeed improve. This happens because they have to become more objective in their reporting. If one takes an interest in South African politics, or if one comes to this House, one inevitably notices how closely the Afrikaans Press is tied to the Nationalist Party. Their interests are identical to those of the ruling party. Many of the people working for those papers do not support the views of the Government, but they must do as they are told because their jobs are dependent on their doing so. When the Government sheds its financial control of the Afrikaans Press we will have television in South Africa, and not until then. All other excuses, for instance the high costs of television, and so on, are completely meaningless until this happens. In America 16.7 per cent of all advertising is done over the television services. The South African Press has a stake in the introduction of television in this country, and if those who control the Press also control the ruling party, then they have the upper hand as far as the introduction of television here is concerned.

Another factor is the cinema industry. The industry is going to be very hard hit by the introduction of television. This was of little importance up until two or three years ago. About two or three years ago a certain organization entered the cinema industry and now controls very many cinemas in this country. This development has also put back the introduction of television in South Africa because this concern, as hon. members know, is favourably disposed towards the governing party.

There is also a further reason why the introduction of television is not around the corner. It concerns the question of publications in this country. The publications I want to mention are these picture magazines of which I have any number on my desk. I am sure the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation makes these his favourite reading matter. These picture magazines by and large, are published by publishing houses which are sympathetic to the governing party. When television is introduced in South Africa, I suggest that these picture magazines will disappear from the news stands. This is another reason why television is not just around the comer, as some people may think, despite the fact that we have a new Minister. One of these picture magazines happens to have a circulation of 75,000 a week, and of those 75,000 a week, 50,000 copies are sold to the Bantu population. This may mean nothing, but a few years ago in this House, hon. members used to get up and decry television because it was immoral. I remember reading a debate where they said there were so many murders per week shown on television screens in America. I do not want to advertise these magazines, Mr. Speaker, but I can assure you that there are more murders, rapes, robberies and bank holdups in these magazines than on any television station in America or the United Kingdom.

That is a sweeping statement.

This is not a sweeping statement, and if the hon. member would like to count them, I will show him one of them. On page 1 of the magazine that I have here is a murder, on page 2 is the breaking into of a bank, on page 3 is a murder and on page 4 is another murder. These are the reasons why hon. members opposite said we cannot have television in South Africa, but these magazines are circulated among the Bantu people at the rate of 50,000 copies a week. Is there then any sense in the argument of that hon. member?

You should do a comic strip in the Sunday Times.

I would suggest that the hon. the Minister should have stuck to rugby. That was the only time he rendered South Africa any service. Not long ago a leading personality told me that he was in favour of television, but that he could not advocate its introduction, as he was a publisher of this sort of magazine. I want to add that that leading personality happens to be public representative of that party sitting on the other side of the House. He is a member of that party. He blithely agrees at their congresses that we cannot have television, and he frankly admits that his reason is that he is a publisher of this sort of magazine. Can anyone place any credence in the views expressed by members on that side? There are a number of publications here and I am prepared to make them available to the hon. the Minister. I do not wish to advertise them here.

We have figures for television here given for various parts of the world. Eighty-six per cent of the people in Britain have television. Are 86 per cent of the people in Britain corrupt? Seventy to seventy-five per cent of the people in Britain rent their television sets. I do not want to go into this question of the cost of television any further, because I do not believe that that is the real reason. I believe that I have given the real reason already. Might one suggest that if this Government had been in power when the motorcar was invented, they would have got up in this House and would have said: Look at the cost of the roads, look at the cost of the bridges; look at petrol; look at what it would cost the poor taxpayer if he buys a motorcar for R1,000, so we had better not have motorcars. It was just as well that the motorcar was invented before they came to power. Perhaps they are waiting until they can make the announcement that they have invented a special type of South African television that will cost a good deal less. If we had waited for this Government to invent the motorcar, we would probably still be in oxcarts. We have been told of the dangers of television, motorcars kill 6,000 people per year in South Africa alone, but we do not hear about the dangers of motorcars when cabinet ministers drive around in these big black cars that are standing outside.

Television would be a boon. We have heard here how it would be a boon to education. It will be a boon to schools where we suffer such a great shortage of teachers. It will be a boon to farmers. In England they broadcast special programmes for farmers. It will be a boon to the aged and sick. If any member on the other side had ever visited the aged and sick, and had seen people well over the age of 90 years who cannot move from their bedrooms, then they would appreciate just what a boon television would be to people like that. In America they have special programmes for children between the ages of five and seven. Also of course, and this may be the subtle reason why they do not like television on that side, is that overseas leading politicians have to appear on television. I can imagine the hon. the Minister of Sport being quizzed on television. That party would be out of power as quick as you can wink an eye. Television will bring foreign capital into South Africa. Television will bring immigrants into South Africa. We need immigrants. Television will bring technicians and the people who have the know-how into South Africa, and we need them. The answer to television is a simple one. If you do not want a television set, do not buy one. The governing party has no right to deprive those people who do want television.

Mr. Speaker, I think there is a good reason why the hon. member for Orange Grove on the one hand, and the hon. member for Port Natal on the other hand, are pleading so ardently for television now. I have here a newspaper cutting, dated NovembeR1965, in which Mr. E. G. Malan, the hon. member for Orange Grove, had the following to say—

It was also stated—

He said that in November, 1965. Quite some time has now elapsed since he said that the United Party was going to force this Govern ment to introduce television, and that a statement would be made within 12 months from November, 1965. I can understand why it should be an annual undertaking for him to plead here for television, it is in order to keep his promise; after all we know what United Party promises are. I have also said that there is a good reason why the hon. member for Port Natal should be pleading so ardently for television here. Was it not the hon. member for Port Natal whose election slogan was, “For T.V., vote U.P.”? He succeeded in being elected with a small majority, but now he must carry out his promise. Let him do so. Let him try and prove that it is the right thing to introduce television. He made a very poor attempt to do so to-day.

