Mr. Speaker, I move—

*Mr. Speaker, commemorating the birthday of a former Minister in this way in this House is probably an unusual step. I think you will agree with me that it is also an unusual event for a former Minister of this Government, or of any Government, to reach the milestone of JOO years. That privilege is probably not one which ex-Ministers are normally destined to enjoy, and I think few of us present here today will ever reach that milestone.

The fact that Col. Stallard has today achieved the singular distinction of attaining the age of 100 years is undoubtedly due to the greatness and the power of his personality. Few of us have known him intimately, and those who have are the few remaining here from the years before 1948. We know that he was a member of this House, representing the constituency of Roodepoort from June, 1929, to April, 1938, and representing Pietermaritzburg District from September, 1939. to April. 1948. and that he served as Minister of Mines from September, 1939, to December, 1945. In this time we all came to know him as one of the most colourful personalities in the political history of South Africa.

Col, Stallard distinguished himself, not only as an outstanding soldier who earned many decorations on the battlefield, but also as an able lawyer who was offered several judgeships, which he, however, always declined. He was known as a strong politician who stood by the views which he as a politician set store by and believed in, but above all Col. Stallard was a man with self-control and with self-discipline that almost verged on the Spartan. He is a deeply religious person and cherishes very high spiritual ideals. Col. Stallard is known as a man who carried with him the chivalry that reminds one of the chivalry of a bygone age. He is a person who, through his own dignity, lent dignity to every occasion in which he took part. Col. Stallard is a person who has remained mentally and physically strong. Perhaps it is because he rejects with so much contempt the decadence of the Western world which he sees today.

We see in Col. Stallard today one of the great personalities from the political world of the past. Accordingly it is a very great privilege to us to be able to pay him this grateful tribute today.

Mr. Sneaker, we on this side of the House would like to be associated with the words that have fallen from the senior Minister on this occasion, in bringing congratulations to Col. Stallard on the occasion of achieving his century. It is said that last year the colonel of the regiment of which he is the honorary colonel offered to celebrate his birthday with a march-past, and a piper for each year. He told them to wait until this year, and then he would have the full 100 pipers. That shows the great confidence of the man who came to South Africa originally to fight in the Boer War, decided that he liked the country and stayed on. What is not generally known, however, is that before he came here he had already started his political career. He had already been beaten in an election in Great Britain when he made himself available for a seat in 1898.

On most occasions when one speaks of the career of a man in this House, it is a lugubrious occasion. We are either taking leave of an old servant of the House or we are bringing a motion of condolence on the death of an honoured colleague. Today we are able to think of the career of Col. Stallard in almost a festive atmosphere, because not only is he the first Member of Parliament ever, I believe, to have achieved the century; he is also the first Minister to have achieved the century, and when one thinks of what Ministers have on their consciences, one regards this achievement as being even greater.

Col. Stallard achieved distinction as a soldier, as a politician and as a statesman. It is not generally known that he was given an immediate award of the Military Cross in Flanders during World War I, and that, towards the end of the war, he not only was awarded the D.S.O., but was also three times mentioned in despatches. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that Col. Stallard took silk at the Bar in Johannesburg in 1909 and that he was leader of the Bar for a long time after Union? Do you realize, Sir, that he started his political career here in South Africa when he was elected to the Transvaal Provincial Council in 1910, that he served for many years on the Witwatersrand School Board and the Council of the Johannesburg Trade School and that he was also Chancellor of the Johannesburg Diocese?

His subsequent political career is interesting, because he caused this side of the House, the South African party as it was then, a good deal of trouble at times. He came to Parliament in 1929, but within five years he had broken with the United Party, as it then became, to form his own Dominion Party, and by the 1938 election he had captured a majority of the seats in Natal.

Hear, hear!

Wiser counsels prevailed when war broke out; he came back to the fold and gave distinguished service to his country. I suppose that when one has the vigour to reach an age of 100 years, one also has a sense of mischief, and after the Second World War he once again revived his party and did work which, it seems, must have been approved by hon. members on the other side.

I think we are celebrating today the birthday of one of the great characters in the history of this Parliament, in the history of the Bar in South Africa and in the military history of South Africa. It is appropriate that Col. Stallard was, I believe, sent a message by the dons and members of his college at Oxford, namely, Merton College, the oldest college at Oxford. The message was: “From the oldest college to its oldest living member,” He is also. Sir, you will be surprised to hear, the oldest member of the Rand Club. That, Sir, is an achievement! I am told that in 1936 when the members of the Bar in Johannesburg wished to move their chambers, the Bar junior was sent to him to consult him on the subject. I am told that, having heard the case, he looked at the Bar junior from under his bushy eyebrows and said: “Young man, from where I come, if we move once in a 100 years, that is often.”

Sir, I think that it is indeed a happy occasion and I feel sure that all members on this side of the House wish to join with the other side in sending our very best wishes to Col. Stallard, and to remind him that the good cricketer, on achieving a century, takes guard again.

Motion put and agreed to.

The substance of this clause introduces into the definitions three distinct areas, the three areas being the Republic, the Republic excluding the Territory, and the Territory as the third area. It also has the effect of inserting a definition that “Republic" includes the Territory and it defines “the Territory" as meaning the territory of South-West Africa. Sir, to us on this side this seems a bit cumbersome and to a certain extent it seems unnecessary that we should have definitions of three distinct areas which realty cover one whole which can be divided into two halves. I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister, before we go any further with any arguments on this particular aspect, can tell us the reason for this. Why have we got definitions of three distinct areas, one of which includes the whole of two? Incidentally, I might mention that it is apparent that these three areas apply only to agricultural products which are imported to or exported from the Republic or the Territory, or the Republic excluding the Territory.

We had a discussion on this with the legal advisers and they said “or from the Republic excluding the Territory” means that it is the Republic excluding South-West Africa, or from the Territory; it all relates to South-West Africa. The wording is as it is to cover the position when people are importing or exporting. As I said yesterday, it is to cover the specific control board so that it will have the powers to impose their levies, and that is the reason why the wording is as it is. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with this wording.

I thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for his explanation, but it does not really take the matter any further than he took it yesterday in his reply to the Second Reading debate. I want to put it to the hon. the Deputy Minister that we are dealing with one whole, which is the Republic and South-West Africa, which can be looked upon either as a whole or as two sections, but now we introduce a third one. With respect, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he re-consults with his legal advisers on the lines of deleting the definition of “Republic” where he includes the Territory. Surely it would facilitate the legislation and facilitate understanding by the people who are going to administer this Act, if a simple term were used such as “the Republic” or “the Territory” or both. This to my mind seems quite simple. In fact, it took us some time to work out exactly what was meant by this. I understand the position now; it appears to be the intention of the Deputy Minister that the different control boards in South-West Africa, in terms of a later clause which we will discuss, are to remain and that they will administer and control the imports into and the exports from the Territory of South-West Africa. The Republican boards will control matters in the Republic. But then the Minister requires the power to cover the whole, so that this is why he has these three. That point is quite clear now, but I do feel that the hon. the Deputy Minister, before he takes this measure to the Other Place, should consider this question of merely introducing a definition of the Territory, leaving the definition of the Republic as not including the Territory, and by simply referring to the “Republic”, the “Territory", or both, doing away with this rather complicated formula we are using here at present.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Having received a nod from the hon. the Deputy Minister indicating that he will at least inquire into the suggestion which has now been made to him from this side of the House, but accepting that clause I has now been approved by this Committee in its present form, showing, as I have pointed out, three distinct areas, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he will consider an amendment in line 4 to delete the word “either”, “Either” denotes one of two and not one of three. I would submit that such an amendment would improve this Bill, and I now formally move—

I must allow myself to be guided only by what the law advisers say because, as I have said before, my only concern is with the practical application of the Act from an agricultural point of view. However, I can appreciate the fact that the hon. member does have this problem, and I can reply to him as follows: According to the law advisers, the word “either” can mean more than two alternatives, and all three law advisers are satisfied that the wording in the English text is correct. The provision reads: “For the purpose of subsection (I), ‘Republic’ means either the Republic as defined in section 1.. That is the Republic including South-West Africa. Then it reads further: “… or the Republic excluding the Territory”. That means the Republic excluding South-West Africa. Then it reads further: “.,. or the Territory”. This means South West Africa only.

†Now, in practice we cannot have all three together, because in implementing this measure, in some aspects we have to take the one and in another aspect the other. I do not want to cross swords on a grammatical issue and I am still prepared to go back to the legal advisers and, if possible, to make the hon. member happy, see whether we can change the word “either” in the Senate.

Then I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported without amendment.

When the debate adjourned last evening, we were listening to a very interesting speech by the hon. member for South Coast. He built up a good case. He spoke, in particular, about the necessity of being able to make an adequate profit on one's product in any industry, but specially in an industry such as forestry. I can, of course, only agree with him that no industry can be conducted without profit. But in contrast to that, I want to say that the State has another point of departure in the establishment of forests. The State’s motive is the development of the country and the provision of its needs. But this does not alter the fact that Forestry, like any sound industry, has a very secure costing system, and in any plantation the department can say what the cost of such an industry is. It is, of course, not always desirable to make such figures available to private industry, and that is why the Department of Forestry has made use of the system of tenders in its sales system, and this places it on an equal footing with private industry. Therefore, even though it is important for us to have costing, with the method used by the Department of Forestry to make the timber available to the consumer, I do not think there ought to be any reason for complaint.

But the hon. member went further and pointed to the necessity for orderly marketing. There I want to agree with him again. He made out a good case for that, but then I also want to say that the State also realizes this full well, and the Department of Forestry has already drawn up a Bill to establish orderly marketing. This Bill has been circulated to various bodies and to the Lumber Millers’ Association, and comments have been requested. No answer has been received as yet. It therefore looks as if the producers first have to get together and decide for themselves that they want orderly marketing. I can give him the assurance that the State will co-operate fully if such a request for orderly marketing is forthcoming.

Today I should like to discuss another matter in connection with more research in our timber industry and the promotion of the sale of timber. It is indeed necessary that we have more research. I want to suggest that the hon. the Minister should consider the institution of a compulsory levy on the timber industry. I know that this has been raised before and that certain bodies did not like it, but I believe that even the timber industry will be interested is the arguments I want to raise here today. I want to ask that this matter be referred to the newly-appointed Forestry Advisory Council for further investigation in connection with the institution of such a levy.

Forestry has already become a tremendously important industry in the country. In 1969 there were 269 various institutions involved in the processing of round timber. You can therefore see that it is an important business. The turnover is already in the vicinity of R600 million, and it is expected that in the next 15 years the turnover will increase to R1 000 million. For any industry to develop along rational lines, there must be funds for various purposes, including research. Hon. members will say that a great deal of research is being done, but I just want to mention a few of the matters that can still receive attention. Funds are necessary for timber promotion, the use of timber and the training of manpower. What specific subjects must still be investigated? I just want to mention a few. In the field of silviculture there is the production, and in this connection we get the kinds of timber that must be planted. Last evening the hon. member for South Coast said that there are too few kinds. That is so, and we can still do a lot of work in this connection. We can investigate timber pests; we can investigate thinning methods; we can investigate selection and up-grading. I do not want to belittle the work already done by the department in connection with upgrading, but this kind of work stretches over a very long period and it is necessary for us to give sufficient attention to it. Then there is artificial fertilization of forests that can also still receive attention. Another field for investigation is that of forest management. The supply and demand trends are very important. We have passed the Act giving us information about supply, but I believe that work can also still be done in this field. Long and short-term planning of afforestation is also very important. We note that there will be a great shortage of timber towards the end of this century. It is important that we make a proper study of afforestation. In the field of forest development there are also various aspects that must be taken stock of. I just mention the questions of felling, handling and transport. There are problems in connection with the question of utilization. In connection with the utilization of waste timber, it bothers one to visit the sawmills and see the great ovens that are burning waste timber that could perhaps be usefully employed. We also get various problems when it comes to timber promotion. Here I am thinking, in particular, of substitution by other materials such as plastic, etc., and how these various materials can be used in conjunction with timber. This is a problem which will increasingly present itself in the future. I want to sum up the position by saying that the quality of forest products must, to a very large extent, be standardized and specified in future. Thereby we would have a better utilization of timber.

I have already said that these funds are necessary. The Department of Forestry is already doing a tremendous amount in connection with this type of work. The department spends R427 000 on research studies and their own work. RI76 000 is donated as grants-in-aid for the University of Stellenbosch and the Wattle Research Institute. A donation to the Lumber Millers Association amounts to R10 000 and that to the Timber Research Unit of the C.S.I.R. amounts to R36 500. This amounts to a total of R649 000. On the other hand, private bodies also do a great deal for timber promotion, of course. It is probably difficult to determine how much each does in his own field. Any industry that wants to maintain itself, must do research work. The Timber Growers’ Association also makes a donation of R91 000 with a view to research, (Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say a few words in connection with our entire timber industry. I want to begin by saying that almost 100 years ago, when the late John X. Merriman was Commissioner of Crown Lands and Public Works, he asked in Parliament for funds for the establishment of a forestry industry in the Cape. On that occasion he said the following—

At that stage, in 1876, the Cape Parliament could only afford to vote R50 for the establishment of non-indigenous plantations. From this small beginning forestry in South Africa developed into a gigantic undertaking. In 1960 there were already

2 223 113 acres under commercial plantations in the country, and at the end of 1969, 2 238 038 acres. In the year 1968-’69 these plantations were already delivering about 301 million cubic feet of timber. This furnished timber growers with roughly an amount of R21,5 million. The processed products of this timber represent an amount of about R200 million, and I must agree with the hon. the Minister of Forestry that today forestry in South Africa has grown into one of the giants in our economic life.

Many people throughout the years, throughout the centuries, have sung the praises of timber. I want to quote what Egon Glesinger wrote about wood in his book “The Coming Age of Wood”. I quote—

for man and animal—second most important source of textile fibres, and wood clothes a good part of the nation. As a building material, it now yields a variety of plywoods, plastics and wood alloys that can meet any engineering specification. Secondly, wood is abundant. As for ability to produce, an acre of good forest can grow annually several times as much fibre as an acre of cotton, and as much sugar as the same soil planted to sugar beet. Thirdly, wood is inexhaustible. The forest is not a mine that eventually will be depleted, but a cropland. Provided trees are harvested as a crop, and the forest is sustained by proper management, wood will forever yield all the material the human race can conceivably require.

It is now perhaps necessary to dwell on the uses of timber in our country. It may interest members that locally produced timber was used as follows during 1968-’69 (translation)—

These statistics, gathered annually in connection with timber sources and the future round wood needs of the country, enable us to make a projection of timber production and consumption in the country. If we take these published statistics into consideration, we find that the use of timber as sawlogs, veneer logs and crossbeams has increased from 94 million cubic feet to 128 million cubic feet, and that it will continue to increase. Pulpwood will increase from 124 million cubic feet to 160 million cubic feet. In the same period mining timber will increase from 86 million cubic feet to 98 million cubic feet. This is, indeed, an enormous increase in the demand for round wood, and the question arises whether the country’s timber sources are sufficient to provide for this demand. It requires a profound study, of course, and I accept the fact that at this stage it would not be reasonable to expect a decisive reply from the hon. the Minister. I nevertheless want to ask the Minister whether his department has already begun with prognosis studies along those lines, and what their findings were. The Minister has appointed a new Forestry Advisory Council, and I also ask the hon. the Minister what his advisory council's view is in this connection. The trend in other countries is that the demand for construction timber is decreasing. In South Africa the trend is just the opposite. I should very much like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he can give us a projection of the per capita consumer trend for softwood construction in the country, and whether this trend is the same as in other parts of the world. In other parts of the world timber is being used with increasingly greater sophistication, and it seems to me as if this is also going to be the case in our country, particularly in the light of the increase in our population. I ask whether a certain percentage of our plantations should not be set aside to provide for our needs as far as saw timber and veneer logs are concerned, the remaining plantations being allocated for the production of pulpwood? If this could be done, we would probably have a better utilization of our production areas and a greater yield per acre. As a colleague of mine said here a moment ago, there are indications that our country is heading for a timber shortage. In high rainfall regions there are thousands of acres of mountain land where cash crops cannot be planted. I appeal to the owners of that land to make use of the facilities introduced by the department, and to plant trees. I also appeal to them not to hire out or barter away their plantations for a mere song to big companies that are well-endowed with capital. We are heading for a timber shortage. Therefore let our foresters, those people who own afforestable land, reflect about the matter and establish plantations. When those trees reach a felling age, there will be a market for them because we are now moving in the direction of orderly marketing. In the future there is consequently going to be a market for timber. I conclude by associating myself with the slogan which the acting Secretary for Forestry used in a speech at Piet Retief: “Plant a tree; it grows while you sleep”.

I can assure the hon. member that the number of timber producers who are selling or hiring their plantations for “’n appeal en 'n ei” are very few indeed. This is so because of the organized action being taken by the SATGA.I should like to reinforce the plea made by the hon. member for South Coast where he dealt with the economic position of the private timber grower in South Africa and I welcome the support which the hon. member for Humansdorp gave to that plea. He virtually accepted the position as set out by the hon. member for South Coast, that it is in the interests of the private grower which have to be given the utmost consideration and to which must be attached the utmost importance when it comes to price negotiation. I hope the hon. the Minister will give us more information about the scheme he is undertaking to encourage farmers to establish wood lots, a scheme in terms of which the department makes loans available to people who intend becoming timber growers, loans at a low rate of interest which as such make an economic proposition of timber growing on the long term. If the Minister is prepared to go to all the bother and difficulties inter-departmentally—for which he has the full support of this House—without assuring those persons whom he is now luring into the timber industry that they will have an economic return on their investments, which they are going to make at his request and with his assistance, then he will be betraying those people from the word go. The position of SATGA must be accorded the utmost importance when it comes to negotiations about the price and that sort of thing, a matter in which large growers who grow for their own use and the small private grower and the department and the new Bantu governments will be involved. The Minister is after all the protector of the timber industry and thus also of the small people involved in it, people who earn their daily bread from the timber industry, people who do not grow for large concerns and thus cannot produce for the absolute minimum price. It is the position of these people that has to be protected and because it is the Minister who is encouraging, by the wood lot scheme and by giving loans at low rates of interest, people to come into the market, therefore it is all the more necessary for him to do that. Therefore I hope the hon. the Minister will today tell us something about the wood lot scheme and the loan scheme and give us an indication of the status he is prepared to allow SATGA in these price negotiations.

I also wish to raise with the hon. the Minister a point in regard to the marketing of timber, a matter in which SATGA has been very closely involved. I refer here to the export of wattle timber to Japan in a chip form. This goes back a number of years when a Japanese company approached SATGA for the supply of 250000 short tons of wattle wood chips per annum. This matter was then referred to the Minister’s Advisory Council and received its approval. The council was satisfied that there was a surplus of wattle timber, enough to permit of this tonnage being exported. The price the Japanese firm is prepared to pay is considerably in excess of the local price. The point I want to make is that for the production of wattle wood chips use can be made of all offcuts from mills and, as a matter of fact, of timber down to a one-inch diameter; timber which today is allowed to lie useless in the plantations unless it is used for firewood. Even so the transport factor in many areas is against its being used even as firewood. Therefore this will use up not only a lot of surplus timber which is a dead loss in any case to the farmer or the miller, but also provides a market at an increased price which in turn must have the effect of forcing up the price to domestic users of timber in South Africa. And this is something the wattle industry desperately needs. The Minister with his knowledge of the industry will know that this is an industry which suffered a body blow over the past ten years. In 1955 an article appeared in the Farmer's Weekly in which the wattle tree was referred to as the “weed of wealth”. During that time there were many concerns and people in Natal who purchased ground and planted wattle in confident expectation that they were going to make a fortune. But how bitterly disappointed they were. Here then we have an outlet for the product of the wattle industry, an outlet which promises to be an extremely remunerative one. It involves a series of factors. The one thing, however, which bothers the industry today is that they have been approached, i.e. SATGA, by the Department of Commerce to give an undertaking that there will not be a shortage of wattle wood in South Africa. I think SATGA was quite justified in their reply by asking who in South Africa can give the wattle industry the undertaking that all their timber will be used? Surely the one side of the coin must go with the other side. If the department is going to demand from the wattle industry an assurance that there will be no shortage, then we as wattle growers are entitled to demand that all our products shall be consumed, either in this country or else through export. I believe that this is something where this hon. Minister as the Minister of Forestry and as the protector of the wattle growers and timber growers should be quite insistent with the Department of Commerce that this project of the export of wattle chips should be allowed to go ahead. There is a tremendous amount of money involved. It is going to require the building of special ships in Japan in order to transport this 250000 tons of wattle wood per annum, and it will be on a 10-year basis. But, Sir, once you have established a thing like this and once it gets going, it tends to expand and it tends to become permanent. I can tell the hon. the Minister that the wattle growers in Natal and the Transvaal are licking their lips in the confident expectation that this is something which is going to come to them. The only thing today that can prevent it is Government action, and I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some kind of assurance that this Government action will not take place to the detriment of the timber industry.

Sir, the hon. member for Humansdorp made one point in relation to the new uses for timber. I would like to draw to the attention of this Committee the question of timber housing. The President of the South African Timber Growers’ Association dealt at some length with this in his address at the congress which we attended recently and I wonder how much attention is being given nationally to the promotion of the idea of timber housing. Sir, in many countries overseas timber is probably the major method of building houses. It is being replaced in some countries like the United States by processed boards and by manufactured products of asbestos and that kind of thing, but in our country there is a tremendous market for timber housing. The demand has not yet been created but the potential is there. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Mooi River and we probably speak more or less the same language when we discuss the interests of the timber grower and producer. But I do not think I can agree with the observations of the hon. member for Mooi River when he says the interests of the producers are being betrayed.

No. I did not say that.

I do not think that is fitting.

You misunderstood me.

I accept it if the hon. member says I misunderstood him. I will concede that the South African Timber Growers’ Association is doing very valuable work in the interests of the producers and the growers. But in the same breath I also want to mention the assistance and the advice of the Administration and of the positive assistance which we are also receiving to a generous extent from the State at this time. The State’s interest in this industry, as I said on a previous occasion, is of such a comprehensive nature that the State has become the leading partner in this constellation, in this industry. and I think that the State will in future be able to stabilize this industry to such an extent that it will entail great benefits for us.

Sir. the hon. member for South Coast, who is not present at the moment, spoke about competition from other quarters. It may be the case that we can expect competition from other quarters. I will concede that we may expect competition from the Transkei with its forestry programme. I am also thinking of Swaziland where a vast programme of forestry is in progress at the moment. But, Sir, I do not want to see this as a threat; I do not want to see it as competition. I think that with a view to the position we are now entering, where we can expect a great shortage during the next decade or so. that this production should be regarded as being supplementary to our needs and that it could actually contribute immensely to enabling us not only to save currency in certain respects, but also to conserve in a practical way and to a very large extent our own resources, which we must in the meantime build up.

Sir, the hon. member for South Coast also discussed the matter of orderly marketing, and a reply has been furnished. I think that at the moment a sound and orderly form and procedure of marketing is already being envisaged by the State. I agree that stability in this connection is essential, particularly with a view to the expected shortage of timber we are going to have in this country, and the bottlenecks in this connection. For that reason the producers in particular welcome the recent price increases in this sphere. The price of conifer pulp, for example, increased by 75 cents per short ton, the price of mining timber by R1 and wattle timber by 50 cents per short ton. Sir, this is a welcome phenomenon in this field and one that I think will contribute a great deal to furthering the financial capacity of our producers.

But although this is the case and although we are convinced that we are going to have a shortage of timber, there are in my view only two important directions in which we can go. and this I should like to emphasize. The one is that we should utilize our existing resources to the best advantage, and the second is that we should be able to plant for the future in an economic way. At present there are already very clear indications that we are heading for a shortage, particularly as far as saligna is concerned. That is why I think that particular emphasis should now be placed on the marketing of our available supplies. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Mooi River said. i.e. that we should absorb every last splinter of our available supplies in this connection. It is interesting to analyse the position in the Eastern Transvaal, my constituency and its surrounding areas, an area which comprises 352 000 acres of plantation, that is, almost 14 per cent of the total surface area under afforestation. But, Sir, the yield of saleable timber in this area is low: conifer timber 91.2 cubic feet per acre per annum; saligna 123. fastigata 57 and wattle 40. Sir, if we, in pursuance of what the hon. member for Mooi River said, bear in mind the fact that one is able to market only about 50 per cent of one’s wattle timber and that the rest is in fact left behind useless and wasteful in the plantation, then I think we ought to contemplate ways and means of marketing this timber as well, which is now waste timber, and which is wasteful in the most useful way. This will contribute a great deal towards rehabilitating the position of the bark-grower, which is at present a difficult one. Sir, we can do this by making our specifications wider; we can do this by applying specifications less strictly and by insisting that purchasers should in fact do this. If we are able to relax specifications to a certain extent so that we can market the waste timber as well, we will have an excellent source which we can avail ourselves of in the marketing of this timber. This will fit in particularly well with the possible export to Japan, which the hon. member for Mooi River also mentioned and which I do not want to repeat, except to say that if we are going to tackle this scheme on a large scale, I should also like to recommend to our Minister that he make the necessary representations to the Railways Administration to give high priority to this project and establish the necessary loading and harbour facilities so that when we proceed with the project, either through Richard’s Bay or through Durban Harbour, or wherever this is done, we will have the necessary facilities at our disposal.

