Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I have not risen to raise any objection; I have risen merely in order to say that we support the Third Reading, for the same reasons as were given at the Second Reading. I do not want to repeat them, but merely want to add briefly that, since the S.A.B.C. now has these more comprehensive powers in regard to obtaining capital for expansion, I hope the hon. the Minister will not put obstacles in their way. They have very important tasks in regard to television now. He has mentioned these tasks, which will of course include the construction of the satellite station, the great Auckland Park complex, as well as the conversion of the F.M. Towers for the use of television. I sincerely hope that, instead of placing obstacles in their way, the hon. the Minister will encourage the S.A.B.C. in respect of this commendable work they are now going to do.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

When the House adjourned last night, we were dealing briefly with the statements the hon. member for Transkei made. This morning I also want to dwell on one of the statements he made at the very beginning of his speech when he virtually accused the hon. the Deputy Minister of not being prepared to give them credit for the positive suggestions which the Opposition allegedly presented to the Deputy Minister. In the process of accusing the hon. the Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Transkei said that certain bodies, such as the F.C.I., took a hint from the Opposition as far as this matter is concerned. The Deputy Minister told him they were aping the F.C.I. and it was not the F.C.I. that was aping the Opposition. On the surface this appears to be a quite innocent remark the hon. member for Transkei made with respect to this legislation. I think it was necessary for him to make that remark for the simple reason that in respect of this relevant legislation the hon. member does not want to concede that the Opposition did not handle the matter as the F.C.I. would have liked to see it handled. Now the people have to be made to believe that it was the Opposition who made the positive amendments to and remarks about this legislation. We know this was published for general information on 24th December of last year. We also know that a whole series of articles about this appeared in the Rand Daily Mail in which doubts were expressed and even spectres conjured up in respect of this legislation. But the Deputy Minister is bringing this Bill to the House this year, during this Session, and while it is being dealt with—I want to reiterate, while it is being discussed in this House—the F.C.I. becomes so concerned about the handling of the legislation by the Opposition that the F.C.I. comes down specifically to see the Deputy Minister.

Where do you get that from?

The hon. member must not keep running away from it. The hon. member claims that they are the people who introduced the positive aspects into this legislation by way of amendments. We are telling the Opposition that this is not correct. The F.C.I. negotiated with the Deputy Minister about this matter, and they came to negotiate with the Deputy Minister while this legislation was under discussion in this House. I now wonder. In the Second Reading debate the hon. members for Albany and Kensington mentioned certain things which certain Chambers of Commerce and certain Chambers of Industries submitted to them, but they did not mention the F.C.I.’s name. They mentioned regional groups. This aggravates the matter because if those regional groups made representations to the Opposition with respect to this legislation, why would the F.C.I. then come down here to hold discussions with the Deputy Minister, since it is in the Opposition’s competent hands to attack the Government about the matter?

They were concerned about the legislation.

The hon. member will have to acknowledge that the F.C.I. told the Opposition directly that they were not satisfied with their handling of it, and therefore they came down.

That is untrue.

What is more, on the strength of the F.C.I.’s discussions and representations to the Deputy Minister, the Deputy Minister moved the only amendment to this Bill which reflects the spirit of the F.C.I.’s interests. The Opposition also came along with amendments. Without elaborating on the matter, I just want to state that I wonder whether the Opposition is today still as happy with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Point. We shall probably find out later whether the Opposition is still as happy. [Interjections.] No, the hon. member must not get excited now. This claim by the Opposition, that they are the people who introduced the positive improvements to this legislation, we must have a closer look at for a moment because it is our duty to do so. I want to repeat that the Deputy Minister, and not the Opposition, introduced the positive amendment to this legislation, an amendment that reflected the spirit of the F.C.I.’s representations. The Opposition, in the person of the hon. member for Durban Point, moved an amendment which, I think we shall see, the F.C.I. is not satisfied with either. The Deputy Minister was prepared to discuss the matter here across the floor of the House. I want to leave it at that and just emphasize that the hon. member for Transkei must now not simply usurp certain aspects for themselves, aspects which are in no way due to them. This creates a confusing impression. There I want to leave this question for the moment.

If one uses a word in this House like “discrimination”, for example, it has a serious intonation in the sense that there is, as I said last night, an element of willfulness or otherwise ill-will involved, and that is what the Deputy Minister and this side of the House are being accused of; because the Opposition says this Bill is discriminatory. Now, when the Opposition uses that word they must be very careful, because what is the implication if this side of the House, which comes along with this legislation, is accused of discrimination? The implication is that this side of the House is prepared to make a distinction, and an unfair distinction, in its treatment, specifically prejudicial treatment, of a person, a group or even a country. That is what discrimination means. It means, in addition, ruling out someone or something by way of condemnation or as a result of prejudice or jealousy. Does the hon. member agree with that? Does he agree that that is what this side of the House is doing?

Yes, that is what the Minister can do. He can discriminate.

I am asking the hon. member, if that is the definition of discrimination he must say whether this legislation meets with this definition’s requirements in terms of his statement and that this is discrimination in terms of the definition.

The Minister can discriminate in terms of the legislation.

I am not asking whether the Minister can discriminate or not. They are accusing this side of the House and the Deputy Minister of the fact that this Bill is a discriminatory measure. Is the hon. member accusing the Deputy Minister of that?

Yes.

If the hon. member agrees that this is a definition of discrimination, and the hon. member says that this side of the House is prepared, in terms of this definition, to do certain things such as those he mentioned here, I want to ask him this: Let the hon. member or someone on his side stand and indicate to us whether the elements in this legislation are not also contained in any of the specific measures that are to be consolidated here. Let the hon. member or any member of the Opposition stand up and indicate to us whether those are discriminatory measures.

I have already explained that.

We cannot simply allow a word such as discrimination to be used freely with regard to a delicate matter such as this. Although this Bill is a consolidating measure it deals with people, as all Acts do, but here it relates specifically to a relationship. We know that the majority of employers in this country are Whites and that the majority of employees are non-Whites but in that context where we are dealing with human relations, which are a delicate proposition, and since this Bill is regulating a specific relationship between employer and employee, we simply use the word “discrimination” so freely. This is a very dangerous thing to do when we are dealing with this employer-employee relationship in our national set-up in South Africa.

I think that in South Africa the time has come for us to choose our words very well and very clearly when we are dealing with such a relationship and discussing it. I want to charge the hon. Opposition with the fact that the mere use of this word can be harmful to our relationships and not only to our national relationships, but also to the employer-employee relationship. I want to express the hope that the hon. Opposition will be careful in future with the use of such a word.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Christiana got very hot under the collar about some of the things which had been mentioned from this side of the House. I shall examine some of the things which caused him trouble.

You did not even understand what I said.

The question of differentiation is one aspect.

What does Hogarth de Hoogh say?

The question whether this is a tax or a levy is another aspect. When the hon. member spoke yesterday afternoon, he seemed particularly cross about the fact that we listened to some of the assurances from the hon. the Deputy Minister with a measure of cynicism. He seemed to think that because a member on that side of the House gives an assurance on behalf of the Government, it is necessarily honoured. He is a comparative newcomer to this House …

And so are you!

But I will stay here much longer than you.

I am a newcomer to this Chamber, but I have spent quite a long time elsewhere in this House, during which I have been able to watch some of the things which were done by this Government. [Interjections.] But as he is a comparative newcomer to the precincts of this House—let me put it that way—we can understand his being a little naïve, perhaps being slightly childlike in his acceptance.

Say something we can listen to.

Let us examine this question of assurances which have been given by the Government. I do not want to dwell too long on this, but one assurance that comes to mind is the very firm assurance given by the former Prime Minister, Dr. Verwoerd, about the continued representation of the Coloured people in this Chamber.

What does that have to do with this Bill?

We are talking about assurances, a question that was raised by the hon. member. That was a firm assurance, but we all know that that assurance was broken. That type of lesson alone should be sufficient to cause that hon. member to be just a little cautious when he tries to suggest that we should accept undertakings or assurances from that side of the House and I suggest that he should not get so hot under the collar about it. While we are on the subject of assurances, let us come a little closer to this Bill and go back to the assurance which was given again by Dr. Verwoerd that the original Bantu services levy would be a temporary levy.

Did you agree with that?

In 1952 we opposed the measure on the grounds that it was a sectional tax. I do not know what has happened to the hon. member for Christiana; I was trying to talk to him.

You were boring him.

No, not at all. There are a few things which he raised which should be answered, but I do not know what has happened to him. Perhaps he does not want to listen. I trust the hon. the Deputy Minister will have a word with him and convey what I have to say to him.

We all know that Dr. Verwoerd gave an assurance about the original Bantu services levy. I am not going to burden the record by repeating it. It was mentioned in fair detail during the Second Reading debate and it was also referred to by the hon. the Deputy Minister himself.

We also have had assurances from the hon. the Deputy Minister. During his introduction to the Second Reading debate he gave us the assurance that there had been full consultation before he came forward with this measure. He relied on consultation with industry. But he is applying this measure not only to industry but to agriculture and housewives as well, or “employers of domestic labour” who were specifically exempted from the provisions of the Bantu services levy. In that, I say here and now, he broke an assurance and he did it within a matter of a few days.

In what way did I break it?

Well, the Deputy Minister gave us the assurance that he had consulted with the people who would be affected by this Bill. When we said, and in fact proved, that he had not consulted all organized agriculture, and when we came with an amendment in the Committee Stage to make sure that it would not be applied to organized agriculture or to housewives, certainly not until they were consulted, that hon. gentleman and his side of the House rejected the amendment. We voted on it. Is his memory so short? While we are dealing with assurances, the hon. the Deputy Minister tried to make fun of what had been published in newspapers when he spoke yesterday.

On this question of assurances, let me tell you, you are talking absolute nonsense.

This question was canvassed fully at the Second Reading stage and during the Committee Stage. That hon. Deputy Minister in fact accepted the principle that there should be consultation before these provisions were applied. While we are talking of assurances and seeing that he has mentioned what has been published in newspapers, may I remind him of an interview that he gave to representatives of the Argus company in Cape Town. It was during a Press conference that he gave on this Bill. He was quoted as saying—and I quote here—

This is a direct quote. I have tried to establish whether he altered it on any occasion since it was published. I assume that he studied the reports after his Press conference. Well, Sir, this measure does not do that. It is not aimed “solely at providing the finances for the best possible administration of Bantu administration in the urban areas”. There is provision in it for money raised in urban areas to be used in other areas, for example in the Bantu homelands or border areas. Was this not an assurance which he gave to the public at his Press conference? If so, how can he have the effrontery a few days later to come with this legislation which provides for doing the exact opposite?

I am afraid I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. member for Christiana, who challenged us on a number of points. When I rose to speak, obviously to reply to some of the matters raised by him, he just seemed to have disappeared. Perhaps we can hold some of it in abeyance until he comes back. What is important at this Third Reading stage is to examine the application of this Bill. I think it is common cause that we intend voting against it at this stage in line with our attitude at the Second reading stage. What is important is to canvass the possible application of this Bill. I want to say here and now, that this hon. Deputy Minister will in effect be holding a succession of blank cheques payable by employers of Bantu labour which he can fill in whenever he pleases and for whatever amounts he wants up to maximum of R2,50 in respect of each Black employee. It can vary from the R15 million per year, mentioned by him when he replied to the Second Reading debate, to a sum many times that. During the Second Reading debate when he replied, he asked us not to hold him too strictly to the figure of R15 million. He told us that it might in fact be as high as R22 million and that it might even go as high as R23 million. We know that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not coy and I think we can accept that he was not being coy when he gave these figures. The truth of the matter is of course that he and his department have no idea how much they propose to call up from employers over the next two or perhaps more years. They have no idea at all, and are simply asking for a blank cheque. It could be R100 million per year, or more. There is just one warning I want to give to the hon. the Deputy Minister and that is that he cannot feel himself free to apply this tax just as he wants to, perhaps recklessly. The money will not be coming from a bottomless well. Every rand he charges employers of Bantu labour will have to be found somewhere and it is quite reasonable to expect that the employers of Black labour will pass it on, as indeed they pass on other taxes such as the sales tax and transport taxes.

Let us just come back to housewives and farmers. Before I continue any further I want to tell this hon. Deputy Minister that I consider it an impertinence on his part when he replied to the Second Reading debate to make fun about the fact that I, as a member representing an urban constituency, should try to protect the interests of farmers. He should be ashamed of himself and I want to tell him quite bluntly that I shall continue to raise matters in the interests of anybody in this country and any section in this country, whether they come from my own constituency or not. I want to tell him too, that we have evidence of hon. gentlemen on that side of the House who represent farming constituencies, who never put forward any representations about their constituents. I refer to the hon. the Minister of Sport, for one.

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

In the Committee Stage the hon. the Deputy Minister rejected our amendment aimed at exempting farmers and housewives from the provisions of this Bill, so that no tax of this nature could be imposed on them without the direct concurrence of this House. Instead hon. members on that side of the House expressed their satisfaction with an assurance from the hon. the Deputy Minister that housewives and farmers would not for the present, “vir die huidige”, be taxed more than they were being taxed today. We tried to probe what “vir die huidige” means. I suggest this is very material, now that we are dealing with the possible application of this Bill. The hon. the Deputy Minister did not explain what “vir die huidige” means. He told us that he did not envisage any dramatic or drastic change in the amount of the tax. I want to caution him, now that he has in principle been given the powers to apply this tax, not to try to apply it either to housewives or to farmers without consulting them. I believe even at this late stage we should get an undertaking from him, for whatever that is worth, that he will have such consultation. In fact, I want to suggest to him that he is morally obliged to have this sort of consultation. He is obliged to consult with organized agriculture and, as far as possible, to try to assess the feeling of housewives and other employers of domestic labour before attempting to apply this tax to them.

While we are talking about the hon. the Deputy Minister assuming the powers to apply this tax arbitrarily, I want to tell him that we on this side of the House have given considerable thought to the possible arbitrary application of this tax. He knows as well as I do—I am sorry that we had to listen to so much nonsense from the hon. member for Christiana on this subject—that this is a tax. Whether he wants to call it a levy or not, does not really matter. It is a tax. What is more, it is a selective employment tax. There is no other way of describing it. The hon. member for Christiana was simply playing with words when he tried to deny that it was a tax.

Let us take a look at the overall position, because this hon. Deputy Minister in determining how he is going to apply the selective employment tax, must obviously not do it in a vacuum. He must look at other taxes that are being imposed on employers if only to determine what burden employers of Black labour are bearing already. If he is going to look at the position in its proper context, he cannot ignore other taxation. One of the taxes that he will have to bear in mind is the Bantu transport services levy. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport has legislation before this House to double the sum that can be taken from employers of Black labour from 10 cents a week to 20 cents a week. There is one thing that disturbs us about the approach of this hon. Deputy Minister in this regard. We happen to know that he was involved with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport in discussing the question of the doubling of the transport levy. We know that both of them were consulted. Perhaps he will indicate to me whether they were consulted together about the doubling of this levy. I want to know from him, when he was discussing this other levy with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport, why he made no mention of the fact that he himself was seeking to impose a higher sectional tax on employers of Bantu labour? … We get no reaction from him.

[Inaudible.]

He says I am making an accusation. He is muttering something under his breath. I wish he would say it a little louder. Why did he not tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport that he himself was seeking to impose this tax? Because he obviously did not, and I can prove it. I spoke on the Second Reading of the legislation to double the Transport services levy and I referred to the fact that there was already legislation before the House that would increase the burden on employers of Black labour to a considerable extent. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport pleaded complete ignorance of this. He seemed absolutely startled and asked what levies I was talking about. In other words, this hon. gentleman has not even bothered to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport that he, too, was seeking to tax employers of Black labour. He was prepared to let the hon. the Deputy Minister of Transport go ahead with his plan to double the Transport levy without telling him that he was doing something similar in his own right. This creates an interesting picture of what is going on in the ranks of the Government. We seem to get a picture of two departments, this hon. Deputy Minister’s department and the Department of Transport, each punching businessmen with one hand. The one hits with the Government’s left hand and the other with its right hand, but one hand does not know what the other is doing or how hard it is hitting.

While we are looking at the general position of what taxes must be paid by businessmen, it has emerged that the maximum the businessmen can now be taxed, or will be taxed in terms of this legislation and other legislation before the House, will now total approximately R3,85 in respect of each Black employee.

How much?

Three rands eighty five cents! We have this selective employment tax, which can amount to as much as R2,50 per month in terms of this legislation, in the discretion of the Minister. Then we have the monthly licence fee of 50 cent, which is already payable by employers of Bantu labour in respect of the second and each further Bantu employed in certain proclaimed areas. This licence fee is not being absorbed in the tax being dealt with today. In other words, these two bring the potential figure up to R3 per month. That is not all. We then have the Bantu transport levy, which in terms of legislation with which we are now busy, can be raised to a maximum of 20 cents per week in respect of each Bantu employee, which, in other words, amounts to 85 cents per month. So we have a total of R3,85 potentially payable by employers in respect of each Bantu employee. I have mentioned this lack of communication between the hon. the Deputy Minister and his colleague, the Deputy Minister of Transport. He did not even bother to tell the Deputy Minister of Transport that he was doing exactly the same in pushing up a selective tax on employers of Black labour.

I want to ask him something else, something which is very material at the moment and will be even more material in future. Did this hon. Deputy Minister consult with the Minister of Finance before he came forward with this legislation? Did he? I can only take his studied silence as meaning that he did not. If he had, I am quite sure he would have said “yes” with some alacrity. I want to ask the hon. Deputy Minister whether the hon. Minister of Finance knows what is going on. Does he know that separate departments are each pouncing on employers and businessmen and taking their own private little sectional taxes? I ask this because the Minister of Finance obviously has the first claim on the pockets of business people and they are already paying dearly enough for the policies of this Government. That is why I want to suggest to this hon. Deputy Minister that before he even attempts to vary the rate of taxation in respect of Bantu employees, he should, firstly, have the fullest possible consultation with those who are to be affected. Then I want to suggest to him that he should not only consult with the hon. Minister of Finance, but also get the approval of the Minister of Finance before he increases the rate of tax. I want to turn for a moment to the hon. member for Christiana and to come back to what he had to say about the question of whether this tax is capable of being used in a discriminatory manner. Of course it is. That hon. Deputy Minister is able to apply it in full, to business people of Johannesburg for instance, and perhaps only one half of it to business people in areas where he would like to see business being located. That is why we have said all along that this legislation places a powerful ideological weapon in the hands of that hon. Minister. I do not think for one moment that the businessman who is paying it, the man who perhaps has finally to pay as much as R3,85 in respect of each Bantu employee, is going to worry overmuch whether he is being discriminated against or whether he is the victim of differentiation, which are to my mind the same. I do not care for the fine dictionary definitions—I do not accept them anyway—put forward by the hon. member for Christiana. While we are on the question of where the tax can be applied and where it cannot, I want to refer again to the assurance given by the hon. Deputy Minister at his Press conference, namely that the tax would not be used other than for the best possible Bantu administration in the urban areas with minimum inconvenience to the employers. I want to ask him how this assurance squares with the provision of this Bill which makes it possible for the Bantu administration boards to make donations from their funds for Bantu administration in other areas—perhaps in the homelands, perhaps in the border areas, perhaps elsewhere. The assurance which he gave at his Press conference obviously does not agree with what the Bill itself says. Sir, I want to caution him, too, about this rather neat provision in the Bill that these boards can transfer some of their funds to other areas. This has already been viewed by us with the utmost suspicion and I warn him that we are going to continue to view it with suspicion. On the face of it, it seems innocent enough. The boards will raise the money—let us say, for example, the Bantu administration board that covers the area of Johannesburg—through whatever selective employment tax this hon. Minister decides to impose, and then if they raise too much money they are able to transfer it elsewhere. I think we cannot look at this whole system without asking ourselves about the constitution of these Bantu administration boards. One thing stands out a mile, and that is that these boards are all appointed by the Minister himself.

What is wrong with that?

The hon. member for Krugersdorp asks what is wrong with that. [Time expired.]

I listened attentively to what the hon. member for Kensington had to say, and there was one thing which struck me and that was that the hon. member for Kensington was very conceited and impulsive in the following respect. He is a relatively new member in this House; he came to this House in 1970, but he berated the hon. member for Christiana for being a new member in this House and then said that the hon. member must not be so naïve.

Were you not listening?

I was listening. I think the hon. member for Kensington is being a little impulsive in that respect. It is very impulsive of him to make such accusations in this House, since it is not even a full two years that he has been in this House.

Many new United Party members will still be coming to this House.

Yes, there may be many more coming, but only time will tell. I want to return to the Bill.

Every U.P. baby which is born is a Nationalist.

I do not find this strange, but it has struck me that when members on that side of the House rise to speak, they are continually levelling the accusation at this side of the House that we are dishonourable; that the word of the Government or the Minister in question cannot be accepted. I said in the Second Reading debate that we on this side of the House are just as honourable people as those sitting on that side of the House. If we want to lower the standard of our national life then we must just keep on berating other people for being dishonourable, for we are not all of us dishonourable; we also try to be honourable. The hon. member for Kensington referred here to the assurance the late Dr. Verwoerd gave in this House in regard to this levy. Sir, do you not find it significant that the name of Dr. H. F. Verwoerd is being hawked about so frequently these days? When he was living I saw placards stating: “Dutchman, go back to Holland”, but today he is continually being quoted in this House. After all, he is no longer with us.

What about his promises?

Dr. Verwoerd was referring to the situation at the time; we are now living in another era in the Republic of South Africa, but let us leave it at that. The hon. member for Kensington also referred here to organized agriculture and the housewives who had supposedly not been consulted. As far as agriculture is concerned, the hon. member for Christiana pointed out very effectively during the Second Reading debate that organized agriculture does in fact have its sub-committees to which it refers legislation of this type. It is the task of organized agriculture, if it does not agree with this legislation, to come and discuss it with the hon. the Deputy Minister, or whoever is responsible for the legislation. In this case the hon. the Deputy Minister did consult organized agriculture, and he consulted many other people as well. I shall return later to the housewives. I just want to quote here what the hon. the Deputy Minister said during the Second Reading debate:

That was very clearly stated, Sir. There was consultation. The hon. member for Kensington is trying to imply that there was no consultation. Surely it is not right to make a statement like that here. But let me quote further—

What about your own Chamber of Industries?

Sir, I quote further—

Were those people there?—

That is what the hon. the Deputy Minister said, and those are the people he consulted. I just want to quote the following as well—

The hon. the Deputy Minister put all his cards on the table, and then he is accused of not having held discussions. The whole country knows about this Bill which is before the House today for the Third Reading.