Britain has television, and from July 1967 colour television was introduced. A few weeks after that colour television was also introduced into most European countries, such as Holland, Germany and France. In other words the system of colour television, which cannot be used on the ordinary black and white system, but which requires an entirely new capital installation, is rapidly developing towards greater efficiency. But in his motion the hon. member for Orange Grove asked for the “immediate” introduction of television. It reads as follows—

It is strange that the United Party should keep on asking for television without adopting an attitude in respect of the kind of service which should be offered. It is traditional that the United Party is incapable of adopting an attitude in regard to such matters, or otherwise adopts a negative attitude. I remember when this Government came into power in 1948 that the South African Broadcasting Corporation had not at that stage been developed far enough by the former Government to enable it to comply fully with the requirements of national news services. At that time the B.B.C. news services were being re-broadcast to South Africa. But the National Party Government is in favour of South Africa’s interests being developed, and it would like the spirit of South Africa to be communicated to all South Africans. When the National Party proposed that the B.B.C., news service broadcast be stopped. and that we should introduce our own comprehensive news service, there was fierce opposition to it from the side of the Opposition.

Opposition by whom?

B.B.C. Steyn opposed it. Subsequently the Government carried into further effect the idea that an entertainment service (which the radio generally is after all) should comply with the requirements of all the population groups being served by that service. The Government consequently saw to it that Bantu services were introduced in Zulu, Xhosa, Sotho and the other chief Bantu languages. The United Party also opposed the legislation which was to make the expansion of these services to all the Bantu nations possible. It is also clear that if we should in future consider the possibility of introducing a television service in South Africa, they will similarly be opposed to a television service in South Africa being nationally and group-orientated. It is for that reason that we cannot, under any circumstances, support the view of the United Party. The fact of the matter is that of the approximate 1,450,000 radio licences which are at present being issued in South Africa, 770,000 are for Bantu. At any rate, there are that many Bantu who possess F. M. sets. That is almost half of all the radio licences being issued. Of the two million Bantu radio listeners 88 per cent listen regularly to Radio Bantu. It is clear therefore that every group has a need to be served in the language of the cultural unit of which he is a member. It is also clear in the international spectrum that as great a need exists there in the sphere of entertainment in general.

I have interesting figures in regard to the number of films which are being manufactured in the various countries. The country which manufactured the most motion pictures in 1962 is Japan with 652 full-length motion pictures. Second was India with 319; then Hong Kong with 272; and fourthly the United States of America with 254 in 1961. Other countries which also manufactured more than 100 motion pictures were Italy, Russia, France, the United Kingdom, Korea and the Philippines. From this it must be deduced that the various cultural units in the world are unwilling to have the forms of entertainment of other cultural groups forced upon them. They are only interested in those which derive from their own cultural circumstances. It is interesting to note that the countries which exhibit in their own country 90 per cent of the films which they manufacture themselves, are the U.S.A., India and Russia. But the United Kingdom manufactures only 25 per cent of the films which are exhibited in their own country. Sixty-five per cent of the films which are exhibited in Britain, are manufactured in the U.S.A. Argentina manufactures 35 per cent of the films which are exhibited in their own country, while 50 per cent comes from the U.S.A. if we want to provide television services in South Africa it is in my opinion absolutely essential that we do not offer a single bilingual service, in order to try and draw the greatest number of viewers. We cannot merely provide one service for English-speaking, Afrikaans-speaking and the various Coloured, Bantu and Indian population groups together. If we want to see proper justice being done to the public of South Africa, we will have to provide one service in Afrikaans, and another in English, as well as separate services in the various Bantu languages, because it is no less than right that those services should be provided on a basis which insures that justice is being done to the various population groups. The cost in this connection is a very real factor in the introduction of a television service in South Africa, as the hon. member for Randfontein has already said. He quoted figures to indicate the cost of television in Britain. It would cost no more in South Africa to draw up and present a television programme than it does in Britain. It is no use saying that we should simply import programmes from America and Britain and provide translations in order to present them in Afrikaans and the Bantu languages. Our entertainment programme must comply with the cultural requirements of every population group. Only news programmes, which comprise a smaller part of television programmes, can be translated. But to see that justice is done, it must be taken into consideration that every population group desires services in its own sphere of culture.

I would just like to reply to one question put by the hon. member for Port Natal. He said that the costs of advertising in Britain were so much higher because so many people were viewers there. The fact of the matter is simply that television advertisements in Britain cost approximately R2,000 per minute, because it is aimed at covering the costs of the programme. In Britain it is an economic factor to charge those tariffs for advertisements. In South Africa, with a population of less than a quarter that of Britain, particularly if the various services to the various language groups have to be taken into consideration, it would be quite uneconomic to charge a tariff which even approaches an economic tariff, because to manufacture a programme in South Africa will cost approximately as much as it does in Britain, or Germany or in America or elsewhere. It is for that reason, i.e. because the costs are entirely exorbitant, that we in South Africa, at this stage of our development, and where we have priorities, which require a great deal more attention, find it quite impossible to consider introducing a television service soon. We are not opposed to the service as such, because if it comes to that it will in any case be a Government-controlled service and, we will be able to control it. It is not that we object to that; we have, inter alia, objections to the effect which it is going to have on our economy at this stage.

An interesting fact has emerged here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. The position is that this Government has put up two speakers to oppose the motion of the hon. member of Orange Grove and peculiarly enough those two, I think, are about the only two members on the other side of this House who have ever seen television.