The other direction, as I have mentioned, in which we must move, is the idea of further economic afforestation. I think we must make purposeful attempts here to promote and expand our saligna plantations in particular, since the demand is heavy, since it grows quickly and is a good timber, and since we already have a great shortage in this connection. In my area, Ermelo and vicinity, one has two types of soil, the middleveld and the highveld. On the highveld one finds mixed farming, but trees are also effectively incorporated with great success. But in the more humid eastern region, the middleveld, trees in particular are planted on a commercial basis with great success. I should just like to point out that in regard to purchasing small trees or seedlings, which are certified as such for agricultural purposes, we in the highveld region purchase trees at half the price, while in the more humid areas of the eastern slopes where trees are planted commercially, the full price is charged. This is also an agricultural industry. This is an industry which should be promoted with a view to our expected shortage, and I should like to make a friendly request to the hon. the Minister to see to it that these facilities are also made available to those people. [Time expired.]

I hope the hon. member for Ermelo will forgive me if I do not react to his argument, which was a valid one. His contribution to the debate was a useful one. I want to deal with a theme which has a wider application and is in the national interest. I refer particularly to the need today for us in South Africa to counteract the effects of drug addiction on our youth by substituting in their activities, and in their forward outlook, the concept of a greater interest in our forestry, in our mountain plateaux and in the natural grandeur of our country. I feel that the Mountain Catchment Areas Act, which was passed through this House only last year with the general support of both sides of the House, could be a useful implement to assist us in these endeavours. The purpose of this Act is well known. It is to give control to the Minister over those areas, our mountain tops, those sponge areas which make a valuable contribution to the catchment areas which supply our rivers. This measure was supported wholeheartedly by this side of the House. The Minister was given a number of powers, some of which I want to discuss. He has the power to establish priority as between land usage and water usage, and he has the power to curtail farming activities and forestry activities where they can be harmful to the catchment areas. In other words, water priorities were given a very high position. He also has power to compensate for patrimonial loss, and make payment therefore, if suffered by the owner or occupier. But he particularly has power under section 11 of that Act over the right of entry or the right of way over all land described in this Act. In other words, it is within the power of the Minister to control vast areas of the finest scenic natural landscape of our country.

I want to suggest that it is now very necessary that a series of priorities be established in order to ensure that the Minister will realize that the public of South Africa, and particularly our youth, should be encouraged to make the maximum possible use of these mountain catchment areas with certain reservations. I refer particularly to such organizations as mountain clubs, nature conservation boards, parks boards, piscatorial societies, the Voortrekker movement, ski clubs, botanical societies, the ornithologists, adventure schools and the Girl Guide and Boy Scout movement. I believe that we must recognize that vandalism amongst our public is a sad but true fact. The point was made by the hon. member for South Coast in his Second Reading speech on the Mountain Catchment Areas Act that we must recognize that the countryside must be protected from the machinations of people who can only be described as vandals. But on the other hand, if the Government or the Minister, through a responsible sub-committee, could establish a liaison body which would recognize and register these youth movements, these responsible movements, then I believe that we can encourage as many South Africans as possible to make use of this wonderful countryside of ours. It is a heritage which is fast vanishing. With our population explosion, the barbed wire fences are running across our country, and there are fewer and fewer open tracts where we who come from South African stock can realize our aspirations and release our inhibitions and return to nature. I think we want within limits to allow our people, under certain disciplines to be able to go for walks, to ride the mountain trails on Basotho ponies, to enjoy themselves and to participate in those good things in life which, as I say, will help as an anchor against the influence of drugs and the addiction of youth to influences which are not so wholesome.

In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister laid emphasis on the fact that once mountain areas had been declared catchment areas, thereby providing for the preservation of water to have preference, this did not mean that these areas would not be available for any other use. The Minister indicated at the time that such areas might quite possibly be made available under proper control for purposes of outdoor recreation. At that stage the hon. member for South Coast made the point that the multiple usage of land was something that we should encourage. He quoted the fact that in the Midmar Dam conservation area today, thanks to the Government having proclaimed recreational areas there, some ¼ million Indians are now able to “find themselves” in nature and to get the recreation which is so greatly needed by all of us. With our population explosion we have the need for adequate open space and for God’s fresh air. South Africans are all people conditioned to the freedom of the veld, the mountains, the vleis and the oceans. We cannot be shut in and we must not be shut in. If we allow ourselves to be shut in, we will no longer have the breadth of outlook which characterizes us. I repeat it is necessary to control the vandal, the Iitter-bug and the fire-bug, and to discipline him strictly and sternly. That is why I make the point that if we can recognize organizations which can be identified and be registered, then we can deal with culprits through their organizations or clubs.

Under those circumstances I would suggest that it should be the Minister’s objective to create the maximum activities in our mountain catchment areas, as is the case in America, where they have national parks and reservations; where yachting on lakes, swimming in mountain pools, and fishing in rivers, are all encouraged. I would particularly appeal to the Minister to let us avoid a display of the barbed wire mentality which is so often in evidence when open spaces are restricted for conservation or water preservation purposes. Only too often we see that the first notices to go up are, “Keep Out”; “No Trespassers”; “This is Government Property”; “Camping and Picknicking not Allowed”. We have a real responsibility to our youth and to every section of our community: To our non-European friends, our Indian friends, the urban Bantu and to our own people. My plea to the hon. the Minister is let us create living mountain resorts in our mountain catchment areas and living national parks and reservations. This could be our finest challenge to the creeping paralysis of boredom, monotony, dispiritedness and drug addiction which is destroying the soul, the endeavour, the initiative and the inspiration of our youth today.

Mr. Chairman, the only reason why a member representing South-West has not yet taken part in this debate, is because previously forestry in South-West was not yet the province of this Parliament, and not because we do not have trees and forests in South-West. We do, in fact, have a reasonable quota of trees. In the north of South-West Africa we have a tremendous supply of trees, and some of the best kinds of timber in Southern Africa. In fact, we have forests there with an estimated timber value of R25 million. Since our forestry now falls under the Republic of South Africa, I want to take up the cudgels in this Committee today by requesting that the hon. the Minister should also give attention to the conservation of, in particular, our indigenous forests and the special trees that we have in South-West Africa. I specifically want to refer to just three kinds. Such trees also grow on a very large scale in specifically the areas that cannot be used for other purposes. And the hon. the Minister also knows, in South-West Africa up to the present day, certain kinds of trees, valued at millions and millions of rand, are still used for ordinary construction work and building material in our mines. If one merely takes the Tsumeb mine, the value of the trees and timber used for supports would, in fact, probably amount to several million rands because this is amongst the best kinds of timber in South-West Africa.

I want to refer, in particular, to three indigenous kinds of trees which are found on a fairly large scale in South-West. The first I want to mention is the marula tree, with its latin name Sclerocarya caffra. This particular tree can not only be used very profitably for its timber, because it grows to a tremendous size, but it also bears the exceptional marula fruit, which can be employed for very useful purposes. The marula fruit is one of the most nourishing types of fruit there are. In a special survey it was proved by means of calculation that one tree can bear a crop of as much as 91 270. We know that on this earth there are thousands of people who are dying of hunger every day. and that the population density is increasing, so that we shall, at a later stage, have to exploit all possible sources to be able to supply sufficient food, It is interesting to mention that the marula fruit has an ascorbic acid content of 54 mg. per 100 grams in comparison with the grapefruit and lemon with a content of 40 grams. The marula fruit, therefore, contains a great deal more ascorbic acid, which is the ordinary vitamin C. This fruit is only surpassed by the ordinary orange, and then only by 1 mg. per 100 grams content. In addition the marula fruit has something which the orange does not have, a bip containing 3 094 calories per pound. This exceeds the calorie content of well-known foodstuffs, for example the hazelnut, the almond, the chestnut and various others. This not only goes to prove that this fruit of the marula tree is a valuable source of vitamin C, but that it also contains other elements that can be used very profitably, and all of this over and above the timber which the tree itself provides.

There is also another tree which should not be treated with contempt. This is the ordinary baobab tree, which has the latin name Adansonia digitata. It is interesting to know that these trees grow very luxuriantly in the north of South-West Africa. The fruit of the baobab tree has an ascorbic acid or vitamin C content of 213,1 mg. per cent, which is described as fantastic in the medical world, surpassing that of all other fruit in the world. Its vitamin C content is four times that of the orange. The fruit also contains a great deal of calcium, phosphorous, iron and other minerals.

In South-West Africa there is also the valuable camelthorn tree. Much to my regret I have to say that it was only in the fifties, in South-West Africa, that we passed legislation in the local Legislative Assembly for the protection of this indigenous tree, because those trees were destroyed on a large scale. I do not know of any other species of tree that has a more profitable use, for example for fencing purposes. I can tell you that it is the one species of tree, as far as I know, whose core cannot be devoured by termites. Any other species of tree will stand for a few years, and then the termites would destroy it, but the core of the camelthorn tree is indestructible. Even a termite can do nothing to it. These matters involving South-West Africa now come under this Minister’s portfolio, and therefore I would appreciate it if he would also, in future, give attention to the protection of these species of trees, which can be very usefully employed, not only for their timber, but also for their possible nutritional value.

Mr. Chairman, I was interested indeed to hear the speech of the hon. member for Middelland. He represents the “Middellande” of South-West Africa and I represent most of the of so least we have something in common. The only thing I have ever heard about the marula plum, as I think it is called, is that when it has fermented and the elephants eat it, they get drunk. I was expecting the hon. member to say that it would also make a very good beer, which, as you know, is a very good body-builder. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will listen with great sympathy to his plea for the protection of the trees he mentioned.

Sir, I want to associate myself very strongly with the appeal which has been made by the hon. member for Gardens in connection with the use of the mountain catchment areas. I wonder whether I may make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister in this regard which will, I think, enable him to ensure the better implementation of the plea which has been made. We have heard rumours that there may be a Cabinet reshuffle in the future, possibly in the next few months. It occurred to me that the Department of Tourism could very easily be tied in with the other responsibilities which are allocated to the Minister of Water Affairs and of Forestry, because so much of our internal tourism is concerned with the use of the mountains, the dams and the lakes, which will in future fall under the Department of Water Affairs and the various park boards. It really does seem to me that the hon. the Minister has in his hands today a priceless national asset, which is there for the free use of the people of South Africa. This resides under the Department of Forestry at the moment, and I want to point out that in the United States of America, for instance, people are positively encouraged to use such areas by the forest services and other services of the Government. This ought to reside with the Department of Tourism in our country, but what a useful function would be fulfilled if this Minister were able to have these three areas of activity under his control when it comes to the beneficial use of these areas, which are being withdrawn from agricultural production and in many cases even from timber production because of the need to obtain more water in the catchment areas. I put this as a suggestion to the hon. the Minister. I do not want to load him with any more work than he already has, but I do believe that the interests of the people of South Africa could be very well served indeed by a grouping of this nature. Obviously it is not the hon. the Minister’s prerogative to make any decisions in this regard, but if discussions of these matters do take place. I think this is something which the hon. the Minister should bear in mind.

I wish to refer very briefly to a debate earlier this session when the hon. member for Humansdorp moved his private motion. Certain statements were then made by the hon. member for Vryheid, who is not here today. I do not want to make an issue of this, but the hon. member referred to the exploitation of private timber growers by the timber processing industry, including creosoting, the provision of telegraph poles and so on. For the record I should like to put forward the attitude of the processors involved in this particular activity, because representations I have had in this regard make it quite evident that some of the facts mentioned here by the hon. member for Vryheid, were in fact not correct. At some time in the future I am sure that the hon. member will have the opportunity of putting the matter straight and of going on record as saying that he accepts the figures which come from the processors of this particular commodity. The price which is paid by virtually all creosotes comes down to R11 per ton. or approximately 35c per cube. This is for poles 35 feet long and with tips of five to six inches in diameter. This means a payment of approximately R3-20 per pole. The hon. member for Vryheid went out of his way to say that the producers were being exploited because the price they received was in the region of R1 only per pole. I think that this is a wrong statement. The price has been established by negotiation and the price I mention is the price which is paid by the largest producer of creosoted poles in Natal. I do not really know where the hon. member for Vryheid obtained his figures. These poles all have to measure up to certain specifications. They all have to pass the S.A.B.S. tests in order to qualify. They have to be straight, and only certain selected poles qualify. I do not think that there can possibly be any question of exploitation, because these poles form a very limited part of the production and they must command a premium price. I think the hon. member for Humansdorp will agree that a premium has to be paid, because these poles are the cream of anybody’s plantation. As people are today in a position to bargain when it comes to products of this nature, I should like to ask the hon. member for Vryheid at some future stage to put the matter right so that we are not at odds with the timber industry in this particular regard.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out to the hon. member for Ermelo that when I used the word “betrayal", I was not saying in any sense at all—I do want the hon. member to get it straight—that the hon. the Minister was betraying anybody who is in the timber industry today. I referred to the encouragement of people coming into the timber industry by means the law interest loans which the hon. the Minister has been preparing to grant to people who are intending to enter the timber industry on what is known as the woodlot basis. On this woodlot basis people can plant, as many have done, perhaps 50 or 100 acres of ground which is not today being beneficially used because it is unsuitable for agriculture, but which can be afforested by reason of the fact that it is in a high rainfall area. On the other hand, it is hardly economic in the long term because of the interest rates of eight or ten per cent. That is why the term “woodlot" is used. It is taken from overseas usage where so much of the production is on the basis of small parcels of timber in the hands of the farmers there. In Europe trees are almost treated on an individual basis in many cases. Where people have a woodlot these trees are virtually marketed on an individual basis. I think it is in the hon. the Minister’s mind that as we develop this sort of woodlot farming, people will be able to give far more attention to producing a far higher quality of timber from the smaller areas going for quality above everything else. I have already asked the hon. the Minister to give us some indication of how the negotiations have gone in relation to the loans which are proposed to be made available. We know that this is a matter which has to be considered by other departments. I hope that it will be administered by the hon. the Minister’s department. I would simply draw to the hon. the Minister's attention the increasingly important role which is being fulfilled by the co-operative movement in the timber industry. This gives the individual timber grower a strength which can only be exceeded by his strength in SATGA. It may well be, as in other co-operative organizations in wheat growing and so forth, that the timber co-op. might be the agency which will make available the loans and administer the Ioans on behalf of the hon. the Minister’s department.

Mr. Chairman. I should like to tell the hon. member for Mooi River that I have respect for his knowledge of the forestry industry and that industry’s problems. However, I found it regrettable that the hon. member was so presumptuous as to quote the Sunday Times about possible changes in the Cabinet I think the hon. member should rather keep out of those matters and speak about forestry matters.

Mr. Chairman, a while ago the hon. member for Carletonville gave us a fine image of the growth possibilities of this department and the importance of timber in our country’s economy. While the hon. member was speaking, the undeniable question arose about whether this department would be able to handle these new possibilities and whether the department had the ability, the knowledge and the enthusiasm to integrate this important industry into our economy and make a success of it. I now want to say at once that I have the fullest confidence that this department, which is a young one. and particularly the hon. the Minister, who is young in years, do have that enthusiasm, the vision, the dynamism and also the policy to develop the Department of Forestry into one of the strongest growth points in our economy.

But I want to come to a second small point which hurts me, as an inhabitant of the Western Province. It is not the hon. the Minister’s fault, but I want to bring it to his department's attention. I refer to the fires and fire hazards in our Western Province mountains. Last year the major portion of our Western Province mountain vegetation burned down as a result of the negligence of a few people. I do not know whether hon. members have already taken walks in these Western Province mountains, but I want to say that our beautiful scenery, our mountains and valleys, are among the greatest assets we have here. We do not have the gold and the other mineral wealth of the other parts of our country. We have this God-given beauty. If one spends some time in those mountains, one comes very near to one’s Creator. For us, as lovers of nature, and for the thousands of visitors who come to the Western Province every year, the weekend visitors, the picnickers, and the young man and his girl-friend who are perhaps enjoying the natural scene, these Western Province mountains are a tremendous asset. Every year our hearts shrink when we have to view the destruction of nature and when we think of the financial loss the farmers sustain when mountain vegetation is burned down. Many of the vineyards here in the Western Province lie high up on the foothills and are frequently scorched. This happened to us again last year. This year, after the destructive fires in Du Toit’s Kloof and in the Villiersdorp mountains, the hon. the Minister took quick action, and we thank him for it. I wonder whether the Department of Forestry could not make a fixed arrangement with the Department of Defence for a helicopter to be made available for the combating of fires. Those of us who have helped to put out mountain fires, know that it is virtually an impossible task to try to put out fires on the high mountains, with their rocks and gorges. That is why I was wondering whether the Department could not have a fixed arrangement with the Department of Defence for a helicopter to be made available.

Another problem in my constituency, and elsewhere as well, is that of drifts and at dams. We have held discussions with the department about that problem at the Brandvlei Dam. I now wonder whether the Minister could give me the assurance that if the relative conservation board tackles works there in order to combat the drift-sand problem, the department would subsidize the cost. Sir, in addition the State is building another dam, i.e. Kwaggaskloof, just next to the Brandvlei Dam. The farmers inform me that there is a layer of sand lying to a depth of between six and 20 feet where the dam is being built. The department must therefore take timely steps to prevent the same problem developing in this new area as the one that has already given the farmers such a lot of trouble at the Brandvlei Dam; in fact, the farmers inform me that the sand problem at the Brandvlei Dam would be nothing by comparison with the problem that could develop at Kwaggaskloof. I would therefore appreciate it very much if the department would give its urgent attention to this matter.

Then there is a final point, one that could perhaps be dealt with administratively. The forestry officer responsible for the area from Worcester to Bredasdorp is stationed in Cape Town. It takes him five to six hours to travel to and fro. This also applies to other areas. I wonder whether a better arrangement could not be made. Could these officials not be stationed nearer to the areas for which they are responsible? This would save a lot of time and the officer could more profitably spend the time, which he now spends travelling, in his office or forestry area.

I want to associate myself with a few ideas expressed by the hon. member for Gardens, the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Worcester. Last year we had the Water Year in which emphasis was placed on the water scarcity in South Africa, the value of water and the beauty that water can bring. In the process there grew in us a love of water, as the hon. the Minister also rightly put it, a love that gained expression in our desire to conserve and judiciously use water so that we could also have water for swimming and sailing.

The plantations under the control of the Department of Forestry occupy some of the loveliest parts of our country, some of the most densely wooded gorges with undulating mountain slopes, furtive mountain streams and even more timid ferns and disas growing there. I realize that these forests have an economic value. In fact, they were planted at great expense. We as city dwellers, however, see in those forests something other than a mere economic value. We see them as places where we can withdraw from the squabbles of our daily existence, as places where we can take our young people and offer them the challenges of adventure, adventure which, in the cities, would lead to all kinds of abuses, such as drug addiction. On the other hand, if we take our young people to the mountains, to the gorges and the scenes of nature, we are subjecting them, so to speak, to a purifying influence. In fact, I have never taken a group of young people to these places without them asking to go again.

But one of the specific problems we encounter is that it is not so easy to gain access to these forests. I realize that there are reasons why access should be difficult. There are, in particular, the dangers to which the hon. member for Worcester referred, dangers such as fires. There is also the danger of pollution as a result of the mess that people frequently leave behind them. I have served as a member of the Voortrekker movement for more than 25 years now, and I still take groups of children to the mountains every year. But, as I have said, one of our biggest problems is specifically to gain access to many of these lovely places which the department has at its disposal. It is a tremendous problem to get the necessary permits. When it is a matter of disciplined groups, such as the S.A. Mountain Climbers’ Association, the Voortrekkers, the Boy Scouts and the Girl Guides, groups which are under strict leadership, I feel that they ought to be able to gain easier access to these places. An exception can be made in their case. It is not groups such as these which are guilty of violations. In the majority of cases it is those people who go there without permission. I advocate that an exception should be made for those groups that have, throughout the years, shown that they have a love for nature and want to transfer that love to other young people.

I also advocate that these lovely places should also be opened to the general public on a larger scale. Here I am thinking, for example, of making picnic areas and footpaths available. I am also thinking of huts that could be established and then rented to the public, and of areas that can be made available as camp sites for our youth organizations, such as the Voortrekkers, the Boy Scouts, church youth associations, our Land Service Movement, and others. Areas can be developed for them so that controlled groups of children can be brought there. One also has in mind that one should make some of these areas, which Forestry now has at its disposal, available to the Department of National Education specifically for the erection and development of camping areas—and I am aware of this because I am a member of a committee here in the Western Cape which, on behalf of the Department of National Education, must find a camping area on which the Department of National Education wants to erect huts to accommodate our young people.

I want to conclude by saying that last year we heard, with great appreciation, of the programme which the Water Year presented in order to stimulate an appreciation for water. I feel that the time is perhaps right for launching a similar programme, possibly in co-operation with the hon. the Minister of Tourism and the hon. the Minister of National Education, to instil a greater degree of appreciation for the beauty of our forests and plantations, and the greater utilization of the facilities they can offer to our young people and to our older people, for whom these are also things of beauty.

Sir, when I sat down last night I had mentioned briefly the position of the forest industry in South Africa in respect to the various varieties and species of trees with which we were at present busily engaged in our forestry operations. I want to put it to the Minister that we are in a dangerous position really in South Africa. We have a vast acreage of artificial forests which have been created and which have been referred to by hon. members, but, Sir, there are very few species and very few varieties of the species concerned which are in fact the main bulk of our plantations. Sir, we have probably been fortunate in many respects in that some of the diseases which are serious pests in certain branches of sylviculture have tended to pass us by. But with very few eggs in a very big basket, we run the risk of coming up against a very serious problem one day if we strike something in the nature of a severe pest in so far as the conifers are concerned or the eucalyptus, or for that matter the wattle. We have got bagworm among the wattle, and by and large, over the years, the people concerned, the scientists and others, have been able to restrain it. We missed out with the snout beetles as far as the eucalyptus were concerned some years ago; they came and did not do a great deal of harm, and then probably for biological reasons or natural predatory reasons they also passed on. But, Sir, we have had certain damage to our conifer plantations from various types if disease and pests. It all shows a rather brittle economy, and I want to make a plea to the Minister again for scientific research. I know that there is seed breeding going on at the present time. Experiments are being carried out with regard to the grafting of trees and so forth, but that is not what I am after. I want to see if we cannot get new varieties, new species, which can come in to augment the overall number of species and varieties upon which our forestry resources are being based, over artificial plantations. In this regard I believe that we can go a long way with lessons which are now being learnt in other parts of the world by general agriculture with regard to changes which can be made in the genetic structure of tree seeds. These experiments are being carried out with very great advantage in Canada with regard to the production of various new strains of wheat. These experiments have resulted in an enormous increase in the area which is planted with wheat in Canada. As a result of the introduction of these strains, they were able to move their frontier something like 200 miles further north to the colder regions. I believe that it is along those lines that we should be proceeding. but once again on a large scale. Sir, I do not think that time is on our side; I think time is against us, and we should be doing this at a time when we have the resources and the finances, as we have at the present time. Let us face it, Sir, we have all the money in the world in South Africa at the moment. The Minister of Finance is taking it out of our pockets every day and every night—twice every 24 hours— so the money is there. It is a question of scientists. There I accept that we probably need very highly trained specialist scientists for the purpose, but nevertheless if we have the money and the initial resource, then I think that that is possible. I think that we should have scientific investigation into the possibility of making changes in the genetic strains in our forest trees, so that we actually change the heritable characters of those trees and in effect produce by artificial means what is a new species or certainly a new strain which has new characteristics and upon which we should enlarge our plantations. Sir, I am thinking particularly of new strains which in trees could be drought-resisting, just as we have strains which are drought-resisting in other types of agriculture.

We should be able to plant even on marginal land.