Sir, I want to return to the hon. member for Transkei. Yesterday afternoon when the hon. member was speaking here he referred in passing to the housewives of South Africa—the hon. member for Kensington did the same thing—and then the hon. member for Transkei referred to the housewives of Brakpan as well.

What about the housewives on the Witwatersrand?

Sir, let me tell the hon. members for Transkei and Kensington that the National Party was governing when Brakpan was still U.P. Brakpan has remained a Nationalist constituency, and for that reason the National Party will continue to govern for a long time. Sir, that is what the position is today; the wives and the mothers of South Africa still stand by the National Party, just as they did in the past.

Where?

Everything they are doing to turn the women of South Africa against us, will fail. Sir, I return to the Bill.

This Bill will contribute to the sound administration of Bantu in the White areas—sound administration which is so important. It will also contribute to the orderly settlement of Bantu in appropriate occupations in the White areas, the orderly settlement of Bantu in all kinds of occupations. There will be no discrimination, for we do not believe in discrimination. The Bantu will be settled in good occupations. Just as, for example, we resettled the Bantu in an orderly manner in regard to housing, so this Bill will provide that they are placed in good occupations. This will contribute to an orderly distribution of the disciplined Bantu labour potential. This will increase productivity not only in the industrial sector, but in all sectors of the South African economy.

These matters are very important. It will, on the contrary, have just the opposite effect to what the hon. member for Newton Park predicted during the Second Reading. After all, the hon. member predicted that this measure would place a premium on productivity. What an absurd argument, Sir. As they say, “He was at a loss for words”. He was at a loss for words when he made this statement. This just shows you again in what an irresponsible way people can act when they are politically insolvent. I think it would be enough to make the forbears of the United Party turn in their graves if they had to hear this nonsense.

What nonsense?

The nonsense the hon. member for Newton Park spoke. This measure deals only with the consolidation of the labour bureau, the registration and the levy fees. Those fees are going to be consolidated into one fund. The two other fees, i.e. the licence fees and the transport levy, are not being included in this. The maximum levy fees will be R2,50. That is the ceiling, and there will be room for movement in between. It is therefore not inevitable that the maximum is going to be applied. As a result of this they could even be less than they are today. But those hon. members are anticipating this matter. They are simply trying to scavenge some political gain out of this entire matter.

Since the hon. member for Houghton said that this Bill could be conducive to inflation, I just want to mention in passing that since there is a great demand for Bantu labourers, this Bill will contribute towards eliminating the deficiencies which exist at present. Secondly, it will be possible to exercise better organization and control over the supply of Bantu labour. Thirdly, it will be possible to provide better schools for apprentices in which to train potential workers. This is a very important matter, and now I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton: Since when could better training and the improved distribution of trained Bantu labour bring about inflation? Surely that cannot happen, because this is something which takes place on an orderly basis. How can it therefore stimulate inflation? But the Opposition, as well as the hon. member for Houghton, do not want this Bill on the Statute Book, because it is against their policy. They do not believe that this measure should be placed on the Statute Book, for if it is not placed on the Statute Book, it would fit in with the future Utopia of the United Party. I am sorry the hon. members for Houghton and Wynberg are not present here, for so much has been said lately about coalition. Recently I have noticed that the hon. members for Houghton and Wynberg are co-operating very well, and that the hon. member for Houghton looks on so approvingly when members on that side of the House speak. [Interjections.]

Sir, the Opposition in South Africa is colonialistically orientated. The Sunday Times itself said this. After all, we know what their policy is; I may not discuss it here now, but as a result of the fact that they are colonialistically orientated and that they believe that they will keep the Black man down for all time, this Bill is against their principles, and they cannot agree to it. To them it makes no difference whether this levy is going to be greater or less, as I said a moment ago. Just as long as they can oppose it as a result of the fact that it does not fit into the pattern of their future political policy, they use it merely as a lever to indemnify their future political policy and to throw a spanner in the works in respect of our policy.

Sir, as far as we on this side of the House are concerned, this will also make a contribution to enable the Bantu Administration Boards as well to comply with their obligations properly. This Bill will now provide that, in the same way as in the case of the statutory boards in agriculture, levies will have to be paid here as well. The hon. member there referred to agriculture a moment ago. I just want to tell him that agriculture has been paying levies for years now. Nobody said anything about that. Why should levies not be paid in this context as well? What is the difference? The difference, as far as they are concerned, is that they do not refer, in the case of this Bill, to levies, but to tax.

What is it?

It is not a tax; it is a levy which is paid by the various employers. I think that this legislation is a positive step in the right direction. That is why I should like to convey my gratitude to the hon. the Deputy Minister, not only for the way in which he dealt with this legislation, but also for the large amount of work he is doing in this regard. We are very grateful to him. We know what he personally has done it. I should also like to avail myself of this opportunity of also thanking the officials concerned in the drafting of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Aliwal made a large number of statements one cannot agree with, but I just want to single out two which one could perhaps call “pearls”, economically speaking. Since we are dealing here with a tax, a levy on employers, I think it certainly is a “pearl” to say that it will increase the productivity of industries. The second statement that may be regarded as a “pearl” is the following: “How then will it stimulate inflation?” Those two statements are “pearls” which we could definitely give the hon. the Minister of Finance for his serious consideration when he drafts his Budget.

The hon. members for Transkei and Kensington expounded the reasons for our opposition to this Bill so well that it is definitely not necessary for me to devote any time to this. I should rather like to state a more general approach in connection with the Act, but before I come to that I just want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister one question, to which I hope he will give me a reply. The hon. member for Kensington proved that under this legislation it will now be possible to charge R3,85 per month—not only under this legislation, but together with the other levies that may be imposed. This of course works out at R46 per month. I admit that an amendment has been made which will mean that the maximum of R2,50 will not be reached soon.

Just repeat what you said. You were talking of R46 per month.

It is R3,85 per month, which works out at R46 per year.

But the hon. member said it was R46 per month.

No, in that case I was wrong; it is per year.

You are grasping at straws.

I corrected the hon. member. [Interjections.] This is a disgrace! Yesterday I thought it was a slip, but now I see you are doing it deliberately.

As I said, I propose to deal with some general matters, but in particular I want to say that the United Party over the last few years, I believe, has shown conclusively how the Government’s policies are placing a stranglehold on our economy and I believe that this measure furnishes another example of such pressure being applied to our economy. It is as well that we take note as these individual measures crop up, measures which do tighten that stranglehold on our economy, because otherwise one is left perhaps with generalizations. But the fact is that this is such a measure, as I hope to show in due course. I believe also it is another example of the Government clinging to policies which are outmoded, not to say dead. It is this type of measure, with the thinking behind it, which shows more and more that the National Party is a party of the past, and I believe this the voters are saying more loudly every day. But as I said, I did want to touch upon one question before I got there. That concerns the quality of the amenities which are now going to be provided by the Government.

The hon. member for Kensington and others have shown that potentially the Government can take a great deal of extra money in tax as the result of this measure. We know from the hon. the Deputy Minister that he is going to take at least R23 million a year, which represents a considerable increase on what has been taken in the past. Bearing in mind that there have built up such large surpluses in the Bantu Services Levy Fund, surpluses which are available to deal with a massive extension of basic facilities, one can realize that the amount available for other amenities, other expenses, is very great indeed. What I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is this: What is going to be the standard of the amenities which will be provided in the urban areas? We know that there can be two standards. We know that Johannesburg City Council and some others established a higher standard of amenities. They were blamed for this at one time by the Government, but now it would seem, since the Government is going to take in enough tax to cover that extra amount, that the Government has come around to their point of view. But it is not clear. We have not had clarity. We do not in fact know how much of this money is going to be used on the aid centres, and perhaps for extra administration costs, properly so-called, and in other fields; we do not know how much will be left over for the amenities of which the Deputy Minister spoke. I therefore ask him in his reply—and he will reply immediately after me—to tell us what standard is going to be set now. Is it going to be the higher standard to which the hon. the Minister of Community Development at one time objected, or is it going to be the lower standard according to which some municipalities were supplying amenities? The main ground of our opposition has been made clear, namely that the provision of all these moneys for these various purposes, called “administration costs” by the Deputy Minister, but in truth only partly administration costs, properly so-called, and to a large extent wider amenities, is to be borne by one section of the population, the employers, and in certain categories only, and not from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, from the general revenue of the country. Now, in weighing whether the Government’s approach or our own is the more correct one here, I think it helps first to examine what is the nature of the amenities which will be provided.

Now we have it from the speech of the hon. the Deputy Minister, in his Second Reading introductory speech. He said—

Then when he dealt with the detailed provisions, this is what he said—

The whole spectrum, yes.

He says “the whole spectrum”. That is just the point. The whole spectrum of services for a vast community is under all normal conditions in all normal Western countries supplied by the community as a whole. It is either supplied, where appropriate, by the city revenues, or, if they are of a more general kind, by the country’s revenues. But what do we find here? We find here, and here only as far as I know, in the world, that such a general spectrum of amenities, to use the Deputy Minister’s words, is to be foisted upon the shoulders of the most productive section of our community. One asks of the hon. the Deputy Minister: If this should be so in regard to the amenities of the Black people, should not logic dictate that this should be so for the amenities of the White people too? Is it alleged that the White people working for employers are not performing a vital and valuable function? Why then should there be this difference? And so I say that the fact that this difference is drawn in this year of grace, in the seventies of the twentieth century, shows how outdated and outmoded is the approach of the Government. I say that they are clinging to things which are no longer tenable and that the public realizes this more and more. I must remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that it was said by one of the great Lord Salisburys that the most common mistake in politics was clinging to the carcases of dead policies. This is what the Government is doing in this measure, and this is what the Government is doing throughout so much of its Bantu legislation. These Bantu people are here to stay, they are in our cities on virtually an identical basis with any other section of the population. They like the city life, they like the Western way of life and it is absolutely dreaming to think that this would ever be reversed. Yet we are dealing with a measure which treats this huge section of our population and of our working population on an entirely different basis because of some absolutely outmoded ideas.

I said that this is one of the measures which we can pinpoint as applying pressure to the stranglehold which Government policies have on our economy. We have here in South Africa—this was much discussed in the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill and I think in the No-Confidence Debate too—the position that our companies are taxed at a rate which is among the highest in the world. There is the rate of taxation plus the loan levy to which they are subject and then on top of it, and as it were, concealed from the eye of the normal observer, we have impositions of this kind. The hon. member for Kensington has shown—it is a matter of arithmetic too—that here it is possible by virtue of this measure and others too, for the employer of Bantu labour to have to pay an additional R46 per year for every Bantu whom he has in his employ.

This is not an imposition which is taken into account when the rates of taxation among the nations are compared, but this is the sort of extra burden which any intending industrialist will examine when he is considering whether he will establish a factory in South Africa or whether he will extend an existing factory and so forth. No wonder, therefore, that this is having this debilitating effect upon our economy. If one adds to that the extra paper work involved for employers, businesses and companies in coping with the requirements of the Department of Bantu Administration, one realizes how with this red tape they further ensnare the intending industrialist and affect our economy and progress.

Let nobody be under the impression that our progress has been satisfactory. The figures for September, 1971, of the South African Reserve Bank make it absolutely clear that whatever our growth rate overall may have been, our growth rate per head of the population is now worse than Britain’s and was the worst in a comparative table of 12 countries set out in those Reserve Bank figures. I think the figure was something in the region of 2,3 per cent per annum. This is entirely unacceptable but apparently acceptable to this Government.

That is why the Nats are voting them out.

It is on this note that I want to conclude. Here then is a further and specific measure by the Government which is burdening our economy, which is discouraging investment here, which is discouraging the private investment of which the Government speaks so much. It is commonplace in this Chamber to hear the Government claiming great credit for any progress in our economy and thrusting out their chests. I think in the light of the figure of the 2,3 per cent growth rate per capita they have little right to do this, but they still claim for themselves the credit for any improvements thereon. However, when we get into a position as we are now where the economy is very sluggish and exports are bad, we are always told that it is now up to the private industrialist, the private enterprising man; it is his business to pull us out of this difficulty. Then we hear no suggestion that the Government is to blame; we hear only by implication that that man is not doing what he should be doing. So I say that that man to whom we all look to help us to get our economy where it should be, there is no encouragement in this measure. There is an appreciable increase in the taxation which he must carry for every Bantu employee, there is an extra burden, an increasing extra burden for him in this measure and for that reason too we must oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by referring to two important aspects which have come to the fore in the very prolonged discussion on this Bill dealing with administration costs. The first is that that side of this House has indicated unmistakably that they want a vast amount of Bantu labour, and, what is more, it must be a vast amount of cheap Bantu labour. They must be well-trained. They want the State to house them and to provide them with services. They want them to be integrated in the family context here in the White area. This is what they want. They are continually advocating this. But they are not concerned about where the money is to come from to house that vast amount of cheap labour here in the White area. Then they carry on, as they did during the discussion of this administrative Bill over the past few weeks, as all of us have seen, and they say that the Bantu may flood the White areas in this way and that it does not matter to them; and, in addition, that these Bantu should receive proprietary rights, which does not matter to them either. This is the first standpoint which these debates have indicated very typically.

In contrast to that, we say that we want here in the White areas happy labourers who, in the national context, are integrated with their people in the homelands; that the employee, the employer and the authorities should make a contribution towards creating those happy labour conditions in South Africa; that, in order to do so meaningfully, the Bantu worker should rather be accommodated in his homeland, where he and his family are integrated in the national and in the political context; and that as long as there are separate urban Bantu residential areas, they will be used as long as it is necessary for accommodating those who, for practical reasons, have to come and live here from time to time while they are working here. Therefore it will not necessarily be the same man in the same house or area, but as one becomes unproductive in the White area, he will return to his homeland, and another will then come and work here. I am giving the hon. member for Pinelands, who has just sat down, a reply which goes straight to the heart of the matter, because, as I have told him, our approach is that the Bantu comes here to work. If he comes here to work, he must have a house, because if he does not have a house, we will have the conditions we had under the United Party Government before 1948, conditions of chaos, laissez-faire and all those miseries. For that reason we have submitted this Bill to this House in order to request that the employer will make his rightful contribution to create conditions here where there will be happy labourers within the framework of the policy of multi-national development, where you will be able to provide properly for the administration, housing, services and, as I have said, “the whole spectrum”. One needs certain basic funds for that. But what happens then is what this House and the country outside has seen, namely that the Opposition kicks up a fuss about this matter. I charge them with this, and I say that we on this side of the House are very clear about the matter. Let hon. members opposite understand very well— surely it must be clear—that you cannot have a labourer in a White area if you cannot house or accommodate him. Let those hon. members now decide once and for all what they want in regard to this matter. They should do so all the more because they are the people who have a record in this country which proves that they ignored the simple truth that if you have a worker here he must have a house; and if he does not have a house, you have chaos like the Windermeres and the Cook’s Bushes and similar conditions that they had here in South Africa. And in the Third Reading this morning, after a long discussion, the two hon. members opposite again advocated the things which they had advocated previously. I think this was really exposing the United Party in a way which simply astounds one. The money this House is being asked to vote at the Third Reading is required in order to establish a stable administration here in the White area. Let everyone in South Africa, including the farmers, housewives and employers, as well as hon. members opposite, know that this Bill and the funds provided by it are necessary so that an effective administration may be established which will not suffer from a chronic shortage of funds, and which will therefore not be restricted, not by unnecessary red tape either. This is our approach and our policy in regard to this matter. Surely it is simple and correct. But what has happened now? What has happened here is almost unbelievable. In spite of the fact that this Bill was published on 24th December, 1971, for the information of the general public, and in spite of the fact that my Department and I held not one, but numerous discussions about this matter with all the responsible institutions concerned here, including the Federated Chamber of Commerce and Industries; the Handelsinstituut and others—if I add the discussion in Cape Town, we have had five discussions—hon. members opposite are still not satisfied. I am being very serious now, because I think it has become time that notice was taken of the reckless ambiguity and, I hope it is parliamentary if I say this, the gangster-like way in which the Opposition …

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister must withdraw that.

Then I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker, Cognizance must then be taken of the reckless way in which the Opposition dealt with a measure such as this. If, viewed in retrospect, there has ever been a wise step, and I must say that we had many doubts whether it was wise, it was to determine the maximum of this amount at R2,50, knowing that for many years it will not be necessary to levy the full contribution of R2,50. The type of exploitation and discussion we have had in this House recently, and even the deathly element which entered this debate because of the attempts aimed solely at exploitation on the part of that side of the House, are the best proof that this type of thing should be laid before and discussed in this House as little as possible. What has happened? I have here in my hand a few newspaper cuttings with headlines such as “Workers face new tax” in big letters. This was after the Bill had been published for general information. The truth of the matter is that the Bantu worker is not being taxed here at all and this therefore indicates the ambiguous way in which this matter is being presented.

With reference to this specific prominent front-page report, while it is an infamous lie, as this House also knows, that the worker pays nothing, except in exceptional cases where he works for himself and has his own undertaking and these are only a small percentage …

Did we say that?

One of the speakers on that side of the House made the allegation at the very beginning and it was published as such.

Who said that?

It was The Star of 22nd December, 1971. The following is also stated—

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister?

No, I am not prepared to reply to a question from that hon. member. [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. the Deputy Minister is not prepared to reply to a question.

I am in any case not prepared to reply to a question from that hon. member after the way in which he made a speech in this House today. That report goes on to say: “Don’t tax urban Africans, the Government is told”. This is how they carried on.

May I put a question to the hon. the Deputy Minister?

No, I am not prepared to reply to a question now. Let me first complete my argument, then the hon. member may put his question. Then they went further.

Do not whine. You bring it on yourself. [Interjections.]

Order!

Then they went further. It is almost unbelievable what is going on in the country now that that Opposition is running before the wind as they are doing. If ever there has been people who are going to have a hard fall, it is the Opposition. If this country can afford the sort of action by the Opposition that we have had in respect of this Bill, I say it deserves only the worst. In consequence of the discussion on this Bill and the way in which it has been presented, I want to make the charge against that Opposition that the irresponsible way in which they exploit ordinary administrative matters for political gain, is going to bring down something on this country and specifically on them which will be a great pity for South Africa. The sooner the public realizes how recklessly the Opposition is acting in this regard, the better. What did they say? Listen to this. On 31st December, 1971, after these absolutely unprecedented false rumours had been sent into the country for political gain and in order to try to benefit that side, a leading article appeared in the Rand Daily Mail under the heading: “Blueprint for economic suicide”. This is in connection with just an ordinary administrative measure. I would not waste the time of this House by indicating this type of thing if I did not want to indicate at the same time how that Opposition unthinkingly, echoed this newspaper like parrots in this House in regard to that matter. The House must just listen how outrageous this article under the heading “Blueprint for economic suicide” is. After the matter had been discussed and the country knew what was happening here, this newspaper stated—

Continuing, they said—

The impression is created that firms will go under in South Africa as a result of this administrative levy in respect of Bantu labour for which the approval of this House is being sought. They went on to say—

As a result of this levy—

Allow me to say in the final instance that against this background a very important thing happened in this debate yesterday and today. Initially I thought that it was really a lapse. The hon. member for Transkei referred here to a levy of R2,50 per week. This morning that hon. member went so far as to suggest that the levy would be R46 per month. I say that we have here an Opposition which, in its exploitation of simple administrative matters, is becoming a disgrace to South Africa.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: W. A. Cruywagen, P. C. Roux, G. P. van den Berg and H. J. van Wyk.

Tellers: R. M. Cadman and J. O. N. Thompson.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move the following motion as it appears under my name on the Order Paper—

1. (1) expresses its sincere gratitude to the Government, the Department of Information and its officials for the excellent services which they are rendering with perseverance in putting South Africa’s case; and
2. (2) again directs attention to the importance of the task of this Department to disseminate knowledge and understanding of South Africa both abroad and among our indigenous national groups.

In doing this, I should like to make an appeal to hon. members on both sides of the House to maintain the discussion of this motion on a high level. I am doing this in the first place because frequently in the past discussions on this subject have been of a negative nature. I am also doing this because it concerns people, South Africans, who are fighting in the front lines for their country abroad. They deserve the gratitude of this highest assembly of the country and are people who are entitled not to have destructive criticism levelled at them in their quiet and dedicated labours, into which they put a great deal of energy. The Department of Information has just celebrated its 10th anniversary. These have been 10 years of great progress, and 10 years in which it has extended its activities over a large part of the world. Its activities in South Africa as well have been extended tremendously over the past 10 years. The results of its work cannot be measured in terms of rands and cents, in the form of revenue, but can only be determined in terms of attitudes which have improved, attitudes towards South Africa and also attitudes within South Africa. Although this criterion is not a general, everyday criterion, I want to say that we have every reason to congratulate this department on the extent to which it has succeeded in improving attitudes towards South Africa and also in causing reciprocal attitudes in our own country to improve. If one considers the establishment of this department, with its tremendous and comprehensive task, it is with surprise that one notes that it has a total of only 464 staff members. Of these only 200 are professional officers and 18 are technical officers, in other words, the people who actually have to perform this particular task. One feels then that one would like to make the best use of an occasion such as this to convey the deep-felt appreciation of this Parliament and of our country to these people who have this difficult and complicated task of stating South Africa’s case in the outside world. During the past recess many of us had the opportunity of visiting various overseas countries and of making the personal acquaintance, during those visits, of the officials of the Department of Information and of becoming acquainted with their problems and with the particular circumstances under which they have to do their work. Sir, I do not think that anyone will contradict me when I say that theirs is one of the most difficult tasks imaginable for a South African to perform.

You are dead right.