That is nonsense.

We wonder why this has happened. These are the members who have just returned from visits overseas. They have been in contact with this terribly contaminating machine, this debilitating machine, and I am wondering if perhaps they have been put up here with this purpose in mind: they have been told to come once again with an affirmation of loyalty. Once again they have got to establish their bona fides, within the party that they have not perhaps been led astray by this funny little box in which they have seen pictures. Anyway, as I have said, this is rather interesting, but let us leave that point. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana quoted from a newspaper article reporting the hon. member for Orange Grove. This, he said, was published in November, 1965, but peculiarly enough, on 3rd December, 1965, we had a similar newspaper article published in the Natal Mercury in Natal, where a very strong case was made for television in South Africa. It started off by saying: It would not be wrong or even clever, to say that television for South Africa must come within the next 18 months. Some critics, no doubt, will say this should have happened long ago—I agree.” Now Sir, this was not a report of a correspondent from a newspaper—this was an article which was presented, with a photograph, under the name of Mr. G. J. Claassens, M.P.C., a leader of the Nationalist Party in the Provincial Council in Natal. [Interjections.] No, Sir, for all his condemning the hon. member for his prognostications, let me say that this hon. member of the Provincial Council was also wrong. Let me also say in reply to the interjection made by the hon. the Deputy Minister, that I agree with him that there is at least one sensible person who subscribes to the policy of the Nationalist Party, namely Mr. Claassens, when it comes to the question of television. Sir, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana also said that it was the policy of this Government that the spirit of South Africa should be shown to the country and to the people of the world. So, I want to ask: How better than through the medium of television? Of course, he did give us an insight into the tremendous cost, which the hon. member for Randfontein quoted to us when he said these programmes should be “volks-en groepsgebonde”. Sir, I think he meant, and he seemed to elucidate later in his speech, that we would need at least 12 duplicated services in South Africa. I agree that if that is what we are going to have to do, it will be too costly, but have we really got to do that? He talks about the films which will have to be imported and have to be translated into Afrikaans. Sir, I want to say to the hon. member Afrikaans is in no danger of being destroyed—Afrikaans will never disappear from South Africa and I think the sooner he accepts this and the sooner he gets away from this terrible fear the better I think it will be for the relationships between the language groups.

You have it all wrong.

While talking about films, one of the points I had intended raising in this debate was this very question, and as the hon. member so correctly put it, films must be produced locally for local consumption. T.V. is something that would stimulate an infant industry in this country. The film industry which we have is battling and is trying to get onto its feet. And if they have the opportunity of producing films for television as well as for showing in the theatres, how much better it would be. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. members for Orange Grove and for Port Natal in congratulating the hon. the Minister on his succession to this portfolio. We know that he has a difficult job ahead of him. We wish him luck and we do hope that he is going to be able to solve the problems which have beset this department in the past. This Government has been boasting for the last 19 years of its achievements …

Twenty years.

It has boasted for 19 years of its achievements during the last 20 years. It is always trying to get across, not only to the people in this country, but to the people overseas, what it is doing and what it has achieved in this country. And let me say once again they are losing out. I really believe that there are some intelligent members in the Government party, but I cannot see how they fail to see the importance of television and the powerful weapon it would be in their attempt to get this propaganda across, not only amongst our own people in this country and amongst the non-White people particularly, but overseas as well. Internally people in this country could sit comfortably at home at night and see the achievements of which this Government likes to boast. We were talking about personalities a little while ago, whether Ministers and members will have to appear on television. Let me say that after watching the performances of the hon. the Prime Minister in this House over the last few months, I begin to wonder at the wisdom of we in the United Party continuing to press for the advent of television in the country. Because, quite honestly, the hon. the Prime Minister would slay any of us when it comes to a show on television. However, what the United Party has done is to consider the wider interests and the benefit to the country as a whole. I want to say that the Government should have seized the initiative in South Africa to advance and to improve its own image by means of television, particularly amongst the Bantu people. And I want to quote an authority, once again my friend the M.P.C. from Natal. In this context any man who supports television is my friend. He said this—

He goes further and I think here he has the answers for the hon. member for Randfontein who unfortunately has left the House. He goes on to say—

This is the point that I have been making, namely that the ultimate benefit to South Africa would far overshadow that. Mention was made earlier by the hon. member for Port Natal about those people who have vested interests in this country, particularly in the publishing industry and who are opposed to television. Now, with the change in minister-ship we are hoping that those grounds of opposition will fall away. But I do want to say that I was rather encouraged by the speech of the hon. member for Randfontein, who incidentally has now returned. As pointed out by the hon. member for Port Natal there is not to-day a direct stand against television. The attitude up to now has been: We are firmly against it. We do not want to hear about it. We do not accept it. We want to know nothing about it at all. But the hon. member for Randfontein gave us a hint—and this seems to be something which is coming up more and more from this Nationalist Party Government to-day. He gave us a hint to-day that they are not so much against television but that it has to take its place. There is now a list of priorities and we must consider television when the time is ripe. How this time is to be judged I do not know. But let me say that we are grateful for this glimmer of light which is shining through. At last it appears that we of the United Party are starting to make some impression on the National Party. They are beginning to show a little bit of sense and are beginning to think that possibly there might be some good in this. I therefore think that if the hon. member for Orange Grove continues with his annual pilgrimage there will be a time when he is going to break through.

There is no need for me to go into all the pros. These have been discussed in this House so often. But I do want to deal particularly with the subject which was dealt with here in this House a few weeks ago under a motion introduced by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. That concerns the power of television as a medium of instruction; the power of television as a means of instruction in our schools. Unfortunately none of the three blind mice are here. I would particularly have liked to have spoken to one of the heads of Bantu Administration in this connection.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. member entitled to refer to members of this House as “three blind mice”?