Yes, Sir, the Minister has put his finger right on it. Under normal classification we have three site types, A, B and C, or first, second and third. If in addition we have purely marginal land—or let me say that site three is marginal land—then we do not want to have types of trees that flourish and do well on type one sites. While type two and type three are looked upon as marginal or semi-marginal and therefore left to some other purpose. Sir, we have got the sites; they are there, and we should now try to produce the kind of tree that will grow on those sites. Nature in South Africa, in certain areas of high rainfall, has produced a certain kind of natural tree-type which is very, very slow-maturing. That is plainly exemplified in our natural forests. Over vast areas of savannah-type forests we produce another kind of tree altogether. Sir, we ought to be able to manufacture a tree by artificial means which will grow in the soils where we have savannah-type veld at the present time and make that available for the production of timber for forestry purposes here in South Africa. It is a matter of scientific research and investigation. I would plead with the Minister to see whether that cannot be fully developed specifically with a view to trying to extend the number of species and varieties upon which we are building our forest industry.

Before I sit down I would like to add my voice to those many folk like the hon. members for Gardens, Mooi River, Bellville and others, who have pleaded for the opportunity to let the people get into the areas under the control of the Department of Forestry. The fact that so many voices are now being raised, where only a few years ago there were just one or two voices crying in the wilderness and pleading for this, shows that there is a build-up of public feeling and public pressure which is now resulting in so many members here in Parliament adding their voices. But I want to say to the Minister that this has to be done on a properly organized scale, I am entirely against just throwing open the forests, whether indigenous or plantations, to the multitude to go in and make themselves at home. That way lies disaster, as I pointed out in a speech last year. It has to be properly organized and properly controlled and only a proper organization, which has been properly constituted with the necessary powers and authority, can properly handle this. But properly handled and organized, I believe that we have a vast area for the benefit of the people of South Africa, to which they can go to enjoy themselves, in these areas which are now under the control of the Department of Forestry. I would add my voice to the appeal which has been made by these hon. members.

I have once more had occasion to agree with the hon. member for South Coast in his request for further research, because this links up with the plea I lodged here today. In connection with recreational facilities, I do at least want to tell him that the department has already progressed very far towards making these places available to the public. I had the privilege, together with the Minister of Forestry and his senior officers, of seeing some of the facilities that are being made available. I can tell the House that these are truly lovely and very tidy places, and that the public has a great deal of appreciation for what is already being done. I am also certain that the department will continue along these lines.

I have spoken of the large amounts of money that Forestry is already spending on research. They are not only spending this on research. They also have many other services they furnish to the public. Local visitors and farmers come along to ask advice. I have already wondered whether many visitors from overseas do not also come to have a look at our forestry industry here in South Africa, and whether such persons have perhaps given the Minister their impressions of what they have found here.

I have said that the Department of Forestry spends about R650 000 on research, and that private industry spends about R90 000. In countries with a high degree of technological sophistication, it is an interesting fact that the greater that country’s degree of sophistication, the greater is the proportion of the funds contributed by private industry to research. One thus finds, for example, that in Germany, a very highly developed country, the State contributes 3,6 per cent for research and the rest is contributed by private industry. On the other hand, one finds that in a country such as Greece, which is a less developed country, the State contributes 74 per cent of the funds necessary for research. It is interesting that if one applies the figures I have just mentioned, one finds that here in South Africa private industry only contributes 12 per cent to research. It therefore appears to me as if there are still very great possibilities for tapping those sources and imposing on them the levy I mentioned, so that they can also make a bigger contribution to research. If we now look at other countries, we find that South Africa still lags behind a little.

In New Zealand 0,4 per cent is contributed for forestry research, in Australia 0.6 per cent and in the U.S.A. 0,4 per cent of the gross domestic product If we look at South Africa, we find that it is only 0,27 per cent. We also find, in comparing forestry with other products, that forestry still lags behind If we look at Bantu beer, we see that 0,59 per cent is used for research. For fish it is 1,27 per cent. In agriculture it is quite high, 1,3 per cent. In the manufacturing industry it is 0,41 per cent, and in mining it is 0,32 per cent. Comparing forestry with its 0,27 per cent, we see that forestry contributes quite a bit less than these other products. That is why I say that there is still quite a bit of room for improvement in this field. If we want to increase our expenditure on research to 0,4 per cent, which compares, as far as I am concerned, with other industries and other countries, we shall have R900 000 available for research. I believe that we shall then be able to keep abreast of our needs. I do not think the private sector would be unwilling to make this contribution. provided it is done in an organized manner so that everyone contributes to the funds on a pro rata basis. I believe that if this matter is referred to the Forestry Advisory Council, and they can approach private industry with a reasonable suggestion, they are sure to gain a sympathetic hearing.

Mr. Chairman, you will allow me, since I am now replying to the debate, to reply first to a question put to me by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, because it was just a little out of the ordinary. I shall return later to the matters which I want to discuss at somewhat greater length, particularly the matters mentioned by the hon. member for South Coast, and I shall also discuss the interest which was displayed here in our mountain catchment areas.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, asked whether there were not a considerable number of overseas visitors who were interested in our forestry industry in South Africa, and whether we could not, in this sense make a contribution towards impressing these people. I take it the hon. member also intended asking whether our people pay regular visits abroad to acquire the necessary supplementation of knowledge for the Department. This is correct. The Department of Forestry, I think, can be regarded as a Department which has during the past few years travelled extensively throughout the world. Actually, it is necessary, from the nature of its activities, to keep pace with scientific developments and with managerial techniques and methods and trends throughout the world, particularly in recent times, because the present position is different now to the position years ago when the world merely exploited and did not do any research except in connection with the end product and its application, and there was not much interest in the general concept of silvi-culture and the general management of forests.

Recently an interest in this has in fact developed. Quite a good deal of interest has been shown in this matter by countries that sent people out here to learn from us. I am thinking for example of the fact that we have recently had inquiries from countries from whom we obtained seed years ago. although we undertook the improvement ourselves, and those countries are now returning to South Africa to ask us whether we cannot supply them with the improved seed so that they can make a new start with it themselves. I therefore want to say that the Department of Forestry can be regarded as a Department which has travelled widely throughout the world. The Department finds it necessary to do this. I think that we have also recently become a Department which is capable of telling a specific story about South Africa to the world. We can hold up as an example an industry which has developed over the years and which can make a world contribution to science in this sphere. In particular, too. we can impress on the people outside that South Africa in this sphere, is not only on a par with the rest of the world, but in certain respects has quite a good deal it can teach the world.

Some time ago we received a request from the Royal Forestry Society of England in which they stated their desire to visit South Africa. As happens in all these cases, we gladly consented and the visitors were very generously entertained by our people in South Africa. I think that it is fitting that I should quote here from a letter which was subsequently written to the Department of Forestry. It reads as follows—

This letter was addressed to the official in question who acted as their guide in South Africa. I read further—

The letter continues in this vein. He says further—

I am mentioning this because I feel that we too can make a contribution towards building up the image of South Africa in this way. I think it would impress the world if they could see South Africa’s achievements in this way. I also think that the time is going to arrive when South Africa will be able to render a service beyond its borders to the adjoining areas as well. This will be a service from a country which has knowledge of the industry and which has the people able to render the service. In this way we will really be able to help the industry expand throughout the entire Southern Africa. I do think we have such a task and that we will be able to execute it, particularly if what we are doing is accepted in this good spirit.

You might as well take over tourism.

Mention was made in this debate by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, the hon. member for South Coast and various other hon. members, of the urgent necessity for research. I will concede at once that research, particularly in the forestry industry, is of the greatest importance. It is not only of importance in the forestry industry. For reasons mentioned by the hon. members for South Coast and Carletonville, and for other reasons as well, we are approaching a situation in South Africa which makes it of the utmost importance that we undertake research properly. The fact of the matter is that we shall in future have to concentrate on greater afforestation in South Africa. However, there is a limit to the amount of land available for afforestation. We cannot get away from that fact. It is unfortunately the case that we do not have sufficient land at our disposal to lay out all the plantations which the economy of South Africa will, in the far distant future, require. We do not have at our disposal sufficient surface area to produce all the food we shall require, in addition that required to protect our water catchment areas, quite apart from the other uses for which the available land is required, Thus, certain restrictions exist. We must remember that most of the surface area of South Africa is not suited, and never can be suited, to afforestation. Since we did not have an unlimited surface area, the truth of the matter is in fact that we should at this early stage already lay the basis in regard to the improvement of various types of trees. We shall have to overcome the shortage through the more rapid cultivation of good timber than would normally have been the position.

In other words, we must through research establish a greater potential on the land which we shall have available in future. That is why it is essential that we undertake this type of research. I agree with the hon. member for South Coast in this connection. The hon. member mentioned a matter which is important for South Africa and is a very urgent requirement for the future, but which means having a very long-term project. Research into the cultivation and the improvement of timber is a slow process. The hon. member also made the point that apart from increased growth, research should also be directed at ensuring that the existing species will be developed in future. It is the position in agriculture that research must not only be done to produce more productive varieties but also to ensure that they are able to resist various kinds of pests and plagues. It is of course essential that attention be given to this. But research of this type is long-term research.

Another type of research is equally important, i.e. the research dealing with the end product, forestry products and the uses to which these are put. We are moving in the direction where we are trying to find an ever greater variety of uses for our forestry products. Forestry products are becoming a factor of increasingly greater importance in our chemical industry. The market we have today, just as a result of the pulping of our timber, is a greater factor than it ever was in the past. An ever-increasing proportion of our annual timber production is being utilized by the pulp mills. It is therefore of the utmost importance to us that we take the end product into consideration as well. In this connection I just want to say that I was impressed by the research being done by the Timber Institute of the C.S.I.R. and the University of Stellenbosch, in addition to that which the Department of Forestry has itself for a very long time been doing, for the better utilization of our timber. I was particularly impressed by the research which is being done in regard to the preservation of timber, and the research being done to increase the utilization possibilities of timber.

What is extremely important, is that we should concentrate in future on utilizing our timber to the maximum. My standpoint is that the waste factor in our forestry industry in general is too great. The hon. member for Mooi River made a sound point when he discussed wattle wood. The hon. member for Ermelo also referred to this. It is extremely important to ensure the maximum utilization of our timber, because in the milling industry the waste figure is as much as 60 per cent and higher, depending on what is being produced. When fruit crates are being manufactured the figure will of course be different to the figure when large beams are being manufactured. However, the fact of the matter is that in the saw milling industry the waste figure can be disturbingly high. What I have always been concerned about is the fact that we have over the years, and until today, not utilized a very great percentage of our waste timber. There is a vast amount of waste timber in South Africa which can be utilized and which is not yet being utilized, although the factories are now beginning to use more and more of this waste timber. This wastage will therefore have to be reduced in future. It is important that the research be geared to finding means of utilizing these waste products in the best possible way for the country. Hon. members will realize therefore that this is a very wide field. I could say more about this matter, but I want to content myself with saying that it is essential that we expand the research in this connection. I have every sympathy with the hon. members who discussed this matter. I agree with them.

Arising out of this, the suggestion was also made that we could assist this research by imposing a levy on timber sales. We have two problems in regard to research. The first problem relates to the persons who have to undertake the research. Just as in other spheres, it is no use devising ambitious plans if one does not have enough scientists to carry out that research. Without those scientists, nothing can be done. This matter was also discussed yesterday, during the discussion of the Water Affairs Vote. As far as the foundations for research in South Africa are concerned, I must say I am satisfied that these foundations have been laid. Many organizations are working on this.

There are two steps we can take in this connection. Firstly we can render aid to make more persons available to concentrate on research in the various diversified directions. This is our basic problem. Secondly, we can make more money available. Arising out of the suggestion in regard to making more funds available for research, I therefore want to say that this is something I shall bear in mind. This is something which we will consider in future. In principle I agree that everyone should make a contribution. At this stage, however, I do not think it will serve any purpose merely to say that we should make more money available, because we shall just find ourselves saddled with the money without having any researchers to utilize it. I do not think we should put the cart before the horse. I think that, to begin with, we should do everything in our power to persuade more scientists to make themselves available for this purpose. As far as this matter is concerned, I want to give hon. members the assurance that my department and I, personally, will give our attention to it this year, and that we will go out of our way to publicise the importance of this profession. We shall do as much as we can to make people interested in this, and to persuade them to make themselves available to the Department and to other bodies, so that they can perform this task for us. In other words, we shall make a special effort to arouse interest in and to recruit these people to execute for us the tasks which are required. Hon. members can also lend a hand in this respect by using their personal influence. We have bursaries available for the students who want to equip themselves in this direction. We are prepared to make bursaries available to students who are already studying at university, so that they can complete their studies. We are prepared to furnish all the information to students and scholars in this connection. I did in the previous debate I want to make an appeal to hon. members here as well to help us with this. It is no use our discussing this matter here if we do not do anything about it. I think this is a fine opportunity for all of us who are interested in forestry, the hon. member for South Coast as well as I and all the other hon. members in this House, to discuss this matter in our own constituencies. When I pay a visit to schools I discuss this with the children and I tell them all about it. I encourage the parents of children whom I know are interested in forestry. We tell them that they must help their sons to further their education and that we shall make the money available. We must all make a joint effort.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Could the hon. the Minister tell us what these bursaries amount to?

The bursary amounts to R850 per annum. After completion of the B.A. degree funds could also be made available to a student for further study. But we are interested in people who would like to receive their training in forestry or in ordinary science. Then they can go to the University of Stellenbosch, the Department of Forestry or to other bodies where they can be used as scientists in basic research. There are bursaries available therefore and I have now explained on what basis. If interested persons approach us, we shall go out of our way to help them. Before we discuss this matter again next year, we must see what we are able to accomplish in the meantime in finding people willing to co-operate in this connection. If hon. members bring these people to us, we shall go out of our way to help them.

Before we leave the question of research, I should also just like to say that some time ago I found an opportunity to spend an entire day at the Faculty of Forestry al the University of Stellenbosch to see, in particular, in which directions they are working. I want to say now that I was very impressed by the way in which people are being trained in that faculty and by the directions in which they are moving. We are satisfied that they are moving in the right directions. I also want to add that a new chair in nature conservation has now been established at Stellenbosch. This has been incorporated with forestry, and we are very satisfied with it. The professor appointed there, Prof. Bigalke, is a very enthusiastic man. I think he comes from Natal, and hon. members opposite ought to know him.

You took my senior scientific research officer away.

Yes, but he will now train an abundance of people for the future, for the province of Natal as well. I want to say that training of people in this direction is essential in South Africa and that it will help us a great deal in future. I am impressed by what the university is doing in this connection. However, this does not mean that other bodies are not doing good work. Last year I also spent an entire day at the C.S.I.R. I was equally impressed then by the work they were doing there. I know that excellent work is being done by the other institutes, including the Wattle Institute in Natal, and other private bodies. But I believe that we cannot spend enough on this, and that the plus-minus R1 million which is being spent on research in this industry today, could just as well be increased. I hope the day will arrive when we shall concentrate to a far greater extent on the new directions, particularly in the construction industry, the prefabrication of houses and other directions which may still emerge.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Mooi River, Gardens, South Coast and Bellville all spoke in a direction which did my heart good, namely the development of all those areas which will in future fall under the auspices of the Department of Forestry. The Department of Forestry will in future be the umbrella organization which will take over the responsibility for the protection of these areas and which shall undertake it on behalf of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services which had as its task the protection of the interests of the private sector in terms of the Soil Conservation Act. As hon. members know, the Department of Water Affairs is able, in terms of the Water Act, to lay down the law in such catchment control areas. That part, plus the part the Department of Forestry always had at its disposal plus that part which will in future be indicated in terms of the new Act, will now be entrusted to the care of the Department of Forestry—in other words, the overall sphere of mountain areas which will in future be available under the Department of Forestry. We had pleas here today—in pursuance of what I myself have frequently said in public, in the Senate and previously in this House—for the multi-purpose utilization of our mountain catchment areas. I am in complete agreement with what was said here this morning in regard to the needs of our people in this connection.

†For instance, the hon. member for Gardens referred to the problem of drug addiction and spoke of the yearning of all people to go back to nature and to enjoy the open spaces of South Africa. I agree and consequently would like to express the hope that in future we shall be able to establish a link between our city dweller and our nature reserves.

*I think that we can make a major contribution towards meeting these needs of millions of people, a need which is increasing all the time, the need to escape from the concrete jungle in which they are all trapped and where they have to Jive together with all kinds of social misfits. There is an ever-increasing need among these people to have a greater measure of contact with nature. I would even go so far as to say that if all our people who have troubled minds were able to spend half an hour walking in our mountains once a week, their problems, and with that the problems of society, would be restricted to a minimum. So strong, I think, is the influence that nature can have on the spirit of mankind. Therefore, our policy in the past in regard to the opening up of areas under the control of the Department of Forestry was a little restricted. As hon. members can understand, there are major dangers involved where people are allowed access in large numbers to our mountain areas. That is why we had to be a little restrictive, particularly here in the Western Province where we have to cope with major forest fires every year. But to some associations —this I am saying for the information of the hon. member for Bellville—such as the Mountain Climbers’ Association, a free pass was issued in the past, allowing them access to these areas. We have therefore created adequate opportunities for these people to make use of these areas. Only recently the Voortrekkers of the Western Province went camping in the Cederberg. But what the hon. member asked for, extends much further than that. What he wants, is that people in their tens of thousands should be given access to these areas. I also view the matter in this light, and that is why I want to repeat what I said previously, that we are going to develop this train of thought further. We want to make it possible for people to be given access to these areas on a large scale, preferably in an organized way. Hon. members will appreciate that we do not want people there who are going to create problems for us.

The Department has recently made a report to me on what is being done in this connection in other areas, inter alia in Rhodesia. Rhodesia has, in spite of the fact that they are not close to the sea, and do not have many forests either, nevertheless built up a major tourist industry. We can therefore learn from them, as well as from other countries. At present we are investigating what is being done in America. There is someone there at present with this aim. In addition, the Department has submitted various suggestions to me, and as soon as we have these other reports as well. I hope that we will then be able to sit around a table and consider what it all means in terms of proper organization. I think that we should create a variety of opportunities for organized groups. We are already engaged in such an experiment in Nature’s Valley. We ate developing an area there which will make recreation possible for organized groups. Here in the Southern Cape people were forced in the past to drive past afforested areas with longing eyes. I think that is wrong.

These areas do after all offer many opportunities for people to enjoy themselves, particularly during holidays. That is why we are now going to establish picnicking areas, areas which consist of three or four picnicking spots. I went to look at those areas myself. These picnicking spots are being established in wonderful surroundings, with facilities for motor-cars, the making of fires, etc. In addition to that we have opened up a footpath for a distance of about a mile into the forest. We went even further and attached nameplates to the various kinds of trees. In this way we wanted to try and develop among our people a love of nature and of our different trees.

We have instructed our forest rangers to be of assistance to visitors by mingling with them and by giving them information in regard to the area. Although this experiment has not been in operation for very long, the indications are already there that if we continue in this way. we are eventually going to meet a very important need by opening up areas from which our people have always been prohibited. We are engaged in drawing up tentative development plans for various areas of our country. But this is not enough. We hope to work out an overall development plan and then to liaise with the various organizations, inter alia with schools and universities. In this way we hope in due course to establish all the necessary facilities for our people to enjoy whatever nature has to offer us. I therefore have every sympathy with the plea made here today and we sincerely hope that we will in future be able to render a special service to the people of South Africa by bringing them closer to nature.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p m.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for South Coast asked me whether I could assist, what he called the private owner, the individual planter, to at least improve his position when he negotiates for a better price for his product. In the meantime I have asked for the agenda of the Forestry Advisory Council because I had an idea that the Forestry Advisory Council would be discussing this matter at its next meeting. I have just received their agenda and I see on the agenda that this matter will be discussed. I see that Dr. Kemp has put the item “cost of timber production” on the agenda, and I see that Mr. Anderson will also discuss the matter under “Forest economics and costs” and I also see—this is important—that the whole question will be discussed at the meeting at the end of July under the heading. “The formulation of a price determination policy for forest produce”. I feel that as I appointed this advisory council and as it was the intention that the advisory council should be the forum for the various bodies and various sectors to come together to formulate their own policy in the future, I think we should leave it at that for the moment because I think it would be improper for me now to try to intervene in view of the fact that this whole matter will be discussed at the next meeting.

That is fair.

The hon. member for South Coast also made a point about the two systems of accounting, the one by the department and the other by the private sector. The hon. member thought that the method used by the department to calculate costs might make a difference in the price. I want to tell the hon. member what costing is taken into account: Firstly, a percentage of head office expenditure, including a portion of the salaries of the Minister and the Secretary for Forestry, and all head office and regional personnel; secondly, a percentage of the expenditure incurred by head office and regional personnel on travelling, subsistence allowances, printing, postal services and sundry expenses; and, thirdly, all expenditure incurred on the plantation including the hire of transport from the Department of Transport, hire charges in respect of all exploitation equipment, power saws, livestock, housing, salaries and wages, leave pay, rations, uniforms, protective clothing and equipment. In other words, it seems to me that just about everything is taken into account. I do not think that there could be any difference between the way in which the price is calculated by the private sector and the way in which it is calculated by the Government sector, but if it appears that there is any substance in the point made by the hon. member, I am prepared to discuss the matter again.

The third point which the hon. member made yesterday was in connection with afforestation in the Bantu areas. The hon. member felt that the Bantu homelands could emerge as a new factor in price determination. Sir at the moment we have an afforested area of round about 2,64 million acres. In the Transkei there is an afforested area of 133 401 acres, but for the rest of South Africa the total only amounts to about 80 000 acres, which is less than 5 per cent of 2,64 million acres. I agree that it could be a factor in the future, but I am sure that before that stage is reached all the necessary steps will have been taken by the department to ensure that it does not make a substantial difference to the whole situation. In any case, we shall have an opportunity to discuss this better in the future. At the moment I do not think it is all that relevant. I must say that the residents of the Transkei do sufficient processing for their own use, while the portion which leaves the Transkei will be processed by people in South Africa just on our side of the border.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether hon. members would give the Minister a chance, because the noise in the background is such that it is very difficult for us to hear what he is saying, and we are most interested to hear what he has to say.

Order! Will hon. members give the Minister an opportunity to make his speech?

I should like to deal with this question from a different angle. I believe that within 10 years the market will be a seller’s market, because we are moving inexorably towards the time when there will be a shortage of practically all types of timber in South Africa. The Advisory Council is the forum where all these matters will be discussed, and I feel that we should at least give this body a year or two to straighten things out. Although I feel that there is some substance in the point raised by the hon. member, I am not very pessimistic with regard to the question of price negotiation in future.

Sir, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question, Will the Advisory Council be entitled to make representations to the Minister, inter alia in regard to the question of the control and price arrangements of what I have called the “fourth estate”, the newly emergent nations with their various Government-financed plantations?

Yes, they will be able to do so, and if the position is not completely clear, I shall issue instructions that that should in fact be the case.

*The hon. member for Humansdorp made a few observations this morning. I think that we can content ourselves with the replies he has already received in this connection. He requested that the promotion of research as a whole should be referred to the Forestry Advisory Council, I think we can accept that it is part of the functions of the advisory council to give their attention to this matter.

The hon. member for Carletonville raised various points and put various questions to me in regard to timber utilization and provision. He asked whether we could not, or in future, make statistics available to clarify the position in regard to future supply and demand. I can only say that we will to an increasing extent begin to reach the position where we will have a better insight into what development is going to take place in the industry in future. Hon. members must realize that we are only now beginning to derive advantage from the statistical research which the Department is introducing in terms of the Forestry Act. We have already at this stage obtained a considerable amount of additional information, which gives us a very good indication of what the course of events is going to be in future. As far as timber requirements are concerned, I can just give the hon. member an example of what benefits we are already enjoying as a result of the figures we now have at our disposal. Let us, for example, consider the present position as compared with the position as it will be in three years, time. We know, for example, on the basis of these statistics, and the requirements for sawn blocks at the moment are approximately 108 million cubic feet and that in 1973 this is going to be 142 million cubic feet. We know that at present there is a demand for approximately 9 million cubic feet of poles, and that in three years, time, 1973, this figure will be 11¼ million cubic feet. We know that the present demand for mining timber is 89 million cubic feet, and that it will then be 104 million cubic feet. I think the hon. member and the other hon. members will agree with me that we did not have statistics of this kind at our disposal in the past and that we now have the benefit of these statistics and that is why we are able to make much more accurate projections. In addition, I would just like to give the hon. members an indication of the per capita consumption of timber in South Africa. Our forecast is—and this will interest hon. members, because it is a very interesting figure—-is that for the period 1971 to 1975 this is as much as 0,0306 cubic metres. For the next five year period, up to 1980, it drops to 0,0291, for the following year to 0.280 and for the period from 1986 to 1990 to 0,0272. In other words, the per capita consumption for this type of timber is going to decrease, which does not mean that the volume consumption is not going to increase. There will of course be an increase in the volume consumption. But since we are now discussing the forestry industry in which there has to be increased production in order to meet the requirements of the country, we must remember that there are various other consumer requirements for wood in South Africa, including, as I have already mentioned, the pulp wood industry. The pulp wood industry will in future, towards the end of the century, for our paper consumption in South Africa alone, need several times more than the amount of timber which South Africa can at present supply. The hon. member for Mooi River also asked various questions, inter alia the question I have already replied to.