The hon. member says I am dead right; I am glad she agrees. Mr. Speaker, I want to go further and state that all of us who had the opportunity of making contact on an extensive scale with our officials of the Department of Information in overseas countries will agree that they are without exception people who are serving this country with the greatest dedication, and I want to congratulate the Minister of Information and his department on their choice of the men who are fighting for South Africa on the front lines there. In the past derogatory remarks have been made here, but I think that everyone will agree this morning that those men, who are quietly doing their work without inflating their own image, who are inspired by the motive of serving South Africa in spite of any set-backs they may experience, are truly one of the most dedicated groups of officials we have to serve this country. I want to congratulate the Department of Information on what it is achieving in a very wide sphere of its activities; with its wonderful publications of which almost 2 million appear monthly in 51 different forms. In the forefront is the prestige publication, South African Panorama, which has made a name for itself throughout most of the Western world, and for which there is a very great demand from various sources. I believe that this publication Panorama is an advertisement for South Africa, an advertisement which stimulates greater interest in South Africa, and which encourages people who are interested in South Africa to obtain other publications as well from the Department of Information. I want to congratulate and convey my gratitude to the department for the way in which it is stating South Africa’s case in each particular country according to the circumstances in and the idiom of that country. Mr. Speaker, this requires long hours from people who have to convey information from this country to the local Press and organizations abroad, in the language and idiom of that country. I wonder whether all of us are always aware of what it requires in terms of man hours and concentration to present that image of South Africa in such an exceptional way. In particular I want to congratulate the Department of Information on the fact that its representatives, particularly in overseas countries, do not throw up their hands in despair and admit defeat when they receive set-backs, as often happens to them with the hostile newspapers which believe only the worst about South Africa and with other mass media which are not prepared to convey a positive or a balanced image of South Africa; that they, a handful of people, still see their way clear to conveying a positive image of South Africa there. Few of us have an understanding of how they set about their task; of how, through personal liaison, by building up personal relationships, they eventually succeed in getting through to organizations to whom it is important to convey the image of South Africa. Those of us who came into contact with them have the highest respect for the way in which they are succeeding in their task, and I think it is necessary that we inform this House that those men enjoy the respect of the people among whom they move, not only those people who are sympathetic towards South Africa, but also of those people who disagree with us in the strongest terms. It says a great deal for our men there that their personalities and the way in which they state South Africa s case is respected by all. I think that the degree of success we have achieved and the improvement in attitudes in recent years can be attributed to the quality of the men representing South Africa there.

The work of our Department of Information covers such a wide field that one can scarcely mention all of it, but one is impressed by the way in which our information officers overseas are of assistance in regard to exhibitions and important functions which are actually requested by other departments, such as the Department of Commerce and other organizations, but which our officials of the Department of Information, with their technical knowledge and skill, undertake. One is grateful that they are conveying South Africa s image in such a wonderful way. They ensure that our activities in many fields receive attention, but at the same time there is cognizance of the fact that living here in South Africa is a highly civilized nation. They see to it that our cultural activities are held in high esteem in the Western world, and they realize that the scenic beauty of South Africa is something which should not necessarily have an effect on us alone, but is also attractive to other people. One thinks here of the way in which our beautiful wild flowers have come into their own in overseas countries. I think that some of the best ambassadors South Africa has are our beautiful wild flowers. One thinks of the way in which they are doing justice to our South African art, and to other aspects of our South African way of life.

When one is expressing gratitude to these dedicated men, it is also necessary to bring the importance of this particular task of the Department of Information to the attention of the House again. Perhaps not all of us are all that well-informed about what the functions of this department comprise. You will probably forgive me, Mr. Speaker, if I also express ideas on this occasion which, I think, ought to receive the support of this House, in order to facilitate the task of the Department of Information. I am speaking as a person who takes an intense interest in the security of my country. I take an interest in all the spheres in which we have to maintain our security. I believe that, as we must have a Defence Force and a Police Force, so we must also have a Department of Information, for the Department of Information is in fact the front line of defence for our security and stability. I think that the extent to which this front line can succeed in its task, will be the extent to which the work of the other organizations which also have to look after the security of our country can be alleviated.

If one encounters criticism abroad and even within South Africa to the effect that the Department of Information is not doing enough, I want to dispute this and say that, with the manpower it has at its disposal, it is doing more than is humanly possible. But I want to add to that that one does in fact get the impression that it is frequently hampered by a lack of funds. We are living in times in which we must save, and in which all State Departments have to submit to the pruning shears, but here is a particular sphere in which I believe that we should not spare the necessary means which have to be utilized. I was very pleased to hear from the hon. member for Orange Grove last year during the discussion of the Information Vote that he also agreed that the visit of the hon. the Minister to various offices of his department abroad, which was then imminent, would be worthwhile if it achieved the necessary results, even if it were to cost R20 000. I am glad the hon. member agreed, and now I want to say to the hon. member that I hope he is also able to agree this morning that that visit by the Minister and his departmental heads to the various offices abroad more than justified the cost and the trouble. Those men who are skirmishing for South Africa in the front lines cannot perform their task in isolation. Inevitably they have to be thousands of miles away from our country. But if there is one type of man in the front lines who must be able to remain in the closest possible contact with what is happening in South Africa then it is these men from the Department of Information. That is why I believe that those of us who also had an opportunity of visiting those offices and staff members a few months after the hon. the Minister, realize what the visit from the Minister and his departmental heads was worth to them. But I also believe that it should be made possible for those men to pay more frequent personal visits to South Africa, and not only to return every three years on home leave in terms of the stereotype Public Service regulations. If funds are a problem, we must give our attention to this matter. These men who have to perform that task must be placed in a position to return home more frequently, even if it is only for a short visit, to breathe the atmosphere here, which fluctuates tremendously, themselves; but apart from that, the opportunity should also be there for the hon. the Minister and his chief officials and others to maintain annual and regular contact with these men. This is the only way in which we can strengthen their hands, the hands which have so frequently in the past been tied by people in this country. I think that the hands of those men, who are not interested in blowing their own trumpets, should be strengthened by making this close contact possible, for that is the nervous system of the work they have to do.

I also believe that the regular overseas visits of members of Parliament should continue and that it should be a special directive to members of Parliament to make contact with the officials of the Department of Information in overseas countries, and not only to make contact by going to bid them good morning, but by conducting long and penetrating conversations with them, because they need it. When I say this, I do not mean only members on the Government side, but also members on the Opposition side, as they have already done. Our men in overseas countries convey a balanced image of South Africa. They emphasize at all times that we are not a one-party state, as President Kaunda now wants to turn Zambia into, but that we are a democratic country where we have an Opposition and where we have freedom of expression, and that free discussions take place in our public Press in South Africa. That is why they should also be in contact with members of the Opposition to hear their standpoint as well, and they, too, I think, should avail themselves of that opportunity.

You learn quickly.

The hon. member says I learn quickly. I do not want to steer this debate to another level, but I want to tell her that I think she also learnt a good deal when she was overseas.

Another aspect I should like to emphasize, is the choice of guests of the department who come to this country. I think this matter receives a great deal of attention, for the people who were guests of the department in South Africa return to their own countries with at least a better understanding of our special situation. I think there are very few people who were here as guests and who returned to their own countries with a hostile impression.

In conclusion I should just like to say a few words about the latest branch or division of this department, i.e. the Press Liaison Division. When this division was established a few years ago, there was negative comment as well, but I am grateful to be able to say that it has already become clear at this stage that not only are they meeting an essential need today, but that they are doing their work with distinction. We have already had two Press conferences given by the Prime Minister, and according to the evidence of all journalists—including those from abroad—these were a brilliant success and compared very well with similar conferences elsewhere in the world. Apart from that there is something which we probably do not always realize, and that is that the staff of the Press Liaison Division are not only there to arrange these conferences, but that smaller Press conferences take place every day.

Unbeknown to us these people are doing the organizational work, frequently long before the time, necessary to ensure that important things which happen here go off smoothly. It is their task to make the necessary arrangements which have to be made in the case of important visits which are being paid, of which we shall shortly have another example. They have succeeded in building up relations with our local Press and also the foreign Press present here or who come here occasionally so that it is appreciated that there is a good liaison here between the authorities and the Press. I think few of us realize what this division of the department in fact means for ensuring, by means of good liaison, to convey South Africa’s image to the wider world, in order to ensure that we are not seen, as is alleged in some hostile circles, as a dictatorial state in which we do not have freedom of expression. They are building up an understanding, and I want to advocate today that there should be understanding and more understanding for the great task which this Press Liaison Division is performing.

I do not want to take up any more time of the House. I therefore want to advocate that since we have such an opportunity we should bring the great and sacrificial work, but also the dedicated work which this department is performing for our country prominently to the attention of our people.

Mr. Speaker, I think we all listened attentively to the speech made by the hon. member for Stellenbosch. It is not necessary for us to repeat our well-known standpoint on the Department of Information, which is, firstly, that we are in favour of good, impartial information that will state South Africa s case well; secondly, that we are opposed to a one-sided and crude type of propaganda; thirdly, that we believe there should be greater co-ordination among the various Government departments in this regard; and fourthly, that we believe in South Africa’s case and will support anything which strengthens that case.

I have said that I listened attentively to the speech made by the hon. member, but it seems to me as if the feeling in the country, and the feeling among prominent Nationalists as well, about the work being done by the department is perhaps not as strongly in favour as his was. Hon. members probably read in a recent edition of Rapport—it was the edition of 20th February this year—that Adv. Dawid de Villiers suggested that a new body should be established to further the Republic’s case abroad. It is known that Adv. “Lang” Dawid de Villiers is a highly respected man in the circles of the party over there. What he says as general manager of Nasionale Pers is what the enormous Sanlam complex said the day before and what the hon. the Prime Minister and the party will say the next day. I therefore hope that we will hear something from the hon. the Minister of Information in this connection. [Interjections.] I do not know whether the hon. members are criticizing me now or Adv. De Villiers, but I shall now read what Adv. De Villiers said …

So this is your contribution!

I quote (translation)—

I do not necessarily want to go as far as that, but I say that there must be greater co-ordination in this regard and more intensive training in regard to what we are able to present to the rest of the world.

†Furthermore, the hon. member for Stellenbosch pontificated in the grand manner, which he is so able to do, in praising, not so much the Government, and very rarely the Minister, as the members of the department itself. One could almost imagine him reading from an illuminated address. One could hear the Gothic vowels and consonants in what he was telling us. What an encomium, what a panegyric, what impeccable and unquestionable homage to his own Government! But it did seem to be a bit like a Hamlet without the prince, because I do not think I heard more than one passing sentence of thanks to the Minister himself for what he has been doing. I do not think there is much reason for thanking the Minister, and possibly the hon. member was right in not thanking him too much. But I must say that where he is, one might say, the first reserve for the post of the present hon. Minister, one would at least have expected him to say a few more kind words about the Minister himself. You see, Sir, the hon. member for Stellenbosch is reasonably “verlig”, while the hon. Minister for Information is unreasonably “verkramp”, as we all know. Why, he has been so “verkramp” that he even satisfies the hon. member for Waterberg. Possibly the hon. member for Stellenbosch was saying to himself: “How can South Africa’s case be put abroad by a Minister who is basically verkramp while I am more verlig? How can the Minister actually, with his admitted conservative views, reflect the new so-called “verligte” thinking in the Nationalist Party? How can he, the Minister, who is also Minister of Immigration and has not been too successful in persuading people from other countries to come to South Africa, persuade people of other countries to think otherwise of South Africa? How is it possible that the hon. Minister, who was also a violent opponent in the past of television, a great proponent of the “Broederbond” type of education, and a close crony of the Hertzog-Jaap Marais faction, which has now disappeared from the House, represent Government policy better than I can?” I think the hon. member for Stellenbosch thinks, not without justification, that he could do that. Well, Sir, I therefore would like partly to interpret the frustrations and assist in the removal thereof from the hon. member for Stellenbosch, and mainly indicate the policy of the United Party and our view of his motion by moving the following amendment:

1. (1) expresses its desire that a proper understanding of South Africa abroad be achieved; and
2. (2) again directs attention to the importance of the task of the Department of Information, which is to disseminate accurate and balanced information about South Africa”.

Much of what is asked in this motion of the hon. member will be discussed and might with even greater profit have been discussed under the Vote of the hon. the Minister. However, as we are here to discuss this particular motion, I hope I shall be permitted to present a few thoughts on the matter.

First of all, I believe that despite the visit of the hon. the Minister abroad, a great deal of our propaganda overseas is by no means as effective as it could be and as it should be. I am glad to see that there is more subtlety in regard to a great deal of what is spread overseas in writing. I cannot judge too well from films and Press interviews, etc. It seems to me as if after all these years the advice contained in a document I have here, has been taken to heart by the Government. Hon. members opposite will not be surprised to know that it is a secret document and they will therefore know from what secret body it comes. More than 25 years ago this document spoke about the way that propaganda should be conducted and it said—

This is what this secret society, which shall for the present be nameless—I shall name it in my motion this afternoon—advised a long time ago and it seems to me as if the hon. the Minister is now taking that advice to heart. I looked up some of the material that is being spread abroad and it did seem to me as if it is sometimes over-subtle in its emphasis. I have here, for instance, something that is spread abroad, in Austria, with the name of Heute Aus Südafrika and I find that one of the three topics in this publication trying to persuade Austria and Germany to take a more favourable view of South Africa, has the caption “Büffel adoptieren jungen Elefanten”. Wonderful, a buffalo has adopted a young elephant! This article occupies one-third of this publication. The other two are about the increased export of South African fruit and about an art triennial in Johannesburg.

But what is wrong with that?

It is subtle, but it is so subtlety that I cannot quite understand of what use it is going to be. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can explain it to us. I have here another very subtle publication which is issued to France with the title “L’Afrique du Sud d’aujourd’hui”. It contains an article with the title “ou vont les Hirondelles?”—Where do the swallows go? He is telling the French about the birds, and next he will be telling them about the bees. After that France will know what South Africa can tell it about the birds and the bees. It is excellent, a very nice article, but I do not quite understand how this supreme subtlety is going to influence the rest of the world with regard to our point of view.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch spoke about the great success that has been achieved by the Government in regard to people who have been invited to South Africa at the taxpayer’s expense. In some cases I believe good work was done, but I am a bit doubtful about the persuasive powers of the hon. the Minister, who must have seen some of the prominent people from abroad who came here. In Elseviers, the biggest magazine in Holland, of the 11th December, 1971, one reads of an interview granted by Senator Harm van Riel.

*Senator Van Riel is a Dutch Senator who came to South Africa and had interviews with leading members of the Department, and possibly with the hon. the Minister as well. On his return he granted Elseviers this particular interview. It amazes me to see all the things appearing in this, and I wonder how he was informed. I want to quote from this interview. Firstly, he says that he does not think guerilla warfare will succeed in South Africa because, inter alia (translation), “all the dwelling-places of Africans (i.e. the Bantu) are built in such a way that no street is longer than 50 metres, and therefore directly open to guns. I had not thought that they had organized matters so well”. I think this is nonsense. What did the hon. the Minister tell Senator Van Riel? Of the Security Police he says (translation)—

After all, we paid a pretty penny to bring Senator Van Riel to South Africa for him to say this on his return. I can quote further from this interview. He tells how a person is bade farewell at Jan Smuts Airport when he is deported from the country. He says—

A cigar as well; that is nice—

I think our well-known and famous university in Bloemfontein may also be interested in what Senator Van Riel said about them after his return from South Africa. He said—

It is strictly controlled—

That is a double bed.

You could at least have looked for something decent to quote.

I am just pointing out how incorrect the information in the Time, one might say, the News Week of America, is in this connection. So much for the propaganda and other methods abroad. But I want to tell the hon. the Minister that on the whole more good than bad is done in this connection. However, my big objection to this department and to the hon. the Minister is the way in which the Department of Information is used for the dissemination of one-sided propaganda among the Bantu in South Africa.

†If hon. members want to see how lopsided this department is in regard to that, they need only look at the reply given to me on 7th February by the hon. the Minister in this House. I asked him about the set-up in his department. I could work out from the reply the number of officials dealing with South African propaganda and the number of officials dealing with propaganda abroad. We find that of the very top officials, 12 are stationed in South Africa and 10 abroad. That is understandable and I accept that you need more top officials in this country. But when you look at the next very high grade of official, namely the grade of chief information officer, “hoofinligtingsbeampte”, you find that there are 10 in South Africa and only 9 abroad. When you come to the next very high grade, namely the senior information officer, you find that there are 23 in South Africa and only 9 abroad. When you come to the ordinary information officers you find that there are 21 in South Africa and only 3 abroad. These do not necessarily indicate the exact numbers. It indicates the places where they are stationed. Let me rather put it this way: 23 places versus 3 for information officers in South Africa, 23 versus 9 places for senior information officers and so forth, as I have already indicated. This indicates a very lopsided state of affairs in this country. I can hardly see that there can be no complaints, as the hon. the Minister told me at one stage, about the work done by the information officers. We had from Chief Buthelezi a statement in the Press saying that he was being followed about by Government officials. I trust the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us that they were not people of the Department of information. The type of information he has been getting cannot be too good if one sees what has been happening at Owamboland. I wish to conclude by saying that although we would support any improvement in the work of the department, we feel that enough is not being done.

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

Mr. Speaker, we listened this morning to a most excellent speech by the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who put his motion in a very positive, penetrating and constructive way. The hon. member also appealed to this House to keep it on a high level. I think the Department of Information is indeed one of our departments which has to keep South Africa on that level.

The hon. member for Orange Grove entered this debate and I really thought he would keep the debate on a high level. I just want to quote one point which he mentioned. The hon. member had quite a lot to say about the officials of the Department of Bantu Affairs in particular. I just want to quote what the hon. member said in this House on 26th April last year. Referring to the hon. the Minister of Information he said—

At that stage the hon. member was glad that there were so many officials—that was what he wanted, but today he tries to disparage them.

You cannot understand sarcasm.

Actually I pity this hon. member. My humane feelings come to the fore; I pity him for having had to endure years of frustration. Because he thought in 1948 that he was going to become head of the State Information Service, but he did not. It makes me recall what the former member for Waterberg said here one day when he had to speak after this hon. member. The hon. member for Waterberg then said that the hon. member for Orange Grove reminded him of what the angel said to Hagar, namely “Thou shalt bear a son … he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him.”

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and I am very proud and glad to be able to second this motion by my hon. colleague. We have a department here with first-class officials and with one of the most competent men in South Africa, the hon. the Minister of Information, at its head. I wonder why this hon. member did not fefer to what the hon. the Minister achieved on his overseas tour. It is really unprecedented in history for one of our Ministers to have been able to have an interview with the Vice-President of the United States of America. What excellent work was done there! What good service South Africa was rendered! That is not mentioned by this hon. member, however. I do not want to enlarge on that any further, but we are glad to have such a Minister who is inspired by his task and that the competent officials of the department, in South Africa and abroad, are doing such good work.

My time is very short, unfortunately, as a result of the division we had after 12. Still, I just want to point out a few excellent services rendered by this department. My hon. colleague spoke of what was being done abroad. Now we know all that is being done there. Let us look for a moment at what is being done in South Africa. Every month this department distributes 1 800 000 copies of the 51 publications regularly published by the department. Twenty-eight of those publications are sent abroad, while 17 of these regular publications are meant for South Africa. Everything is done by this department to convey to the outside world the policy, not of the National Party, but of the Government of the day, of the State, of South Africa. I think the way in which it is being done and the extent to which they are succeeding is fantastic. It cannot be compared with anything else. We know, too, what the task of the Department of Information is in regard to the various peoples in South Africa. Their task is to convey information to the various population groups—to the Bantu, the Coloured people, the Indians and, of course, the Whites. The good work is carried on abroad on various levels, for example, by means of personal contact with individuals, groups and societies. It is also done by means of regular publications, newspapers, magazines and television. These facts are just concealed. We know that all these services have to be rendered out of the budget of R6 700 000 which this department has available to it. Despite the small amount available for it, offices are kept up in 17 of the world’s capitals and from those strongholds the good work is carried on. We also think of the guest programme in terms of which people are brought to South Africa from abroad. In this way there were 167 official guests and 553 visitors in South Africa on 31st March last year who were dealt with by this department. Under the care of the department those visitors received the necessary insight and guidance.

The hon. member for Orange Grove just apologized. I pardon him, but I just want to refer to what he read out about what was said by one of the visitors to South Africa. I want to point out the way in which the hon. member read it out, that a visitor had said that he had been decently treated when he was deported from South Africa; he received a handshake, coffee, and so on. It galls the hon. member that South Africa can act in such a proper and decent way. I wonder what he expected. Should we have seized the man by the hair and dragged him to the aircraft with his feet trailing on the ground, or what? South Africa, this department and its Minister know their duty and their manners and they know how to behave decently.

In respect of the Bantu in our country this department is performing a tremendous task. We see that there are several publications. We think, for example, of the Bantu Education Journal which is published in Pretoria every month. This journal, of which 30 000 copies are printed, is positive and to the advantage of our Bantu. No-one has ever complained about that journal and said that it was not a good journal. I want the hon. members who are going to follow me to say whether that journal or any other publication by this department is not good. We think of the monthly publication Bantu, of which 74 000 copies are printed. In this publication the policy of the Government is conveyed to the various Bantu groups. Excellent work is being done, and considering the limited staff, we can only say thank you for that. We think of the Progress series which is published. There are seven monthly periodicals which are published in Zulu, Xhosa, Tsonga, Venda, North and South Sotho and Tswana. They have a total circulation of more than 400 000 a month. Then there are also seven newspapers which are published regularly, and the series of films which are available to the Bantu. Then the hon. member comes along and says that one-sided propaganda is being made among the Bantu! No propaganda is being made. What propaganda can we make there? After all, they do not have the vote to elect representatives in this House. I want to emphasize repeatedly today that only excellent work is being done by this department.

What is this department doing in respect of the other population group the Coloured people? For them, too, there is a monthly with a circulation of 19 000, namely Alpha. This is just as excellent a piece of work. In this way we have the various newspapers as well. We think of the small journal Taak which is published in Afrikaans and English and which looks after the interests of the Coloured people and the Rehoboth citizens and manages their affairs. In this way there are several publications for the Coloured people as well. I am thinking of two other publications: ’n Bedeling vir Vooruitgang van Rehoboth and Hulp vir die Vooruitgang van Rehoboth-burgers. Those are very good publications. Those who have not read them yet should really get copies of them. We also think of the film series which was made for the Coloured people.

Then there is also the Indian group. What is being done for the Indians in South Africa? There is the Fiat Lux, for example, a Durban monthly of which 12 600 copies are printed. At the moment more copies are being printed. This is a monthly for the Indians. It is a positive publication and it contains no one-sided propaganda or anything which is not to the advantage of South Africa. We also have a series of films which was completed in 1971, namely Indian South Africans. That is also a good film. We also think of the other publications which are issued. The good and positive side of this department is not mentioned by the Opposition, however. We can leave the hon. member for Orange Grove there, and we hope we are going to get positive contributions from other hon. members who are going to speak this afternoon.

There are a few more matters I wanted to mention and I want to refer to just one of them, namely the new Quiz which has been made available. Formerly the old South African Quiz was provided, which was a small book containing very little information. In its place we have now received This is South Africa. This is a splendid and excellent periodical which has now appeared. This periodical is very positive and contains only facts. If there is anything in this periodical which I am now holding which does not present South Africa in a positive light, or which can be criticized adversely by any Opposition member, I should like to know what it contains that can be criticized as being negative. This little book is a pleasure to handle and you can easily put it on your shelf. It will not easily get lost among your papers so that you have to look for it either.