Order! The hon. member may proceed. It is not in very good taste, but the hon. member may proceed.

As I have said, the power of television in this connection must be appreciated. I have here, thanks to the generosity of the hon. the Minister and his department, a periodical which is delivered to me regularly, i.e. Bantu Education Journal. In every issue of this magazine we have articles on the use of the radio as an organ to assist in education in the schools. We find that not only has the Department of Bantu Education fastened on to this idea and is using regular programmes put over radio Bantu, for educational purposes in schools—the department is actually placing radios in the schools—but it has gone further and found that audio-education is not as good as the combination audio-visual education. The department is now issuing what are called “photobooks”. These I believe are made up of pictures illustrating the lecture which will be broadcast over the radio. We are now arriving at what has been accepted in the outside world as the epitome of educational help, namely the audio-visual system. Now we are going to the trouble of putting over radio programmes and we are going to the trouble of drawing pictures and taking photographs to illustrate this. These two things should now be combined and I submit that this is the automatic next step. I should like to quote from one of these Bantu education journals. On page 28 of the September, 1967, issue we read—

With that I agree one hundred per cent. It could be applied a thousandfold more positively to television. What this Government must now realize is that television is the most powerful instrument of communication known to the world to-day. It is capable of abuse. I grant you that. It is capable of abuse in the same way as the writer of this article mentions the radio in education. But, it is also capable of the greatest good. In conclusion I should like to say that it is not what television is but what we can make of it, that really matters. And I am sure that if it is introduced into this country it can be made a success.

Mr. Speaker, I should also like to add my congratulations to those of other members on this side of the House to the new Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on his assumption of office. I wish him all success in his new portfolio. Statements have been made to-day that the Nationalist Party has certain objections to television under the prevailing circumstances, but that it has never been opposed to the institution of television as such in South Africa. The main arguments that were advanced to-day I think were that it would cost too much in our present economic circumstances; that we have just overcome inflation and that it would be an added burden; that there were other priorities; and that television was not as yet perfect. But it was also stated that they had never been against television as such. I should like to quote from Die Beeld of the 11th February, 1968. The relevant paragraph reads as follows—

Die Regering se standpunt oor beeldradio as medium het in die jare toeskietliker geword: eers ’n onomwonde verwerping daarvan nou dat beeldradio laag op die lys van prioriteite is.”

If the Nationalist Party was in favour of television it seems very strange that the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs a few years ago was to say this in the House—

He went further—

That is a strange way of supporting television in South Africa. Yet previous speakers have said that the Nationalist Party has never been against television in South Africa. They are merely opposed to the institution of television at this present stage for the various reasons that I have given. But let us leave that aside. Let me deal with the way I see the position arising from this debate. I think it is conceded by speakers on both sides of the House that television has an educational value, that it is obviously an information medium, for the dissemination of propaganda and that it has a very obvious entertainment value. Figures have been given by speakers on both sides of the number of television sets in the world. These figures are most impressive. I would be the first to agree with speakers on the other side of the House that what is done overseas is not necessarily the best for South Africa. Speakers on this side of the House have often maintained the same argument. I do not believe that because there is television in Britain, America or elsewhere in Europe, it is essential that we have it also in South Africa. But I believe that the arguments in favour of having television in South Africa outweigh its disadvantages. And for that reason I am pleased to support this motion. I will also concede that South Africa has her own peculiar problems which militate to a certain extent against television. There is the fact that we are a multi-racial society, that we have many languages in South Africa and vast differences in the standards of civilization among our various population groups. I believe also that there are disadvantages connected with television not only in South Africa but also elsewhere in the world, such as that a society can become what is known as a “gluepot society”; that there can be a loss of human intercourse; and that visual reading can never really take the place of the written word. It is also commonly conceded that television commercialism can become a very real danger, but then the former Minister of Posts and Telegraphs had other arguments. He said that our youth would be corrupted, but surely if there is judicious selection of programmes there is no need for the youth to be corrupted. Surely if the parents exercise the necessary parental control, the youth will not be corrupted. The previous Minister also said that there would be a shortage of technicians. I am given to understand, and I believe the hon. member for Orange Grove quoted these figures to-day, that the Rhodesian television system is run by six highly skilled engineers. [Interjections.] The previous Minister had a further argument, namely that there would be insufficient Afrikaans programmes. That is a very real fear and one which we on this side of the House fully appreciate. But I believe that a system of dubbing is practicable, and that you can build up a stockpile of Afrikaans films and programmes so as not in any way to engulf Afrikaans in the television programmes. But then the former Minister, in the last debate in which he took part, used the argument that television would be used to bring about the downfall of the white man in South Africa. I cannot seriously believe that there are members either on that side of the House or on this side who can subscribe to that argument, and therefore I do not think it is necessary to deal with it. But he had certain other hidden reasons for being opposed to television and there are hon. members opposite who share those reasons with him. The first is that the Nationalist Party inherently is fearful of change. For example one of the reasons why they stopped immigrants coming to South Africa was because they were afraid of overseas influences. One of the reasons why they refused to disclose information favourable and unfavourable to South Africa at U.N. and elsewhere in regard to South West Africa was because they relied on the argument that South West was a matter for the domestic jurisdiction of South Africa. But since those days we have seen a change. In the past they were opposed to black diplomats coming to South Africa, and now they are admitting Black diplomats to South Africa. They do not establish them in Bellville and Parow, but they establish them in Rondebosch, the seat of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. We have seen that they were opposed to sending overseas a mixed Olympics team, but a change has taken place.