The other important question the hon. member put, dealt with the export of wattle wood. This is an important question, because the question of timber exports have during the past few years been the topic of discussion of every producer in South Africa. I may just inform the hon. member that the advisory council has reviewed this situation. Initially I did not want to comment on whether we shall have the timber available to enable us to export as well, but I adopted the attitude that if it could be proved that we would not, through the export of this timber, be causing a shortage, I would have no objection to it.

Now the situation is that there are no obstacles in the way of timber being exported, but the Board of Trade and Industries would, if it thought that this could cause a shortage, prohibit such export. Apart from the fact that the Advisory Council supplied me with the particulars which I requested. I also held personal talks with the wattle producers, the Wattle Growers’ Association, in regard to the availability of wood in the wattle industry, and I am convinced, as I stand here, that we would not have a shortage if we were to allow a quarter million tons to be exported in future. I just want to say this to the hon. member, and I am saying it to the hon. House as well. I have already told my Department that as far as I am concerned, I approve of this and I asked the Department to inform the Department of Trade and Industry that as far as we are concerned, we do not think there will be a shortage and we approve, as our official standpoint, of this quarter million tons of wood being exported to Japan. It is now up to the members of the Wattle Growers’ Association to make the necessary arrangements, but I just want to point out that there is a second problem arising out of that, which is to get this volume of wood through to our harbours. Unfortunately that is a problem I can do nothing about. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that as far as this matter is concerned, I do not see any difficulty and I am now satisfied that it can in fact be exported.

†Then the hon. member for Mooi River referred to the matter of timber housing. May I tell the hon. gentleman that we have recently decided that we will be sending people overseas to attend an official congress in America. I am expecting a report on the congress and hope that, after having received it, I and the department will be able to give more attention to timber housing in South Africa, because I believe that we should have more timber housing in South Africa. In this respect I am very satisfied that the University of Stellenbosch is doing very valuable research. I believe, with the research being done and all the information now becoming available, we will be seeing more timber houses going up in South Africa with a positive policy in the future.

*The hon. member for Ermelo mentioned a few points here. He said that we are utilizing our resources to the best effect, something with which I agree. I think that I also gave an indication in this direction when I spoke this morning of the waste products which are going to waste on such a large scale. I think that therein lies a reply in regard to the question of the wastage of part of our resources. I think the hon. member also referred to our trees. He requested that these be established in the best possible way, and that we should also, as far as our silvi-culture is concerned, do whatever is necessary to ensure that unnecessary wastage is counteracted. The hon. member then said that we should place the industry on an economic basis. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member. It is in fact the aim of the Department to try to give such guidance that we will be able to maintain the forestry industry in South Africa as an economic industry. The hon. member also referred to the availability of seedlings. I want to inform the hon. member that the arrangement in the Department is that plants should be made available for the ornamentation of farms. Arising out of the question which has now been put by the hon. member. I want to inform the House that when he said this I think the hon. member was raising another point to which he probably did not give any thought. It has just occurred to me now and I want to say that we should ensure that only the best plants are used for the establishment of tree plantations in South Africa. If we were to allow our afforestation to suffer as a result of poor planting material, we could lose millions of cubic feet of timber every year because we would only have ailing trees which merely take up space without being able to produce anything. That is why I want to inform the hon. member that in future I think it would be a wise thing if the Department of Forestry now changed its policy in this connection and we considered supplying those planters who do not regard it as an economic proposition to cultivate their own planting material themselves with planting material for commercial purposes. This would ensure that in the establishment of plantations, South Africa would use the best material.

I do not know whether the hon. member heard what I said, for I saw him talking to someone. I just want to repeat what I said. I think we have reached the stage where we should reconsider, as Department of Forestry, supplying commercial planters with seedlings on a large scale so that the plants established on our lands will be only the best and so that our products will be only of the best quality. There is nothing more I can say about this matter at this stage, but I think the hon. members must accept that we shall formulate what I have now proposed here properly. I shall request the Department to look into this so that we can adjust the policy in this connection.

The hon. member for Ermelo asked whether we could be of assistance in providing the necessary facilities at the harbours. This is a very great problem. The Department has already interested itself in this matter for the sake of the industry. Unfortunately this is a matter which the Department cannot do much about. This is actually a matter for the industry itself and the hon. the Minister of Transport. However, I just want to promise the hon. members that we will on our part bring it urgently to their attention. Particularly if the contract should go through, it is in our interests to ensure that the necessary facilities are provided and the Department of Forestry will therefore lend its support to ensuring that the facilities are in future established.

This morning the hon. member for Gardens raised a matter to which I have already replied.

The hon. member for Middelland discussed the South-West situation. Who would have expected the Department of Forestry to have an interest in a dry part of the world like South-West Africa?

He has left.

The hon. member apologized; he has to keep an official appointment. I may just say that South-West Africa has a few varieties of wood which are of very great importance. Hon. members are all aware of pterocarpus angolensis. But hon. members probably do not know that there are enormous quantities of tamboti wood in South-West Africa as well. I had the situation investigated and was astounded at the information supplied to me. I should just like to supplement the observations made this morning by the hon. member by saying that in the Tsumeb mine alone 3 million felled tamboti poles have been used. When a tamboti tree is felled, it is first established whether it has a sound core. If it does not have a sound core it is simply left lying there and another one sought. That was the practice. We can therefore accept that to deliver 3 million poles to the Tsumeb mine it is quite probable that 6 million or more tamboti trees were felled. This gives hon. members an idea of how many tamboti trees there are in South-West and how many have already been destroyed. That is why we shall shortly have to do something to protect certain varieties of wood in South-West Africa. A directive to this effect has already been issued. I can at this early stage inform hon. members who represent South-West Africa that they will see a reaction to this, but there is nothing else we can do. We cannot allow these varieties of timber, which we regard as a great asset for South-West Africa to be felled and delivered as mining timber to the Tsumeb mine. I have in the meantime established that the cost of delivering timber to the Tsumeb mine from South Africa does not compare unfavourably with the cost of tamboti poles from South-West itself. This is therefore a chance for those who have wattle wood to sell. I can therefore inform the hon. member for Middelland that we are looking into the situation. In addition I also want to say to the hon. member that, perhaps contrary to the expectations of this House, it is to my mind quite an open question as to whether the northerly areas of South-West Africa are not an area which can support a certain degree of afforestation. I am not at all convinced that we will not be able to have expansion in that direction. This is, however, a technical question on which I cannot comment at the moment. I can only say that to my mind it is an open question and that we shall look into it. There are after all parts of South-West Africa that receive 40 inches or more of rain per annum.

The hon. member for Worcester discussed the fire hazard. I should like to inform the hon. member that we are very concerned about the fires which are continually breaking out. I also want to tell him that the Department will in future adopt a different policy. In the past we took preventive measures and said that control fires were not allowed. But now it has appeared front research in this connection done by the University of Stellenbosch that regular control fires, in the Boland mountains as well, can lead to rejuvenation and renewal of vegetation which could be of great use. I referred this morning to the Chair for nature conservation at the University of Stellenbosch. I think that the views of those concerned in this are correct, i.e. that we should not in future regard a mountain as a place where nobody is allowed or as a forest as a single forest, but that we should view those areas where afforestation occurs as forests. This must not be confused with the English forest, which is a plantation. Forest is derived from the Latin word, by which is meant the entire mountain, with its surrounding territory and its plants and animal life. We shall manage these forests, together with whatever we add to it in the form of plantations, as a balanced environment. By viewing it and managing it in this way in future, we will not only be able to protect the mountains, but also the plant and animal life. In the future we shall therefore, as far as the Boland mountains are concerned, do just the opposite to what we did in the past. We shall set our own control fires, but this shall be done in a systematic way. It will be done in rotation after a proper investigation of the matter, to ensure in fact that the water yield is maintained because we also know that if we do not have controlled fires, certain plants will simply disappear as plants have already disappeared in the past. In other words, it will be managed in such a way that it will be in the best interests of the environment. It will be left in the hands of scientists and hon. members need not be concerned that any incorrect practices will be applied.

In addition the hon. member requested that officials be stationed in his area. However, I want to inform the hon. member that that part of the world is too small and that everything is too close together. That is why it is not necessary to have decentralization in that area. We do not have the people for that and it is therefor not necessary to decentralize very much in this sphere. What we should rather do in the Boland is centralize. As far as the drift sand in the dam area is concerned, I can inform the hon. member that it is a fact that the Department is applying drift sand control along the coast. The type of drift sand control which has to be done in his constituency, is however, in the hands of the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services, and I should not like to venture into that province by saying what should and what should not be done there.

I have already replied to the question put by the hon. member for Bellville. I also think I have replied to all the points raised by the hon. member for South Coast as well as the hon. member for Humansdorp. I hope I have not left anything out. I want to thank hon. members who participated in the debate for the level on which this was done and also for the constructive discussions which resulted.

Voles put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 41.—201C;National Education”, R95 835 000, Loan Vote M.— “National Education”, R10 860 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 23.—201C;National Education”, R271 000:

Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? I am speaking on this Vote for two reasons. The first reason is that this is the first occasion where Parliament will be able to discuss one of the most important reports which have been tabled this year, namely the report of the Television Commission. There would have been an opportunity during the Prime Minister’s Vote—I do not know how it happened. however, but the report was only tabled four days after the end of the Prime Minister’s Vote, I want to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg, for having given me the opportunity of speaking first on this Vote. The second reason why I am speaking here this afternoon is that we on this side of the House do not believe that television and the S.A.B.C. should fall under the National Education Vote. We believe that the people of South Africa are a responsible and educated body of citizens who do not need further education by this Government. We believe that television as a form of communication and a system of telecommunication properly belongs under the Department of Posts and Telegraphs as it has done in the past. Under the National Education Vote you can have indoctrination; under the Posts and Telegraphs Vote you will treat television for what it is, namely a means of telecommunication. If I might quote Dr. Piet Meyer to prove this: “It is a medium of communication. It has as such no philosophical character or content.” I do not want this Government to give television a philosophical content.

I have mentioned the S.A.B.C. in passing and there are three issues in regard to the S.A.B.C. that I want to draw to the attention of the hon. the Minister, before I deal with television. The first is that there has been an increase in indoctrination by the S.A.B.C. over the past year. We have had “Current Affairs” for many years now, and it certainly has not improved. Two other programmes have been added to Current Affairs; one is Quo Vadis which is another indoctrination programme. The only reply I can give to Quo Vadis is ad inferos! There is a third programme called “Wat sê Van der Merwe?" This new programme, however, is no Van der Merwe joke, but it is the most “verkrampte” form of indoctrination the S.A.B.C. has yet been guilty of. It is a dreary business to hear over the news at 9 o’clock, as we heard last night, no less than three ministerial voices. All they did was to tell dull tales, told three times.

The second issue in regard to the S.A.B.C. I want to raise with the Minister is that of partly taking over Lourenço Marques Radio. I do not like this at all. I do not believe it is only a commercial proposition. I say this on account of a report given by Dr. Piet Meyer, Chairman of the Board of Governors, to Dr. Albert Hertzog in 1966 and tabled in this House, in which he said this about Lourenço Marques Radio—

This is Dr. Piet Meyer attacking Lourenço Marques—

This is of the S.A.B.C.—

Then Dr. Meyer let the cat out of the bag when be said that—

There is more to this taking over of L.M. Radio than a merely commercial arrangement, and I want to know what it is.

The third point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister, is why was the medium wave station at Silverton in Pretoria closed down? Thousands of listeners who have only medium wave sets were unable to listen to the Republic Festival. There are old people among them, pensioners and poor people who could not immediately afford to buy a new set. I asked the hon. the Minister about it and his reply was the usual one—201C;Oh, it is a domestic matter of the S.A.B.C.” I think he found out something; he has found out that the mast was cracking or unsafe. What utter nonsense! If that mast was dangerous, why were there workers climbing on it, trying to repair it? They could have repaired it. Furthermore, I want to know what happened to that particular transmitter. There are rumours going around Pretoria. I am not saying they are true. Here I have a letter signed by a person who seems to me very much like someone from the S.A.B.C. itself. It reads—

Let us hear what is intended with the land at Silverton.

Let us come back to television. I was most impressed on the day this report was tabled and the Minister made his statement, by the waves of silence with which it was greeted on the other side of the House. One could see serried ranks of frustrated politicians, looking as if they were attending a funeral. It was the funeral of their old anti-television policy. It was proved that the United Party bad been right all along in fighting for television. I have a cutting here in which the then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, Mr. Basie van Ransburg, said that the Government rejected television, in the first place because of the detrimental effects it could have on the youth, and especially on the studying youth. Secondly, it rejected television because of the enormous costs involved in setting up the service. That was in 1968. Yet now they have made this complete turn-about and somersault I could go into the history of the struggle, the fight we waged on this side for television against the most stupid remarks imaginable about “little black boxes which have caused the fall of empires and which will introduce communism in South Africa and break up family life”. There sit the people who used those arguments—it was not only Dr. Hertzog. He was speaking on behalf of his whole Cabinet, Government and every person on that side of the House—and not once did they open their mouths when that utter nonsense was being propagated.

This opposition of this Government goes back in history right to the very beginning. Already in 1950 Mr. Tom Naudé, who was then Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, said “No, you cannot have television. It is going to cost too much. There are other matters that have priority”. We heard that the other day from the hon. the Minister and we will hear it again in future. Meanwhile. 118 countries got television before we did. 197 million sets will have been sold before a single one will be sold freely to the public in this country. The B.B.C. had the first television service in 1936, 40 years before we are going to get it in South Africa. There is no invention in Western civilization, whether it be the motor car, the telephone, electricity, coloured shirts, or whatever it is, which took such a long time to come to South Africa as television. But the United Party continued the fight. We introduced motions in Parliament on the matter. We spoke on every occasion. Indeed, one of our main motions was assisting to move out Dr. Albert Hertzog, one of the main obstacles on the way to television. Television was a plank in our election platforms for many years. Indeed, when the Broadcasting Act was introduced in 1936 by a United Party Government, the second main purpose laid down in that Act was that the S.A.B.C. was empowered to introduce a television service. That is vision.

Normal vision.

Yes, Now at last the Government has decided on television. They gave the truth away as to why we were getting it now, in the television report. They are afraid that in a few years" time people will be able through ordinary television sets to tune in to a satellite transmitting station without the intermediate use of a ground station. They have been driven to introduce television firstly by the good arguments of the United Party and, secondly, by fear of the outside world with their satellite systems. The United Party has often been asked what our policy in regard to television is. We stated it in March, 1969—and not for the first time—six months before the commission to inquire into television was appointed. I then said the following in this House—

Six months later the television commission was appointed and a year later they brought out a report in which they basically accepted every one of these four points that I have just read out.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No How long did this commission take to decide? It was appointed in December, 1969, but went into an unnatural summer hibernation and only brought out its report a full year later. That report gathered dust on the shelves of some Government office for four months until, at last, the hon. the Minister made his announcement in April. But at least we are going to get it, although we know that the Government can make a mess of even the best. We know that with regard to television this Government has been shown up as a stodgy, unimaginative body of people with no vision, faith, drive nor courage. The United Party was right, it is right and will be proved to have been right in future. If they delay a bit too long, it will still be a United Party Government that will introduce television in South Africa.

There have been strange signs since this report was tabled. There have been signs that the Government is not yet completely converted to television. There have, firstly, been signs that they are going to delay the introduction of television deliberately, that, secondly, they are going to place technical restrictions on television and, thirdly, that they are going to place unnecessary ideological and political restrictions on this wonderful new system.

I say they are still reluctant in their “verkrampte” souls to introduce television in this country. There is a great discrepancy between the two major statements in regard to television. The one statement was the television report itself and the other the statement by the hon. the Minister watering down that report. The report itself says that we can have television in three and a half years with sixteen major television stations covering three-quarters of the country, plus one ground station for satellite retransmission in South Africa itself. I say it can be done in two years, but the hon. the Minister now says that it would take at least four years. But Rapport anticipated him by saying that it will take more than four years and that it may even be seven years. I say that they are deliberately trying to delay the introduction of television. Even the report’s prediction of three and a half years is not so wonderful, as it states that television sets can roll off the assembly lines in South Africa within one and a half year's time. This will mean that the companies manufacturing television sets in South Africa will have to start stock-piling these sets for a further two years, while waiting for the introduction of television. When they are bought many of them will therefore already be out of date. But, Sir, even this pales against the background of the Minister’s statement that it will take at least four years. It will be 40 years after the introduction of television by the B.B.C., before we get ours.

Sir, another sign of this delay is that the Government has again and again started complaining about the big amount that television will cost. Sir, R50 million is all that the Government will need over a period of four years or more for the first phase, and R50 million is less than 2 per cent of the gross annual investment in South Africa of R3 000 million. They know where they can get the money when they have to pay R7 million for a piece of land to a Mr. Agliotti. They can find the money when it is a matter of erecting prisons costing R55 million over the next couple of years. The hon. the Minister believes that those matters are to be given priority. Sir, think of the vast development that the television industry will bring to South Africa. It will stimulate your furniture and your cabinet industry and your electronic industry. We can even export sets from this country if the matter is properly handled. We could have a fine electronic industry growing on the basis of television in South Africa, an industry which can be very important for the defence of our country.

Mr. Chairman, I am disappointed in the hon. the Minister’s statement. The Television Commission advised that there should be these two services (in Afrikaans and English) plus the Bantu service plus a ground station, but the Minister in his own statement says that the other services will be considered later in the light of experience, and that they are only going to start with this one bilingual service first of all. To mention another instance, the Television Commission recommended an action committee to get to work immediately to give this country television, and what has the hon. the Minister done? He has watered it down to a so-called technical advisory committee with much more vague and even somewhat pointless terms of reference. He is asking this second committee that he is going to appoint, to do most of the work that the Television Commission has already done. Let me mention a few examples. He has asked this new committee that he has appointed, this technical advisory committee, to go into the financial implications, into the question of where to find the money, but surely the Television Commission has already told him where to find the money—from licenses, from the sales tax, from excise duties and from advertising. He has the answer. Why go and appoint another committee to give him the same answer? The same applies in regard to the training of staff. The Television Commission has told him how the staff should be trained— through the universities and technical colleges and by getting assistance from overseas.

He is asking this new committee to find out whether we should have a radio wave or a cable television system, but already the answer is contained in the report of the Television Commission itself, on page 24, where Dr. Piet Meyer writes that to start with cable television in South Africa would be “highly uneconomical”. Why is he asking this new committee to go into the matter again? Does he not believe Dr. Piet Meyer? I, too, do not always believe Dr. Piet Meyer, but after all, this was based on technical evidence. Sir, I feel that this new committee that the hon. the Minister has appointed is in many respects simply a delaying measure; it is a smokescreen to keep television away from South Africa for a longer period. Sir, there is one thing that I do demand from him today, and that is that he should announce the names of the members of this technical action committee. I demand that from him. He promised it for June and we want it from him today.

Sir, there is a delay in the financing of this great scheme. I challenge the hon. the Minister to show me one item in the Estimates making provision for funds for the next twelve months in order to bring television to South Africa. It is essential, if the funds are not available, to have additional estimates approved by Parliament. Surely the S.A.B.C. will need the capital to start building new studios? Yet, when I asked the hon. the Minister of Finance a question in this regard the other day, he said: “Oh no, the question is still under consideration”. To mention another instance, the Television Commission said that it is a matter of the utmost urgency that the Post Office should start working on the building of a ground station for satellite communication. The hon. the Minister says: “No, that is a question which this new committee will still have to decide in order to give me advice.”. The S.A.B.C. wants a second station for Eurovision, but there is not even the mention in that regard in the Minister’s statement. Kenya and Zambia will be getting a ground station each this year or early next year. Why do we always have to lag behind other states in this regard?

There are two colour technique systems, the PAL system, and the SECAM system. The S.A.B.C., the C.S.I.R. and the Post Office all recommended the PAL system, but the Minister says he is going to appoint a commission to decide which of the two systems is the better. What is wrong with the advice of the Post Office? What is wrong with the S.A.B.C. or the C.S.I.R. that their advice cannot be taken?

Sir, these are delaying restrictions. Just as bad are the technical restrictions which I see lying ahead in regard to television. There is, for example, the control of cassettes, the new system of the 1970’s. It is actually being recommended by the Government that only S.A.B..C programmes may be broadcast on these cassettes over one’s own set. In other words, you can go and buy a cassette in the shop only if it contains an S.A.B.C. programme for your own video-station. On Friday, in the Government Gazette, a questionnaire was sent out by the Departments of Commerce and Industries. This questionnaire gives an indication of the severe technical restrictions we are going to have in regard to our television in future. Do you know, Sir, that is was laid down that there would be only one type of screen, namely a 26 inch screen, and nothing else. What about portable transistor television sets with smaller screens? Are we not going to have them? It was also mentioned that there will possibly be no rental scheme for television until 1979. The Minister himself said that hire-purchase restrictions will be most severe during the initial stages. In this questionnaire sent out in the Government Gazette, it mentions possible hire-purchase restrictions to the extent of a deposit of 50 per cent and only 12 months in which to pay. There is already a sales tax of 30 per cent on television sets, as well as a customs duty of 20 per cent. So, Sir, you can see what the people of South Africa will have to pay. I appeal to the hon. the Minister, while taking into account the costs of this system, to try to keep the price of these sets as low as possible for the people of South. Africa. There is no need to pay R400, as mentioned in the report, for a colour television set when you can buy one for R175 in London today.

The worst restrictions, however, that I fear lie ahead, are the political restrictions in regard to television. There are going to be excessive controls, which could very well suffocate this new system at birth. The Minister in his statement made the surprising announcement that he is next year going to establish by Jaw a statutory body, and this statutory body is going to oversee the morals and the character of the television service. We are going to have a body of Mother Grundies and old women of both sexes to control television. [Interjections.] I take it that the Chairman of the Publications Board will be on that body too.

There have been ominous statements by the hon. the Minister. Let me mention some of them. He said: “The service should form an integral part of the country’s system of education”. What nonsense! Did he not read the report tabled this morning by the Transvaal Education Department? It states that for schools you only need videotape and closed-circuit television. Anything else can be indoctrination. The following ominous statement can also be found on page 15 of the television report; “Television can be controlled just as effectively and as easily as radio, for example”. So, the cat is out of the bag. Ln other words, radio is being easily and effectively controlled. These are the words of Dr. Piet Meyer, the man who wrote that report. Then again the hon. the Minister in his statement said this: “Television should have a broad national character”. Fine words, but if you look at members opposite you see what a broad Nationalist looks like, and I am much less optimistic about the broad national characteristics of television. They have even in this report coined a new word for this type of, you might almost call it, indoctrination. The word is “enculturation”. In the report it appears as follows—

Enculturation! Sir, I went to the Oxford Dictionary, not the concise one, not the standard one, but the unabridged 10 ft. one, and there is no such word in the English language. And how is this enculturation to be applied? According to the report, it shall be applied by norm-conscious officials. What is a “norm-conscious official”? I think they should define it. This is George Orwell, 1975; not 1984. We are going to have “soft” news, I understand, from 6 to 9 p.m., and “bard” news after 9 p.m. Just look at the gloomy programmes in the 201C;meesterplan” which they have for the television programmes. I mention a few—

Mr. Chairman, the Human Science Research Council of the CS1R is actually being asked to define the “abiding broad national system of values” to which this new television service will have to adhere.

In contrast to this system, we of the United Party believe in a television system which will be free from bias, free from political control, free from ideological control, and which will give the country the best it can command in regard to news, entertainment and instruction. We have positive suggestions in this respect. The first is this. We demand that you carry out those five points of policy that I have mentioned in this House in 1969, without Nationalistic indoctrinal overtones, whether broad or narrow, whether profound or shallow. Secondly, we demand that this television service should be introduced much sooner than the four years or longer that the Minister envisages. Thirdly, this television service should be safeguarded against political bias by provisions in the licence granted to the S.A.B.C. similar to those we demand in regard to the radio service. Fourthly, we demand that the cost to the public be kept down, that the cost of the service should be kept low. I even believe that the licence of R21 a year, which is suggested, is one of the highest in the world. We demand, fifthly, that the Government should start immediately, as this Commission recommends, with the building of a ground station so that we can get the Eurovision programmes and so that we can get transmission via satellite. Sixthly, we demand that this secrecy in regard to television, and what is being done and what will he done, should be stopped. I can stress it no stronger than by reading from Rapport of 16th May, the Nationalist newspaper, in which it says—

This came 20 years too late. We have been complaining about this in regard to the radio services for a lifetime, but at least now the eyes of this Nationalist journal are being opened.