Finally I want to say that South Africa is indeed fortunate in many respects. We have a beautiful country and a rich country as regards mineral resources and people. One must also have an Opposition, however, which adopts a positive attitude, an Opposition which is prepared to tell this department and this Minister, “carry on your good work” even if they do not want to say, “Thank you for the good work you have done.” It is a great privilege to me to support this motion.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that it has become a recognized custom or a tactic in this House, on the part of the Government members, to have motions of this kind debated with the express purpose—and I think it is a reasonable purpose—of providing the Minister with an opportunity of making a public statement on the matters under discussion. I must confess that the habit has also grown with the years—a habit in terms of which the Minister concerned generally puts himself in an impressive light and produces a lot of figures and suggests that all is well in the best of all possible worlds. It may be a very enjoyable exercise, but it does not really get us very far. The sad thing here is that no matter what hon. members on that side of the House or the hon. Minister may say on the subject of disseminating what the hon. member for Stellenbosch describes in his motion as knowledge and understanding in South Africa, the Minister and his department, I regret to say, are thoroughly ineffectual and wasting many opportunities in this field. Later on I would like to mention some of the opportunities of which they could make use. We on the Opposition benches feel that it is due without doubt to the fact that it is very difficult to defend many of the Government’s domestic policies adequately overseas. They are difficult to explain or difficult to justify. This has had the result that with regard to our information services many of our overseas information offices have been adopting a defensive attitude in the presentation of the Government’s case. I think this is unfortunate because it succeeds neither in bluffing nor convincing anyone in the end. I am now speaking of the department’s dissemination of knowledge and understanding of South Africa abroad, not in our own country. Knowledge of course is one thing and understanding is quite another. Where facts are selectively chosen for propaganda purposes, and every Government in the world does it, and where they are set out in these little pamphlets and statistical tables, of course that is a good job of work. However, only half the job is being done. If understanding by people abroad is what we want, which is presumably the case and which the hon. member specifically mentioned, it can only come by generating a sympathetic approach to, and an acceptance of, the complexity of our problems. Our attempts to solve them necessitate an admission from time to time that we do not necessarily have all the answers. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether any of his officers overseas are free to suggest that we have problems with which we are struggling and which we are facing as courageously as we can …

But they are doing it.

Are they? Oh no, I am afraid that is not the impression I get. If we could do that, it would do us a great deal of good. The Department of information as presently constituted should, in the first place, devote a lot more time and thought to the anticipation of arguments that will be used against us by our enemies overseas. This is very seldom done as far as I can make out. A lot of the heat would be taken out of the attack against us if we could do this. I want to name one example. If after a general election people overseas were given the figures of the per capita vote obtained by different parties, and if samples of the local Press comments on the election results were published, it would help a lot. After the experiences that I have had, I cannot emphasize enough that this would bring home to those who are innately suspicious of our whole political process, firstly that South Africans are very much divided in their political thinking—this is a good thing and not a bad thing—secondly, that normal democratic voting practices do take place here—an awful lot of people do not believe that—and, thirdly …

But you do not want to say that they vote …

No, I think it would help to bring this to their attention. It is exactly what the hon. member for Stellenbosch has said. I agree with it. Thirdly, the world outside can be shown that our Press and our reporters are free to lobby for, or to condemn, whoever they choose. Unfortunately that is not how matters are always handled overseas. I do want to say that a really balanced picture is not very often given by our Department of Information. I think it is true to say that our Government’s basic attitude in preparing and disseminating information about South Africa overseas is, firstly, that the Government is always right, secondly, that their intentions and their policies, especially in regard to race relations, are ethical, just and eminently fair and are in fact above reproach. Thirdly, they create, the impression that we are a country of exceptional peace and tranquility compared to everybody else. Very few people overseas accept these things. Well then, the question for us, not as parties, but as a country, is how the situation should be handled. Paradoxical as it may sound, people overseas would be a lot less likely to abuse us, a lot less breeding ground is likely to be created for agitation against us and there would be a lot less concern about us if they knew not merely slanted facts, but the real ones. It is a question of striking a balance. My second major point, arising out of what I have just said, is that we do not have a public relations system which is sufficiently sophisticated nor a staff of public relations experts with professional training in this field, however competent and good the present officers may be and even though they have had journalistic experience or whatever it may be. Our information offices overseas are not run on the most effective modern basis in terms of the situation in the world and they are not sufficiently effective to contend adequately with the power and the prestige of the public communications media we are faced with overseas. I think it is a great mistake to imagine that everyone in Britain or the United States, for instance, is totally ignorant of South African affairs. The hon. Minister must know this. A great number of people know a great many facts about us, but the general public in those countries is largely brainwashed by a consistently hostile Press. It makes it difficult for any ordinary citizen in countries like that to come to a balanced conclusion about us because they seldom if ever hear anything except the one side which is nearly always hostile. Putting the other side is our job. It is not only the job of the Minister and his department, but it is also the job of all of us who go overseas and pay visits there to be good ambassadors for our country. I did it last year, as hon. members know, for three months in the United States. I want to put to the House the admirable view, that was mentioned by the hon. member for Orange Grove, put forward by Adv. Dawid de Villiers, chairman of the United States —South Africa Leadership Exchange Committee. He is a man of great experience in this field. He made a speech when he addressed the Potchefstroom Centre of International Political Study. I refer to the report that was published in Rapport of the 20th February this year. The hon. member is probably familiar with this report. He said—

I quite agree with him—

Then he goes on and says—

Then he said—

His final sentence is most important of all—

I entirely agree with what Advocate De Villiers said, and if it were at all necessary to underline that urgency of his proposals in that speech, let me quote very briefly from an interview which Die Burger had on February 18th of this year with Prof. Beekman from Holland, who has become senior lecturer in public administration at the University of Cape Town; he had just arrived to take up his post. The hon. the Minister may be familiar with this statement. Prof. Beekman said this—

Do you mean that we haven’t given them any?

No, I said programmes that the Netherlander had given. He then went on to say—

In other words, cannot we come back with something that does not create a sort of automatic reaction the other way. And then he said—

He then went on to talk about the Owambos.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister for the first time last year gave two public Press conferences to journalists from South Africa and overseas. There were verbatim reports of these conferences. The hon. the Minister himself introduced the journalists. The verbatim reports of these conferences were issued by the Department of Information and, as the hon. the Minister knows, went everywhere overseas. This innovation is very much to be welcomed, Sir, but it is significant that Prof. Beekman’s main difficulty in dealing with the propaganda against us in the Netherlands directly concerned people held under detention for political reasons, meaning, of course, those who were not brought to trial. But, Sir, what is one to do in an attempt to be a good ambassador overseas when one witnesses how the Government itself deals with this kind of issue? No less a person than the hon. the Prime Minister at that Press conference, in response to a question, gave a reply which I can only describe in parliamentary terms as grossly inaccurate on the subject of people being held for political reasons. Sir, let me give you the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply. He was asked by a Mr. A. B. Wessels, who writes for one of the Afrikaans papers in this country, about people who had died while in detention and the fact that there had been a public outcry; his question was—

Sir, what was the hon. the Prime Minister’s reply?—

That is a categorical statement, Sir, but with due respect, is it an accurate statement when the hon. the Prime Minister knows very well about a certain case that I handled here in this House a year ago? I refer here to the Imam Haron, where the request for the appointment of a judicial commission was in fact refused, in spite of this law which the hon. the Prime Minister mentioned, and I would like to know what law it is which says that there shall be an automatic judicial review.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, please, I have too little time. The magistrate at that inquest, which was held in public and which was attended by the world’s Press, said that death was partly due to this man’s falling down stairs, but he could not account for the rest of the injuries on his body, which one of the State pathologists had said were consistent with blows that he had seen on the bodies of people who had died as the result of an assault. Sir, the point is that overseas this makes an appalling impression. I was challenged because of the hon. the Prime Minister’s statement at his Press conference and, having dealt with the case here in the House, I had no adequate answer, as I would have liked to have had.

Sir, I want to come back now to some of the Minister’s officers. Early in October I went to the University of Vermont in Burlington. I went there, the Minister may be interested to know, at the invitation of a United States Rotary exchange student whom I met here, whose father is on the staff and who invited me to lecture at Vermont University. Sir, I read a paper on “aspects of political, economic and social change in South Africa”. Where I approved of Government policy, I said so. It was not a party-political speech at all. I approved of the Government’s contact with African countries; I approved of the change in the sports policy, and I said so. I did everything I could to give an accurate picture of the political scene, subject, of course, to questions as to where we stood in our party on certain issues. Sir, what did I find when I got to this university? I found that a senior information officer from our department’s office in New York had been there two days before me and I was immediately faced with the local Press reports of his speech. The officer concerned, whose name I am not going to mention—I will give it to the hon. the Minister later if he would like to have it—indulged in a series of generalities which, clearly, carried no conviction at all, and the more’s the pity, because I was questioned very closely on the accuracy of his address. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he thinks that I felt particularly happy having to contradict some of these things when I was asked questions point-blank, when they held up this Press report, which is from the Burlington Free Press of 7th October, 1971, about what this man had said. He was asked to come and speak about South Africa; everybody there was willing to listen and he said, amongst other things—

What is wrong with that?

Somebody said to me, “Have they any option?” What did I say? Of course they have no option. [Interjection.] In fact, all bridges of communication between us and people of colour have virtually been cut off by this Government, as the hon. member knows, except in official circles. This officer, according to the newspaper report, made no mention of the unrest and mass arrests caused by apartheid, nor did he mention that many Whites in the country view the policy as unworkable. I would have thought that it would have been much more intelligent to have given the impression that there was a proper democratic dialogue on this subject. Then, Sir, he said that no one had ever been arrested for differing from the South African Government.

Of course not.

Well, Sir, I leave the hon. the Minister to decide the basis for that type of statement.

What did you reply?

This officer then went on to say—

Sir, what he omitted to say is that the Whites are not under the jurisdiction of the Transkei Legislative Assembly, although they live there, and this is not really a correct presentation of the facts. It suggests that all people have everything they want in their own corner of the country and that they are running their affairs, and that is not a correct presentation of the facts. Finally, Sir, he went on to say—

Now listen to this, Sir—

Then he went on to say that there was no more land to be bought for the African people because, he said, they had it all already. Well, I am told that there is still a million morgen of land to be bought.

In conclusion, Sir, it seems to me that the Department of Information fails to check sufficiently often with our major information officers overseas to see what their reaction is likely to be in the country in which they serve to certain things which are said and done here. I would like to know how often these officers are consulted personally by the Minister, rather than simply being given Government hand-outs as the basis of their work, which is often done under very difficult circumstances. The hon. member for Stellenbosch is quite right in saying that they should come here very much more often. The biggest fault, it seems to me, in public relations terms, is the inadequate “feed-back” by the Government and the Information Department in South Africa to the people responsible for our public relations overseas. You see, Sir, the South-West Africa crisis, the Dean’s trial and the Timol case were shockingly handled overseas. Why do I say that? Because of the Government’s complete clampdown in the early stages on news about these matters, just when speculation and rumours were most unpleasant. How often are our information officers overseas asked for their views by the Minister and the Cabinet before a statement is made on any of these issues that are so vital? Is there a hot line between the hon. the Minister and these members of his department?

You will be surprised.

How often does the Government use them to measure public opinion in countries overseas, and how fast do their reports come back to the Government? Within 24 hours or within three weeks?

Less than that. You will be surprised.

Well I am surprised at that. Why does not the Government actively do what the hon. member for Stellenbosch suggested, to encourage people from South Africa in all walks of life and of different opinions to go on speaking tours overseas? It would be a tremendous encouragement and of great value to the country. Instead of expressing satisfaction, I think it would be more effective if we were to review the whole of our public relations system, as Advocate De Villiers proposed, bring it up to date and ensure that all the information disseminated is both accurate and balanced.

My last word is this. The salient fact of good public relations anywhere in any field is that all the facts of any case should be clearly and fearlessly presented and not merely half of the facts, as has been done up to the present. A balanced and open presentation of South Africa’s political position is the surest way to undermine and subvert hostile criticism. But this is a lesson which this Government unfortunately does not seem willing to learn.

The hon. member is very concerned about what can be done by South Africa to gain wider acceptance for its propaganda overseas. The hon. member has merely to start with the speech of her predecessor in the debate, the hon. member for Orange Grove. What did we have there? We had insinuations without any evidence, of propaganda which was subtly woven into our propaganda abroad so that it could not be noticed. We heard remarks about propaganda which was “over-subtle”. We heard about propaganda …

Which was “over-subtle” to my limited intellect.

I appreciate that interjection. We heard of a “lopsided state of affairs”. The hon. member for Wynberg has now referred to Timol again.

The way it is being handled.

“The way it is being handled ” I want to say that the first place where our information is prejudiced and fails is to be found on the benches of those hon. members. Now the Opposition also has learned information officers and former newspaper editors in their midst, as we heard earlier today. I want to send this publication, the South African Digest, to the hon. member for Kensington. There it is. I want to send this publication, the South African Panorama, to the hon. member for Kensington as well. There it is. And I want to send this publication, Australian Panorama, to that hon. member and he must tell me which one is best. Then I also want to ask the hon. member for Kensington, who is going to speak after me: Sunday after Sunday we read in the Sunday Times about these matters which these two hon. members have just emphasized here. That hon. Minister of Information has opened the doors to all the newspapers and the Press media of the world to talk to our esteemed Prime Minister face to face. Now I want to give that hon. member for Kensington these minutes of the last Press conference of the hon. the Prime Minister. I want to ask the hon. member why the Sunday Times was not represented at that Press conference, where it could have confronted the Prime Minister with these matters which they are always talking about here and which the Sunday Times writes about every Sunday and which causes untold and irreparable damage to the South African image in the outside world. I shall send the hon. member for Kensington these minutes and I should very much like to hear his comment on them.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch has given a very high tone to the debate. I have a heartfelt need to refer, in the few minutes available to me, to a matter regarding information which I believe to be of great importance. Officially South Africa has many enemies today, or let me put it like this: officially we have very few friends, as the hon. member for Wynberg learned the hard way in the U.S.A. But potentially we have a very large and permanent group of friends in the outside world.

Especially with a new government.

We have a growing number of permanent friends who have the courage of their convictions and are sufficiently informed to get up and take South Africa’s part when the political taps are turned on against South Africa in their countries, and we have many examples of that, as the hon. the Minister can testify. Our information department is naturally small, and its officials are naturally few in number in relation to our other large State departments. Those officials cannot cope with the task of a comprehensive information effort on their own. It is really a front which is as wide as the front of our military preparedness in the Republic. Due to the factors I have mentioned our enemies may be numerous, largely perhaps as a result of the negative influence of elements in this Opposition and a part of the Opposition which is not on these benches today, who for the sake of attracting popular votes often do not appear to reflect about what they say in public. Since our enemies are numerous, the time has come for our people to make a total effort to assist the Ministry and the information effort. The time has come for the establishment of a large voluntary information citizen force. The assistance rendered to our Department of Information by the people is already formidable, but it can still be considerably increased to a total effort on every level where we certainly do not need the help of the hon. member for Orange Grove.

I want to mention examples of how the people are being drawn into this total information effort as a result of the stimulus provided by the Department of Information. The New Zealand women’s cricket team is touring our country. Last Friday night the Minister of Sport entertained the New Zealand team as well as our Springbok team at a reception at Fernwood. We were there and hon. members on that side of the House were there as well. We listened with interest to the questions put by those New Zealand ladies, and not many of them were about cricket. For the most part they were sincere questions showing sincere interest in this country and its inhabitants and its various peoples. I was proud of the way in which our ladies of the Springbok team replied to questions of all kinds, from gold production to information on Bantu folklore, from agricultural problems to the fine arts, and I must take off my hat in appreciation of the way in which those young Springbok ladies conveyed the factual information about their native country to the New Zealanders in spontaneous conversation, without any political motives, in all sincerity. I am not interested in the political affinities of the individuals in the team. I am interested in and deeply appreciate the fact that those sportswomen helped the ladies of the New Zealand cricket team to come to an objective understanding of our country. Without being aware of it at all, perhaps, they helped to create new ambassadors with goodwill towards South Africa. This is an example for that hon. member who is sitting in the front bench of the Opposition. They shared in the total effort to take up the cudgels for the Republic as good voluntary information officers. Without dragging in politics and being politically obtrusive, we cannot but observe how our young people who take part in sport, whether on the level of athletics … The hon. friend for Kensington can see in the Panorama which is lying in front of him how young Springbok athletes such as Denise van Wyk from my town, Verwoerdburg, are proudly carrying the message of green and gold over the world. The same goes for our rugby teams, which carry the green and gold to foreign countries.

They represent only the Whites, not the country.

Likewise there are our netball teams. Does that hon. member want the team to be a mixture of Black and White? They are the people who, as hosts and hostesses, have to convey, on a personal level and when they are competing with their sporting opponents, the correct and objective information which is for the most part made available to them by our Department of Information. They are fine people and they will not convey nonsense to our friends.

I recently went to assist in the Gezina constituency where, as these hon. friends know, a splendid victory was gained by my party. There I came into contact with many young people.

What about Brakpan?

Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind my hon. friends of the fact that Brakpan was won by the National Party, not by the United Party. I was impressed by the eagerness of the young people of South Africa to assist spontaneously in this total information effort. Our young people realize the value of good friends all over the world, in view of the future years when they will be full-fledged citizens and leaders of this country. Our young people realize that they are living in a splendid country. They want to be armed with facts when they go overseas on holiday in group tours or on educational tours, or when they receive overseas visitors here. The young people of South Africa deserve the thanks of this House today for the way in which they spontaneously and honestly join forces with the Department of Information.

The domestic services of the Department of Information is the keystone upon which everything hinges, the source from which the objective information documents may be obtained which this hon. member for Wynberg, and the lawyer of whom she spoke as well, apparently, was so concerned about. Personally I am satisfied that our source of information which is available at the Department of Information is quite sufficient to make any further co-ordinating bodies unnecessary.

Finally, I also want to point out that our English-language newspapers, which are the most important medium, next to the English transmission of Radio South Africa, through which overseas visitors to this country must take cognizance of circumstances, have a task to fulfil in respect of spreading information. In the past few weeks I have found it interesting to read in the week-end supplements of our two English-language newspapers in Cape Town, the Cape Times and the Argus. I want to avail myself of the opportunity in this House to express my sincere thanks to the editors of the supplements of those newspapers for the way in which they give an objective view of South Africa and South African circumstances in those week-end supplements. This is journalism of a high standard and as a Nationalist I should like to tell the editors of those supplements— irrespective of their political views, which are according to their own conscience— that those week-end supplements are good work which is most certainly appreciated by every sincere White South African. With these thoughts I should very much like to endorse with all my heart the motion put by my colleague, the hon. member for Stellenbosch.

The hon. member for Pretoria District was kind enough to send me over the February copy of South African Panorama. I will come back to that in a moment. In fact, it contains something which I propose to deal with anyway. Before I come to him I want to deal with an interjection which the hon. member for Stellenbosch made while my colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg, was speaking. You will recall, Sir, that she was making the point that one of the complaints from this side of the House is that the Department of Information does not try to carry across to the outside world that there is a brisk dialogue going on in this country. We realize that we have problems and I think it can be safely said that we are trying honestly to solve them. The hon. members on the Government side have one point of view; we assume that they believe implicitly in it. We have another point of view and we believe implicitly in ours. The point she was trying to make was that the Department of Information does not try to convey this picture to the outside world.

That is wrong.

The hon. member for Stellenbosch, I am glad to say, again says “that is wrong”. When the hon. member for Wynberg was speaking he interjected and said: “But that is what they are doing”. I am surprised that he should take this point of view. You will recall, Sir, that during the Information Vote last year I raised this point and so did the hon. member for Orange Grove. And what was the only reply that we got from that side of the House? We got it from the hon. member for Algoa. He laughed at the suggestion that anything to do with the Opposition should be sent abroad. He said —and I quote from column 5285 of last year’s Hansard—talking about me—

If you carry on and read what he said, he made it quite clear from the Government side that neither the hon. the Minister, who never contradicted him, nor anybody on that side was interested in carrying across to the outside world that there were other points of view in this country. It did not help any more than the sanctimonious approach such as we have had from the hon. member for Stellenbosch.

Turning to South African Panorama…

It is a fine magazine, is it not?

Yes, Sir, it is very well produced and I think broadly speaking, it is something of which we can be proud. I said so last year and I think I said so the year before. When one is approaching publications such as this, I think one should have a very keen regard for what one might call the more subtle techniques in disseminating information.

And more sophistication.

Yes, indeed, one needs perhaps more sophisticated techniques. What I say about the South African Panorama also applies to the South African Digest or Suid-Afrikaanse Oorsig, which was so courteously handed to me by the hon. member for Pretoria District.

He has thrown it.

Yes, he threw it. I think he regards that as a type of courtesy.

Let me say immediately that the international sports festival we had here in Cape Town last November gave to the Department of Information, in my view, probably the best chance it has had in many, many years of putting across something about South Africa that is truly positive, the sort of thing that we agree with in this country, and which could only have met with acclaim from the rest of the world. Having said that, let me make it quite clear that, as far as the Department of Information is concerned, I believe it should be realistic in matters of communication with the outside world. It should, in catering for the type of taste in the outside world, which is something we want to cater for in putting our image across, have regard to the sort of matters that interest people and those that do not. The sort of thing that would not interest the outside world, would be the excuses— I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Sport is not here; he was here a minute ago—that we put out for holding what really amounted to multi-racial athletics in this country. We called it “multi-national” and all sorts of names. We tried to direct our approach to the fact that we were having “multi-national South African” games—which were in fact multi-racial—and that there were also athletes from other countries competing. Let us forget these apologies. Let us just consider the facts. We had a highly successful multi-racial, inter-national sports meeting. In projecting this to the world, we would after all only be projecting the facts of what happened. We would not be trying to hoodwink the world. We had a thoroughly successful multi-racial meeting. I think we should have tried to gauge what people in the outside world should know, and want to know about South Africa. My only criticism of this particular issue of The South African Panorama is that we have it thrust down our gullet that some of the sportsmen were Bantu, some White and some of other colours. This is not important. Perhaps we should have just cut down on the amount of ideological, highly charged racial writing and published rather more of this sort of picture that we see here.

More subtle.

Yes, indeed, more subtle.

Your pal said a moment ago that we are being too subtle.

We should have been much more subtle, instead of trying to brazen it out telling the world that here at last we are having Black people from South Africa competing with White people from South Africa. Let them see it for themselves. Let us not try to thrust it down people’s throats. We would have made a far better impact if we had simply handled things as they originated.