Order! The hon. member is getting away from the motion.

The previous Minister of Posts and Telegraphs also had another argument, and that was that the influence of the S.A.B.C. would decline. I think it probably would, but in any case if some of its influence were to decline it would probably be a very good thing. Then, I think, his third main argument, which he did not use in public, was that Afrikaans newspapers would suffer through the loss of advertising. I concede that that is a valid argument, but do you not think, Sir, that the members of the Nationalist Party should put the interests of South Africa before those of the Nationalist Press?

What about the English newspapers?

Yes, it applies to the English newspapers as well; yet they support television. When I support this motion, I do so subject to the condition that if it is instituted in South Africa it should be rigidly controlled against any form of misuse or abuse. If it were to be handled by the Post Office, I have every confidence that it will not be abused and that it will be handled to the advantage of South Africa.

What are its advantages? There are social and political advantages, and I believe it could greatly improve our image overseas. We have only to quote the recent example of Professor Barnard’s film which we saw. It must have done South Africa a lot of good overseas. I can quote also the approval of Die Transvaler of July, 1965, referring to the gain lift to Lesotho, when it said—

All this could be shown to the world so much more easily if we had our own television system. In that case it was shown to 17 million viewers in West Germany alone, and it must have done our country a power of good. I believe it would also awaken true national pride in South Africa. I believe that there are many people throughout South Africa who do not know what is going on in the other provinces of the country and the country as a whole. I believe it would be beneficial in awakening a proper sense of national pride among them. It has obvious advantages in attracting visitors from overseas through showing them in advance our natural beauties. In visual education it can be used to expedite the education not only of the Coloureds, but also of the Natives. We acknowledge that even for Whites there is a shortage of teachers, and it could be a very useful educational medium. The hon. member for Umbilo has frequently drawn the attention of members of this House to the advantages of television for the sick and elderly people. It seems a foregone conclusion that it will come. The question is when it is going to come, and what safeguards there should be. Here I should like to quote from Die Transvaler of 3rd July, 1967, quoting Mr. Meyer—

I have already quoted Die Beeld to show that the Government has made a complete change in their policy as regards television. On 11th February, 1968, it says quite plainly: “Geen televisie voor 1971 nie, maar dat Suid-Afrika beeldradio sal kry, word nie meer betwyfel nie.”

Lastly, reference has been made to the approval with which Dr. Nico Malan, the Administrator of the Cape Province, referred to television on his return from overseas recently, when he said that if television is properly controlled it can be of great benefit to South Africa. So it seems that the volume of opinion in this House and outside is building up in favour of television. I think that will be a healthy day and I believe that this new Minister will be the first person to introduce television into South Africa. The reason why I say that is because on his assumption of office, as quoted in The Star of 8th February, he is reported to have said this—

The interests of South Africa dictate that television be immediately investigated and be introduced as soon as possible.

I want to begin by saying that I do not regard television as an evil. Television can undoubtedly be a very useful instrument in the hands of mankind, but it can also with equal certainty be a very dangerous instrument in the hands of mankind. The advantages and disadvantages of television in the various Western countries where it has been introduced, is closely bound up with the system and the policy which is being followed in that connection. It depends whether it is a commercial service, i.e. a service such as the one which is being provided in the United States by businessmen for their own profit, or a dual system of a Government Corporation, together with the commercial service, such as in Britain, Canada and Australia for example, or simply a Government co-operative undertaking such as is the case in Germany and Holland, or whether the control thereof is vested in a State Department, as in France. We must distinguish carefully between a commercial service and a cultural service. A commercial service, which is run by businessmen for their own profit, and a cultural service with advertisements, such as Radio Bantu, Springbok Radio and special F. M. services of the S.A.B.C., which are toy no means commercial services, but in fact cultural services with intermittent advertisements, controlled on the same basis as all the other services of the S.A.B.C. In addition the advantages and disadvantages of television are dependent upon whether the television service is restricted to certain times of the day as a supplement to the radio service or whether it is a 24-hour service which is offered independently and parallel to the radio services. And finally the advantages and disadvantages are also dependent upon whether high spiritual and cultural values and norms are laid down for the service in the country in question. Where the norms are low, as is the case with purely commercial services, the disadvantages are greater than the advantages. When television is well controlled and only programmes of the highest quality are offered, the advantages can outweigh the disadvantages, particularly if it is limited to a few hours per day as a supplement to an existing State cooperative radio service. When a television service has become primarily an extension of the film, i.e. when old motion pictures are merely re-screened to fill up the programme, as is the case in the U.S.A., the disadvantages this implies are greater than all the advantages. In general however the most important prejudicial characteristics of television abroad are that it makes for superficiality and that it offers competition to interests such as the radio, the Press and the film industry, particularly if it is a parallel 24-hour service and in addition is being run by businessmen for their own profit. Television displays its worst and most dangerous characteristics when it is introduced as a commercial service under the control of private entrepreneurs for their own profit.

It would be fatal for the intellectual future of our country if we were also to introduce a television service similar to those which exist in most other countries of the world. The disadvantages are so great that it would be difficult to gain an advantage from it. When it is used for educational purposes in an incorrect way, a person’s intellectual development can be tied down to the visual excessively for too long a period of time or incorrectly, thus retarding instead of promoting the process of development. Human thought develops from the concrete to the abstract and must not be tied down for too long a period of time or incorrectly to the concrete. The inherent problem with television is that it supplies a mass of knowledge which can be absorbed in an easy and visual way without an attendant intelligent and conceptual processing of that material. In England an experiment was conducted a few years ago and it was found, after television had been in operation there for a few years, that it was in fact the less intelligent child who spent the most time in front of the television set and that instead of increasing his intelligence, it only made him much less intelligent.