My time is nearly used up, and I want to conclude by saying that television is not a secret, unmentionable and slightly disreputable type of service to the public. It is one of the world’s greatest systems of entertainment, of communication, of news, and of instruction. It is one of the greatest handmaidens of science and progress in the modern world. This Government will never be worthy of television, but I ask and beg of them not to disgrace it as they have disgraced the radio services of our country for so long.

Today we really saw the hon. member for Orange Grove playing a double role. We saw him in the role of a mourner and in the role of a jester or clown. As a mourner he shed a few tears. Three of the most conspicious tears he shed here were the following. The first was that in his opinion television, when it has been introduced, should not fall under the Minister of National Education. You will remember, Sir, that in their so-called plea made in this House in the course of years, those hon. members, and particularly that hon. member, over-emphasized the educational aspect of television to such an extent that we, and I personally, speaking as an educationist, said that television could never replace the teacher. At the very best it can only be an educational aid. I still believe this.

The hon. member shed another tear in regard to this matter. He said, and he devoted a large part of his speech to this, that in the course of years this side of this House had allegedly been opposed to the introduction of television. If those hon. members do in fact study a matter, I just want to ask them to refer to columns 3000 to 3008 in Hansard of 9th March, I960, and to read Dr. Verwoerd’s speech in regard to the possible introduction of television. I do not have the time to read it out, but later I shall quote one or two paragraphs from that speech. I am requesting the hon. members to read it because it forms the basis of the policy of this side of this House as laid down in this speech made by Dr. Verwoerd.

The third tear shed by the hon. member was that it was going to take such a long time to introduce television. This hon. member sees his way clear to introduce television within a matter of two years. A commission brought out an informative report on the matter and that report states that it will be possible to introduce television in four of five years’ time, but the hon. member sees his way clear to introduce it in two years’ time.

Now that the assurance has been given that television will in fact be introduced, the Opposition is seeing spectres. When I speak of the Opposition. I am referring to the United Party and to the Progressive Party. The hon. member for Orange Grove is a man who even fabricates a spectre. One of the spectre’s he referred to once again, one he is seeing and from which he is running away, is the spectre of indoctrination. This is the spectre he told us about before with regard to education and the S.A.B.C. Today he once again saw this spectre here and told us about it. After the announcement of the hon. the Minister, this hon. member also mentioned the so-called danger of indoctrination in an interview with the Press. He spoke of (translation)—

He assured the Press this would always be present and that it would be the United Party’s task to fight it on all levels. To this the representative of the other party on the opposite benches, the hon. member for Houghton, added a warning that the possible use of television would be—

It is striking how much this agreed with the standpoint of the Herstigte Nasionale Party. In other words, at present three allies are opposed to the Government’s policy and to the introduction of television. What I find so ridiculous is that this hon. member criticized the informative and comprehensive report of the commission. He said—

At this stage he suddenly adopted a presumptions attitude by saying that it was thanks to the United Party that the Government was going to introduce television. We do not know how comprehensive this term “basically” is. He did not tell us. Now, the United Party maintains that it has been pleading for years for the introduction of television. But at this stage they have discovered all of a sudden that television will serve as a means of indoctrination. What is interesting is that year after year they have been speaking in this House of indoctrination through the medium of the S.A.B.C., as the hon. member did here again today, but yet they plead for television while television may he a more powerful propaganda medium than the radio. But this is just another example of the inconsistencies we have been having from the United Party all along. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Wynberg should just pay further attention to me, because in that case she would learn something.

Now I want to put my standpoint in regard to the whole matter. Television is a means of communication. As such it can be neither good nor bad. The way in which it is used, makes television good or bad. It is a powerful means of influencing people. It can have a good or a detrimental influence. There is progress in all spheres, and television could not have been kept out of our country for all times. Earlier in my speech I said I would refer to what Dr. Verwoerd had said. I want to quote only one paragraph from what Dr. Verwoerd said in this regard. On 9th March, I960, he said, inter alia—

Television cannot be kept out permanently, but its introduction must wait until we are able to counter any of the possible evils which are being experienced elsewhere.

To me this is the gist of the matter. Television is not going to be introduced in South Africa merely as a prestige project, as was the case in certain African States.

The big question is how television is going to be used, i.e. in a beneficial way or in a detrimental way. The stories we read and hear in regard to the bad influence television has on the morals, the religion, the morale and the customs of overseas peoples, and especially on the youth, phenomena which have been confirmed by scientific investigations instituted in certain countries even by the Government, sound a clear warning to us that television may not be used in an unrestrained way in the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member also referred to what I had said earlier. But I cannot do otherwise than repeat it here: For the sake of the maintenance of our national integrity and of the preservation of the identity of every national group, of our traditional values and of our Christian morals and our spiritual level, it is absolutely necessary that television be controlled thoroughly and judiciously.

Whether television will be a curse or a blessing, will depend on the standard of the programmes presented. But it will also depend on the judgment and taste of the viewers, and, above all, it will depend on the quality of the control. We know that the word “control” is an unpopular one among many people. But nobody can have any objection to statutory control, to which the hon. member objected a moment ago, which will eliminate that which is vulgar, provide depth and healthy balance to programmes and which will emphasize the educational and informative aspect. Now I want to ask whether the hon. member has any objections to what I have just said? Does he object to this type of statutory control? The hon. member does not reply. The gist of the pleas made by those who pleaded for television—and these people include the hon. member for Orange Grove —whether they be Afrikaans-speaking or English-speaking, and whether they belong to the United Party or to the National Party, was basically that television be controlled SO that the negative influences could b eliminated right from the start. The report of the commission—in other words, the findings of the commission—reflects the very views and wishes of the public at large. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members on that side of this House want to read us a lecture on television, but the way in which the hon. member for Orange Grove acted was indicative of one thing only. It was indicative of frustration on the highest level on account of the fact that we are going to introduce television in our own time and according to our own standards and norms. Hon. members on that side cannot stomach this. I have some advice for the hon. members, even for the hon. member for Turffontein. They should not try to read us a lecture on this matter, instead, they should attend that youth symposium of theirs in order to induce their youth to accept more of the other policies of that side of this House. As regards television, we are able to say that its introduction in South Africa is very safe in the hands of this side of the House.

The hon. member went on to say it was a pity that there was no opportunity to discuss this matter on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister. They still do not know what hit them on the Vote of the Prime Minister!

I shall bring the hon. member for North Rand, who is laughing so loudly, cuttings from his own Party’s newspapers, and I shall show him in what light that side’s newspapers saw them after the discussion of the Prime Minister’s Vote. Was it his wish that we should have dragged in this item as well so that we might have fleeced them even more? He can be pleased that we have not had another opportunity of discussing this matter. The non. member also complained about the fact that henceforth the S.A.B.C. and television would fall under this hon. Minister. There is nothing wrong with that. The only mistake was that that hon. member could waste half an hour in this debate as well. Actually, one should not say it was a mistake, because the more turns he has to speak, the better it suits me. What is more, it is a pity that we do not have television yet, so that he may have given us a performance on the screen for a change. In that case we would have had even more reason for being grateful. I do not know what this hon. member’s tariff is going to be, but if he may be hired, I shall much rather hire him than a television set, because his performance is much more entertaining than what one will be able to get on a television screen.

Then we have the stereotyped expressions he used. Before the hon. member started speaking, I wrote down certain words he would use. I was correct. These words were “verkrampte form of indoctrination”. I wrote them down before he could utter them in order to see whether he would use these words. Hon. members may refer back to his previous speeches.

He was negative every time. In 1969 he said, and he quoted it himself, that there should be an authority, a board, which should exercise control over these matters. He immediately condemned the way in which we want to exercise this control, but he did not say a single word as to the constitution of that board and as to who should serve on it. He simply spoke of a board or an authority. He condemned the programmes, saying that that was not what programmes should be. However, he did not make a single suggestion as to what that programme should in fact embrace. I can continue in this vein. He simply said there should be a board. When we say what the constitution of such a board is to be, it is wrong, but he does not say a single word as to how he would constitute the board. One can continue in this vein.

We are happy about the introduction of television and especially about the high requirements and standards which will be set for the programmes. When we read paragraph 130 of the report, we gain a very clear impression of what standards are going to be set I quote—

The report goes on to indicate that should be done along the lines of entertainment and information, by projecting the cultural assets of each community, by stimulating indigenous creative talent and by fostering good relations between all the people and nations of our country. This is the basis. Had it not been on that basis, we could perhaps have said: “No thank you.” We must be realistic. This medium has many advantages, but certain disadvantages as well. Now I am going to quote three authorities, as I believe them to be. The quotations do not come from a National newspaper. The authorities are not even Afrikaans-speaking. Mr. Maurice Wiggin, writes in a quarterly survey published by the Anglo-American Corporation. I have taken the quotation from the report which appeared in an Afrikaans newspaper in May last year. He said (translation)—

[Interjection.] The hon. member would do well to listen; then he would perhaps also be able to judge what one’s position was in regard to this matter. Commercial Opinion said the following—

Let us concede that there is a case for not having television.

Arnold Benjamin wrote the following in The Star—

Prepare yourself, when television comes, for the greatest love-hate relationship of your life. The square-eyed electronic box in your living room is going to be your best friend and worst enemy all at once.

I am not saying I agree. Right at the beginning. I said I was pleased that television was to be introduced according to particular standards. However, I want to make one point only. If one wanted to dismiss the fact that there were problems and disadvantages as well, one would be making an extremely big mistake.

In fact, I want to say how we may eliminate the dangers and problems. The first way in which we can do this is by exercising the right control. Unlike that member, I am one of those who are requesting the very strictest control to be exercised in the way already announced by the Minister, and that is by that statutory board, the S.A.B.C. and the listening public. The advertising policy is another way in which we may prevent the wrong influences from gaining the upper hand. (I do hope you do not want to stop me already, Mr. Chairman—you are already moving forward in your chair). We must just not give the manufacturers and the sellers of many products an opportunity to get a foot into the door, because then we would definitely become a market for a lot of products. But we ourselves, and every responsible person in this country, have a great responsibility and that is to ensure that the standard we are going to achieve through this medium and the nature of our programmes will be of the very best. I just want to read out two quotations which illustrate this. The first one reads as follows.

The man who has successfully come to terms with his T.V. set is a character with a little iron in his will plus a strongly developed right wrist for turning the thing off smartly when he should.

This is what we believe we should have in our homes as well: The necessary discipline so that television may really be used as an educational medium, a medium which will not bring about any maladjustment, not in our family life either. Furthermore, I want to read out this quotation from Dr. William Fore of the Broadcasting and Film Commission—

This is what we want to see. We believe that as far as education is concerned, this medium will be of great benefit to us in our homes. Interesting studies have been made in this regard and it has been found that the relationship between members of the family is going to determine how this medium is going to be received in the home. You know me. Sir, as a champion of a healthy family life in South Africa. We must ensure that this is a means which can promote a healthy family life; but then we should also start by ensuring that we do have a healthy family life. Each of us has a task and if we carry out that task in this way, we would be getting a medium of a high standard in which we would have a very big say as regards the control of the programmes and the standard of those programmes.

Mr. R. M. CADMAN; Mr. Chairman, the speeches of the hon. members for Koedoespoort and Germiston have been very interesting. Anybody who did not know that it was the Government’s policy to introduce television would have thought, listening to their speeches, that Government members were against the introduction of television. All we had from both those hon. gentlemen were the things that one must guard against when introducing the television medium, the troubles that could follow in its wake, the disadvantages that it has and the iron you must have in your soul and personality to resist all the problems which are created by television. The hon. member for Germiston said that the speech made by the hon. member for Orange Grove arose out of his frustration. This is interesting. If the exhibition put up by the hon. member for Orange Grove amounted to frustration, then long may he be frustrated, because I have seldom seen a more joyous exhibition than the one put up by the hon. member for Orange Grove nor a more effective one. If that constitutes frustration, I hope he continues in that state for a long time. We can quite easily understand the difficulties of the hon. gentlemen opposite because having preached for so many years in the greatest detail all the disadvantages, indeed the disasters, which were to flow from the advent of television, they really are in queer street, because now they have to stand up and not merely accept it but persuade their followers that in fact it is worth while, I want to deal more particularly with the S.A.B.C. As we have in the Minister whose Vote we are discussing, a Minister to whom the radio is a new sphere of responsibility, I would ask him seriously to have a new look at the S.A.B.C. and the position it fulfils in South Africa. For years there have been complaints, not only from this side of the House, but from all sorts of institutions—bodies, organs, journals and newspapers—not related to the United Party in any way, of bias and lack of objectivity, firstly in the news reports we get from the S.A.B.C. I want to give the hon. the Minister a few examples which I have myself noticed. Let us take the news reports which we had today. If one looks at the morning Press, both the Nationalist Press and what is called the Opposition Press, Die Burger and the Cape Times, the banner headlines in both newspapers and the leading front page story in both newspapers are the contents of the Agliotti report tabled in this House yesterday. This as far as I can judge from a quick glance at the other newspapers available to us, is the key news item of the day. But what did we get on the S.A.BC. at 8 o’clock this morning? Not a single word in the news service of the Agliotti report or what it contained. Almost half the news report was taken up to deal in the minutest detail, and I may mention in passing almost word for word as reported in the Vaderland, with the decision of the Israeli Government to give money to the Organization for African Unity.

What is wrong with that?

That, of course, is a news item. But, Sir, it is interesting also to look at the two main news media of Cape Town today. One finds that that particular news item, in both the Nationalist paper and the Cape Times, is given the small subordinate position which I believe it deserves when compared with the Agliotti affair.

Die Burger wrote a whole article on that.

This is merely one example of what one experiences weekly if one gives intelligent attention to what is said over the S.A.B.C. Let us come, Sir, to reports of speeches by people like the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on the rare occasions that he is reported at all, on the news service, I believe that he should rank equally with Cabinet Ministers when it comes to important matters, because he is, after all, the Leader of the Opposition: he would be the Leader of the alternative Government. What is important from the point of view of news to the country, is what the Government leaders say and what the Opposition leaders have to say in regard to any matter. When the Leader of the Opposition is reported, what is reported? Almost invariably one small extract from his speech, not where he is critical of the Government, but where he supports the Government on a particular issue.

Sir, let us leave aside for a moment the news reports. Let us come to the discussions one hears on the S.A.B.C. I remember last year when there was a series of programmes on Sunday nights given by prominent members of the South African Bureau for Racial Affairs there were lengthy reports on their congresses and their activities and a general exposition of the policy of separate development. But, Sir, I have yet to hear a similar discussion on the activities and the congresses of the South African Institute for Race Relations, an equally responsible body consisting of equally prominent people, a body far older in its existence and in its work than the South African Bureau for Racial Affairs, a body which has international standing and, very often, speakers of international renown at its congresses. But never a word of that comes over the S.A.B.C. Sir, if that is not bias, what is? Let us take the Africa Institute, a body which, before I came into politics, I did not even know existed and I doubt whether ten per cent of the people of this country know that the Africa Institute exists. Sir, how often have I heard the Africa Institute quoted as an authority of African affairs over the S.A.BC.? But so deviationist was it recently that, according to the Press, the verkrampte group, which was at its head, was removed and people more amenable to the Government were put in its place. Sir, one gets this over and over again if one listens to the English-language programmes over the S.A.B.C.

Alleged.

That is the next point. Sir. The standard of English is absolutely appalling. The slang which is used, makes one’s flesh creep at times. Who is responsible for maintaining the standard? Sir, I take another point: Listening to the English service of the S.A.B.C. you would imagine that there was only an Afrikaner establishment in South Africa. But, Sir, there are two establishments.

Where are your English-speaking teachers?

When I say “establishment” I mean leaders in the business sphere, leaders in the intellectual sphere and leaders in the community sphere. There is an Afrikaner establishment. rightly so, and there is an English-speaking establishment, rightly so, but one almost never hears a discussion, an interview, with leading members of the English establishment on the English version of the S.A.B.C. Surely, Sir, this is an astonishing state of affairs, and one asks why this should be so if it does not arise out of bias.

Then I come to reports relating to activities in this Parliament. I think I have time to mention only one example. The tendency is that what is stated by a Minister is stated as fact and what is stated by the Opposition is stated as a mere allegation, not necessarily with a factual basis.

Hear, hear!

That is nonsense.

I can give an example. Sir, in relation to the Bill that we had taking away the power of the provinces to lax. That was presented from the Government’s point of view as being a Bill which did not detract from the power of the provinces. It was presented from the Opposition point of view as merely an allegation made by the Opposition that that was in fact so. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, is a member to whom we have always listened with great attention, because we know him as a very responsible member of this House. But now I am afraid that he has done that very good record of his great damage by his conduct in this House this afternoon.

Show where he was wrong.

I am coming to that. Unfortunately I do not have time to go into all the matters to which he referred, but I shall just refer to one matter. The hon. member made a big fuss in referring to the poor service rendered over the S.A.B.C. in English. What are the implications of that allegation by the hon. member? The implication is that the Afrikaans-speaking officials of the S.A.B.C. are not able to do their work properly.

That is not what he said.

I now ask the hon. member: Where are the English-speaking people? Why do they not come forward and offer their services in this particular sphere? I want to make the allegation here that the English-speaking people are not interested in this kind of profession because there is not enough money in this profession.

May I ask a question?

No, unfortunately I do not have time. The hon. member referred here very sneeringly to the actions of the Afrikaans-speaking people. One would really have expected him to stand up here this afternoon and say: “On behalf of the English-speaking community of this country we want to thank all the Afrikaans-speaking people who are doing that work for us at the S.A.B.C.”; then he would have acted in the proper way. But that he did not do.

Sir, the hon. member also referred in his opening remark to the fact that it sounds as if this side of the House is opposed to the introduction of television.

Where do you stand?

In making such a foolish remark he was being just as amusing as the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Orange Grove treated the committee to a good deal of entertainment this afternoon, but because I do not have the time and because I do not want to tune in to the same wavelength, I want to come to another matter which he touched upon in the course of his speech. But before refuting what he said I want to say this, and I want to address it to the hon. member for Zululand as well, who said that we were opposed to the introduction of television: what that side of the House said here this afternoon about television and the introduction of television only underlines once again the fundamental differences between the United Party and the National Party, for what, does the criticism directed at the National Party by the United Party boil down to? To nothing else than that we in this country must be prepared to sacrifice the religious, the national and the cultural heritage and aspirations of the White and the non-Write peoples in this country on the altar of the generally popular internationalism. That is the standpoint of the United Party. That is the difference. If we on this side express misgivings and if we urge caution, it is because we are concerned about the preservation of this heritage, which we as Whites in this country are proud of. There can be no doubt about this matter.

Because time does not allow me to go into it at greater length, I just want to direct the Committee’s attention in passing to a few matters in connection with cultural affairs. I want to start by saying that we want to extend our sincere congratulations to the new secretary of the department and all who are concerned in the new set-up in the department, on the splendid annual report on cultural affairs. It indicates that this department achieved very great success in the past year, as it did in the past.

I should like to draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to a few matters. In the first place I want to refer to the survey of association life, which is mentioned in the report. I think this is a splendid idea. I cannot enlarge upon it, but I just want to say that, if it is carried through successfully, it must lead to the enrichment of our cultural life in South Africa. I also want to ask whether it would not be possible for members of this House to have access to the processed information when it becomes available.

As regards financial support to writers in South Africa, Sir, you will recall that we have repeatedly pleaded for this in the past. We have even pleaded for greater support in this regard. We are grateful now that R2 400 is again being provided for this purpose this year, as in the past. I want to repeat that this is an excellent investment, an investment on which we shall one day receive the interest in a spiritual form. I want to ask, however, whether it is not possible to extend this form of assistance further. Can consideration not be given, for instance, to combining this assistance with something like the prose competition which was held during the Republican Festival, in order that the total assistance granted may perhaps be increased considerably?

While speaking about this, I want to say that we noticed last Monday at the Republican festival celebrations at Good-wood that only an Afrikaans-speaking person came forward to receive the Verwoerd Prize, which is awarded every five years. Now I should like to ask why such a prize was not received by an English-speaking person as well. I take it that such a prize is available to an English-speaking person as well. Am I to conclude from that that the English-speaking people were not interested in enriching our cultural life in this way? I wonder whether the hon. the Minister could enlighten us in this regard.

As far as camping sites and cultural centres are concerned, I want to ask the Minister to give very serious consideration to making such facilities available on the East Rand as well, just as elsewhere in the country. Let us not discuss the exact locality this afternoon, but just accept the principle that on the East Rand such a place where young people can meet should be erected on the East Rand as well. I must point out to you, Sir, that the population of the East Rand is increasing very rapidly, that we have certain problems which are characteristic of factory towns, and that we are really in very great need of such a centre or institution.

Then, in conclusion, I notice that only R100 is being voted for the acquisition of art treasures. I want to ask whether consideration cannot be given to increasing this amount in future, because it is a direction in which much can be done to stimulate our cultural life in South Africa.

My colleague, the hon. member for Zululand, was perfectly correct when he said that the hon. members for Germiston and Koedoespoort left us with a clear impression that they were in fact against the introduction of television. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Springs has put the record straight. He appears to be very much in favour of it, although he, too, has left us with the impression that he would like to see most of the normal programmes banned; he wants a limited range and only those things that would suit his particular ideological thinking. If he really wants that approach to be taken, he should point out to the hon. the Minister that he has made a mistake; he should not have gone in for colour television, but should have gone in for pure white television. One other remark of his does warrant a reply. That is when he replied to the criticism of the hon. member for Zululand about the standard of English on the S.A.B.C. How he came to interpret this as being a reflection on the Afrikaans-speaking members of the staff of the S.A.B.C., I do not know. All I can tell him is that he is talking nonsense when he suggests that English-speaking people are not interested in broadcasting. Of course they are. But I can tell him that as far as working for the S.A.B.C. is concerned, I can think of no responsible South African journalist who would undertake the task of writing such things as “Current Affairs’”.

Now' I want to turn to something else. Apart from what has been said on this side, we of the Opposition have made it clear that we do welcome the introduction of television, and what I want to say this afternoon I want to be accepted as being a reasonable attitude towards one aspect of its introduction which potentially might cause disruption to an established industry in South Africa, unless the position is carefully watched and an equitable approach is adopted. I refer, of course, to the likely impact of television on the newspaper industry. The Press will be affected detrimentally by the introduction of a commercial service here. Of that there is no doubt at all.

But television cannot drive a good journalist out.

Those who have studied the position abroad, particularly in countries that can be compared in some respects with the situation likely to obtain here—no exact parallels can of course be drawn—have detected definite trends in the effects of commercial television on the press. As a result, projections have been made which have produced a variety of results, which in turn have been followed by a number of suggestions which range fairly widely as far as South Africa is concerned. These have included the proposal, for instance, that the television service should be a non-commercial one. It is an interesting suggestion, but I submit that it cannot be taken any further at this stage because of the Government’s clear intention to introduce a commercial service. There have been proposals that newspaper companies should be allowed to acquire shares in the television undertaking. Again, this could be debated fruitfully, but the nature of the Government's announcement about the introduction of television, precludes this from being of more than academic interest at the moment. Also, there have been suggestions—and this has been done in other countries—that the newspaper industry might be compensated financially for its losses through the introduction of television, but again this is not something that we need to look at at the moment.

Then there is one approach that is feasible in the light of the Government’s plans, and that is that the quantity of television advertising should be limited by agreement on other grounds than the interest of the television viewers. It is in any event desirable that the commercial content, the advertising content, of the programme should not encroach too heavily on the viewing time. However, I make it plain that in speaking here this afternoon I am not looking at it from the point of view of the viewer so much as from the point of view of the newspaper industry which, as we all know, is a long established industry and a valuable part of the South African business scene, an industry indeed which ranks among the forefront of our service industries. Contrary to popular belief, experience abroad has shown that it is not the circulation of newspapers that makes them vulnerable with the advent of television, but the advertising revenue needed to support them. As hon. members know, most newspapers cost many times their selling price to produce and they rely heavily upon their advertising revenue for their financial buoyancy. The position of the newspaper industry in South Africa is particularly complicated in one respect, namely that the press is clearly and very sharply divided into two sections on language grounds and is likely to remain so. Many attempts have indeed been made to produce bilingual publications in this country but all have in fact failed, except in a few minor cases. This means that the press as an economic entity is fragmented with consequent division of effort in production, duplication of cost, diversification of revenue sources and inhibition of circulations. Television, with its novelty and other attractions, including the sophisticated know-how that we shall be able to acquire from overseas because of our late entry into the television field, will be a ruthless opponent of the press in terms of advertising revenue. I need only refer to the experience in countries such as France to say that its impact on the newspaper industry in economic terms will almost certainly be regulated only by the volume of commercial advertising that television is allowed to accept. In this regard I believe that the commission of enquiry has been over optimistic in its projection of the likely effect of television on the newspaper industry particularly when it suggests that a different consumer public will be reached by each separate medium. On page 37 of the report, for instance, it says: “… the need for advertising media is so great that the additional facilities that television will create would not necessarily mean that advertisements would be attracted away from the press…”. I suggest that that is not so. One has only to look at the reaction of some of the smaller newspapers in this country, such as Die

Vaderland, and Die Transvaler, to see how disturbed they are at the prospect of television.