Much the same happens with the approach of The South African Digest. How often do we not see perfectly good pictures, which are self-explanatory anyway, and reports, marred by the fact that we keep on hanging racial tags to what we send overseas. People overseas quite frankly do not understand this approach and they are not particularly interested in it. I think we would make every impact we want to make if we simply let events and pictures speak for themselves.

I now want to speak more generally and come back to the motion. The compass of the Department of Information is very wide indeed and I must admit quite frankly that we have no complaint with the way in which the department carries out its duties. There are some things that we feel quite strong about; they have been voiced in this House before and we shall continue to voice them. The department divides its activities under four main headings, namely the interior division, the foreign division, the audio-visual and publications division, and the Press liaison division. As far as the activities of the interior division are concerned, we do hope to elicit in the course of this Session rather more information than we have had in the past about exactly what it does. I do not know if the hon. the Minister will tell me, but I think under this division come such things as information services in Bantu areas. Is that so?

Yes.

I thought that was so. The hon. member for Orange Grove has said that we do have some doubts as to exactly how this operates. Talking about putting across two sides of the picture, I was most surprised to discover that the head of one of our Bantustans did not know an elementary and most important fact of United Party policy when I spoke to him a few months ago. He did not know, for example, that our policy provides for home ownership in urban areas by the Bantu people. I think there is a bit of missionary work that could be done by that hon. Minister’s department. He seems to be keen to put across his policy, but locally in our Black areas he does not seem very keen even to bring home the elementary aspects of United Party policy to the leaders there.

What about the Progressive and Herstigte policies? Must I convey all of them?

No, only that of the alternative and next Government. Dealing briefly with the foreign division … We know that the hon. the Minister had a fairly extensive and also expensive tour of foreign countries last year. We gave it our blessing, because we felt it was the right thing to do. As the hon. member for Stellenbosch has said, you cannot measure the results of these things in rands and cents, but in manifestation of a better or broader understanding of the task that we have ahead of us. We were told, before he left, that he would find in the course of his travels ways of improving our efforts abroad and he was told that he would come across many techniques of doing so. I trust that in the course of this debate we shall hear more about it. As far as the audio-visual section of the department is concerned, I must agree with the hon. member for Pretoria District that we do have a real talent for the projection of news and ideas through our publications. It is also common cause that our publications in this country achieve a very high standard. By the same token I think that documentary films produced in this country are of an exceptional standard. The tragedy here is that we tend to harness only a section of our talents. This point has been made before, but we see little change in the position. The hon. the Minister has told us in the past where leading people in his department come from. In almost all cases they come from one particular orientation, namely from one closely connected with the National Party or its Press. This is a tragedy because there is much to be said about South Africa and it can be said highly skillfully through the use of far more people from a wider background than the hon. the Minister seems to draw on.

Time is limited and I think there is little more that we can handle in the time allotted to us. But I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give us a chance now in this debate, before his Vote comes up for discussion, to hear from him what he discovered overseas. It would be fair to use this occasion which is in many ways a stage-managed occasion.

Is this a soliloquy?

It would be most useful to us on this side of the House and to the country at large to know exactly what the hon. the Minister found out in the course of his travels. He can perhaps tell us a little more of what he has in mind as a result of what he has found out.

Mr. Speaker, in the limited amount of time available to me I should like to deal with four suggestions, what I regard as constructive suggestions, possibly attractive as well. It is true that even a constructive suggestion obviously implies some small measure of criticism, but for all that, it does not detract from the constructiveness of my intent. I hope that hon. members and the hon. the Minister will see my suggestions in that light.

There exists side by side with the Department of Information an organization known as the South Africa Foundation. This is a highly respectable foundation consisting of a large number of businessmen, private enterprises and private individuals who are extremely concerned about South Africa’s image abroad and wish to make their contribution in a non-official way to the improvement of that image. About two or three days ago the South Africa Foundation held its annual general meeting and it was addressed by its President, Dr. P. E. Rousseau who, as the House knows, is a distinguished South African industrialist. He had a number of suggestions to make. He showed concern about the deteriorating image of South Africa. One of the things he said was that in order to improve South Africa’s image—

The report continues as follows:

This is a profound truth. Dr. Etienne Rousseau does not speak purely for himself; he is advised by his Foundation which itself has representatives and contacts throughout the world. This is his synopsis of what needs to be done. I should like to endorse this very strongly. There are in Africa some 44 states. Of these 21 are French-speaking. There are over 2 000 different languages and dialects in Africa and English and French are the only languages which constitute a sort of lingua franca with which the various African states may communicate with each other. If South Africa has ambitions in Africa—ambitions of friendship, I imply—if South Africa wishes to build bridges in Africa, it is most important that we should communicate with the French-speaking African states. By and large I would say they are the most friendly disposed to South Africa of the general run of African states. I would like to urge the hon. the Minister that his department, which is concerned with the propagation of information and, among other things, the preparing of the way to closer understanding between the states of Africa, should take advantage of the new techniques and methods of learning French, i.e. the new audio-visual facilities that are available. The hon. the Minister may then, when he comes back to the House in a year or two, be able to assure us that a large number of his officials are in fact able to converse in French, are able to understand French well and are generally proficient in French in order that the work of building bridges to Africa may proceed with the full help and co-operation of his department. I know for a fact that there are a few members of his department who are proficient in French, but I also know for a fact that there are not nearly enough of them. I hope that the hon. the Minister will pay attention to this matter, because it not only concerns Africa but also the Common Market, where French again is the lingua franca. It is most important to realize that many roads to understanding in other parts of the world do in fact lead through Paris, as Dr. Rousseau has said.

This leads me to my second proposal. The hon. the Minister may well ask, justifiably; “Where am I to find the people to carry out this task?” It is in any event not very easy to find people of high quality, who could mix at any level of society and can go around the world and represent the best of South Africa’s culture and its aspirations, without drawing too heavily on other branches of industry and activity in South Africa, which can ill afford to spare such people. I believe that the women of South Africa have a role to play here. There are many young women in South Africa, who are educated and often have a knowledge of French acquired at the universities, who could in fact he most usefully employed by the department. This department has unfilled posts abroad. No doubt the department will have to expand. Here is a rich field from which the hon. the Minister could draw, in order to fill gaps and build up his department to play the role we envisage for it.

A third suggestion is that the hon. the Minister should continue with his present policy, of which I approve, of as far as possible issuing publications abroad in the language of the country concerned. We have discussed this before and I will not go into detail, but I think it is certainly accepted by the hon. the Minister that the customs, the tastes and the manner of presentation of all kinds of literature vary from country to country. It is most important that, if the Department of information supplies basic facts from here, each mission abroad should have the freedom to interpret this information in the language, the manner and the idiom which is acceptable in the country in which the mission finds itself. This is a tendency which I see increasing and improving and we give the hon. the Minister our support in this regard. I have, like the hon. the Minister, recently been round a number of embassies and in my opinion there are still too many publications lying on the racks, unsuitable for local circulation. If one went behind the scenes of an embassy, into the storerooms, one used to find thousands of publications uncirculated. This is a tendency which I think is declining. I think it is no longer the case that so many publications are despatched in bulk to embassies in the wrong languages and with the wrong presentation and wrong sentiments and therefore unsuitable for local use. I believe that we have an improvement here and I hope the hon. the Minister will pursue this policy on the basis, I have suggested.

I would suggest, also, that the example afforded by a newspaper most of us receive, called the German Tribune, should be followed. This magazine is really a review of the Press and contains a selected collection of the best leaders and newspaper articles of the week in Germany. One of our best advertisements abroad as a democracy is the high quality and the controversial and free nature of our Press. It is not a very difficult task to select the best and most effective items from our Press and to put them together in the form in which they appear in The Tribune and to make this available to countries abroad. It is a quick résumé of what is going on here and of the controversies of the day. The Tribune is very lively reading because it is selective of quality and not selective of party. It is supported by the Government but produces everybody’s point of view; it gives a most convincing image of democracy at work. I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister give some thought to a publication of this kind.

Lastly, I would like to return to Dr. Etienne Rousseau, who has made another suggestion. This is of a more critical kind, but even constructive suggestions sometimes have a critical content. He said—

Whether we like it or not and whether actions in this country are justifield or not, it is a fact that there is nothing which gives South Africa such a bad image abroad at present, in the present climate of our times, as these bannings, arrests and detentions.

That is nonsense.

It is a fact and I am prepared to back the opinion of Dr. Etienne Rousseau as against the opinion of that hon. member in the comer. It is in fact so. There is no question that anybody who travels abroad or who lives abroad and sees the way these matters are reported, will be convinced that this image of South Africa is the most harmful, the most pernicious of all the images which are projected abroad about South Africa. I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that this is so. What can we do about it? I believe the task of Foreign Affairs, foreign relations and foreign information is not only an outward task. I believe that it is also an inward task. It does not only project abroad; it should work inwards. I believe that that hon. Minister’s department, just like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, must be concerned not only with the projection of what is best for South Africa abroad, but that it should also reflect inwards to the councils of State in this country and within those departments which take such decisions, the need to act with restraint, to act with care and to act with excessive observance, if necessary, of democratic principles. It is only in this way, if the department does its duty in the outward as well as the inward sense, and if it realizes that South Africa’s good name depends not only on what it projects abroad but what it projects back into the organs of State in South Africa, that it will be doing its full duty, and that it will really be improving and protecting South Africa’s name both at home and abroad.

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by expressing my gratitude to the hon. member for Stellenbosch, who moved the motion here this afternoon. I also want to thank him for the competent manner in which he illustrated it. Furthermore, I want to thank the hon. member for Sunnyside and the hon. member for Pretoria District for their contributions. It is good for one to talk about this department and what it involves, for although this department is not a big one, and although there are not large numbers of people on its staff, it is doing excellent work in presenting South Africa’s image not only abroad, but also domestically in respect of the policy of the Government of the day, which is in fact the task of this department, a task which was originally entrusted to it by way of an announcement in the Gazette. I want to extend my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Stellenbosch for the fine manner in which he put the case and for the friendly quotations. He can speak from experience, because he has just returned from an interesting tour during which he saw how our information people quite often found themselves in the firing line while having to act in the interests of South Africa. Therefore I welcome this motion, and I should like to leave our own members at that. I must do this because my time is so limited and because I must turn my attention to the Opposition’s standpoint in this regard. I want to start at once by saying that it is, of course, a tragedy in this Parliament that the hon. member for Orange Grove is always the obvious person to react first to this Department of Information. The problem of the hon. member for Orange Grove is that he simply cannot rise to the standard justified by a debate on this department. He does not have the ability to criticize positively; he does not have the ability to make a thorough study of his theme, and consequently he always lapses into the sewers of his own train of thought. I want to illustrate this to the hon. member

Don’t make any propaganda.

No, we are not making any propaganda; not I, nor the department; the hon. member is absolutely wrong. We refuse to use the word “propaganda”. Sir, let me illustrate it. Every year we get roughly 100 guests, visitors from abroad. We bring these people here and we let them see South Africa. They have interviews with people on the Government side, with people on the Opposition side, and with any person to whom they want to speak. We give them a comprehensive, faithful, objective picture of South Africa. We allow them to sit here in this House and to listen to the debates being conducted. In fact, until a moment ago we had here two guests of my department, who walked out while the hon. member was speaking. They sat here listening this morning. These people gain a full impression of conditions in this country. Out of the approximately 100 we get every year, it is logical that one will occasionally find a person who comes here with preconceived ideas, who sums up the situation here, and who then goes back and perseveres in propagating those ideas against South Africa, this time with more fervour and zeal, for now they can say that they have first-hand information because they visited South Africa themselves. But 99 per cent of those people go back with a totally new outlook, with an altogether better understanding of South Africa, with a positive bias, even if it is only with this one understanding, i.e. that the problems of South Africa are much more complicated than they seemed to them while they were over there, 8 000 miles from here. I want to ask the hon. member for Orange Grove this question: Is it proper and reasonable of him to take the one negative case of Senator Van Riel—we all know that it was a negative case—and merely to quote what he said and nothing about the positive things that were said in regard to the whole matter?

In that case, mention a few positive matters.

That is precisely what I am going to do; the hon. member has walked right into the trap, for I have examples of that here with me. Sir, the hon. member quoted Senator Van Riel. I want to say at once that Senator Van Riel had interviews with people on our side and on the other side. For all I know he may also have had an interview with him, and for all I know he may have told Senator Van Riel that lot of nonsense. The hon. member referred to Elseviers Weekblad. Now I am going to quote from this same Elseviers Weekblad, for the very reason that it was his source. I am not going to quote what Senator Van Riel said, but what was said by Mr. D. N. van Rosmalen, the foreign editor-in-chief of that publication, the person who holds a very high position on the editorial staff of that publication. I have here three lengthy articles on South Africa, 85 per cent of which consists of positive comment on South Africa. It is difficult for me to select at random a suitable one I can read out here, but here is one example (translation)—

This is a favourable, positive reaction to what we are doing for the Black man in the Transkei. But, since the hon. member is looking for quotations on the positive aspects, I want to read out another quotation. Here in my hand I have an article written by Mr. Guy Wright, the editor of a newspaper in San Francisco, the San Francisco Examiner.

That Guy is more “Wright” than the other one.

He wrote here about South-West, and from the nature of the case South-West is a very important terrain to us, especially in America and in the international world. He wrote—

Now, these are positive statements on South Africa. These are the results we achieve through our guest programmes. I want to mention another example, quite interesting one. In the course of the visit I paid to countries abroad last year, I was asked to address the International Institute in London, better known as Chatham House. I made a speech there, and this speech was recorded and published by my Department of Information in their brochure which appeared in London as well as New York. I ask any member to read that speech. I stated the South African policy and problems in full. I ask any person to read that speech and to point out to me one example of petty politicizing contained in it. This speech was prepared with one end in view, i.e. to put straight South Africa’s image in the world outside. The speech was delivered. One of our guests who came here, was a member of Congress from America, Mr. Bob Sykes. Other members of Parliament also met him here, and he was so impressed with South Africa, and became so friendly with us, that after he had gone back, he spoke in the American Congress, and to render South Africa a service he used these words. I am quoting from the Hansard of the American Congress—

And then he went on to ask that this article be recorded in the Hansard of Congress, and the whole speech was recorded in that Hansard for every American to read. That is the kind of result one achieves.

I shall go even further, although time is marching on very rapidly. The hon. member said a few things about Panorama. He spoke in general, but in particular the hon. member for Kensington also referred to Panorama. Now, what are the facts in regard to Panorama? We receive hundreds of letters on Panorama. I took one of them at random in order to take a quick look at the position, and I want to read it here. This letter was written by Mrs. Myronsturm, of Illinois, U.S.A., and is dated 20th February, 1972—it is therefore quite recent—

This is the kind of language used by foreigners, not by U.P. supporters in South Africa. This is what foreigners are saying about South Africa’s Panorama. Then she wrote in detail about technical aspects, which I do not want to read, and in commenting on a specific article entitled “Around the Track”, she said the following—

This is the language of foreigners. It seems to me as though these Biblical words are true, i.e. that strangers will enter the Kingdom long before the Children of Israel! These are only three. I could go on quoting such examples for another hour.

Now we have had the other interesting phenomenon here this afternoon. The hon. member said my propaganda, as he called it, or our information service, was too “subtle”; it dealt with little birds and such things and should have dealt with other aspects. Two other members in the same debate attacked me on the grounds that our information material was not subtle enough. Now I ask you, Sir, what do we want to achieve? Let us be very realistic now. The hon. member for Kensington touched upon this matter once again. I want him to put forward specific arguments. It is no use making a general, unfounded statement and saying “There are political racial tags attached to everything.” I want to hear his specific arguments. The hon. member must point out to me the specific instance, mention to me the issue and its date and point out exactly where the “political tag” is to which he referred.

Read that one.

I am waiting for it. If the hon. members are not equipped for being able to understand it, I quite appreciate their problem. Suppose one shows a film or writes a fine article on, let us say, the preservation of antiques in a country such as South Africa, the restoration of old buildings, or on some or other cultural activity of this nature. It is logical that this is not politicizing. But it automatically brings home to the reader, wherever he may be, the fact that we are dealing here with a highly civilized, stable and responsible country. After all, this kind of thing does not happen in other countries. In this way we bear the message, in this subtle way, but it is being borne. If the hon. member would only want to understand! But that is the problem with the hon. members. They only want to criticize and they never want to add something positive. I am referring to the hon. member for Orange Grove in particular.

Now I want to deal with the member for Wynberg. The hon. member for Wynberg’s first objection to my department, especially as far as America is concerned, was that we were too much on the defensive; we were always defending. And now I know what the position is. The hon. member had a very interesting tour in America. She also had a number of very unpleasant experiences, which I did not wish her. I had hoped that these things would not happen to her. However, I shall prove to her that we knew much more about that situation. As far back as 1968 I gave instructions to the effect that it would be useless and a waste of time for my officials to address universities on university campuses in America. It is useless, as she has in fact experienced. These people do not want to know the truth. They do not want to hear one. They only want one there to humiliate and besmirch one. That is all. I told my people that we should not waste our time on making speeches on university campusses. The hon. member experienced this. Even she, with her views which are not identical to ours, could not even make herself fully heard there. They treated her in an ill-mannered and unseemly way. That I do not wish her. That is an experience we met with a long time ago already. Now the hon. member says that we are too much on the defensive. The hon. member should at least tell me where we are on the defensive. I like something specific.

I want to mention an example. When I was in America, I visited the New York Times. I had received an invitation, through our local information officer, to dine with the top eight people of the New York Times.

So did I.

Yes, I am not competing with the hon. member as to all the places she visited. That is not the object. That is not what I want. I enjoyed that dinner. The general editorial policy of the New York Times is against South Africa. They tell one openly that their editorial columns are against South Africa.

I fought them for an hour and a half.

Yes, so did I. I had to talk about it such a great deal that I could not eat. But in spite of their placing negative reports about us, our Director of Information in New York, Dr. Les de Villiers, complained and fought all the time and told them: When my Minister was here, you told him that in your news columns you would afford us an opportunity of stating our case objectively. He hammered in that point until they allowed him—something which had never happened before—to have an article placed under his own name in the New York Times on 3rd August, 1971, an article in which he stated South Africa’s standpoint in full. That article was published after they had been refusing for so many years to place anything positive on South Africa.

They just asked me to write one.

Oh, well then, I have no objection. Even that is attributable to my good work and the work of my department, so much so that doors are also being opened to her now. There is no doubt about that. I could furnish more quotations, but that is not necessary. My time is getting short.

The hon. member’s second problem was that this Government and its officials abroad never admitted that we made mistakes or could make them; they blindly defended everything that was being done, for they had to do so in an unshakeable manner. Just to prove how wrong the hon. member is, I want to quote specifically from the same speech to which I referred a moment ago, and which I myself as the responsible Minister, and not a departmental official, made in Chatham House. In that speech I used the following words—

After that I set out my case. The hon. member referred to my officials. I myself adopted this attitude, because all of us as human beings on this side of the grave are permanently making mistakes and are fallible. On the other side of the grave, so we believe, it will be perfect.

The hon. member touched upon another situation. She referred to the situation in the Netherlands and the fact that it was impossible to get programmes on the Dutch television. Then she attacked me by saying that politically my programmes were not subtle enough, because they were supposedly so grossly propagandist that the Dutch turned them down. This is the exact opposite of the attack made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. But the Netherlands and Britain are the two countries, so I said last year already, in which we are up against a wall of resistance in regard to television. They simply do not want to present our television programmes under any circumstances. There is no way in which one can get them to be accepted. And if such a programme is accepted for broadcasting, as does happen sometimes in the United Kingdom by way of exception, it only serves as a stimulus for calling forth immediately afterwards two or three of the most sordid, negative programmes in the world so as to wipe out everything that has been established by the previous one. The B.B.C. has created an image of South Africa which it dare not allow to be changed in the minds of its listeners. For that reason it has to continue with this situation. This is also the case in the Netherlands. But let me state the position in respect of these very same films which are allegedly so unacceptable to the Netherlands, as against the position in America. I am giving here the views of a person who is in the know. He is Mr. Roger Cahaney, vice-chairman of the Association-Sterling Films in New York, the firm which has the contract for taking over in America the distribution of South African documentary films made by our department. What does he say according to the report? I quote (translation)—

These are the same films. In other words, the fault does not lie with the films, Sir. The fault definitely lies somewhere else, namely with the fact that that country is not prepared to do it.

In conclusion the hon. member also mentioned the matter of my senior officer in New York and his speech. Now I want to tell the hon. member that I was there, that I met the officers and know who they are. I should like to hear from the hon. member who the official is. I should like to have the report from her. Then I shall look into the matter. But let me state the position to her as follows: The first question is whether that report is an accurate version of what he said. In the second place, I must listen very closely to what was actually said. I should like to investigate the matter more fully. In the course of my debate we can discuss it again. However, I should like to look into it, for I am not prepared to condemn the official until I have had full access to the facts. The hon. member appreciates this.

Now I come to the hon. member for Kensington.

Do you have the South African Panorama with you?

Yes, what complaint does the hon. member now have about Panorama?

I referred to where mention was made of the races.

May we not make any mention of races in South Africa? Have we now reached such a pass that we have to say we are one race in South Africa? May we not mention that various peoples and races are living in South Africa? Is that wrong?

You did not understand my point at all.

No, I did understand the hon. member’s point. The point he makes is that we should only show those photographs of Whites and Blacks running against one another, and in no way should we bring home our concept that we are dealing here with multi-nationalism. That is the problem. This multi-national, international sports meeting was held so that the peoples of the world and the peoples of South Africa could compete, each of them on behalf of his own people. Nothing is wrong with that.

You did not understand my speech.

No, I did understand the speech. The hon. member is objecting because in the text we added, for instance, that a Bantu athlete had won, or that Tswana A had run against White B.

No mention is made of Tswanas.

No, Sir, the fact remains that this is a basic difference between the two parties. They believe we are one multi-racial community; we believe we are a multi-national community in which various peoples are present. The same report that is printed here, could have been published on the Olympic Games; for instance, that the German champion So-and-so had won and that the French champion was second. In the same way we say, for instance, that the Tswana champion was first and the White champion was second, That is the same concept of multi-nationalism.

But now the hon. member also says that we do not tell the world outside that there is a dialogue between two parties, that there is a strong Opposition party with another standpoint, etc. I reject that charge with the contempt it deserves. In the first instance, I have already told you, Sir, that we are making a point of affording every overseas guest on a visit to South Africa an opportunity of speaking to members of the Government as well as members of the Opposition. There are numerous members opposite who have had such interviews. These afford the guests the fullest opportunity, whatever walk of life they may be from, to ask questions and to go back. But you know, Sir, what is surprising, what I have already experienced on a few occasions, is that when, after their visit in South Africa, those people come to me for the last time before they go home, they tell me that there are only two alternatives in South Africa as far as government is concerned. They say, “We can see that the National Party’s policy has a course and a direction. We have certain misgivings as to whether it can be carried through, etc., but if it does not succeed, the Progressive Party’s policy is the only alternative. That can also succeed. But the United Party’s policy is worth nothing. It is useless.” How many people have not told me this! I want to illustrate it further. This was very interesting.