Television’s greatest advantage lies in the stimulus it provides for the further development of commerce and industry, and as a supplementary medium to the basic function of all communication mediums, i.e. that of entertainment, information, and conveying culture, in which is included all cultural activities, particularly if it is run exclusively by a State television service. On the positive side television in South Africa can be a supplement to and development of the radio services in our country, and, in the same way as radio, can only, as a supplementary medium, be a conservative force as regards the Christian-religious convictions, the history and traditions, the language and culture, the nature and the customs of our community. Mr. Speaker, in view of its customary criticism in this regard of the present radio services it is doubtful however whether the Opposition would see to it that this advantage which television can have, is utilized.

Television can be advantageous to South Africa in the fields of education, science, industry, commerce and the life of the community. With this qualification that proper points of policy are formulated, television, if put to the correct use in the field of education, can serve as an important supplementary medium, particularly in the field of interpretation by visual presentation. An inherent characteristic of television is after all that it can make a large amount of knowledge easily available in a visual manner. In the field of science it can be put to work very advantageously in the development of metal processing, operations and the visual presentation of scientific facts. Television can provide a stimulus to industry and commerce, as I have already said, which may lead to further development. Television can also be of great value in the field of medical science.

But before I return to this, I first should like to say a few words about the United Party’s attitude in regard to this matter. At the beginning of this Session not the least of my expectations was that I would have to participate in this Session in a debate on television, and yet it still seems strange to me to-day that I have risen to discuss television. But there is something else which I find even more curious and strange, and that is the United Party’s attitude in regard to this matter. Since the official Opposition is introducing a motion of this nature, one would expect that we would have listened here this afternoon to sober and convincing reasons why a country-wide television service should be introduced. One would have expected the United Party to have weighed up the pros and cons of television and that they would have quoted chapter and verse to this House and the country to prove that the advantages of a television service would far outweigh the disadvantages. But what did we get from them; what did we get from the hon. member for Orange Grove?

He simply adopted the attitude that it was a foregone conclusion that television was the best thing in the world; that there could be nothing better and that it was the only thing in the world to which no disadvantages at all attached. He took a purely superficial view of the matter. He told us how South Africa was being deprived of the privilege of seeing Karen Muir swim, of seeing Dr. Chris Barnard on television, of seeing the Olympic Games on television and of seeing our rugby teams on television. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Orange Grove can go and see these things in the cinemas. Why does he make the assertion here that South Africans are being deprived of the privilege of seeing these people in action? I am really disappointed with the United Party’s display here this afternoon. The only hon. member on that side who, at the outset, adopted a reasonably realistic attitude in regard to the matter, was the hon. member for Simonstown, who has just spoken, but he soon became so entangled in his prejudices against the former Minister that he went completely off the rails. The hon. member for Simonstown was the only member on the other side who admitted that television did in fact have disadvantages as well.

The other speakers before me also admitted that.

No. I listened to them very attentively. Speakers on the opposite side also failed to tell us what kind of service they wanted. I have already indicated that the advantages and disadvantages of television depend upon various factors—inter alia, upon who controls it and upon the duration of the service. It is true that the hon. member for Rand-fontein almost got the hon. member for Orange Grove so far as to admit that the United Party wanted a State-controlled television service. But why did the hon. member for Orange Grove not go further and tell us whether he wanted a commercial service? Or a cultural service?

Let me say this for the umpteenth time, a cultural service with advertisements.

Nor did he say whether it should be a limited service, or whether it should be an integrated service i.e. together with the radio, nor whether we should have a continuous 24 hour service. Nor did he say whether television should be an extension of the film. He had nothing to say about the standard of the programmes either. Since the United Party have been pleading for the introduction of a television service for years now, one would at least have expected them to have stated in clear language what they wanted in this regard. But instead of that they came forward here with a half-baked plan and did not go into the pros and cons in an unprejudiced way.

The hon. member for Simonstown quoted that I had allegedly said on 8th February that I was unprejudiced against television; that I would make a study of it and that I would then decide what would be in the best interests of the people of South Africa. That is so. But, Mr. Speaker, if it was the purpose of hon. members on the opposite side to convince me this afternoon of the need for television in South Africa, they certainly did not succeed in their purpose. Obviously the United Party expects to draw a few supporters with this call for television. But they are not going to succeed in that either, and if reaction on the part of the public to their call up to now has not been ill omen enough for them, then I do not know what would convince them. In fact, at every election since they first began with this call, they have received a worse drubbing. The United Party must take cognizance of the fact that the public will not allow itself to be prescribed to in regard to what is in the best interests of South Africa, and the public will not allow itself to be misled by the creation of an artificial need such as this.

Why do the United Party want television in South Africa. Do they want it in order to further the development of the country?

Yes.

Do they want it for educational purposes?

Yes.

Or for scientific purposes?

Yes.

Or for industrial purposes …

Yes.

Or for medical progress and development …

Yes.

And also for the purposes of entertainment, I take it?

Yes.

Precisely because the Government does not regard television as an evil, and precisely because the Government is able to recognize its usefulness, we are already, to an ever-increasing extent, making use of this medium in South Africa, for example, in the fields of medicine, education, science, industry and commerce. This takes the form of closed-circuit television, a medium which can be utilized to great effect for these specific purposes. Surely hon. members on the opposite side are thoroughly aware of this—

in fact, the hon. member for Orange Grove has already put questions in this regard to me, as well as to the former Minister. He has already mentioned this. Why did he not mention in his speech that the Government was already putting closed-circuit television to good use for the development of all these matters which I have just mentioned?