While I mention newspapers such as these, I should like to point out that these newspapers rely very heavily on precisely the same sort of advertising revenue as will go in the direction of television. In 1969, for instance, Die Vaderland had 57 per cent national advertising and Die Transvaler 60 per cent as opposed to 41 per cent on the part of the Cape Times, 45 per cent on the part of the Rand Daily Mail, only 36 per cent for the Cape Argus and 31 per cent for the Natal Daily News. What the commission seems to have glossed over too lightly is that the advertising industry in this country is a highly mercurial industry subject to swift rises and falls in sympathy with the movement of the economy. Even this year we have had strong indications that the overall advertising revenue of newspapers is likely to drop as a result of the decreased economic activity.

In the little time still available to me, I simply want to say that magazines are likely to be even harder hit because they rely much more on the same type of advertising. I want to suggest that it is imperative that the hon. the Minister and the Government should endeavour to work as closely as possible with the whole newspaper industry in trying to work out some scheme of things that will ensure a fair deal for both. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if one is so satisfied with a report which has been produced, and if one speaks of it in such glowing terms as the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke about this television report today, I think one can at least make the gesture of goodwill towards the commission to thank it for its good work. Because the hon. member neglected to do this, but not only for this reason, I should like to express my sincere thanks to the commission for the thorough work done by it and for the really direction-giving report it has produced. In my opinion, the report of this commission has led to an historic decision. As a result it will also become an historic document. I should like to express my sincere thanks to everyone concerned with it.

Before I come to the discussion itself, I first want to rectify a matter which the hon. member for Orange Grove thought fit to mention here. Although I must admit that the hon. member reacted in a perfectly friendly way in regard to this matter this afternoon, he reacted considerably more sharply in a newspaper report. He said that the release of the report had been delayed deliberately. I should like to quote from the Eastern Province Herald of 29th April, in which the following report appeared:

It is stated in this report that these words were used by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member referred to that this afternoon as well. I therefore take it that he was correctly reported in this news-paper. I want to say to the hon. member that had it not been for my goodwill and co-operation, this report would not even have been tabled on the date it was in fact tabled. I shall tell hon. members why. Hon. members know the rules of this House and that it is customary to submit a report in both official languages. This report could not be translated in time to be tabled on an earlier date.

I would have translated it in a weekend.

On 26th April I spent the whole day at the Broadcasting Corporation in Johannesburg. I telephoned from the office of the Broadcasting Corporation and said that the report had to be tabled the next day. Instead of criticizing me. I think the hon. member should be grateful to me for having been given the opportunity of discussing this report this after-noon. The hon. member said that this report had gathered dust on the shelves for five months and that nothing had been done about it. I think it is clear from the debate conducted here that the hon. member for Orange Grove again spoke about matters of which he knows nothing or very little, as is usually the case. But we shall leave that there now. I hope I have now put the matter of the tabling of this report in the right perspective.

I should like to refer to one feature of the debate on the television report. one which I found rather amusing. This is the fact that the United Party so much likes to pretend that it was responsible for this I decision on television. The history of this decision is very interesting. It is true that over the past 20 years we have heard the United Party pleading for the introduction of television. That is correct. But the way in which it is now trying to pretend that it was responsible for this television decision, I really find amusing. The hon. member said here that a few years ago he had postulated five points and that this report proved that all five his points were correct and that they have been accepted as such. I can understand that the hon. member is so highly pleased about this, because if one reads the newspaper reports, one sees that they refer to him as the shadow Minister of Posts and Telegraphs and that the introduction of television is a personal victory for him. Therefore one can understand why he has a glow of satisfaction. Since the report of the commission on television was published, we have seen the hon. member for Orange Grove cackling, as he has done this afternoon again, like a hen which has laid an egg. If one had listened to the hon. member this afternoon, one would have sworn that the United Party had invented television. Unfortunately for the United Party, this history does not go back only to those five points mentioned by the hon. member, but it goes back much further. I should like to discuss that history for a moment. I want to inform hon. members that the television service we are going to get in South Africa, is going to be everything but the television service advocated by the United Party in the time that it has been in opposition. I want to take hon. members back into the past for a while. I want to remind hon. members that on 3rd September. 1946, to be exact, a commission of inquiry into broadcasting services was appointed under the old United Party Government. This was the so-called Schoch Commission. They had to investigate, inter alia, the request of the S A.B C. that commercial radio, the so-called “C” programme, should be introduced. What were the findings of that commission? 1shall quote from paragraph 166 of it—

Although they are trying to cover up the matter now and are trying to refer to the five points postulated by the hon. member, this remains the standpoint of the Opposition. The standpoint of the United Party in respect of the old “C" programme, or the present Springbok Radio, is the same as that expressed in the course of the debates conducted here on television since 1948, when the United Party landed in the Opposition benches. I have here the Hansard reports of some of the speeches. I shall refer only briefly to what was said about this matter. There is, for example. Dr. Gluckman, who was a prominent member of the United Party at the time. On 11th September, 1953, he said these are not his exact words, but this is what it boils down to and if the hon. member doubts my words I can read to him from Hansard —that there was no reason why television stations could not be erected in the larger centres. He came to the conclusion that television need be transmitted only in two of the country’s languages and that it could be intended only for the Rand and not necessarily for the whole country. I now come to Mr. Flippie Moore, the former member for Kensington. On 11th May, 1954 he said that private undertakings, and not the S.A.B.C., should introduce television. Furthermore, he said that the densely populated Witwatersrand could not wait until the sparesely populated Namaqualand could also be provided with a service. This was the standpoint of the hon. the Opposition at that time. Let us not refer to what Mr. Williams of Boksburg said and rather see what Mr. Marais Steyn said on 21st May. 1956. He also said he was in favour of television, but that it had to be managed by private initiative. He also said he was in favour of an advertising service. Let us rather leave Dr. Boris Wilson out of consideration, I do not think the hon. the Opposition would like to hear what he said. Let us rather listen to what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition said. He said that even the African states were outstripping us in the field of television and that we could not get what the African states already had. Of course we do not want what the African states are getting. This is a point which the hon. member for Durban Point also raised in the no-confidence debate at the beginning of this session. He said there were countries in Africa which would get television in the foreseeable future, while we did not know yet what was going to happen. We do not want the kind of television which the African States, or some of them, will get from the countries which give them financial aid and then exercise control over those radio and television stations.

Let us see what the hon. member for Orange Grove said. The hon. member said a commission of inquiry should be appointed to investigate the delay in the introduction of television. He said that the arguments of the then Prime Minister, the late Dr. Verwoerd, which had been quoted by the hon. member for Koedoespoort. were obsolete. The hon. member attacked the Government for its unwillingness to proceed with it. Even the hon. member for Bezuidenhout came forward with these objections. The point I want to bring home is that the hon. the Opposition’s standpoint in the past in respect of television, except for the inspirations the hon. member for Orange Grove had—and I wonder if he did not get them merely in order to protect himself when he had to speak about this matter—was consistently that they wanted to assign television to private initiative. It had to be assigned to a profit-making organization. No licence fees would be charged, because this is what is implied by commercial television. In other words, there would be no S.A.B.C. control at all. Fortunately for South Africa the National Party took over the government in this country in 1948. Fortunately the National Party could prevent the “C” service, or Springbok radio, from being assigned to private initiative, which the United Party wanted to do. In this way the Government can now also prevent television from being entrusted to private initiative which would exploit this country in the pursuit of profit as certain other countries in the world are being exploited.

The television service which South Africa is going to get, which the National Party Government is going to give to South Africa, is not the television service advocated by the United Party. The National Party is going to give South Africa a television service which, technically speaking, is going to be as good as the best in the world. Why am I saying this? I am saying it because we have the benefit of the research work which other people have done in this field. We are able to benefit from experiments which they have carried out and from mistakes for which they have paid dearly. I am saying this because we are taking time in order to plan this matter thoroughly. In spite of this, one pets the nonsensical argument from the hon. member for Orange Grove that we can introduce television much sooner. Of course we can introduce television much sooner, but then it would be the sort of television proposed by him and not the sort of television proposed by the National Party. Furthermore, the hon. member said that South Africa was the 119th country to get television and that 118 countries had already received it before us. I want to say that we have learned from the experience of most of those 118 countries which have received television before us. I want to read what Stephen Grenfell, a former BBC. commentator, wrote in the Rand Daily Mail of 19tb May in regard to this matter. He said—

Are we going to get communistic TV?

If the hon. member is so stupid, he may interpret it in that way. Grenfell continued—

For this reason I am saying that by virtue of this decision of the Government, South Africa is going to get a television service which, technically speaking, is going to be as good as the best available in the world. I want to go further and say that South Africa is going to get a television service of quality because experience has shown that as far as television is concerned, quality alone is the key to success. The moment the quality deteriorates, the success of such a service also diminishes. Therefore hon. members may rest assured that what South Africa is going to get will be a service of quality. In addition, we are going to get a service which will make use of the good it can obtain abroad, as we have always done thus far. because we are prepared to learn from the experience of others, but we are also going to get a service which will offer unlimited opportunities and possibilities to all our creative and performing artists. I think this is one of the reasons why the hon. member for Springs is feeling happy about this decision of the Government. I again want to quote what Stephen Grenfell, the B.B.C. commentator, said in regard to this aspect. He said—

This man, too, says that we should produce our own programmes, and this will be done. In the fourth place, we are going to establish a television service which is going to be a positive and responsible service, responsible towards South Africa and towards everybody who lives in South Africa has interests in South Africa. Hon. members may rely on it…

Is it going to differ from the present radio services in that respect?

Sir, the hon. member has tried to make us believe that he is virtually the inventor of television, and now he asks me whether it will differ from the broadcasting service. I think he should wait until he sees what happens and then he can express criticism, because he will remain critical anyway. Sir, I say we are going to get a positive, responsible service in South Africa. Whether some people want to know this or not, there remains a dominant element among Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking people in South Africa that is strongly conservative, men and women who still have a sense of values and who still are of the opinion that moral norms should be respected and that Christian values are higher than many other values in everyday life. I think we are fortunate that this is still the position in South Africa. This Government has proved on innumerable occasions that it is a government which stands for the retention of those values and also for the development of those values and that it is prepared to create circumstances in which those values can develop and flourish. This is what I mean when I say that we must have a responsible television service in South Africa; that we are going to get a television service which will take into account this spirit of healthy conservatism on the part of the vast majority of the people in this country, Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking alike. I can also read to hon. members from letters I have received from people who support the politics of that side of this House.

Sir, the hon. member for Orange Grove referred mockingly here to this programme advisory committee which will be established statutorily and which will exercise an advisory function in respect of the programmes of the S.A.B.C. I want to ask him to withhold his judgment for a while. Perhaps he will feel ashamed later when he sees what a useful purpose that committee is serving. Sir, this is the television service which this Government is going to introduce for South Africa, and I want to give South Africa the guarantee that as long as this Government is in power the principles I have set out here will be upheld in our country. If hon. members of the Opposition are opposed to these, they will have to try to replace this Government, because this position will not be changed in any other way.

Sir, I wish to come to the reaction to this decision of the Government. In genera] this decision has been very positively received by all bodies and persons in this country. I do not want to go into details now; it is not necessary, but I may mention to you, Sir, that it has been enthusiastically received by the churches. They also want to make use of it in their work. I can mention educationists to you; I can mention to you the heads of the film industry, the theatre owners, business leaders, industrialists and even the newspapers. In the initial stage all of them were enthusiastic about this decision of the Government.

Twenty years ago as well.

Sir, the only jeremiad we are getting is coming from the United Party. What is the United Party's reaction to this historic decision of the Government? I think I may summarize it in this way: The reaction of the United Party reflects another lost opportunity. Sir, here we are now starting on a completely new matter, a large and an important under taking, a new task which is going to call for a great deal of work, and constructive and positive work in particular. And what is the United Party’s reaction? The United Party is disparaging it in advance, without being aware of everything we are going to do and of how we are going to do it. Sir, in the days when I was still studying literature I had to do with a literary concept, “Der Geist der stets verneint"—the spirit that always negates. I must say that I did not understand it very well in those days, but looking at the hon. member for Orange Grove and after having listened to him, I see in front of me the embodiment of “der Geist der stets verneint”.

But he is a great spirit!

Sir, we on this side of the House are not sensitive to criticism, but I really want to plead with the hon. member and the Opposition that they should express positive criticism. Let us try to make this new start together in order that we may build something great and significant for this country.

I should now like to deal with a few of the more specific aspects that were raised. One of the major objections which the United Party has against the Government’s decision, is the transfer of the radio, and also of television, to the Department of National Education. Today the hon. member for Orange Grove referred to it once again, just as he also wrote about it in the papers. I do not wish to quote now everything he wrote, but he made the statement, for instance, that they were opposed to this transfer to the Department of National Education because it was going to create the possibility of indoctrination. Then he said in the same breath that they did not want these matters to be transferred, and that they belonged with Posts and Telegraphs. Now I ask you Sir: Can you remember how year after year the hon. member complained on the Posts and Telegraphs Vote about indoctrination when the S.A.B.C. still fell under that department? For heaven’s sake how will this matter be changed now? If television had remained under the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs would there in the hon. member’s opinion have been no indoctrination? Would there have been less indoctrination or would there have been more? Sir I think that the argument advanced by the hon. member is a ridiculous one.

Furthermore I want to tell the hon. member that the decision to transfer radio and television matters to my department was not a decision founded merely on thin air. It was a well-founded decision but the hon. member is of course echoing the opinions of the English-language newspapers. I have here an article which was published in the Sunday Times on 22nd November 1970. In that article this decision was called “Vorster’s new joke”. The hon. member was echoing the opinions expressed in that article for he said that this was a ridiculous decision. The Natal Mercury quoted him and according to that newspaper he said that television did not belong with my department as that merely created the opportunity for indoctrination.

Sir I should like to mention a few examples of other countries where the television and the broadcasting services have been integrated not under Posts and Telegraphs but in fact under the Minister of Cultural Affairs or the Minister of Education and in a few cases also under the Minister of Information. For instance in Canada there is a body “The Board of Broadcast Governors” which by law has special authority to control both the programme content of all stations and the type of advertisements That board was appointed by the Government in question.

In Canada it does not fall under the Department of Education.

I did not say that it fell under the Department of Education. I said “the Government”. In Belgium this service falls under the Minister of Cultural Affairs. Previously this service also fell under their Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. I ask you Sir whether you have ever heard this decision being called a ridiculous one in Belgium? I want to mention to you the case of the Netherlands where broadcasting now falls under the Minister of Social Welfare and Culture. I want to mention to you the case of Denmark where that Government appointed under the Minister of Cultural Affairs 18 councillors who control broadcasting there. Then I want to mention to you the case of Sweden and I also want to mention France where it falls under the Ministry of Information. And so I could go on. In Portugal it falls under the Prime Minister. But now this hon. member comes along with all the wisdom which he allegedly has at his command after so many years of experience of this Vole and he claims that this is a ridiculous decision.

What is the position in Sweden?

I am sorry that I have to take up the time of the House. In Sweden all public broadcasts fall directly under the Swedish Radio and a division has taken place there between the field covered by this company and that of the Board of Telecommunications. The former is responsible for the programmes and the latter for the technical facilities only just as the Post Office will do it here for us in this country. I say that this hon. member now comes along and calls this a ridiculous decision. Why did he not raise this point on the Prime Minister’s Vote? I was not the one who took the decision that it had to be transferred to my department: it is a decision that was taken by the Prime Minister and he could have debated it on the Prime Minister’s Vote. But as the hon. member for Germiston said in that debate he was crushed to such an extent that be did not have any breath left for dishing up this story of his as well. Now that he is getting his second wind he is trying to drag it into this debate.

I want to go further and I want to ask you this. The hon. member also referred to the Broadcasting Act, Act No. 22 of 1936 an Act which was made jointly by the United Party of that time and the National Party of today. I ask the hon. member whether he still stands by that Act.

The 1936 Act?

By section 12 of that Act of 1936 which the United Party and the National Party made jointly and in which television was stated to be one of the objects of the S.A.B.C.

I referred to that in my speech. After all it is a United Party Act.

The hon. member says he still stands by it. I am very pleased that he said that. I heard him saying so but I was keen to have it emphasized because in view of his interviews with the newspapers and in the light of the past history which I outlined of the United Party’s standpoint he can hardly lay any claim to that being their standpoint.

I also want to refer to what the present member for Kensington said here this afternoon i.e. that he still adopted the same attitude as did his predecessor Mr. Moore who was in favour of a commercial television service in South Africa. I think he hinted that he was also in favour of a commercial television service in which the Press had to have a share; for he is sitting in that back bench by virtue of inter alia his connections with the Press. I shall reply to his later question at a later stage. But I want to submit and with that I am concluding this part of my reply that the television service which this Government is going to introduce is something entirely different from the television service which the United Party always advocated in the past. We shall ensure that the interests of South Africa and the interests of the majority of our citizens, both male and female, on both sides of the language barrier and on both sides of the political barrier, will be served effectively.

Now I come to specific points raised by other hon. members.

What about Radio L.M.?

Yes, but have I not just said that I am coming to it? The hon. member talked so much rubbish that he cannot expect me to reply to everything in one breath. The hon. member asked a number of pointed questions about certain aspects. I have already dealt with the release of the report. He wanted to know, and he expressed criticism in that regard, whether there were any other aspects which had to be investigated. He wanted to know why the Minister did not accept the report, which was such a good report, and why he did not start with the task and get done with it. I want to ask the hon. member whether he accepts the report of the commission of inquiry in respect of the figure of a maximum of 10 per cent in regard to advertisements.

Basically, yes, but it must be less.

Therefore, he accepts it basically, but says it has to be less. I agree with the hon. member. The report does not say “ten per cent”, but “not exceeding ten per cent”. Therefore, the hon. member accepts that. But the hon. member for Kensington does not accept it. He wants the matter to be investigated further. He said that this was one of the facets which should receive the Minister’s further attention. Now the hon. member says, when he is a big shot in the Press, that there is no time for delay now, but that the Minister must hurry up and get done with television. I want to tell the hon. member that there are many aspects which must be investigated for the purposes of the kind of television service which this Government wants to introduce. I readily admit that the kind of television which he wants to introduce, can virtually be started tomorrow. The hon. member did not ask, but threw out his chest and said, “I demand”.

That was not his chest, but his stomach.

I should like to mention the names of the members of the Technical Advisory Committee, which consists of representatives of the bodies mentioned in the Government’s decision. Not all of these are organizations which are interested in television, as some bodies and persons have apparently assumed in error. The chairman of the committee is the representative of the S.A.B.C.. namely Mr. J. N. Swanepoel, Director-in-Chief, Management, with Mr. G. A. de Bruyn, Director: Administration, as his alternate. The other members are: On behalf of the Post Office, Mr. L. F. Rive, the Postmaster-General, as a representative, and Dr. C. F. Boyce, Chief Engineer of the Post Office, as his alternate; on behalf of the C.S.I.R., Dr. F. J. Hewitt. Vice-President of the C.S.I.R., as a representative, and Mr. R. V. Vice, Director of the National Institute for Telecommunications Research, as his alternate; from the South African Bureau of Standards, Mr. A. A. Middlecote, Director of the Department of Physics and Electronic Engineering, as a representative, and Mr. G. V. Meij, Chief Scientist in the Electronics and Acoustics Division, as his alternate; on behalf of the Armaments Board there are Mr. W. Lutsch, General Manager, as a representative, and Mr. D. W. Steyn, Manager of the Electrotechnics Di vision, as his alternate; on behalf of the I. D.C., Mr. M. T. de Waal, General Manager, as a representative, and Mr. W. C. van der Merwe, Assistant General Manager, as his alternate; on behalf of the Department of Commerce there are Mr. G. J. J. F. Steyn, Secretary for Commerce, as a representative, and Mr. T. F. van de Walt, as his alternate; on behalf of the Department of Industries there are Mr. J. J. Kitshoff, Secretary for the Department, as a representative, and Dr. L. W. A. Nel, Senior Industrial Adviser, as his alternate; on behalf of the Department of National Education, there are Dr. J. T. van Wyk, the Secretary, as a representative, and Mr. P. Grobbelaar, Director of Cultural Affairs, as his alternate; finally, on behalf of the Human Science Research Council there are Mr. H. J. Barnard, director of the Institute of Communications Research, as a representative, and Dr. J. D. Venter, Vice-President of the Council, as his alternate.

That disposes of the matter of the committee. I want to emphasize once again (hat the Technical Advisory Committee has a great deal of essential and urgent work to investigate, and that the hon. member should have no elusions about the fact that the report of the committee is comprehensive enough to cover all these matters. I want to tell the hon. member that there are differences of opinion on certain matters. For instance, there is the question of television. The hon. member asked here this afternoon: Why the delay? He said that only R50 million, spread over four years, was being provided, and now the Government was coming forward with all sorts of excuses when priorities were being determined. What with all the interviews which the hon. member has had with the newspapers, he is a very popular man at present. I now want to tell hon. members what kind of comparison the hon. member draws in the Press, and then it will be possible to assess what kind of shadow-minister he is. I am going to quote from the Sunday Times of 2nd May, 1971, in which the hon. member said the following about the question of priorities—

He was referring there to the previous stage—

Now, this is the kind of member the hon. member for Orange Grove is when these matters are discussed. He could just as well have said, “or another new Cadillac for the U.P.-controlled City Council of Cape Town, which costs twice as much as did any of the Ministers’ Cadillacs”. He could also have used this example. But the hon. member’s political level is so low that I want to leave him at that. I do not have much confidence in his judgment. Let me give him the opinion of a person on whose judgment one can in fact rely. I am referring to Dr. A. D. Wassenaar. On 24th March the following report on Dr. Wassenaar’s opinion was published in this regard (translation)—

If the hon. member for Orange Grove wanted to act in a responsible manner, he could have compared this decision with these things that were mentioned by a person such as Dr. Wassenaar. But, no!

If we have to wait until you have done all those things, we shall never get television.

The difference is that in every debate in which he takes part— he is sitting in the front benches and gets many turns to speak—the hon. member assumes to himself the right to make demands on why this is not being done and why that is not being done. He wants all of these things and television as well. And, what is more, he wants all those things at the same time. That is the trouble with the hon. member. And if he cannot get these things, he acts in an irresponsible manner.

Another matter was raised here, namely the co-operation with Radio L.M. The hon. member said he did not believe that this was merely a commercial enterprise. Well, we know him as a negatively critical person. I am not astonished at his not believing it. Previously a Johannesburg firm acted as the commercial managers, for Radio L.M. Springbok Radio has now taken the place of that firm, Now I ask the hon. member whether he believes that the previous agent which Radio L.M. had, also did or had something else, of which he was not aware and which he now suspects the S.A.B.C. will do or receive?

I content myself with the announcement which Springbok Radio sent to its advertisers in order to warn them that they should not conclude with Radio L.M. any contracts for periods exceeding one year, since Springbok Radio would as from next year act as the commercial managers for Radio L.M.

Must they, therefore, do it through Springbok Radio?

No. I want to Save the House time, but I shall read out to the hon. member the letter which Sprinbok Radio sent in regard to Radio L.M. to all the advertisers. The letter read as follows—

Music?

No. The letter went on to say—

The hon. member also tried to poke fun at the draft programme for television, which he held up here and which he had obtained from a newspaper. He also linked up with that the fact that the same newspaper bad complained about the doom of the S.A.B.C. and the Minister being closed to them. I want to tell hon. members— and I want to do so emphatically that nothing is further removed from the truth than that very statement. My door has never been closed to any person, not even to a Pressman.

Your door is closed to questions in Parliament on the S.A.B.C.