But you also tell them that.

But surely the hon. member had the opportunity of stating their policy to these people, and it did not make any impression. In the course of the same talks in New York I was also asked what the policies of the various political parties were and how they wanted to solve the problem. I stated our policy to the best of my ability. To the best of my ability I stated the United Party’s policy, as I know and understand it, honestly and straightforwardly. Then I stated the Progressive Party’s policy. I had with me the English version of this yellow booklet of the United Party on their policy. I offered it to them and told them that I had a copy of the United Party’s policy for them. They were welcome to have it and to study it as they pleased. Then they said, “Oh, that is artificial; it can’t work, and in any case, we are not interested.” They gave it back to me. I have witnesses. This is true. They are not interested. That is the policy of the United Party which wants to form the alternative Government in South Africa.

Then we had the hon. member for Kensington who was groping about here. I was waiting for a positive suggestion, but we sat for a long time. He squirmed this way and that way. I was waiting for him to say something. Eventually he referred in a negative way to things which did not sell. And so he carried on. Eventually the case he actually wanted to put forward, came out into the open. It was the “racial tags”, which, according to him, were being attached to everything. We in South Africa must face the fact that we have various peoples here. It is not something to argue about. It is a basic fact which cannot be argued about, but which is to be accepted. It is a fact. Through this sports meeting we created the opportunity for each of those peoples to participate.

Different race groups.

Race groups and peoples, my dear friend. If the hon. member wants to understand it, “race” is a much wider, more comprehensive concept, various Bantu peoples all belong to the same race. Is that clear to him? But we are talking about multi-nationalism. There are various peoples and one cannot lump all the Bantu together because they are members of one race, just as little as one can lump together the Europeans because they are all members of one race. There are various peoples in Europe. Is the hon. member so stupid that he cannot understand this? No, Sir, absolutely nothing positive emerged from that.

I also want to say a few words about the hon. member for Von Brandis. He gave me two positive suggestions, which I want to examine. In the first place, he mentioned the question of the French language. I want to concede at once that this is an important matter. We ourselves are also very much aware of the fact that in the future the languages of Africa will be English and French. These are the two languages in which there will have to be communication with Africa. For that reason we already attach much importance to French. A considerable number of my officials have already mastered French. Quite a number of them have an excellent knowledge of French and act as interpreters when French visitors come here. We shall pay attention to this specific suggestion, because I think it is a very important matter which we should pursue if it is at all possible.

The second matter the hon. member put to me, was the question of too many useless publications. They are lying on the shelves …

No, the employment of women.

Oh, I want to say to the hon. member that it is always a good idea to employ women, especially in this sort of liaison work. We are in fact doing so on a very large scale. As hon. members will probably know, most of the information officers who accompany the visitors as guides, are usually women. If such guides are women, a double psychological advantage is already implied. I need not elaborate on that. Furthermore, numerous women have been appointed to senior positions in our department, and are doing excellent work. At the moment we have women information officers doing excellent work abroad. There has definitely been no decision against the employment of women. We choose women as they become available, but they are select people.

In regard to the publications, I want to ask the hon. member whether he can be more specific and state which publications and what he is opposed to. One would then be able to investigate the matter. The way he put it, however, was too vague and wide. I just want to tell him what the policy is at present. When it is a matter of a general statement of policy by the Government, we send the facts to the various countries. Our information officers in those countries are ready with the necessary knowledge, not only of the country and language in which they find themselves, but also of the idiom, climate and atmosphere prevailing in that country. The factual knowledge we send from here is then processed and published in the language, idiom and image of the country concerned. This has always been our objective. I want to mention a clear example, and anyone with some experience will grant me that one cannot possibly use the same presentation of a fact in Britain as one can in the United States of America. In America one must use an approach completely different from the one would use in Britain. In America the facts can be presented directly, because those people can reason and argue. In fact, they like doing so. In Britain one always has to make understatements, otherwise one exaggerates the matter. This is the spirit and character of people; this is how we got to know them and this is how we set to work. What is more, we respect these differences. This is why I find it so surprising when the hon. member talks about certain publications in that way, and I should like more information from him in that regard.

In conclusion, if there is still time, I want to discuss the statement made by the hon. member, namely that the Security Police in South Africa are prejudicing the image of our country abroad, and that it is my task to take up the matter with the authorities concerned. South Africa would like to have a good image abroad; that is obvious, but we dare not allow, as a result of the fact that we must present a good image abroad, us in South Africa to undermine law and order and the maintenance of authority. One cannot do this. In other words, if the hon. member expects me to allow lawlessness, disorderliness and communist agitation in South Africa and not to take any action because I am afraid that it might create a wrong impression abroad, he is making a big mistake. The hon. member may not have put it like that, but this is the extreme to which it could go. The fact of the matter is very clearly that one should act with discretion, which is what the Government is doing. We do not rush ahead helter-skelter with such a matter. If hon. members knew how some of these steps were considered before action was taken, they would be astounded, because nobody wants to prejudice our image abroad. However, if it is essential for the internal peace and security of South Africa, I do not apologize to the world. In that case I act and put my house in order. It is essential that South Africa should be put first. I expect hon. members opposite to support me when we take such action in this country in their interests and in ours.

I have dealt cursorily with the whole matter, and in the discussions on my Vote I should like to cross swords once again with the hon. member for Orange Grove in regard to his attack on my domestic information service. In regard to the Buthelezi case I shall not react now either, because I should like to know exactly what his attack was in this regard.

Were your officials involved in that?

I do not know exactly what attack the hon. member is making, and would like to have the facts. Then I shall reply to it. At the end of his speech the hon. member also referred in passing to Ovambo, and I cannot reply to that now, because I do not know exactly what his attack was concerned with. Nor do I know what the hon. member has in mind. In conclusion I want to say in respect of the Department of Information that this department is the front line of South Africa’s defence on the most distant outposts, and these people must stand in that firing-line and wage the struggle for South Africa. I returned from this visit abroad with the knowledge that we have inspired people on that front, not only people who are carrying out a task, because they have to, but also people who are inspired and begrudge themselves a minute’s rest. They devote hours to their work and travel throughout the length and breadth of the world in order to present South Africa’s case. They do not present South Africa’s case half-heartedly or indifferently, but with conviction. They are fighters, and are fighting for South Africa. They are presenting our case with fervour and zeal. They are a group of inspired people, and I am grateful for having been able to be with them and sense that inspiration. In addition, I am grateful for the fact that I, on my part, was able to give those people direct guidance in regard to general conditions in South Africa. I am grateful for this motion and for the standard of the speeches. What is more, I am grateful for the positive suggestions from the Opposition side, but I know that the hon. member for Orange Grove is unable to rise to that level.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) the overlapping and duplicating in the making of films by Government Departments and bodies which are directly or indirectly subsidized by public funds;
2. (b) the system of Government subsidies whereby an inferior type of film is encouraged;
3. (c) the wastage of public funds through unnecessary extravagance on the part of many bodies involved in the making of films; and
4. (d) the genuine problems of the industry in regard to, inter alia, excise and other taxes, censorship and unfair competition from Government and Government-sponsored filmmakers.

There is a well-known saying that there is no business like show business. I did some investigation into the Government’s role in the film industry in South Africa and I came to an additional conclusion, that not only is there no business like show business, but there is no business like funny business. When these two clash and are interlocked you find one of the craziest pictures yet in the history of this Nationalist Government. I trust that hon. members will agree, after having heard what I have to say about, firstly, the story of the great new Nationalist Hollywood-on-the-Aapies River; secondly, the story about distorted subsidies whereby subsidies are paid in respect of films which are much more than the actual total costs of the films themselves; and thirdly, the story about the censorship of films which has gone stark staring mad. I will also tell the story of the slowly unfolding plot of indoctrination and brainwashing of the people of South Africa by that side of the House. I believe that all this calls for an urgent investigation into the film industry at the highest level and on a much wider scale than the recent very limited Board of Trade and Industry inquiry published as report No. 1330.

I think there is general agreement in South Africa that our film industry must be developed and that to develope it does need support by the Government to a certain extent. It is the same argument that is used in support of any local industry in South Africa which has to face competition from overseas. The usual reasons are that it provides work for our own people, that it stimulates local growth, that it cuts down imports and all the other good arguments in favour of trying to stimulate and protect local industry. This principle is accepted in most European countries, e.g. France, West Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Switzerland, to name only a few. So have we too accepted that principle in this country. The touble is whether it is being applied correctly and if we are working along the right lines to achieve our aims. I believe that once we have accepted this principle, namely that our film industry must be supported, that the following main principles should apply. Firstly, as I have said, there should be financial support, whether through subsidies, import duties, quota systems, tax concessions or other means. I am by no means necessarily advocating all these means—as the hon. the Deputy Minister will realize. I am mentioning them as schemes which have been mentioned. Secondly, I believe that free enterprise, free competition, in regard to our film industry must be encouraged by preventing too large monopolies and cartels from dominating the industry at the expense of the legitimate, independent producers, distributors, exhibitors and also at the expense often of the actors themselves. Thirdly, the following principle should apply, namely that free enterprise in the film industry in our country should be safeguarded against the greatest monopoly of all, the monopoly of the Government itself with its National Film Board, the SABC and the Department of Information, all of them making films of their own. The fourth principle that should apply, I believe, is that the censorship of our films should be a limited one; it should be intelligent; it should keep up with public opinion and not be behind that public opinion. Fifthly and finally, the film industry must on no account at all be misused by the Government as a deliberate instrument for indoctrination and brainwashing. I believe that in all five of these issues that I have mentioned, this Government has failed to a lesser or greater extent. Let me take each of them.

First of all, let us take this strange subsidy system that we have today. Knowing this Government, and knowing what it has done in order to support local enterprise, local industries, local agriculture in matters such as the Transportation Boards, the piling up of butter stocks and the selling of butter stocks, the export of our local meat, the throwing of millions of gallons of milk into the gutter, we know what kind of thing we can expect from this Government. But I say that what has happened in those instances, is also what is happening in the case of the whole subsidy system as it is at present.

Briefly, what happens? A producer decides to make a film. He has his company, gets the actors, gets the script, gets the necessary studios and equipment and then produces that film at a cost of, say, R110 000. It might be his own money or it might have been advanced by the banks or by one of the big local film companies. He can recover that R110 000 which the film cost him in two ways. First of all, part of the box-office proceeds, a percentage usually, is repaid to him as a hire of his film by the distributor or the exhibitor. Secondly, an important source of income to him is the subsidy that he receives from the Government. In theory, of course, these are two good methods. But now I come to the strange way in which this subsidy is calculated. It matters little to the Government what the film costs, whether it is R110 000, whether it is R200 000, or whether it is R20 000. Their subsidy is paid only on what a film makes at the box-office, irrespective of what the production cost. The greater the box-office income—in other words, the greater the profits on the film—the greater is the subsidy. In other words, the less the producer needs as a subsidy to cover his costs, the greater is his subsidy. The less the subsidy he needs is, the more the subsidy is that he gets. This is the way it works. First of all, the film must have a gross box-office receipt of at least R50 000. From that moment on it gets a subsidy of 44 per cent of the gross box-office receipts all over the country at all the cinemas where it is shown. It is a complicated system. I do not want to go into all the details. I might mention, incidentally, that if the film is made 95 per cent in Afrikaans, the subsidy is not 44 per cent, but 55 per cent of the gross box-office receipts. The reason which is advanced—and there are grounds for that reason—is that the market for Afrikaans films, the potential number of viewers of Afrikaans films, is much smaller than for English films.

But is that not true?

Yes, there is validity in that, but I also say there is validity in the opposite contention, that an English film made in South Africa has to compete with English films all over the world; its competition is greater, while the market for the Afrikaans films is smaller. There are arguments on both sides. I merely mention the 44 per cent and the 55 per cent to indicate how the subsidy system works.

What happens now? The film is made and meanwhile this producer has signed a contract with the distributors and the exhibitors for his film. These gentlemen, these organizations, are a rather closely-knit bunch and are dominated at the present moment largely by the Satbel, Sanlam-Ster interests in South Africa. They are using their mighty Sanlam empire at the moment to dominate that industry. I saw the other day that the Sanlam—General Mining complex is as a conglomeration today second in South Africa only to the Anglo American Corporation. This shows how large and how important that whole complex is. It exercises, directly or indirectly, domination over Ster Films, over Inrybeleggings Beperk, over Kinekor, over the old African Theatres and over African Film Productions. Actually, they are associated. It is often said that Kinekor and Ster are not really associated and that they are differenct entities. I will subscribe to that fiction as I would to the fiction that Anglo American and De Beers are not the same, or the fiction that, say, Die Transvaler and Die Burger are not the same, or other fictions such as those, or that Tweedledum and Tweedledee are not the same. I am not criticizing these big combines here; I am merely pointing out the fact that the distribution and exhibiting facilities, and to a large extent the producing facilities, too—because these big organizations also finance producers—are concentrated in the hands of one big overall body. Those are the facts.

The next step is this, that this film costing R110 000, now goes on circuit. The tickets, nowadays, as all members of the public know, are pretty pricey; they are pretty high. Particularly if you have a virtual monopoly of the exhibition houses, you can push up your price. However, it seems to be the case today that the public is prepared to pay that high price and it is an ordinary law of the market economy that people are entitled to ask what the public is prepared to pay. However, I still do say and I do believe that prices are too high. This film, having cost R110 000, goes to the box-office, is sent throughout the country and it grosses, say, R325 000 at the box-office. This is not very unusual for a film made in this country. Questions to the hon. the Minister have shown that films in South Africa have grossed R440 000, R560 000, R666 000 and, in one instance during the past 10 years, R735 000. But let us take this figure of R325 000 for the picture that I have mentioned. The subsidy on that is 44 per cent, which is R130 000. Now you see the strange anomaly. Here this film producer is getting R130 000 in subsidies for a film which cost him only R110 000 to produce. What is more, he is getting between 20 per cent and 30 per cent of the gross of the R300 000, which is the price the exhibitor or the distributor pays him for the rent of that film. Therefore, a film costing R110 000 gets a subsidy of R130 000, it gets part of the box-office receipts of R100 000—in other words, he makes R230 000, which is much more than 100 per cent. There is something wrong in that; because of those huge profits the taxpayers, who are paying the subsidies through the hon. the Minister sitting there, are paying more than half of it. This is not an imaginary case. I ask hon. members to look at the reply I had from the hon. the Minister, in which statistics about all the 46 films that received subsidies since 1st April, 1967, are set out, This is a particular case. I have it here: Subsidy—R130 000; cost—R109 000; box-office receipts—R326 000.

There is something wrong in the system as it is at the present moment, despite the fact that I do believe that Government support is essential for our film industry. In the past five years 46 films have been made, and the total subsidy paid on them has amounted to close on R4 million. It was R3 677 000, money coming out of the taxpayer’s pocket. This subsidy has been rising fast. It climbed from R270 000 in 1966 to R1 360 000 last year, a five-fold increase. This also has its dangers. Mushroom companies have arisen. People who can crank a handle, point a camera, switch on a light, buy a megaphone and buy a shirt with the word “Director” on the back, have been trying to make films. They flood a limited market. We must remember that the South African film market can only support—so I have been told—between 12 and 20 feature films per year, and by feature films I mean the long films. At the moment there are between 35 and 40 feature films planned or being made. There is going to be overproduction in this country very soon. A lot of little mushroom firms are going under, which may not be so bad. However, in going under, they are going to drag with them many capable, experienced, independent producers and fine, capable firms. On the other hand, one or two of the small fly-by-night companies, which are making trashy films, will indeed prosper. Let us make no mistake about it; some of the films being made in this country today by companies taking advantage of this system, are indeed of an extremely low quality. I have here Rapport of the 5th December, 1971. I shall only point out the headlines, which read—

I know, and the hon. the Minister will probably tell us, that there has been a lot of backroom buzzing in the past year or so about the subsidy itself. I believe a circular was issued to companies in July last year and that there were meetings in November, December and one in January at the Sunnyside Park Hotel. I am not quite sure whether the January or November meeting was held at that hotel. Anyway, there have been meetings with the producers and exhibitors to try and iron out the problem with regard to the subsidy. I think most people would admit that there is something wrong and that something must, indeed, be done. I trust that the hon. the Minister—In fact I almost challenge him—will give some assurance this afternoon that a fair formula will be found to support our film industry, but not on the present basis.

I am not going to suggest what the new formula should be, but I do want to say that there are many suggestions which can be considered that are better than the present one. I say “can be considered” and am stating it no stronger than that. Firstly, the subsidy could be tied to the production costs of the film. That sounds logical. Those production costs must be strictly audited. Secondly, if it must be tied to the box-office receipts, either solely or additionally, then at least a limit could be placed on the amount paid as a percentage of the gross box-office receipts. In France, I believe, the limit is 5 per cent, although there are other advantages that French films do get. However, the producer gets only 5 per cent of the box-office receipts. Here the percentage is 44 per cent or 55 per cent and under certain circumstances it can rise to 75 per cent. A third method, that could be considered, would be low-interest loans to producers for the purchasing of equipment and the building of studios. This is done in France by the Centre National Cinématographique. Fourthly, the local films could be exempted from the entertainment tax, where such entertainment tax still applies, as an anachronism. Fifthly, co-production could be encouraged. Co-production means that a big company from abroad, for example Columbia, 20th Century Fox or M.G.M., can enter into a partnership with one of our local South African companies, which can then produce a profitable film.

How do you know that it is not going to be a poor film?

Let me ask the hon. member if Dr. Zhivago that wonderful film, could be made in Spain with the co-operation of local Spanish authorities and Spanish film companies, if Waterloo could in part be made in Russia and if Quo Vadis in Cinecittà the cinema city outside Rome, why it is impossible for one of the big companies to come to South Africa and make a film here? As a matter of fact, arrangements are already being made with a film company in Britain for this system of co-production. I give it as an example, but there is a nigger in the woodpile, and that is our censorship laws. I shall refer to that later on in my speech.

Sixthly, as a possibility, and a strong possibility, private enterprise should be allowed to tender for Government documentary films. They have the facilities and they are able to do it to a much larger extent than at present.

Seventhly, and on this I have an open mind in view of the Board of Trades, report, No. 1330, I still think that a small customs duty on imported films could be considered and used as part of the subsidy instead of forcing the taxpayer to carry the whole burden. These customs duties were removed a couple of years ago when some exhibitors—I am thinking of Dr. Naas Coertze’s company—could not get films or had to pay very high prices for them. After these customs duties were removed, foreign films could come in on a large scale, but at that stage our local producers did suffer.

I now come to the next point. I have now dealt with the subsidy and I have put forward some ideas, which I am sure the hon. the Minister also has been thinking or should have been thinking of. I am coming next the unfair monopoly in the business itself, but do not wish to say too much about it as I have indicated the evils or the disadvantages associated with it. It has the ordinary disadvantage of every monopoly, namely that in this case stringent contracts can be forced by the distributor on the producer. It has the disadvantage that a film can be rented and kept on the shelf for a long period and it has the disadvantage that the number of performances which a film by an independent producer is given is cut down by the exhibitor. Furthermore, a film can be kept from the big circuit. These things have been happening, and it is unfortunate that it is so. I do not accuse these big companies of mala fides but I do believe they too can suffer from some of the evils of a monopoly and that it is indeed worth while investigating the matter again.

I come to another form of unfair competition and that is the competition of the biggest monopoly, the competition from the Government itself. Here I refer specifically to the huge National Film Board complex which they are erecting in Pretoria. I call this complex “Hollywood-on-the-Aapies River”.

Do you know where it is situated?

It is near Silverton.

That is rather far away from the Aapies River.

No, that is only a general name that I have given for it. The Aapies River is the traditional water-way of Pretoria and that is why I call it such. I am referring to that huge new complex, which is to a large extent unnecessary, which is at present being erected at Silverton. It is going to become the brain centre of much of the television films that are going to be made, of feature films for television, of nearly all the Government films and of a great deal of Government propaganda. It will be the central administrative building of this whole huge complex which, in competition with private enterprise …

That is an old story.

It is not an old story. These things have been happening during the past two years, breaking a promise made by this Government in 1963, namely that it would not, through the National Film Board, interfere with private enterprise. Can the hon. member answer that? I am going to tell hon. members something about this huge complex. It will have facilities for the making, the processing, the printing and the distribution of films in South Africa. It will be suitable for colour reproductions as well as for black-and-white reproductions. It will be for films for cinemas and for films for television. Originally it was to have cost R2 million, but now it is already going to cost R3½ million of the taxpayer’s money. It will have sections of up to four storeys high, it will have 36 offices, it will have numerous studios and complexes and it will have what is known as a grid stage. A grid stage is a stage where you have the actors on the floor of the studio and above that an iron grid and above the grid you will have the electronically controlled cameras fights which can be lowered and lifted through that grid to film what is going on below.

It is a thing that costs hundreds of thousands of rands and which no ordinary producing company in this country can yet afford. I have photographs here of this huge complex; I can show it to hon. members; the hon. the Minister has seen it. It is amazing what is being done at the moment in that regard. Sir, why is all this being erected? It is being erected for the purpose of competing directly or indirectly with private industry; of seeing that private industry will not be given a fair share of the films to be made for television in future. I can say that it will even be part of the brainwashing procedure of this Government. Sir, this National Film Board was created in 1963 with one purpose only, namely to channel the demand of Government departments for their own documentary films through this central body, with the idea that the NFB would make only a few films of its own; but it has grown and grown and it has entered more and more into competition with private enterprise. Of course, when the National Film Board was formed it had such very innocent and impartial members on its board as Dr. Piet Meyer and Prof. Weiss.

Is he still chairman of the Broederbond?

I believe he is. I understand he is to be kicked out, but they have somebody to put in his place.

Did you say Prof. Weiss?

It was Pof. Weiss, was it not?

It was, but not any more.

No, you kicked the verkramptes out and put other verkramptes in their place. Why was Prof. Weiss kicked out? Why has Dr. Piet Meyer not been kicked out?

Do not create a false impression.

No, I am not creating a false impression. I said that when the board was formed Prof. Weiss was on it. I believe that Dr. Piet Meyer is still on it.

Weiss is not on it.