I did mention it.

No, you did not mention it; all you did was to make a passing reference to its utilization for education purposes. A few years ago when the hon. member also introduced a motion here, he pictured South Africa as allegedly being a backward country when compared with the rest of the word, more backward than the most backward country in the world, even in Africa. Was the hon. member not also aware on that occasion of the fact that South Africa had, since as far back as the mid-fifties, been making use of closed-circuit television to further science, commerce, industry, medical science and education? If the hon. member was aware of that, then surely it was not criticism of the Government. It was sheer ill-will towards South Africa to have made statements like that.

At the moment there are 110 undertakings in the Republic which are making permanent use of this medium of closed-circuit television. Of these, 39 are making use of it for medical purposes, 12 for educational purposes, six for scientific purposes, 37 for industrial purposes, and 17 for commercial purposes. A number of these uses also possess more than one television set, so that they can get full coverage for their particular requirements. I now want to mention a few examples of such cases.

In the field of medical science closed-circuit television is being coupled with X-ray equipment for internal examinations; it is also being used to allow a group of doctors or medical students to watch an operation. It is also being used for observation during psychological and physical treatment, as well as for the research purposes. In the field of education closed-circuit television is being used by universities and teachers’ colleges to help overcome the problem of a shortage of trained staff. The classes are too large for one lecturer, but by making use of closed-circuit television, the same lecture can be delivered to various classes. In the case of demonstrations, these can be shown to groups of students simultaneously where it was otherwise only possible for a few to watch these demonstrations at the same time. As an example the medical school can be mentioned, where the details of an open heart operation can be simultaneously demonstrated to an entire class instead of to a few students only. Permission has also been granted to the Transvaal Education Department to conduct education experiments in this respect at one high school, one secondary school and one educational college. As many applications as are received from schools for essential purposes for the use of closed-circuit television will be granted.

This is real progress.

It is not progress. It has always been the case. [Interjections.] Did the hon. member say he never knew that?

He said it is an evil.

No. Did the hon. member say he was never aware of this situation?

No …

You were never aware of it? What a poor official Opposition we have in this country! [Interjections.] These things are happening and they do not know about them. The hon. member for Orange Grove has acknowledged before and referred in his speeches to the utilization of closed-circuit television in South Africa.

Nobody on this side is saying we were not aware of it. [Interjections.]

In the field of industry we find the following: Closed-circuit television is being used in industry to Observe the functioning of machinery where this cannot be done with the naked eye because of heat or dangerous radiation, as in the case of the smelting ovens at Iscor. In addition it is being utilized for safeguarding human lives, or to observe performance where direct Observation is impossible, as at the building of the Hen* drik Verwoerd Dam for example, where it is impossible for the operator to see where he is pouring the cement.

Television is quite a wonderful thing, is it not?

Yes, it is a wonderful thing. Nobody on this side has ever said that it was not a wonderful thing. Where does the hon. member get that from? I hope the hon. member will show me a quotation in which a Nationalist denied that television was a wonderful thing.

What about Jaap Marais?

The hon. member for Orange Grove has always deliberately tried to understand the hon. member for Innesdal incorrectly, but the hon. member for Innesdal has more sense than the hon. member for Orange Grove, so much more sense that he will not say such a nonsensical thing as that which the hon. member for Orange Grove is now trying to attribute to the hon. member for Innesdal. I continue. In the field of science closed-circuit television is being utilized for observation purposes to determine the effect of radio-active radiation on certain materials. These experiments are either being conducted underground or in research laboratories. In addition it is being used to observe, for research purposes, the habits of sharks. It is also being utilized to examine subsidences where it would otherwise be humanly impossible to do so. The Atomic Energy Board is using it to determine the design parameters of a prototype reactor.

In the commercial field closed-circuit television can be utilized for the following purposes: For control purposes, e.g. control over staff, and particularly cashiers; or to verify the signatures on cheques; or to relay proceedings from a venue which is too small to some other place. I am also prepared to grant applications from self-service stores where they want to combat theft. This has not been done up to now, but I am prepared to grant applications, because I think that television can serve a very good purpose there. Goods to the value of thousands of rand are being stolen from these shops each month, and we believe that closed-circuit television can be utilized with great success in combating these thefts.

The use of closed-circuit television has therefor never been opposed. The Government cannot be reproached with not having lent assistance in respect of the technological developments in all the various fields I have mentioned. [Interjection.] Will the hon. member listen to me. I have never interrupted him. Apparently he does not want to know what our policy is, he is not interested in it, because he is only interested in television in so far as he is able to make use of it as propaganda for his party. The hon. member for Orange Grove takes no interest at all in what is of importance for the country. He wants to know nothing about those things which the Government is doing in the interest of the country, because it cannot be used as propaganda for his party to catch a few votes with. [Interjections.] I was very courteous towards hon. members on the other side, and I expect them to be courteous towards me too. But I can never expect very much courteousness from the hon, member for Orange Grove—I know him too well.