In this Parliament I have always replied to intelligent and sensible Questions which are relevant. In fact, I think the record will prove this. The draft programme, which the hon. member tried to make ridiculous, was sent to tenderers for the studios, which the S.A.B.C. has to have constructed for its television service. It forms part of a tender document and, what is more, it is a document on which copyright is reserved. The hon. member himself knows what the copyright legislation provides. In spite of that the newspaper which now c1aims that our door is closed to it. published that document without permission.

Are you going to take steps against them?

No, I do not intend taking any steps against them, but I just want to bring this matter to the notice of the hon. member. Furthermore, I just want to point out that if this is the kind of treatment which my department receives from newspapers, they should not expect my door to remain wide open to them. Then I also want to mention a case with which we had to deal in connection with the release of this report. The morning before that report was tabled, I allowed journalists access to that report. From 9 o’clock, half-past nine, to 2 o’clock that afternoon, they were afforded an opportunity of studying that report. To my regret everybody did not justify the trust I put in them. I am telling them again that my door is open to them, but I am playing the same game with them as they are playing with me.

Another matter that was raised, was the question of the medium-wave tower in use in Pretoria. In reply to a question I said that the Inspector of Labour had condemned that mast because it was regarded as being dangerous. It was therefore impossible to carry on with a service from that mast, as the mast was dangerous and had to be demolished.

Did the hon. the Minister not just tell me: “Yes, it is a domestic matter; the mast became unsafe.”? The hon. the Minister said nothing about the Department of Labour.

That is still the same. The masts that are erected, must also be certified as being safe by the Inspector of Machinery and Factories. The report of the inspector stated that that mast was unsafe and that it had to be brought down. That is the reason. Now the hon. member wants to know what is going to become of that set-up. I want to tell the hon. member that the land does not belong to the Broadcasting Corporation. It is being leased. At this stage it is not possible for me to say what is going to become of it, since consideration is still being given to steps which will arise from that.

Is the land being leased from a private body or person?

Unfortunately I cannot reply to that question, but if the hon. member were to put it, I could try to obtain a reply to it.

I should like to come to the points raised by the hon. member for Zululand. I want to say that he acted in a much more responsible spirit. I was somewhat disappointed at his not having been more specific on the standard of English allegedly broadcast on the S.A.B.C. He did not state clearly whether he meant the standard of English used by the English-sneaking announcers or the standard of English used by the Afrikaans-speaking announcers.

I referred to the use of slang.

The use of slang by whom—by the English-speaking announcers, or the Afrikaans-speaking announcers?

I spoke specifically about the English language broadcasts; it is the scriptwriter who is at fault.

Yes, but English is also spoken by Afrikaans announcers. Scripts are drafted by Afrikaans and English scriptwriters.

I am not speaking of the ad libbing: I am speaking of the man who is reading from a script.

I would find it a pity if this were an insinuation that the standard of the English of Afrikaans-speaking announcers was inadequate.

I never said that.

No, I say “if"; I very clearly say “if”.

Don’t try to twist.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw, Sir.

On a point of order, Sir…

Order! The hon. the Minister may continue.

But, Mr. Chairman, on a point of order…

The CHAIRMAN; What is the point of order?

You have asked the hon. member to withdraw that word.

And he has.

I need guidance there, because I think that that word has been accepted in this session as acceptable on more than one occasion.

I have given my ruling. The hon. the Minister may proceed.

I accept that the hon. member referred to the standard of English in general terms. I want to tell him that the Broadcasting Corporation has language advisers. They really take trouble to use the best language possible. But the hon. member will admit that, even if he listens to English-language members in this House, their language, too, is often tinged with slang here and there. One can also accept this if it comes from Afrikaans-speaking persons whose first language is not English. I can tell him that the Broadcasting Corporation is doing everything in its power. Hon. members on my side made the point that we would welcome it if more English-language persons would come forward and offer their services to the South African Broadcasting Corporation. That would satisfy us to a large extent.

May I put a question? Is there a shortage of English-language recruits to the English-language service of the S.A.B.C.?

At the moment there is no shortage. However, the position varies with time. People come and go all the time. As the service expands, and once a start has been made with a television service, a much bigger staff will be required. It would be a good thing if English-speaking persons also took an interest in careers in that sphere, because there are great possibilities for them.

Why do so many of them resign?

That hon. member, who is now pretending to be so pious, should remember that people in the service of the Broadcasting Corporation do not receive the same salaries as those employed in the private sector. It is an undertaking which cannot always compete with commerce and industry outside. What is more, these are select people, and the kind of person who is selected for the work of the S.A.B.C., is also the kind of person whom industry and commerce are keen to recruit as their representatives and public relations officers. It is for this reason that there is a constant shortage of staff.

I want to deal with one more point that was raised by the hon. member for Zululand. He said that there was an imbalance in the programmes and that the Afrikaans undertakings, the Afrikaans speakers, and the Afrikaans organizations received more publicity than did the English ones. He also complained about the news service. I wonder whether one reason for this could not perhaps be that the hon. member is listening too often to the Afrikaans-language broadcasts merely for the purpose of trying to extract poison from them, and that he does not listen to the English broadcasts to hear what is being said there. For instance, he complained about the fact that both of Cape Town’s newspapers reported the Agliotti affair on their front pages today, whereas the Broadcasting Corporation presented completely different news items. Does the hon. member not realize that the radio is a much faster news medium than are the newspapers, and that the radio did report the Agliotti affair in their news broadcasts yesterday afternoon as well as yesterday evening? As far as they are concerned, the Agliotti affair is stale news. The hon. member ought to know that. I just want to tell the hon. member that I am taking cognizance of what he requested. He conceded that I had been given this additional responsibility only a short while ago, and it is proper and right that one should have regard to these things. I undertake to keep an eye on the course taken by these matters in the future. However, we should remain objective in our judgment, and if we criticize, as the hon. member did this afternoon, we should criticize constructively. That would help both of us to make progress.

The hon. member for Kensington referred to the possibility of television having an adverse effect on the Press. Of course, the report itself deals with this aspect. I have already said that I find it strange that the hon. member for Orange Grove accepts the report, and therefore the maximum of ten per cent in respect of advertising time as well, whereas the hon. member for Kensington is not satisfied with it. By saying this, I think I have already made the point I wanted to make. I merely want to tell the hon. member for Kensington that a deputation of the N.P.U. visited me and that I listened to what they had to say in regard to this matter, I requested them to submit to me a new memorandum, which I have already received. I promised them that that memorandum would be studied by the Technical Advisory Committee, and that I myself would also give attention to it as soon as I had the time to do so. I think the hon. member may therefore rest assured that we shall not proceed precipitately as far as this matter is concerned.

I still have to deal with a few points that were raised by the hon. member for Springs. I shall not reply to them now, for they have a bearing on cultural affairs, a matter with which I shall deal at a later stage. Once this debate has been resumed, I shall deal with them. I need therefore not refer any further to the television report. I am very grateful for the support I received from the hon. members for Germiston, Koedoespoort and Springs, and also from hon. members on the opposite side, although some of them were rather negative in regard to this matter. I want to conclude by making this appeal to hon. members, i.e. that we should undertake this matter of television in a good spirit and that we should really make something attractive and something good out of it, because it is in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour? I would like to start by referring to the comments made by the hon. member for Zululand about the decline in the use of the English language in various quarters. I would like to refer particularly to the annual report for 1970, issued by the Department of Cultural Affairs, which is now part of the Minister’s department, in the name of the Secretary for Education. I would like to congratulate him on his frankness in dealing with this subject and say that we are a little bit concerned with the statements which are made here. On page 13 the Secretary of the Department under the heading “English Section” says—

Then he goes on to say how they collected material in order to find out where the errors lie and then he says this—

Sir, that is a very serious statement indeed dealing with matriculation and graduate standard of education. Then the Secretary goes on to say this, and this is why I raise it here—

That is precisely why I quote that here, Sir. This suggests very clearly the need for a departmental investigation into the standard of English in our schools, particularly in the secondary schools. I think this is a project to which the Human Sciences Research Council could be asked to give some attention.

I entirely endorse the anxiety felt by the Secretary for Education and I would just like to give the hon. the Minister a few examples of the kind of thing that we have to put up with every single day of the week here in the House of Assembly with regard to this question of English usage. If you take the Order Paper, Sir, which appears on our desks every day, and if you just look at the Order Paper of 3rd March, you find a whole list giving the Orders of the Day: “Water Amendment Bill.” “Aliens Amendment Bill”, “Aged Persons Amendment Bill”, “Blind Persons Amendment Bill”, “Fencing Amendment Bill”, “Seeds Amendment Bill” and “Forest Amendment Bill”. Mr. Chairman, it simply is not possible in terms of the English language to amend such things as prisons, fences and old people: it is rubbish; it is not even elementary English. You cannot amend seeds and fences and forests and water—of course not! What we are concerned to amend here are Acts of Parliament. I make this point deliberately because it is relevant to the statement made by the Secretary tor Education in his report that the standard of English in the Public Service is not adequate and that something has to be done about it. All that is required in each case by the public servant who is responsible for the drafting of our Order Paper is simply to insert one word in each of these items appearing amongst the Orders of the Day: The “Water Act Amendment Bill”, the “Aliens Act Amendment Bill", the “Aged Persons Act Amendment Bill", and so on.

Order! The hon. the Minister is not responsible for drafting this Order Paper.

I know, Sir, but the hon. the Minister, through the department, is responsible for seeing that the standard of English in our senior schools and our universities is sufficiently high to ensure, when it comes to people employed in this House, that they are able to use it correctly.

Order! That has nothing to do with the Order Paper.

And if they are not available?

I was going to quote another example, but if I am not entitled to do that, I would simply like to quote from a very famous English writer called George Orwell, who pointed out what should be obvious to everybody and is certainly obvious to every teacher “that sloppy language makes for sloppy thought”, and that is something that we cannot afford in this House.

Why do you pick on our own officials?

Well, Sir, the hon. member is being most unfair. Language is a matter of communication and should surely be both accurate and precise, particularly in this House. We are concerned and we are perfectly entitled to be Concerned.

Why not give another example?

I can give the hon. member another example but the Chairman has ruled me out of order, so I am not entitled to do it. The point I want to make with the hon. the Minister is that he can use his considerable influence, if he chooses, to see that the recommendations contained in his Secretary’s report are properly carried out with regard to the use of the English language in this House. Some of us happen to care about it and we make no bones about it in saying so. I am not prepared to sit and read bad English every day of the week in this House. Why should I, or any other member?

Order! The hon. member is reflecting on officials of this House.

I am reflecting on the standard of English, Sir.

The hon. member knows the procedure if she wants to criticize the officials of this House. She may not do it in this way.

I am not concerned to criticize personalities. Sir, I want to go back and refer for a moment to the report of the Commission of Inquiry into matters relating to television, and specifically to paragraph 45, which refers to paragraph 135 of the main body of the report. This is what it says—

It then goes on to say that the Broadcasting Act should therefore provide that all radio and television services should have a Christian and a broad national character. Then they say this—

Sir, this means of course that the Broadcasting Act must be amended, according to that paragraph, to line up with the National Education Policy Acts of 1967 and 1969.

May I say that I take a very poor view of the fact that the hon. the Minister’s department saw fit to table only this afternoon, before we came into this House, the report of the Statutory Committee of Educational Heads. We only saw it this afternoon, just after lunch. They have specific recommendations to make in this report as to how these programmes should be set up and how they should be controlled and they make three main points which are very interesting, linking education with this television service. They say that the programmes must be drawn up in consultation with representatives of the Education Department; that videotapes may also be prepared by education departments and possibly also by private concerns. Then they say that the selection of videotapes to be used in schools must rest with the Education Department. Sir, that is only a recommendation and I would like to know from the hon. the Minister to what extent he is prepared to commit himself as to whether he is going to accept those recommendations or not. Perhaps he can tell us, in terms of the functioning of the whole system, how the control by his Education Department over these programmes will be implemented with regard to the powers of the existing public utility corporation known as the S.A.B.C. at present I would like to know this, because it does not only concern programmes in school; it concerns the entire television service. I would like to know what machinery the hon. the Minister has in mind in that regard.

Apart from the bad use of English, I am talking now about the extent to which ideas can be used or abused by the Minister and his department in the course of compiling such programmes. If this Minister thinks that we are very concerned about the Government's determination to use TV or any other medium for their own propaganda purposes, I shall tell him that he is quite right. We are concerned about it. The Department of National Education is not the only channel in this Government where what are known as “norm-conscious officials” —what a ghastly term that is!—

Now that sounds fine, Sir. Nobody could disagree with that. But then it goes on to say—

It is perfectly normal and right for them to do these things—

201C;Personal relations”, of course, means “race relations” here. That is the only context in which Nationalists understand this phrase. Then there is also the “dangers of communism”. Can hon. members tell me what the Minister of Sport and Recreation and his department have to do with race relations in the first place, and with the dangers of communism in the second?

They are personal, and not race, relations.

Those hon. members only mean one thing when they talk about “personal relations”. They know perfectly well what they mean when they use this term. Sir, matters have reached such a stage that the official education journal of the Transvaal, in its January 1971 issue, contained a 2½-page section of blatant propaganda programmes envisaged by Sabra for South African youngsters throughout 1971. They made absolutely no secret of their motivation, nor of where they stood politically in this regard. I would like to quote briefly from this publication. I have it here, and hon. memberes must bear in mind that this is an official publication of the Transvaal Education Department. It states—

That is politics,

Yes, that is politics, It is not education at all. The article continues—

It then goes on to say—

It then goes on to say that these are available to the schoolchildren. That is all right, but it ends with the following comment—

Hear, hear!

Yes, it continues—

[Interjections.] Yes, and then hon. members say it is not race relations. Sir, a list of organizations is given which are to work through Sabra and the Department of National Education. The list includes—

The list goes on and on. And, finally, we find the Transvaalse Onderwysersvereniging and the Nasionale Raad teen Kommunisme. What has that to do with the youth? And listen to this: “Die Koordinerende Raad van Suid-Afrikaanse Vakverenigings”. What has that to do with the youth? [Interjections.] And then they finally say, and this is in an official publication, issued in conjunction with and with the approval of the department—

Now, if that is not blatant politics, I do not know what is. When the hon. the Minister was asked in this House about the conference that was held in Robertson in April, and was asked to give some justification for the department’s approval of it and for the subsidization of that conference to the tune of R2 400, the Minister stated as his object, and I quote here from his reply in the House—

Well, of course, in so many words that means the Nationalist attitudes towards issues of colour, and nothing else. I make the point that that is not the task of the Department of Education. [Interjections.] The Institute of Race Relations has now announced that they intend having a series of conferences as well. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister when their answers come back to their questionnaire and they present the other side of public thinking on this matter, whether his department will subsidize the Institute of Race Relations, to the tune of R2 400 for the purpose, if they need it, and whether they will have access to all school buildings for the purpose of holding these conferences, and all the other assistance which was given to the Nationalist-orientated organization in the first place.

Now, I am sorry, but I am not going to leave this question of playing politics in the schools. It is time that a stop was put to it. Nothing short of getting this Government out will ever do it, but we have a duty to bring it to your attention, Sir. In the field of history teaching, the position is very much worse. I want to refer here to Prof. Van Jaarsveld's book, the new illustrated History for Std. 8. Prof. Van Jaarsveld, as the Minister knows, is the Professor of History at the Randse Afrikaanse Universiteit. Now, this book has for some time now been compulsory for all secondary and high schools throughout the Republic. Hon. members know that I reviewed it for the Sunday Times on 28th February. But since the Education Department is now rapidly becoming a propaganda machine for the Nationalist Party, I want to draw attention to certain aspects of this history book here in the House. Eighty per cent of the book is devoted to what is called “the history of our fatherland”. Under normal circumstances in any country of the world, in any history book in the world, there is a recognized and accepted gap of plus-minus 50 years, half a century, before dealing with history as history with regard to your own or any other country. [Interjections.] That is done for the very obvious reason that it takes a period of about 25 to 50 years for an objective view to be obtained by anybody writing about our own country. [Interjections.] One would have little quarrel with the history of our fatherland in principle being written and taught to our children from even an early date—and I make this proviso—if these pages were not devoted, as they are, exclusively to an exposition of present-day Nationalist Party policy towards people of colour in South Africa. Anyone who read that book will know that it is in fact a piece of blatant and unqualified praise for every single thing the present Government has done in this field. In this debate, which is an educational debate, that is not history, but party politics and indoctrination pure and simple. The general public in South Africa are getting thoroughly tired of it. I would not have raised this matter if I had not received so many letters from teachers, mainly as a result of the review which appeared in the Sunday Times. May I just say that no mention is made in that history book, which is now compulsory in those senior standards, from 1948 onwards of the existence of any other political party or even any other section of opinion existing in this country other than that of the Government.

Is that what it is really about—because the United Party is not mentioned?

This is not history. Forget about the United Party; it does not matter what the government in power happens to be; this is not history in an academic sense, and the hon. member ought to be ashamed of himself. In the 80 per cent of the book which is devoted to our fatherland, no single aspect of the Republic’s complex problems is mentioned at all. The children are led to believe that all is well and superbly directed and controlled in the best interests of all, in a Nationalist world controlled by the Nationalist Government. It is a form of manipulation and deception of the minds of our children and I would say that it does the country in the long term the greatest possible harm.

Just give me the name of the book.

I gave you the name of the book. It is called “A New History”. It is by Prof. Van Jaarsveld of the Rand Afrikaanse University. I want to say that the whole of chapter 13 is devoted to what is called “the non-Whites in the Republic of South Africa”. Four short paragraphs cover the whole history of the non-Whites in South Africa from the day of the occupation of the Cape to 1948, in other words four paragraphs cover 350 years. The whole of section II of chapter 13 reads like any Nationalist Party election handbook, under the headings “A New Deal for the Bantu since 1948”, “The Policy of Separate Development”, "Bantu Self-government in the Transkei" and “The Bantu in the Reserves, in the Cities and on the Farms”. This is true to Nationalist tradition, of which we have had so much over the years. This book represents a deliberate attempt to mould the thinking of South Africa's youngsters in the image of the Nationalist Party. May I say that it may make hon. members angry, but no communist party could have done it better or set about it with greater determination than hon. members who are responsible for it, have done.

In spite of all that, they are losing ground.

I want to quote very briefly from one of the letters I have received from a teacher about this matter. The teacher is very distressed indeed and says—

Have you read it?

I beg your pardon. I have read it from cover to cover. The teacher then goes on with a lot of criticisms, which are very sound—

What this means in so many words—I regret to say this to the hon. the Minister —is that the Department of Education has joined forces with a pro-Government political organization with pro-Government individuals and the hon. the Minister has sanctioned the use of his department, its finances and facilities, for party political purposes and he cannot deny it. This is an intolerable state of affairs and the hon. the Minister owes an explanation to the South African public on those grounds. Now we are told that this same department of his is to have virtual control of the programme-planning content of all our T.V. programmes, which in turn will almost certainly be open to a similar abuse of his powers for purposes of political manoeuvring and propaganda.

On 2nd February this year, the hon. the Minister gave this House a list of education institutions which need T.V. All private closed-circuit licences are to be controlled by his department. But a whole number of educational institutions already have television. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the contents of these programmes will be closely watched by members of his department and whether they will be subject to inspection and analysis by these so-called “norm-conscious” officials. I would love to meet a norm-conscious official who does not think the way the Nationalist Party thinks. It is no good for the hon. the Minister to reply to me and say that these matters of inspection of the contents of school programmes on television will be referred to little committees of educational experts, because all these people—we have had this so often in the past—whom the hon. the Minister will appoint, will be buddies of his, thinking exactly the same way. We have had so much of it that we are accustomed to it in every field of Government in this country at the present time.

What interests me very much is that we are worried about the objectivity of these television services. I would like to know to what extent section 24 of the original Broadcasting Act of 1936 will be adapted to cover statements made by politicians, because section 24 (g) lays down that “the name of every member of a political party by whom any political speech is broadcast. the name of the party of which he was the representative, the time allowed for the broadcast of his speech and the hour at which the broadcast took place" should be given in the company’s report. I would like to know whether this has ever been done. I have never seen a list to date. To my knowledge, that section of the Act has never been carried out. But the interesting thing is that when the debate took place in this House in 1936, who should raise the question of political propaganda by politicians but the famous Nationalist, for whom I have a great respect, the hon. Mr. Paul Sauer. On 29th April, 1936. he said, I quote from Hansard, column 2728—

How little he knew what would happen when his own party got in power! He went on to say—

He went further and said—

How the hon. members’ views have changed since the days when Mr. Paul Sauer sat in this House! Then the United Party Minister in charge of the Bill, in reply to the debate, dealt with the question of the Board of Governors and said the following—

That was said by the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs on the United Party side when the Bill was introduced. He was introducing safeguards to prevent this. How history has come true when Mr. Paul Sauer himself warned against this. I want to ask the hon. the Minister here and now whether he will give us a guarantee that when television is introduced, the Opposition parties will be given equal time to that of the Government for appearances.

This hon. Minister in introducing television has a chance second to none to reform the whole scene. He can reform the whole scene if he has the courage to do it and provided that he is not subject to too many pressures from the big boys on his side. I just want to say what our approach is towards teaching and towards indoctrination. One of the responsibilities of schooling and of higher education has always been, as far as we are concerned, to prepare young people to find their own way in an adult world. I repeat: They have to find their own way. In any community which purports to accept the idea of individual responsibility and of liberty of conscience and so on. this must mean helping and encouraging our young people to have minds of their own and to think for themselves. In spite of all the Government’s efforts to the contrary, the young people of South Africa are beginning to think for themselves more than ever before. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman. for 294 of her 30 minutes the hon. member for Wynberg gave a pathetic exhibition of negative thinking. It is a sad day if this is all the United Party has to tell the people outside in a debate or rational education. Once again we heard the ghost voice from the days of Milner and imperialism. The hon. member forgets that she is still living in a bygone age. She complains about the propaganda in schools and says the policy of this party is being advocated to school-children. This she calls propaganda, but it is in actual fact history. This party has been in power for 23 years and will remain in power for a very long time to come. May nothing concerning the achievements of the National Party ever be written in the history books? This party has rewritten the history of South Africa and is still doing so. For centuries our struggle has been one against imperialism, and it is this party that terminated that struggle.

The termination of that struggle by this side of the House culminated in our becoming a Republic, and at present it is writing a new book. Must this be kept from our children? Surely it would be a glaring injustice to our children and to our young people if this were not allowed to be recorded in history books. That hon. member is living in a bygone age, and it is pathetic to listen to a person, a so-called intelligent person, who is so absolutely negative in her approach, who is so absolutely incapable of putting forward anything positive. For 10 seconds only did she try to put forward something positive. Then she went on to criticize the standard of English in schools, in the Public Service and even of officials of this House. Surely she knows why this is the position. She ought to know it as well as I do. For the past 30, 40 or 50 years, the Afrikaner teacher has had to carry the English language. The hon. member may go to the English-medium schools to see who is teaching the English-speaking children in those schools today.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, the hon. member has had her chance. She wasted the time of this House for 30 minutes. The hon. member may go to the high schools to see who the teachers are. Who has been teaching the English-speaking child—not even to mention the Afrikaans-speaking child—his language during the past 50 years? It was the Afrikaner teacher! I should say that hon. member ought to…

Speak up. I cannot hear you!

Switch on your hearing aid if you cannot hear me.

I should say that that hon. member does not like to hear the truth. That hon. member ought to get up here and thank the Afrikaner teacher for the fact that these people are still able to speak the English language at all. We do not have anyone else to thank for this; it is thanks to the Afrikaner.

I should like to express a few ideas concerning the financial aid to the universities. I should like to express my thanks to the Government for the enormous amount which is being provided yet again in this year’s Estimates for financing our universities. It is an amount far in excess of R69 million and it is R12 million more than the amount which appeared in last year’s Estimates. We are very grateful for that. We are very proud of our universities because the necessary financial means are being provided by the Government. I think this figure represents approximately 4 per cent of the global sum appearing on the Estimates. Therefore, this is a fine contribution. We must accept that it is also a great sacrifice on the part of the people to part with these large amounts for university training every year. According to my calculation the unit costs per student at our 10 residential universities amount to approximately R1 200 per year, which is a large amount. This calculation does not even include the capital expenditure of the universities. Because university training is expensive training, it is necessary for us to pay close attention to the quality of students who enrol at universities and, in the second place, to the activities of students enrolled at universities. In paying attention to the quality of students, we should perhaps consider effecting such changes to our whole pattern of education that we shall have a system of very thorough testing and guidance so that the child may, at an early stage already, be guided in the direction of differential education, which will allow of such a child studying according to his aptitude, his ability and intellectual capacity in the direction which suits him. Differential education should be applied at a reasonably early stage already. In this way one will be able to ensure that the pupil who has an aptitude for academic subjects and who will eventually be able to apply himself at university, will get to a university. Unfortunately it has become a status symbol to many of our people simply to send children to university. In this way children get to university, children who in actual fact do not feel at home there and who cannot, what is more, do justice to the courses they have to follow. They would have been able to render far greater service to the country and make themselves far happier if, for example, they had studied at a technical college. This is a matter which, according to the report of the National Education Council, is enjoying attention and in respect of which progress has been made. I trust we shall have the courage and the conviction to effect the necessary adjustments to our system of education so that we shall be able to introduce that system of differentiated education when it has been fully considered.