All right, I know how you hate Prof. Weiss. I am pointing out who the original members were, and I am sure that today’s board, apart from the Government Officials naturally, is not much better than the board was then. The hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, who was then the Deputy Minister, Mr. Marais Viljoen, said that a national film board would in no way compete with private enterprise in the future, and now we see that exactly the opposite has happened. We find Mr. Jan Botha, the chairman of the National Film Board, saying in an interview with the Financial Times …

A very good man.

Yes, of course.

He used to be a teacher, not so? That hon. member, too, used to be a teacher. This is one good characteristic to which both of them may lay claim, but I ask the hon. member to tell me what experience Mr. Jan Botha has had of the film industry.

†We find Mr. Jan Botha saying—

Sir, what is left for private enterprise after all that? The National Film Board was started as a small organization. In 1966 its capital expenditure was only R15 000, and yet today, six years later, they are already planning a R3½ million complex. In five years the expenditure of the National Film Board out of the Revenue Account has almost doubled, to close on R1 million a year. This hungry giant of his has to be fed and he is determined that it is going to be fed, and has consequently put the screw on all the other Government departments, demanding that they start making films to keep this big complex fed, irrespective of whether all those documentaries are necessary. “If you do not have a film to make, think up something; if you cannot, just pay a yearly subscription to the National Film Board”, as the Department of Bantu Education for some bery obscure reason is doing. Sir, the result of all this was that in the balance sheet the National Film Board would show a wonderful income, an income of close on R900 000 a year, but who was paying it?—Other Government departments making documentaries through the National Film Board. Were those documentaries in any way producing any income? Sir, I put 36 questions to the hon. the Minister; up to now I have got 25 replies. In every question I asked, “What income has there been from those films?” And in every case the reply has been “None”. Sir, I am not against some of these documentaries, or indeed, most of them; many are good. But I do not believe that private enterprise should be given a greater opportunity to tender for the making of the films.

How do you know whether it is a good film?

I do not know whether all of them are good. For example, I do not know whether that Ditaba series, of which 118 were made—the object of which was, as the hon. the Minister told me, “To inform the Bantu in their own language of the development in their homelands”—was so wonderfully good. I do not think much is said in those films about Moddergat and about Stinkwater. Three of those films were made last year at a cost of R36 000. The hon. member asks me if I know whether they are good. I accept that most of them are good. Do you know, Sir, that the Department of Defence spent as much as R280 000 during the past four years on having films made by the National Film Board, most of them for training purposes—fine purposes—but I am sure private initiative could have made them as well.

†There was one film made for the Department of Defence costing R9 729, and the hon. member can tell me whether it is a good film or whether it is worth the money. I can only judge from the title and the title is: “The Patient’s Toilet”. Sir, the Department of Bantu Administration ordered 11 films costing R170 000. The Ministry of Transport spent R137 000; Water Affairs spent R130 000, and films costing another R83 000 are being made at the moment. All this money has been spent over the past four years. Sir, equipment costing R480 000 is to be installed in this N.F.B. building. It can print colour, black and white, 35 mm. and 16 mm. at 12 000 feet per hour. The extent to which the National Film Board is involved in film-making of its own is shown by the amount of raw film imported over the last three or four years—3 319 000 m of raw film has been imported, 2 000 miles of raw film, for making films.

The taxpayers’ money.

Yes, taxpayers’ money for films to be paid for by Government departments.

That has nothing to do with private enterprise.

Of course not. Some of these films were palmed out and that was the original idea. You should stick to that original idea and you should not start competing with private industry. I wish the hon. member would listen.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Sir, I want to refer now to the censorship system as we have it today. It is crazy, it is antiquated, it is out of step with world opinion. It is hampering our film industry by inhibiting the importation of the world’s best films, hindering and hitting at distributors and exhibitors alike. Of the 10 best films listed by two overseas critics recently, only two have been chosen in South Africa. It is harming our film industry by making our own producers scared to make significant films. I have a book here, Veronica, by Joy Packer, the South African writer—an excellent book. I dare any film producer to try to make a film out of that book. He would lose every cent that he put into it, because the Publications Board would turn it down immediately, even if it did approve of the book.

Censorship is harming our film industry by banning or mutilating South African films. The Minister of the Interior has had to hear appeals against cuts in films such as Love Story, There’s a Girl in my Soup and the Afrikaans film Breekpunt. Actually, he had to hear 35 appeals, almost one a week, during the past year. But, Sir, there is one case which is really so ludicrous that I think I should point it out to the House— the case of the film Die Onwettige Huwelik. This film was placed before the Publications Board and certain cuts were demanded. I spoke to some of the highly placed people in the film industry and I managed to find out what cuts were actually demanded before this film was allowed to be exhibited. Sir, I am now going to read to you what had to be cut from that film. This is a dialogue between a professor and a young man called Herbert—

Now you are probably asking when I am coming to the point and what has been cut out. The answer is—every single word Sir, I was given this script by the director himself. It speaks for itself. I have some excellent additional examples, but my time is running short. Perhaps I should mention one thing in connection with the same film Onwettige Huwelik. The chairman of the Publications Board, Mr. Jannie Kruger, was telephoned about it and over the telephone he told the director—and the director told me what was said to him—“Hoe durf jy ’n film Onwettige Huwelik’ noem hier in Suid-Afrika? Hier in Suid-Afrika is daar nie so iets soos ’n onwettige huwelik nie”. There was a cut of a certain scene, an innocent small scene, and I hope to have it published in the Press, of a young man just putting his hand on a girl’s knee for a moment. In writing—and I am going to get it in writing—Mr. Jannie Kruger states this: “Julle moet daardie deel uitsny waar die seun sy hand onder die meisie se mini insteek”. Sir, it sounds fantastic and unbelievable, but it is in writing and I will produce it at some time or other.

I shall have to leave out quite a lot of what I wanted to say, and will conclude by summarizing what I believe should be done about the whole matter. I have already indicated what can be done in regard to the subsidy. That is my first recommendation. Secondly the National Film Board must go back to its original purpose of being a channel mainly for the work of Government departments, an intermediary between Government departments and private producers. Thirdly, our whole censorship system must be entirely and thoroughly overhauled and I call on the producers in this country to seek to do away with that system for which they are partly responsible, of agreeing to appeal to the Minister. The time for that is past. I call on them from now on to try to go to the courts and not to the Minister. Scope beat the Publications Board time and time again; you will do so too. Fourthly I believe that one could think of having cinemas for adults only, or have films classified as they are in England, as X, U, or A films. One could furthermore consider the subsidy on films for Bantu, and giving them fair treatment. One could investigate some of the phoney casting agencies that exist. One could give greater assistance to the actors’ organizations and greater recognition and greater powers to them in regard to industrial conciliation.

Lastly, and most important of all, it is essential that there be an investigating commission with wide powers on which there will be representatives of the film industry in all its aspects, producers, distributors, exhibitors, actors, technicians, on which you will also have the film critics, on which you will have people with knowledge of literature and knowledge of art and knowledge of the technique of film making, on which you will have all the people who really have to do with the future of the film industry including the enlightened public. Only if you have that and give these people full powers to say what I have been trying to say in a very limited time today, will you have indeed what we all want to have, namely a viable film industry in South Africa.

The hon. member for Orange Grove has now wasted 42½ minutes of this House’s time with the biggest lot of nonsense imaginable. The hon. member puts one in mind of a farmyard chicken scratching round on a rubbish dump in the back, and when he unearths something he runs away, not looking whether anyone is following him. He just runs. If one now examines the wording of this motion which the hon. member has on the Order Paper, one could easily gain the erroneous impression that the hon. member is concerned about the film industry, but if one heard what he said this afternoon it is very clear that he has no contact whatsoever with the film industry. He came along here trying to score a cheap political advantage. He dished up a lot of unsavoury morsels and wasted the House’s time. It is very clear that the hon. member’s chief motive in moving this motion was to get round to the National Film Board and try to discredit the difficult and positive structural work the Film Board has done over the years. But we know the hon. member for Orange Grove. He is at his best when he can discredit and try to destroy positive South African institutions. Then he is at his best. The National Film Board was inaugurated by legislation passed by this Parliament in 1963 with the object (a) of co-ordinating the film activities of State Departments, (b) of making provision for the purchase, production and distribution of information service cinematograph films, (c) of making a contribution to the development of the film industry and (d) of purchasing, collecting and processing cinematograph films of archival value. Over the years since its inception this Film Board has done its work in a very calm and very positive way, and it has made a very good contribution to the co-ordination and expansion of the South African film industry. Any responsible person in this House and outside would only attest, with the utmost gratitude and appreciation, to the positive structural work done by the National Film Board in recent years. But it is clear that the hon. member for Orange Grove does not like the Film Board, because the hon. member has a friend and spiritual ally who does not like the Film Board. One can only understand the hon. member for Orange Grove and his argument today if one knows that he is acting here as the mouthpiece of a man who hates everything that is Afrikaans, and that he is acting as that man’s spiritual ally. The man I am speaking of is Mr. Harry Jones, editor of the S.A. Film Weekly, and that gentleman is apparently the hon. member for Orange Grove’s inspiration and his guide. Much of the material he used today was obtained from only one source, that gentleman. This man, as I said, does not like the Afrikaner. He does not like the Afrikaner’s language or his church, he does not like the Afrikaner’s culture and he does not like this Parliament either. You may well remember that on a previous occasion he was brought before a commission of this Parliament for contempt. In the 10th February, 1972-issue of his magazine this gentleman wrote an article entitled “S.A. Film Industry Crisis”, he begins his article with a quotation from a Roy Campbell poem. It will interest hon. members to listen to this. It reads—

And turnips into Parliament are voted. Some of them are sitting there. Our friend continues—

The contemptuous tone in this quotation should be very clear to hon. members of this House. The question arising in my mind is whether this gentleman should not again be confronted. He continues—

It is clear to all of us that the language used here is that of the hon. member for Orange Grove. It is unmistakably his brand of language. The signs of mutual admiration are not excluded either. Our friend, Harry Jones, writes about the serious crisis in the film industry, but then he also points to the deliverer. He writes—

There we have the spiritual father, the source of this motion before us. From that it is also very clear that the hon. member is not personally concerned about the film industry.

The hon. member begins the wording of his motion by requesting an investigation into the film industry. It is obvious that from time to time problems will crop up in an industry such as the film industry where a great deal of artistic ability, technical knowledge and experience, are needed. This Government has already, on a previous occasion, had the film industry thoroughly investigated. A thorough investigation was instituted under the chairmanship of Dr. De Villiers. Whether a further investigation would have any value now, I doubt very strongly. Mr. John Greerson was also brought here from England in the early fifties to investigate the film industry. After that we had the interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of Dr. J. L. de Villiers. This committee’s report specifically resulted in a Film Board being established to deal with the wastage of money and technical manpower. Now the hon. member for Orange Grove speaks in the first part of his motion about overlapping and duplicating in the making of films. It is very difficult to understand how this hon. member specifically can speak of overlapping and duplicating in the making of films. When this board was instituted in 1963, he was the very person who opposed its establishment. He was the person who congratulated the Minister of Transport when the Department of Transport was not linked up with the Film Board. He was the person who reproached the Minister of Information for having entrusted his department’s powers to the Film Board. He also wanted the Department of Information to continue making its own films. In other words, if he had his way there would have been much greater overlapping and duplicating than there is today. It is therefore very difficult to understand how that hon. member could have moved this part of the motion.

In addition the hon. member complains about the system of Government subsidies whereby an inferior type of film is encouraged. What the present system of subsidizing amounts to is that any full-length film comes into consideration for a subsidy after it has achieved a box-office revenue of R50 000. I understand that the bodies concerned are at present considering an increase in this amount. This is a very difficult matter. Even the hon. member, who is so clever, hesitated to introduce a proper system of subsidizing and to express some positive ideas about that. This system possibly does not give the right results. The existing system has contributed, nevertheless, to an unparalleled improvement in film making. He himself admitted that last year there were about 14 full-length films released, the production costs of which amounted to about R128 000 per film and for which there was an amount of R1344 000 in subsidies. According to the South African Film Weekly, there are also at present 36 full-length films in an advanced stage of production or due for release shortly. The present system of subsidizing has also resulted in their being more film-makers in South Africa today than in England. At present there are 22 makers of main feature films registered with the Department of Industries, while there are no less than 79 makers of other kinds of films registered with the Film Board. It is very clear from this data that the film industry in South Africa is definitely not experiencing a crisis as he and his friend would like to imply. On the contrary, this indicates that the film industry is flourishing. I nevertheless also think that close attention will have to be given to the system of subsidizing because the industry is continually expanding and the population increasing. There are also other aspects that deserve attention, such as the advent of television, which may well influence box-office revenue. There will consequently have to be a very thorough examination of this system of subsidizing.

The hon. member had a great deal to say about censorship. We have already spoken a great deal about the question of film censorship. It is difficult to find new arguments today in that connection. I was abroad recently and after what I saw there I thank the good Lord that I am living in a country like South Africa where we have a Publications Board. Without any further comment I want to read this hon. member a short extract from the magazine To the Point. Here the writer gives a very detailed description of the pornography in the film industry in a city like London, where there is also a measure of control. I quote the concluding paragraph—

Sir, that is specifically what that hon. member is advocating—no action must be taken, because works of literary merit will be adversely affected; we must not make our legislation so decisive; we must dilute it and tone it down slightly, so that more films could at least come in. That would be the result. I tell you, Sir, we must give this matter a little …

The world is changing.

Yes, the world’s eyes are opening and the world is looking at the system we have in South Africa. We must not let ourselves be mislead by hon. members on that side. We must stick to the rules as we have them at present.

Mr. Speaker, the previous hon. speaker told us that there is no crisis in the Film industry in South Africa. I believe that a person who tells us at this stage that there is no crisis would not, as the hon. member proved in his speech, be able to understand the positive recommendations of the hon. member for Orange Grove in this motion either. For that reason I am going to make no further response to what he said.

I believe the time has come for us to measure the South African film industry by certain standards. We must, for example, ask whether the South African film industry succeeds, in the first place, in giving a correct reflection of the South African way of life. Secondly, I believe we should also ask whether it portrays Afrikaans culture as it really is. I think we must also go further and actually ask whether at this stage it is engaged in a constructive and enriching process. Before hon. members opposite get the wrong end of the stick and try to attack me, accusing me of trying to be negative, I am going to acknowledge frankly that in South Africa we have already seen tremendous positive results from the locally made product. But the question is, and this is what really forms the gist of the problem, that we cannot close our eyes to a new tendency that has developed, whereby continually poorer efforts are appearing on the screen as the products of the South African film-makers. That is what the matter is all about, and that is why we are here, to see what we can do about this matter. This hon. House must realize that a crisis exists, that there is no absence of a crisis as stated by my hon. friend, who has just spoken.

Sir, I admit there are rays of hope, and let us now just quote someone like Jans Rautenbach. For example, I quote the following from the Tydskrif vir Geesteswetenskap (translation)—

As an Afrikaans-speaking person I should also like to read you the following letter, which appeared recently in Hoofstad, from a fellow Anton van Zyl, who wrote as follows—

I am not going to mention the film’s name—

That is what the matter is all about.

For what reason are you ashamed of it?

No, I am not ashamed of it. Van Zyl was speaking about the specific film he saw …

But is he ashamed of the quality, or what?

… because he thinks that film is of inferior quality. I want the hon. the Minister also to realize that there is more and more of a tendency for inferior films to be placed on the market. But the matter goes further than that. Not only are they being placed on the market, but they can also become financial successes, and that is where we must try and analyse the matter here today. Films are a means of communication whereby the character of a people can be exposed for everyone to see; in contrast to literature and poetry, for example, it makes visual contact with the soul and the way of life of a people. The image formed there extends much further than just to the existing situation contained in the specific film. Irrevocably that image is also linked up to the community that gives it birth. How many people today, when they go to view an American comedy, do so with the idea that it is simply going to be a lot of foolishness? Such an image was built up in the initial years of the American film industry. Other people again like to see a British comedy, because they look for the delicate sense of humour. What is the image we are creating in South Africa? We cannot take a neutral stand on this matter. Someone like Jans Rautenbach—I understand his wife was almost a candidate in Oudtshoorn—issued a character reference for the South African film. He said the following about it: “A few jokes, a little bit of action, a little bit of a concert, a few pretty girls and quite a bit of rubbish”. It hurts me when anyone has to say such a thing of a South African product, and that is why I feel that we must give attention to what the hon. member for Orange Grove said here. There is something wrong somewhere.

I want to confine myself to two legs of this motion. The first is the subsidy system, which definitely gives rise to more and more inferior films being made. However, the film industry must be encouraged. The second matter I want to mention has a bearing on the censorship system that is applied and the inexplicable and unrealistic actions of the Publications Board. Hon. members may now ask how we link up these two matters. The present norm, according to which subsidies are allocated, is that of the box office revenue. In other words, the public are appointed as judges of what is good or bad. That is all very well under normal circumstances, but what do we find, however? The accusation we are making is that as a result of the sometimes unrealistic and inexplicable actions of the Publications Board, some of the best imported products are never shown in South Africa. That is the first point. The second point is that we also find that the so-called old classic films are re-released ad nauseum, and that the imported product that is screened is sometimes only a little better than the South African product. The problem that consequently crops up is that the ordinary person who goes to a cinema has virtually no choice. He just wants to see something new, becuase after all he has already seen Gone with the Wind and others. Sometimes artificial successes are achieved as a result of the manner of distribution. As a result of that the box office revenue is increased and the film qualifies for a subsidy because more than R50 000 has been collected. The price we pay for this, and this hon. members must accept, is not only the R1,3 million paid out in subsidies, but also the fact that this acts as an encouragement for the making of inferior films. Thereby our own way of life and our own culture are prejudiced. That is an aspect we must give attention to.

Let us look at the elements that fuse in the making of a film. In the first place there are the film-makers. What have we found recently? Me find that more and more film-makers are coming to the fore who were unknown in the film industry a few years ago. What is their contribution? In this connection I can quote, for example, what Mr. D. C. Dreyer, Secretary of the M.P.P.A. (the Motion Pictures Producer Association) said. He said—

What is the pot of gold these people are looking for? It is very clear that the purpose is to make as quick a profit as possible. That is why we have these people. As I have said, they are increasing in numbers. It is useless to level accusations at them. It is not their mistake. Anyone is prepared to make a fool of himself if there are financial benefits involved. I could also quote Mr. Jans Rautenbach when he said that there are some of these new fellows who acknowledge frankly that their films do not have much substance, but that they are nevertheless going to earn a lot of money. We must therefore accept that there are fortune-hunters amongst the filmmakers in South Africa, and the fact that the present subsidy system is an encouragement to them is as plain as a pikestaff.

How must one know in advance that such a person is a fortune-hunter?

Where was that hon. member when the hon. member for Orange Grove spoke, indicating with figures how much it costs those people to make a film and what they get out of it? But let us look at the actors and the technicians. I want to say again that there are persons in South Africa—I am thinking particularly of the Afrikaans actor Cobus Rossouw—who have already made excellent contributions, but they are unfortunately being overshadowed. In this article from Rapport reference is made to the use of amateur players, typists, mechanics, family members, singers, picture story heroes, Springboks and animals, just because they look attractive or are well known. That is the problem. What is happening? As Jans Rautenbach says, after a year or so that amateur is again sitting behind a typewriter.

The criticism the hon. member for Orange Grove expressed I now want to relate to the Film Board’s activities. The private film-maker also has a problem, because even under normal circumstances the professional actor is productive for only four or five months. There is a period during which he is inactive and unproductive. Therefore it is particularly unfair that they get this competition from the National Film Board in respect of documentary films. It is not the fault of the actors, technicians or amateurs that they appear. The fault must be sought in the system. When we come to the scenarists we find out from them that a film must sometimes be tackled without there even being a scenarist. They say that they sometimes write as the filming goes along. If South Africa was good enough in the finer arts, to produce a Pierneef in painting and in literature poets such as Leipoldt and C. M. van den Heever and a writer such as Lawrence Greene, we can surely also produce scenarists of quality in South Africa. That is the question we are saddled with. One of the problems—and this is where the Publications Board is implicated again—is that in South Africa we are probably entering a period of cultural stagnation. The person who sits own to write a scenario is in an unenviable position because he knows that his inspired creative ability will perhaps never reach the screen. That is our big problem.

Mr. Chairman, it is very interesting that the hon. members opposite tried to make out a case today for the private film maker. In that connection I have something on my mind. I sometimes wonder how the hon. member for Orange Grove thinks, how his mind works. In a moment I shall say why I ask this question. I also wish to know something else. When the hon. the Prime Minister spoke about the committee of inquiry that must be appointed to investigate certain organizations, he said we must see what their “insides” look like. I do not mean this in a derogatory sense, but I would like to see what that hon. member’s insides looks like. I should like to see what it looks like inside a man who can come to light with so many negative statements every time he has a turn to speak in this House. So much for that. I also said I should like to know how his mind works. In 1963 that hon. member was not the one to intercede for the private film industry. Do hon. members know what he said at the time?

Yes, Etienne, now your sins are coming to light.

He said (translation)—

This means, as it were, “leave them alone”. He also said—

That is all they must do—compete freely to have certain kinds of films made and the industry will then flourish.

All they need, in addition, is a sympathetic Minister of Finance. To what does that refer? It refers to the subsidy system. “Leave them; let them compete amongst themselves; let new mushroom companies spring up”, mushroom companies to which he referred today, because that is competition, after all. The greater the number of companies, the greater the competition, is that not true? According to the hon. member, apart from competition they only need the sympathetic ear of the Minister of Finance, because then they would also have the subsidy system behind them which would let the industry flourish beautifully. Today we hear quite a different story. [Interjections.] Today the subsidy system is being condemned from the very start. Now there is not a single good feature in the whole subsidy system.

In the first leg of his motion the hon. member also said that we must look at the overlapping, but he did not speak about overlapping today. In 1963 he justified overlapping. At the time of the 1963 Act on the establishment of the Film Board he said that the Railways were being left with their service. He said it was a good thing that the other services were being co-ordinated in the Film Board but that the Railways should be left out of it. He said (translation)—

Of course! That is the task of the National Film Board, but they do not do it.

Today the hon. member said nothing at all about the first leg of his motion in relation to overlapping.

Let us come back to a few other statements of the hon. member. The hon. member made a few suggestions in connection with the subsidy system. I shall, however, mention only one example from “a whole long list” indicating how certain films are being given preference. After all, we know of all the examples he quoted. In the previous discussion he took part in, in connection with the Department of Information, he quoted one of the grossest examples one could possibly select from the lot of fine, positive things that could have been selected. Now one knows what he can do with all the hon. member’s class of examples. Then there are complaints about bad films …

Quote another example of a subsidy; there are 46 of them.