I maintain that the Government’s policy in regard to the introduction of open television is quite a different matter however. It is based on considerations of the cost and the real advantages which such a service can hold for the country as a whole. Obviously the fact that the most advantages and the most important advantages of television can be obtained with a closed-circuit television must be a very strong consideration when a decision is taken in regard to the introduction of an open television service. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove is already sitting there with a sardonic smile on his face. The other day I gave a negative reply when the hon. member asked me whether a nation-wide investigation had been instituted into a television service for the entire country. The hon. member sat there with great satisfaction, and to the amusement of his hon. friends on the opposite side he asked me how I was then able to judge and decide on open television when I did not even know what the cost to the country would be. The hon. member forgot of course that he used the words “nation-wide”. Although the S.A.B.C. and the Post Office had not made an estimate of the costs of nation-wide television service, they had in fact made a calculation of what it would cost if a supplementary radio service to the radio service were introduced with ten broadcasting stations. It is a service with a programme of approximately three to four hours per day, which includes one bilingual white and one multi-lingual non-white service. As I have said, it would have ten broadcasting stations. The cost of such a limited and integrated service, integrated with the radio service, would be approximately R16.1 million for the S.A.B.C. and R8.4 million for the Post Office. That comes to a total of R24.5 million. Colour television would double the cost at least. What it would ultimately cost the country—and that is the question which the hon. member for Orange Grove really put to me— simply to expand an integrated radio-television service to the entire country and to provide it in the various languages for all the population groups, is absolutely impossible to calculate. Even a rough calculation or estimate would be misleading. The cost of a 24-hour service, similar to what is being offered by our radio service to the entire country, is quite incalculable. It is impossible to say.

I am satisfied with that figure.

Well, why does the hon. member put impossible questions to me then? I shall say why it is impossible. Firstly, there are the programmes and the drawing up of the programmes which is an entirely un-ascertainable factor. We are dealing here with two official language groups and quite a number of non-White languages. Secondly, there is the cost to the public as a whole. Did the hon. member not think of that? It is impossible to make a calculation of how many television sets will be purchased by the public. The hon. member for Randfontein predicted this afternoon that there are possibly 200,000 people in South Africa who would purchase television sets. The hon. member for Orange Grove differed from him immediately and maintained that there would be many more.

I think 500,000.

Very well, let us assume it is 500,000. It would cost the public buying those sets R150 million. [Interjection.] Just wait a minute. These are sets for black and white, to receive black and white broadcasts. If we have a colour service, it would cost anything from R200 million to R250 million.

And if they hired sets?

Here the hon. member is suggesting that the public should hire sets. Surely the hon. member knows what disadvantages attach to that. Surely it is much better to buy the sets. It would not pay the people to hire the sets. In the long run they will have to buy the sets. That will be the cheapest thing for them to do.

It is generally known that a television service is an expensive service. Unfortunately time does not allow me to go into this aspect any further. I should like to indicate what the costs would be. Now I am asking: Why should we introduce television when the most important advantages of television or the development of South Africa are already being enjoyed to the full by us? After all, we have the use of closed-circuit television. All that remains, is the entertainment aspect. Must we now accept that for the sake of that, merely for the sake of the entertainment aspect, the Opposition wants us to spend millions of rand in introducing a television service? Does the hon. member for Orange Grove expect that merely for the sake of entertainment the country should be burdened with expenditure to the value of millions of rand?

I think the Opposition have saddled a horse here which they are not going to ride very easily. This horse is going to throw them. I think the Opposition must give serious reconsideration to this matter and decide in their own interests not to mount this horse. I think they should rather let it go.

Preference must be given to more important matters than the spending of millions of rand on the introduction of such a service, and that for the purposes of entertainment. In a country such as South Africa, where a small white population has to tackle and carry out major undertakings in order to ensure the welfare of all our various population groups, the introduction of open television cannot receive preference. South Africa has to spend millions of rand, not only to ensure its white future, but at the same time to make peaceful co-existence with its non-white population groups possible. South Africa has to spend millions of rand on its defence, to guarantee peace and safety for its inhabitants here in South Africa in a threatening world and a hostile world constellation. In order to further the development of its industries and its agriculture millions of rand have to be spent on the development of our water resources, since our country is often stricken by serious droughts.

There are many other equally important reasons I could mention as to why other projects should enjoy preference before the introduction of a television service. There are other considerations as well, as I have mentioned, why we are opposed to an open television service in South Africa. I want to emphasize that it would be absolutely fatal to the intellectual future of our country if a television service, such as that which exists in most other countries, was simply to be introduced into our country. Hon. members on this side, inter alia, the hon. members for Randfontein and for Umhlatuzana, have already pointed that out. I am thinking in particular of the ineradicable influence which the service can have on our children. We must remember that the influence on people of what they see is much stronger than what they hear. The current opinion is that one forgets 80 per cent of what one hears, whereas one retains 80 per cent of what one sees. Many advocates of a television service on the opposite side of the House will not allow their children to go to see certain motion pictures. I see a certain member on the opposite side nodding his head in assent. They will definitely forbid their children to do so. But what do they want to do now? They want television to be carried into the house so that the children are able to see those kinds of pictures quite freely. [Interjections.]

In conclusion just the following. To sum up I want to say that a modern country cannot achieve great heights without a modern transportation system. It must also possess an advanced telegraph, post, Press, radio and theatre system. However, a country can achieve great heights without an open television service as an additional communication medium. The great value and advantages of television have already been introduced into the country by means of closed-circuit television. If it is essential, this kind of service will be expanded to an increasing extent.

The choice before the Government is an easy one. The attitude of the Government in regard to this matter is very clear. Firstly, the Government rejects the open service because of the very prejudicial influences it can have, particularly on our youth and our studying youth. It has nothing to do with our maturity as a nation, but it has a great deal to do with the immaturity of our youth. Secondly, the Government rejects the service on the grounds of the tremendous costs which will have to be incurred. I cannot emphasize this emphatically enough: The Opposition wants this service merely for the sake of entertainment purposes. In order to make it a self-supporting undertaking, that entertainment will not always be healthy and constructive.

I think we have enough entertainment in this country. Even here in this House the Opposition supplies healthy entertainment. That is why the hon. member’s motion cannot be accepted. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. the Minister got up this afternoon, I really thought that he would approach this matter quite objectively. [Interjections.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion lapsed.