The second aspect concerning our university students is the activities of some of them. Because the Government is sub-sidizing, as it were, every student to the tune of between R1 000 and R2 000. the authorities may surely expect every student to devote his time to work, study and research, So that he will be able to make his contribution to the economy of the country as soon as possible. Unfortunately there are large groups of students at some of our universities today who do not do so. There are those who occupy themselves with strikes and protest marches. There are those who vociferously indicate their support for terrorist movements against the White nations of Southern Africa; there are those who support arms boycotts against South Africa; there are those who despise and reject our national symbols, for example, our flag and our Republic; there are those who associate themselves with the enemies of our country, and who invite a man like Ramsey Clark to South Africa, a man who is not considered fit to address a group of high school pupils in his own country because of his leftist inclinations. He is brought here by these people. There are those who unashamedly and rudely walk out of houses to which they have been invited, because a party is not a mixed one, and who then persuade the enemies of South Africa to start an agitation against our country in order to destroy our way of life here. We should pay attention to this type of student and the activities of such students, because we cannot subsidize them to occupy themselves at universities with the destruction of the existing order and the South African way of life. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is a pity that the hon. member for Wynberg is not here at the moment. The hon. member for Algoa pointed out to her that it was the Afrikaans-speaking teacher who had over all these years carried English as a language in South Africa. At that stage she said by way of interjection that the English-speaking section of the population represented 40 per cent of the total population. However, I want to add now that in respect of teacher training in the Transvaal the number of English-speaking persons who want to qualify for that profession, does not even amount to 20 per cent. What is actually the most shocking thing to me, is that she did not even say here and that she did not want to admit that there was neglect of duty on the part of the English-speaking section of our population. I should now like to put a question to the next English-speaking United Party member who rises here. I saw that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout wanted to rise a moment ago, and it is a pity that the next speaker will not be an English-speaking member. However, the hon. member should tell the English-speaking section of our population that they are neglecting their duty in respect of education; he should appeal to them to come forward and to contribute their rightful share for the sake of South Africa.

However, it is in respect of another matter that I want to say a few words. The establishment of the Rand Afrikaans University three years ago met a really great need, if regard is had to the fact that during the three years of its existence the number of enrolled students at that university has more than doubled itself. This university is really a credit to the Afrikaner community on the Witwatersrand. However, I should like to say a few words about the establishment of an engineering faculty at the Rand Afrikaans University. Two years ago, on the instructions of the Government, an enquiry was made into the desirability of establishing additional engineering faculties, except at the five existing universities, namely those of the Witwatersrand, Pretoria, Natal, Cape Town and Stellenbosch. I think that if there is one matter on which we are all agreed, it is that there is a real shortage of engineers in South Africa and that the existing faculties cannot produce a sufficient number of engineers for the existing and annually growing needs of South Africa. I want to say now that it really was a disappointment to me, and also to the Afrikaner community on the Witwatersrand, when we had to hear last year that the Government had decided not to approve of new engineering faculties, being established but to give preference to the extension of the staff and the facilities at the existing faculties. I want to add, though, that approval was in fact given to first and second year courses in engineering being offered at universities where no engineering faculties existed. However, this does not satisfy us, because students who enrol at those universities for the first and second year courses, have to complete their training at other universities. The Rand Afrikaans University is situated in the heart of the industrial area in South Africa, and I think it is self-evident and essential that the need for engineers be met in this very area. I think one of the main reasons is also the fact that the largest concentration of the unutilized brainpower amongst the Afrikaans-speaking section is in fact found on the Witwatersrand. It is these very people who are being denied the right to qualify themselves for the profession in which there is such a major shortage. Whereas the Government is undertaking far-sighted planning in so many other spheres, I believe that the establishment of an engineering faculty for the Afrikaans-speaking student on the Witwatersrand will be a good investment. Students on the Witwatersrand who want to live with their parents while studying and taking a course in engineering, have no alternative but to attend the University of the Witwatersrand, which is one of the major breeding-grounds for communism. No parent who really has the future and the interests of his child at heart, would be prepared to send his child to that university, because of that bad influence which is being exercised there.

In these Estimates, Sir, provision is being made for R56 million, which is being voted for assistance to our universities, and which means that the Government is contributing more than 75 per cent to the maintenance of our universities. That brings me—further to the point touched upon here by the hon. member for Algoa to some of those students and some of those lecturers who are protesting at will nowadays and are assuming to themselves more political rights than the ordinary citizen of the country has. We had an example of this the other day, when, in a disgraceful manner, a protest was even launched against the celebration of Republic Day.

Disgraceful!

Sir, we find at those universities students who do not want to study and who are only there for the exclusive purpose of being a stumbling block, and I think that the time has now arrived for us to eliminate them at our universities. We cannot allow those people to protest there at will and to get out of band, which has already happened in many other countries of the world. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for the grants of those universities, which do not want to or do not know how to discipline those unruly students, to be reduced accordingly.

How would you work that out?

I shall tell the hon. member now. Last year we had the case of the University of Natal, where class attendance by students was stopped for 36 hours and where they were supported by 40 of those lecturers. If they stop attending classes for 36 hours, let us then reduce their grant proportionately, furthermore, Sir, has the time not arrived for the autonomy of some of those universities to be taken into reconsideration in order that the Government may have more control over the kind of person appointed there and the type of student admitted to those universities? Sir, as taxpayers we cannot allow money to be wasted in that manner by a lot of agitators, which is happening at some of our universities. Sir, this atmosphere that prevails at some of our universities and also these protest marches, I want to lay at the door of the United Party, because the chairman of the Students Representative Council of the University of Cape Town said in an interview with a representative of the publication “Personality” that they obtained real assistance from the United Party in their protests.

Moral support.

He says it here. [Time expired.]

Sir, I want to raise other matters, and therefore I do not want to reply to the arguments of the hon. member. All I can say on hearing his statement about the powers which the Government should take over the universities, is that he will be a very happy man in a country such as Russia, where that sort of thing takes place. I can tell him that we reject it completely.

Sir, in the Budget provision is made for an amount of R138 700 for the Africa Institute. This year’s grant is R7 400 more than that of last year. Up to a year or so ago the Africa Institute was unfortunately in quite the wrong hands, and if this state of affairs had continued, we on this side would certainly not have had much sympathy left for this institution. But fortunately the position was rectified in time. The new director, Prof. Jannie Moolman, is a man who, as an academic, is known far beyond the borders of South Africa and who has such a thorough understanding of what the task of such an institution should be that I feel quite satisfied and convinced that under his leadership the institute can develop into a very important institution for South Africa. Shortly before the session started. I took the opportunity to pay a personal visit to the institute in order to acquaint myself with the extent of its activities and I can recommend this to other members Although I personally have been a member since its inception, I was rather surprised to see what proportions the activities of the institute are assuming and what services are being offered by it. I should like to say to the hon. the Minister that as long as the institute is in the hands of people who, no matter what their private political views may be, at least approach their work objectively. expenditure on the institute will have the fullest sympathy and support of this side of this House.

I want to add that if we were in control of matters, we would go considerably further. We would develop that institute into an independent centre of knowledge and information about Africa, a centre which we should like to attain international prestige, to such an extent that advanced students, no matter in what part of the world they are, would feel that they should come to South Africa for roundingoff in respect of Africa affairs. But the fact of the matter is that at present the Africa Institute is still very far from this position. A whole lot of African states refuse admission to South African researchers and students, and not only this, but they also refuse to exchange publications with institutions such as the institute. The result is that institutions like the Africa Institute has to obtain publications in all sorts of roundabout ways.

The Government unfortunately does not make it easy for our own students either to quality themselves in African affairs. It is in this respect that I should like to exchange a few words with the hon. the Minister, and I want to speak to him in his capacity as the Minister who has the welfare of our universities under his control. Sir, the departments of political studies at our universities are faced with a very great problem in that almost every book of importance dealing with political developments in Africa is banned here. Time will not permit me to elaborate on this, but I can submit a long list of titles to the hon. the Minister and I can mention lecturers at various universities who will testify that some of these books are essential reading matter for any bona fide student who wants to have a good understanding of political thought, trends and events in Africa.

Sir. I want to mention a few practical examples to the hon. the Minister. The personal accounts of almost every African leader who has been in the focal point of developments in Africa in the past decade, since Ghana became independent, have been banned here. Whether we agree with their views or not is not the question now. For example, there is Kwame Nkrumah’s autobiography, Ghana, as well as his books I speak of Freedom and Africa must Unite. All the books written by him have been banned here. Tom Mboya of Kenya’s Freedom and After, Sekou Toure’s book on the emancipation of Guinea, Patrice Lumumba's book Congo, my Country and Kenneth Kaunda’s Zambia shall be Free have all been banned here. Thus I can mention a long series of books. African leaders' own experiences which they have recorded cannot be read by students or by anyone here in South Africa. I can augment the list by comprehensive textbooks such as that by Prof. Vernon McKay, Africa and World Politics, and Prof. Gwen Carter’s Independence in Africa, to mention only two. These books have also been banned. I may add that I happened to read these books before they had been banned, and I may tell the hon. the Minister that I really cannot see how any student of African affairs who wants to make a thorough study of the subject can do so without access to this type of book on Africa.

I know that there is in fact provision for universities to apply to the Publications Control Board to keep banned books for scholastic purposes. They do make use of that right too, but at the library of the Africa Institute they informed me that these books for which they had in this way, always have to be kept under lock and key. If a bona fide student wants to read them, he must first ask for a permit from the police to read those books in the library. Sir, you can appreciate how many people would make use of such a facility. In any case, no lecturer may quote from any of these books. The position is that African studies at our universities are being hampered to such an extent that the quality of such studies in our country is suffering very heavily. In addition, I may inform the Minister that this means that any serious South African student who wants to specialize in African affairs is obliged to go to Europe or America in order to complete his studies. They have to do this if they really want to qualify themselves in any way in respect of African affairs. I wish to illustrate to the hon the Minister how bad the position really is. I have a new book here. Part II of the Oxford History of South Africa, by Wilson and Thompson. Because of the restrictions existing in our country, the publishers of this book sought legal advice and decided to exclude from the South African edition the chapter on “African Nationalism in South Africa, 19l0-’64”, without which one cannot write a history of South Africa. Consequently 53 pages of the book have been left blank, and this part of the book consists only of pure white paper. Sir, you can appreciate what a reflection it casts on South Africa if, in a hook such as this, which has just appeared and which is an important work on South African history, such a section must be left out because the publishers cannot risk publishing it here. I can think of no more effective illustration to indicate the handicap and disadvantage to which our students in African studies at our universities are subjected, than this very book, apart from the fact, as I have said, that it also casts a very big reflection on our maturity as a country. I think this is a state of affairs which requires the attention of the hon. the Minister. I personally have received special representations from no fewer than two universities and I should like to make this recommendation to the hon. the Minister. I think he will agree with us it is imperative, especially for us in South Africa, to train a cadre of students as experts on African affairs. Indeed, if we do not do so, there can be no question of an effective understanding of Africa. I think it is incumbent on the Minister to conduct discussions on this matter with our universities as soon as possible and to see whether he cannot find a solution to the problem. [Time expired ]

With all due respect, Sir. I should like to put the question whether we should not perhaps in future separate these matters to a certain extent. During the previous sitting one hon. member of the Opposition spoke about education. One or two hon. members on this side replied to that speech. But the hon. member for Bezuidenhout rose, and leaving education just like that, he adopted another course. [Interjections.] That is his privilege. He may do it. I am merely asking whether it is the correct procedure for us to jump from one topic to another in that way. To the hon. member for Wynberg I want to say this. While she was speaking, I cast my mind back to a certain extent. I realized that, apart from a short interval, we have now been sitting opposite each other for twelve years. I want to tell the hon. member, with respect, that during that time she has never said anything new. She has continually been harping on that same old story. I am afraid that her refrain is now beginning to become hackneyed. I believe that when we are here to discuss matters relating to teaching and education, it probably behoves us to come forward with matters which are in fact of such a nature that they cause bottlenecks, and that we should see whether we cannot eliminate those things.

A matter which I should like to touch upon here, is the following. Under the old set-up, if one may call it such, when the provinces controlled their own education matters, it happened that at the various universities in the provinces, different requirements were laid down in respect of bilingualism for teachers; or let me rather put it this way, that the same requirements were not laid down by all. Sometimes it was easier in some provinces than was the case in others. In those years teachers qualified and entered the teaching profession, and all that was stated on the certificates obtained by some of them, was that they had Afrikaans and English, without any further indications. We have now embarked upon a new set-up and we now seek uniformity, and kindly allow me. Sir, to say at once that I am in favour of that and also that I am just as much in favour of bilingualism. But in practice it would nevertheless appear as though we are running into problems in that process. Specific cases have been brought to my notice, and I also happen to have read in the opinion columns in the Press about people who have come up against such problems. Now, the solution may perhaps be an easy one. Facilities for that purpose do exist and are being created, and one should merely see to it that such a teacher, whose proficiency in the two official languages is implicated here—and this is especially the case when teachers are promoted to the posts of deputy principals and principals of schools—does in fact write those examinations. That is probably not the most insurmountable problem. That usually happens at times when schools have a particularly crowded programme of activities. I came across such a case in connection with one of the most competent teachers I have ever known. He told me that he felt like giving up the teaching profession, since he could make much more progress in other spheres, such as the world of science, and would be free of all the “nonsense", as it is called. I do not want to condone this, but there are matters which are irritating. We are keen for the system of education and everything that goes with it to proceed smoothly, and we want to eliminate such incidents. Just allow me, please, to add that at the same time I was shown two examination papers that had been given in recent years to prospective teachers in order to test their proficiency in the two official languages. I do not have the time to discuss them now, nor do I want to do so, but I honestly want to say that I do not believe that that is a test. I honestly do not have a very high opinion of that kind of examination paper for testing the bilingualism of a teacher.

Then there is a last matter which I want to mention. With the new set-up we devised many plans and left no stone unturned in an attempt to promote education and, inter alia, attract teachers to the profession. Let us be honest and admit that we did not only raise salaries in order to improve the livelihood of teachers, but what we also had in mind, and still have in mind today, was that we had to attract teachers to the profession. What was done, was praiseworthy, but there is something which is still troubling me. Not very long ago it happened that I met ex-teachers of mine, who taught me years ago and are still drawing pensions today. If we think of the salaries received by those persons in those years and the percentage with which they eventually parted for pension purposes when money was still money, and if we consider what the cost of living is today and how little money is worth today, I cannot feel reassured and I cannot condone it. It would appear, and this is also the way a certain teacher put it to me, that when they reached a certain age and were no longer good enough for the service, it was said. “Fountain, we are no longer going to drink from you.” The oldest teachers, who are still drawing pensions today, are people who were responsible for the training and moulding of every member in this hon. House and all the thousands of people outside who are doing the greatest, most important, most self-sacrificing and significant work for our country. Under these circumstances I believe that if anything is justified, it is probably that we should consider making somewhat easier the lives of those persons who had to bear the brunt over the years and especially during the difficult years in the teaching profession.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for De Aar has made a very earnest and sincere appeal for assistance for and alleviation of the position of the older teachers who have been on pension for some years and who find that, due to the fact that their pensions are calculated on a scale of remuneration which is far less than that existing today, they are suffering hardship. We on this side of the House support such a plea. We have on many occasions raised this matter as far as other ex-civil servants are concerned, with the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, who is responsible for the Government Service Pension Act. However, the hon. member also dealt with other matters in regard to the teaching profession and we endorse it. For the benefit of the hon. member for Boksburg, who I see is in the House at the moment, I would like to say that those persons who are English-speaking South Africans and who are members of the United Party have on many occasions in and outside this House appealed to the English-speaking youth of our country to come forward and to play a greater role in the teaching profession.

I shall accept it if you tell me when and where.

Certainly. I do not have the exact quotations at hand at the moment, but I know that the M.E.C. in charge of education in Natal before the dissolution of the past Natal Provincial Council, Mr. Brian Archibald, has made appeals on an almost annual basis to people, both English and Afrikaans speaking, to come forward and to play their part in the teaching profession. Unfortunately I do not have the Hansard quotations with me, but I remember that on many occasions Mr. Philip Moore, who was the main spokesman on this side of the House on educational matters, made pleas to the English-speaking section to come forward to play a greater part in the teaching profession. I understand that Mr. Wood, the hon. member for Berea, has also made such a plea. I recall that he himself mentioned the fact that his own son had listened to his plea. Indeed, one of the sons of the hon. member for Berea is in the teaching profession at the moment. I think it is quite obvious that we should look at this matter not purely as English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, but as South Africans. We as South Africans must look for the greatest degree of efficiency amongst the teachers and this is the angle from which we look at this problem. Today the hon. member for De Aar mentioned the question of the old teachers in the teaching profession. We believe it is important that the fringe benefits and the profession as a whole should be made as attractive as possible for these people so that they can play their part in the development of South Africa in this important role.

If one studies the Estimates which are before us, one sees that there are some items which call for comment. First of all. I would like to refer to the allocation of funds to schools which fall under the Children’s Act. I am thinking of Schools of Industries and the reform schools in particular. We must look at the situation which exists there and we must look at the degree of success which is being achieved at these special schools. Last year I raised certain points with the hon. the Minister. Unfortunately he was unable to reply to those points during the course of the debate. He, however, had the courtesy to write to me and to explain his points of view on a number of the matters which I had raised. I appreciate the hon. the Minister’s gesture in this regard. However, there are aspects concerning the money to be voted for the Schools of Industries which is now being increased from R162 000 to R238 000, which I would like to raise. Then there is an increase in the number of posts as well and at the reform schools the increase amounts to R298 000. If one looks at the report of the Department of National Education, one sees that a great deal of difficulty is being experienced in the staffing of this type of school. If one looks at pace 13 of the latest report, the report for 1970, one sees that the majority of the posts at the Schools of Industries and at the reform schools are occupied by persons who have been appointed in a temporary capacity. Of the 156 teacher posts at the Schools of Industries, a third, namely 46, are filled by temporary incumbents. If one looks at the Schools of Industries and the reform schools, one sees that more than half of the clerical and store staff are temporary employees. If one turns to page 15 of the report, to “Hostel staff”, one sees that of the 139 posts at the Schools of Industries, 92 are filled by persons appointed on a temporary basis. One is struck by the large number of persons who are employed on a temporary basis at these schools. The position is that these schools are performing a very vital role in the re-education of, in many instances, persons who can be classified as juvenile delinquents. It is a fact that the Schools of Industries, in particular, are having a degree of success in the re-education of a number of these people. With the shortage of manpower in South Africa, we cannot afford to lose any of these people. That is why the re-education of these people at the something like 18 Schools of Industries is playing an important part in the rehabilitation of many of them.

There is another aspect of these Estimates to which I should like to refer, namely bursaries. The hon. the Minister made an announcement last year that certain bursaries would be made available to those young children who had been accommodated at various children’s homes and institutions and that this would be done in collaboration with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to give further information as regards the availability of these bursaries and the basis upon which these children are selected to receive such bursaries. During the course of the end of last year I made representations to try to assist one of these people who unfortunately had no parents to provide for his further education. I applied for such a bursary. However, I was told that there was a time limit and that, of course, the number of bursaries was limited. Unfortunately this person could not be accommodated.

While dealing with the question of the bursaries and the availability of educational facilities for young people. I want to say that I think it is of paramount importance for facilities to be provided so that every young person can attain his maximum potential as far as education is concerned At the present time we find that as far as the facilities for medical students are concerned, it is becoming increasingly difficult for persons to study medicine at one of the six medical schools that presently exist in South Africa. In particular, the Province of Natal only has a medical school at the University of Natal which is restricted to non-Whites. We know that a substantial subsidy is paid to this school. We know, too, that the hon. the Minister is responsible for assisting in the provision of capital for additions that are made at these various medical schools and, indeed at the universities generally. However, I understand that the number of persons who apply for enrolment particularly at the two English-medium medical schools, that at the University of Cape Town and at the Witwatersrand University, far exceed the number of persons who are actually accepted due to the limited facilities existing at these medical schools. I have been unable to obtain the latest enrolment figures, but figures that were previously supplied to me, indicate that over two-thirds of those persons applying for enrolment as first- year students at the medical schools of Cape Town and at the Witwatersrand University, fail to gain admission. Only one- third were admitted. The latest figures that I heard quoted, showed that some 900 persons applying for enrolment as first- year students at the University of Cape Town for the academic year of 1971. However, they are limited to an intake of only 200. This means that many of these people who would have been able to fulfill their academic potential, are unfortunately denied that opportunity due to the fact that they cannot gain admission to a medical school. What makes the situation all the more tragic is that we hear various figures from authoritative sources sometimes estimating the shortage of doctors in the Republic at 3 000. Whilst there is a shortage of medical men to this degree, we find that many of these persons who are potential doctors, are denied the opportunity of receiving instruction and being able to take a course which they believe they are suited for and which they believe they can make a success of. I believe it is imperative that the hon. the Minister should give an indication to this Committee of whether he is taking into further consideration particularly the establishment of a medical school at the University of Natal, either at Durban or Pietermaritzburg and also to indicate what progress is being made in regard to the acceptance of the recommendation of the Monnig Commission that the intake of students at the faculties of medicine at the various medical schools should be increased during the next five years. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful for the representations the hon. member for Umbilo has made in respect of an additional medical faculty. I was greatly tempted to ask him to include Potchefstroom in his representations in this regard. Unfortunately this matter was finally dealt with on another occasion, but we can discuss it again later.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to tell the hon. member for Wynberg that I, personally, as well as hon. members on this side of the House are particularly grateful for the good work Sabra is doing among our youth.

They are not achieving any success.

They have been exceptionally successful. Any one of the hon. members on this side of the House can hold a meeting for young people in any constituency at any time, and such meeting will be very well attended. But what happened to the hon. member for Turffontein? He made a special trip to Johannesburg for the purpose of holding a meeting and found his audience walking out on him. Hon. members opposite should therefore not refer to Sabra and ask what results they are achieving.

But if I confine myself to the speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg only, I shall never get round to my own speech. I just want to tell the hon. member that it seems to me as if she has read what Prof. Van Jaarsveld once said about members who do not make sufficient use of the library. I find it a good thing that the hon. member has now developed such a craze for reading. It is a good thing that the hon. member has used the library facilities and also read the book concerned.

He talked about you.

It is clear to me that the hon. member for Durban Central followed the same advice.

However, I should like to associate myself with the representations made here today by the hon. member for Boksburg in regard to the establishment of an engineering faculty. When discussing this matter, I do so with all due respect to the hon. the Minister and his department. I should also like to confirm that my constituency and I were particularly disappointed when we noticed in a press statement last year that an engineering faculty could not be established at that stage at any of the four universities which had aspired to it. These universities were, to be specific, those of Potchefstroom, Port Elizabeth, Bloemfontein and the Rand Afrikaans University. This was particularly disappointing. As far as the University of Potchefstroom is concerned, the hon. the Minister and his department had been properly consulted. We are still convinced today that our university made out a particularly strong case and that one or more engineering faculties could indeed have been established. But we also appreciate the recommendations made by the Commission to the Government. We appreciate the responsibility which the Government assumes when taking decisions in regard to matters of this kind. Universities must now strive to establish departments in a prescribed way. If agreement can be reached between universities which have faculties, students must first take a one or two year course at one university and then enroll at another university. This is going to create problems in future. Whether this is going to succeed, must still be seen. Moreover, the procedure provides that universities must first have a certain number of first year students and then a certain number of second year students. Universities must now comply with all these requirements before they can be financed, obtain recognition and subsequently a faculty. In this regard I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give favourable consideration to the representations made by the Potchefstroom University, which I am acquainted with, and also by the Rand Afrikaans University, inter alia, in order to see whether it is not possible to find easier solutions to the problem of the establishment of a new faculty at these universities which are justified in laying claim to one. I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister to see whether it is not possible to make an attempt to get these faculties established sooner than is indicated in this press statement and in the recommendations made to the Government. It will be greatly appreciated if consideration could be given and steps taken along these lines.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.