According to the hon. member the subsidy system is the only reason why there are bad films. The hon. member did not refer also to the theme and to the elements harnessed in the making of a film. In so doing one could string out a whole series of factors. He did not tell us who should judge whether a film is bad or not. Does that hon. member want to be the only judge? In a moment we shall come back to the possible results if he were the only judge.

I trust the judgment of the newspapers’ film critics more than yours.

Very well, let us trust the newspaper critics. The hon. member for Durban Central says that very few good films come to South Africa. He says that we have to look at the rubbish because there is actually a scarcity of good films. I made a note here of what the hon. member for Durban Central said (translation)—

This refers to the imported product. Let us look at the judgments of the newspaper critics. Some of the newspapers allocate a star-rating to the films that are screened— those which obtain five stars are outstanding films, etc. If hon. members want to have a look they will see that we get many films that are highly recommended and which we can therefore go and see. Then the hon. member simply makes an oblique reference to our never seeing the best products that can be screened.

The hon. member for Orange Grove then made a passing reference to the position of the purely Afrikaans film which, according to him, is being benefited by a 55 per cent subsidy. He says that will still do, but that we must remember that the English film competes with all the imported films and must wage a tremendous struggle against them, and that we should therefore also take a special look at the English films. Is the Afrikaans film not in an even worse position? Must the Afrikaans film not only compete against all the imported films, but also against the English films? Must we not rather give more consideration to the purely Afrikaans film? As the hon. member for Algoa said “Speak of something Afrikaans, of businesses that are Afrikaans-orientated and now operate in the film market, and it is something that is odious”. In earlier days when there was hardly an Afrikaans film in existence and there was hardly a single company handling films, that hon. member did not open his mouth about it. Then the others were free to scoop off the cream and they could have the pick of the grazing. When the Afrikaner comes on to the scene we always have that fuss and the casting of suspicion which that hon. member is engaged in. The hon. member even referred to the chairman of the Film Board as “simply a teacher”. In his time he learnt a short lesson from a Mr. van Rensburg. I am sorry that Mr. van Rensburg could not have been his teacher for a longer period.

The hon. member for Durban Central referred to the fact that a film could be a powerful means of communication. He said it made contact with the soul of the community.

The soul?

Yes, with the soul of the community. That was what the hon. member said. He referred to a film’s “exceptional convincingness”. That is true. If it is true that films reach to the very soul with their messages, must they simply run wild without there being very strict control exercised over them? Since they recognize the power of films, do those hon. members want us to slacken the control. The control must go to the dogs. Then there is also scornful reference to control as “censorship”. Hon. members must remember that the term “censorship” leaves a different taste in the mouth. It surely refers to iron-fisted regulation; it is surely something that differs from “control”. On the occasion of 18th November, when he addressed a meeting, the hon. the Minister of the Interior said:

But throughout, when it comes to a discussion of this matter, reference is made to “censorship”.

I now want to come back to the hon. member for Orange Grove. He is one of the advocates for the rowdy minority in South Africa who want discipline and proper control cleared out of the way. While we still firmly advocate moral norms, they simply want them broken down. We want to tell the hon. member that we shall increasingly call upon the silent majority in South Africa, those who also still advocate decent standards in the film industry and in whatever may be employed for people’s entertainment. We shall call them up to oppose those who want to break down the good and decent norms. They say that that must be cleared out of the way, but they do not say how. It is simply finished completely. We in South Africa are in the position that a lot of rubbish is loaded off onto us and also made locally. We on this side of the House, and by far the majority of the population of South Africa, are grateful that we do still have this control over films. An irresponsible appeal was also made to film makers not to take any notice of the Board of Control. It was said that they should not appeal to the Minister, but that they should go straight to court.

He said it this afternoon.

He made that appeal this afternoon with his arms waving. I want to tell that hon. gentleman that there are also still those responsible film makers in South Africa who know that films are not there only to make money, that one cannot simply prey on man’s emotions for the sake of filling one’s pockets, and that films also have another message to convey. There are the responsible film makers who will also convey South Africa’s other message, South Africa’s fine message, without doing what that hon. gentleman is asking them to do.

That is the basis of the subsidy.

The subsidy? Let me tell the hon. member that the subsidy system can also have its faults. However, the Minister of Economic Affairs has instructed the Department of Industries to look into positive incentives; it is therefore not something that one can lay down and have finalized tomorrow. It is being given constant attention. I do not say that the subsidy system is a correct one. I do not say that at all.

That is what the hon. member for Orange Grove said. He said it is bad.

He merely condemns, and he simply eliminates those positive and good aspects of the subsidy system that are being investigated at present. After all, nothing positive counts as far as the hon. gentleman is concerned; only the negative aspects are hammered in. We know what the hon. member’s attitude to the Film Board was from the beginning. Hon. members may go and read the speech he made in 1963. It is no different to any speech the hon. member has made or is still making these days in this House. We must also look at the good work done by the Film Board throughout the years, even though it is the institution to which he mockingly refers as “Hollywood on the Aapies River”, while it is miles from the Aapies River. Just as that building is miles from the Aapies River, the hon. member is always miles off the mark with the matters he comes along to present here. They also have made positive contributions and one must praise their positive achievements in all the branches of their work. We must not only condemn in a negative sense. The hon. member for Durban Central at least furnished criticism at a higher level. One listens with pleasure to that kind of criticism, but one would rather not pay any attention to the kind of criticism that comes from the hon. member for Orange Grove, because it is so exaggerated and so overemphasizes certain points that one feels one could rather leave it at that and form one’s own opinion about these matters.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great pity that the hon. member who has just sat down devoted so much of his speech to a personal attack upon the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Orange Grove made out a case for an investigation into the film industry, which he substantiated by numerous solid facts. In making a plea for an investigation, he finds himself allied to a large number of significant voices which are asking for a revision of the subsidy payments and various other matters in regard to the film industry. My time does not allow me to take it further than that.

This debate, not unnaturally, has been concerned almost entirely with films for adults; not that it has been specifically said, but this has in fact been the position. We are so absorbed at the present time and for some time past, with films for adults that we have completely overlooked a very important section of our film-going public, namely the young children of our country. I believe the time has come that films should be made specially for young children so that they can be shown to them. I want to make a plea in this sense to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. If we want to see how necessary such an approach is and how necessary it is to have films specially made for young children, we only have to ask ourselves this question …

What age group do you mean when you talk about children?

Particularly up to the age of 12 and thereabouts.

Up to his age.

We only have to ask ourselves the question: Which of us with young children up to the age of 12 or thereabouts does not try to keep them from going to the matinees of our cinemas as long as we can manage it? I believe the answer is that there is practically not one of us, with the exception of cases where good films are shown, who does not try and keep his children from developing this habit and going regularly to the cinema. This should not be so, because good films provide tremendous entertainment for children and they have a right to entertainment as we have, and good films can be tremendously stimulating for children. It can become a valuable experience for children, and this has been proved time and again. In regard to books, we do take the trouble to have books specially made for children. In regard to the radio, we take trouble to have radio programmes specially for children. However, in regard to films, year after year the sort of films that adults may go to see in the evening get dished up for our children in the afternoon. This is not good enough, because children need very special films. They particularly like films in which children appear. They need films with strong, clear stories, because with children one cannot moralize unduly, or one cannot attempt to preach to them unduly, since they very soon tire of that. This does not mean that children have strong values—indeed, they have a very strong moral sense, and they want to see that justice is done in their films. I do not think one must get one’s perspective wrong here. I said I believe that we mostly try to keep our children away from matinees for as long as possible. I do believe that our censors probably prevent many harmful films being shown to our children. I know that I along with others, when I was a child, went to matinees from time to time and I believe that we have survived them. However, I do think that where films are specially made for children, they can be a real experience and they can be thoroughly enriching, which certainly the ordinary run of film which we would see, was not. It is for this that I am pleading. There are important organizations which feel strongly about this. One that I know of is the National Council of Women, a council which is, very rightly, concerned for the future of our children.

Who is to produce these films? Must it be the Film Board, or private enterprise?

I would think that it should primarily be left to private enterprise. I would like to come to that aspect later on. Why is it that nothing has been done so far in this regard? I think it is primarily because of economics. It has not paid the film producers, it has not paid the film distributors, and it has not paid those who owned theatre chains. Therefore I think we ourselves should immediately do two things. We should immediately resolve that we must direct our minds to this whole question and not allow it to continue, and then we must put on our thinking caps to decide what best should be done.

The hon. the Minister very rightly asked who should be concerned with making these films. First of all, I would say at once, we certainly should think of producing films in South Africa which have a South African background. South African characters and South African stories. In that regard I am not very familiar myself with the strength of our film industry, but I would hope that it is strong enough, with help from the Government, to produce the necessary films. This certainly has been the pattern followed elsewhere and I would think that this would be the right pattern. I may say that experience has shown that when you are producing films for children, the essential criterion is that they should have first-rate entertainment value. This is the essential feature, and I believe that persons in the film industry would be the best judges of what that is. If there was any fear that they might produce unsuitable films, then naturally there are ways to control it, firstly perhaps by means of denying a subsidy for such a film and, secondly, there could of course be censorship, if you like, to ensure that nothing harmful was exhibited. A big part must clearly be played by our own film industry in producing these films. So far as I know, they have not yet truly directed their minds to this question at all. There may have been an isolated film made, but I think very few. I am thinking here especially of feature films as well as the smaller films. There may have been certain films made, but I think very few, or one would have seen or heard of them, having children of one’s own, and one would have noted that they clearly were specially made for children and that they were good and interesting for children. Sir, because our film industry is young, it would clearly need a subsidy or some financial help from the Government in order to be able to make the films pay; I think that cannot be denied. There is already provision, of course, for subsidies for films which are made, and the system could simply be adapted in order to encourage the right type for children.

Sir, the second source of our films could be imported films, and I think it would be very wrong to close our doors to good imported films. I know in fact that in Britain for 25 years now a special effort has been directed by the Children’s Film Foundation there a body constituted from all the elements in the film industry—to produce films specially for children. It has considerable experience of this and it has produced a big library of films. It has at present 100 feature films available—that is to say, films which run for approximately an hour. I think that we certainly should not deny our children the privilege of seeing films made in this way which have passed the test of time and which have passed all the tests of acceptability. Obviously here, too, certain financial help will be needed. It could perhaps be some form of remission of the film tax. This would clearly make it more possible for these films to be shown. Entertainment tax would probably not often be charged upon films seen by children, because the price would normally be under 50 cents. Here I am thinking particularly of the Cape Province. But where the entertainment tax does apply, it should certainly be reduced to make these films possible.

Sir, I would like to say also in regard to the achievements of this Film Foundation that they have been so successful that children in Great Britain have been flocking to these films at a time when very often adult films are not drawing people to the same extent. I may mention that in Britain they are screened in 700 cinemas, which is approximately half the number of cinemas showing films in England. In addition, the movement as a whole is going from strength to strength. I may mention, Sir, that the weekly audience of such films is approximately 350 000, which is a very substantial number. Much more could be said in regard to this point. I am satisfied merely to have, in this debate, drawn this point to the attention of the hon. the Minister. My plea to him is this: Let our minds be directed to this whole question. It is the whole area which I believe we have neglected, I think perhaps because we have been concerned with other things. I believe it is time we no longer neglect it and give young children of this country the enriching experience of films especially made for children.

In the approximately 15 minutes at my disposal, I want to confine myself to that part of the motion by the hon. member for Orange Grove which relates specifically to the Department of Industries, namely (b) “the system of Government subsidies whereby an inferior type of film is encouraged”. I want to say at once that what I cannot understand about the hon. member’s speech, is that he had a subject here on which we could have conducted a peaceful, calm and very useful discussion today, but what did the hon. member do? In the first place, he couched his motion in these terms: the system of subsidies already stands condemned; there is no need to discuss that; and then he presented his motion, which one would like to discuss in a peaceful atmosphere, in such a way that he deliberately irritated every member in this House—at any rate, on this side of the House; furthermore, he phrased it in clearly premeditated derogatory slogans, written down by him merely to be read out and apparently calculated not to deal with a problem here, but to make headlines in some or other newspaper.

Let us look at this question of subsidies. The hon. member suggested certain things which may be considered here—financing, co-production, and a few others. I want to tell him that these are things which have already been considered. As far as I can remember, he also spoke about Bantu films. In that respect, too, so much progress has been made that it will soon be possible to submit proposals to the Government. In his motion the hon. member calls for an investigation. Sir, we have no objection to that. I can prove to him chapter and verse—I have everything here—how, since this subsidy system was introduced in 1957 and has been administered by the Department of Commerce and Industries, it has been subjected to continual study and how new adjustments have repeatedly been made, as the hon. member will know, in order to meet the needs which arose as the system developed. I may tell him, as has already been said here by another hon. member, that at the moment this same subsidy system is being investigated by the Board of Trade and Industries on the instructions of the Minister of Economic Affairs.

I said so.

Well, that is the position. In other words, we on the Government side are not saying that we have something perfect here. Work is being done on something which is possibly better than what we have today. But, Sir, let us agree—this was clear from the speeches of hon. members opposite, including that of the hon. member for Orange Grove—that the South African film industry needs State aid. In other words, we need not argue about the question why State aid is necessary. There is unanimity on that. There are good arguments, but I leave the matter at that; hon. members opposite accept it. As far as I could gather from their speeches, the hon. members opposite find one shortcoming, i.e. that the State aid being granted should not be of such a nature that it promotes inferior films. We are unanimous on that. It is the aim of this side of this House as well, and I think the hon. members know that. I want to quote examples of how attempts have been made over the years virtually to withdraw the subsidy from inferior films. I have with me the statistics which indicate this. I can mention examples of how special steps have been taken to encourage the South African industry to make use of overseas talent and concessions in respect of financial assistance have been made in that regard. The hon. member is aware of that, but we have one problem, namely that when we want to distinguish between the inferior film and the good film in respect of subsidization or whatever form of financial assistance, there has to be selection on the basis of merit. This is the position at present, and it is the position which the hon. member for Orange Grove and other hon. members opposite have condemned. As the system is working at present, one has a few other provisions in practice, but in effect that selection is in the hands of the public of South Africa. If the hon. member had said that this first R50 000, which was introduced as long ago as 1964, was too small an amount to qualify for a subsidy, I would have said at once that I thought the hon. member had a point, because this was introduced as long ago as 1964, and serious consideration may be given to the question of whether it is not too low. But the hon. member came forward and argued conversely. He said we should consider what we were doing, and quoted statistics in order to try to substantiate that false argument— I do not mean he acted falsely, but I say it was a false argument—that we help the film which is a success, i.e. the film which practically pays for itself, and do not help the film which is a failure, and that is wrong. But this is precisely what we want to do. The selection is in the hands of the public and they indicate to us whether that subsidy should be paid after the first R50 000. If it does not reach that R50 000, it receives no subsidy. Then the hon. member may argue that this R50 000 is too little. But at this stage our arbiter is the public, and apparently the hon. members opposite do not want this. What do they want? Do they want something like the Publications Control Board, or a censorship board or selection board?

The subsidy must be partly to cover the production costs.

The cost is the decisive factor at the moment? It was linked to production costs and I think to a certain extent it is still linked to production costs at the moment. But, in any case, there was a link with production costs in the past. Then it was found that it was not working properly because production costs are variable and can very early be manipulated. They can be manipulated, and the hon. member must concede that. In other words, we are doing here what the hon. members of the Opposition advocate so often in this House in respect of so many other matters, where the education, or lack of education, of the community is concerned. They advocated it when they kicked up such a fuss here against the Censorship Board and bodies of that nature. We say the public must judge, and if the public’s judgment is such that one gives the inferior film all the benefits of this subsidy, and the good film does not receive the benefits of the subsidy, it is not the task of the Opposition to try to criticize the subsidy. Then the Opposition’s task would be to educate the public. They have always been the people who have appealed to public opinion. We are dealing with an industrial matter here, and in all industry it is an economic law that public opinion determines the success of a product. It is a law which applies in every field where one thinks in terms of economic activities.

But what if they do not need the full subsidy?

Does the hon. member want to argue now that this industry no longer needs the subsidy?

I am talking of specific films.

Specific films? What is our aim? We want to establish a strong, sound film industry. What is happening at the moment is that when the profits, as the hon. member stated, are larger and the earnings are larger than the expenditure incurred, because the judge, i.e. the public, liked the production so much, we are in fact, by the way in which the subsidy is paid, stimulating that specific undertaking which achieved that success, to continue expanding strongly and soundly. This is what we are achieving. We shall be very happy when we reach the stage where we can say that the film industry of South Africa is so firmly established and sound that we can take away the subsidy. It will be a very happy day. But are you now going to discriminate against people in respect of this subsidy because, according to the judgment of the public, they are doing better and achieving more success than the next man? Must one discriminate against them for that reason? And this is in fact what the hon. member for Orange Grove advocated. The matter cannot be tackled in that way. Surely that is not the right way of doing things. I indicated to the hon. members opposite that there must be a form of selection if you want to avoid subsidizing the inferior product. At the moment the public is the judge. What do they want in place of the public? None of them replied to this.

Change the subsidy system so that part of it depends on the income and part on the production costs.

I have already replied to the hon. member in that regard, and in any case, what difference does it make to the end result we are trying to achieve? I think this is the only difference there is in regard to point (b) of the hon. member’s motion, i.e. that he wants to allege that our subsidy system is promoting the inferior film. I maintain the very reverse is the position. The hon. members did not indicate in what way we are promoting the inferior film by means of our subsidy system.

Mr. Speaker, I was rather interested in listening to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs telling us how important it is to subsidize a successful business. Surely this is the wrong way of approaching the subject. Would the right way of subsidizing a new industry in the country not be to give it some subsidy towards equipment, proper technical personnel, the best sort of technical personnel to help develop an outstanding and successful business?

That is what is being done.

Have we not for years had the experience in the local film industry, which after all, and unfortunately so, caters for 1,3 per cent of the demand, of some very bad pictures that have been shown, some pictures which have been to the discredit of an industry in this country? Does it not also lead to the possibility of the very permissiveness which is being frowned upon, some subtle form of permissive type of film stories being placed before the public? Many of them do pass the censors because they are within certain limits. Would not the industry play up to perhaps a peculiar sense of humour of the public which might be to the detriment of the industry, which has been responsible for some very bad pictures which have been shown over the last few years? It has also been admitted by the hon. member for Germiston that this subsidy system is not really effective and that it should really be changed some way or another?

However, let me deal with paragraph (a) of the motion of the hon. member for Orange Grove and draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs to the report by the Board of Trade and Industry on the investigation into the motion picture industry, report No. 1330. There it is said that the board took the trouble to interview some of the most important producers and exhibitors in the country in order to get some proper appreciation of what is taking place. We find that in paragraph 55 they say this:

They go on to say—

They say this because they talk of the Government being an important provider of employment for the motion picture industry, especially as far as documentary and educational films are concerned. Then they go on to say—

That fully justifies the complaint and the point of view of the hon. member for Orange Grove that “overlapping and duplicating in the making of films by Government Departments and bodies which are directly or indirectly subsidized by public funds” needs some form of investigation if you are to promote the film industry at all and to build up this percentage of its meeting the demand in this country to a greater extent than 1,3 per cent, which is a very low and, I think, innocuous contribution at this stage. We can take many other forms of cultural activity in this country which have through the years by insisting on the best form of display or the best performances, been able over the time, despite difficulties, to build up to a very high and successful standard in this country. In their case subsidies have been provided in the initial stage. Here you have these two difficulties. The one is the competition of the National Film Board and the other is the system of subsidy which, in my opinion, is misdirected and ill established.

Let me go further. Is the Censorship Board really doing its job satisfactorily? The decision in regard to the films which they permit to be exhibited, as well as the films which they do not permit to be exhibited, only applies to the question of public showing and nothing else. I leave the rest to the hon. the Minister to work out, but that is as far as they go; they go no further than that. They deal only with the question of public showing. I should like the hon. the Minister who deals with this particular department, to give us some opinion as to what happens beyond that limitation. Is he satisfied with the situation as he finds it existing in the country today and is that the form of censorship, with much of which we disagree because of the manner in which it is applied and the method which is used, the most satisfactory form?

May I go further and say that an investigation is also required into the motivations of the Publications Board. I think, for instance, that it would be important in the general interest of producers and distributors and entrepreneurs in this country that the board, when it censors a picture by either excising portions of it or banning it, should motivate its reasons for doing so. Will that not be sound guide-posts in connection with the industry in this country so that in the case of the assistance which we obtain from overseas it will be known what type of film may be shown here? It will also be an encouragement to bring the best pictures into this country and also to the very people who are producing films and helping to build an industry in this country. Surely that is an important factor. Why should the Publications Board act completely by itself and give no reason if it does not wish to? Surely there are other people who can think on the subject and who can contribute towards the value of the reasons that the board may have in banning or interfering with the production or exhibition of a picture. Those are factors which I think one can well bear in mind. The Publications Board has objected, for instance, to legal representatives of an exhibitor or importer being present. They have resented any form of opinion from anyone else but their own. I think—I am sure this is what the public think—that the attitude of the Publications Board is very high-handed and not conducive to the promotion of a film industry in this country, nor does it encourage it. This is borne out by the type of film they allow to come into the country and the fact that some of the most beautiful films with a high standard of production have never been permitted to be shown in this country.

Mr. Speaker, today, indeed this afternoon, this very hour, must have been a very great occasion. The hon. member for Algoa referred to an article which appeared in the South African Film Weekly. We ascertained from that article that it was announced on 10th February that today would be a great and important occasion, for the hon. member for Orange Grove was going to make a great attack on the Government on the subject which he introduced here, and that this would be the opportunity for private initiative in the film industry to have all their problems solved. The expectation was that after the hon. member for Orange Grove had demonstrated, remonstrated and declaimed here in this House, as we have come to expect from him, the walls of Jericho would collapse. Sir, you have been here the whole afternoon and therefore heard what happened here. I am afraid that the friends of the hon. member who inspired him to introduce this motion will be very disappointed at the use he made of information he received from the various departments, including my own. If I think how many manhours were required from various departments to furnish the hon. member with information for this motion, and what he did with it, I must say that I think he should take the officials into consideration.

It is highly appreciated.

I think he can also, if he is so concerned about savings, bring about a major saving by not asking unnecessary questions.

The motion asks for an inquiry into the matters mentioned here. There are four different points. It has become clear to the hon. member at this stage that an inquiry such as he is requesting, is in no way necessary, because the facts are known to the various departments that deal with this matter. The motion he introduced was really a pot-pourri motion, a motion affecting different Ministries and under whose revenue vote he could probably have raised most of these matters to advantage. But he chose to raise these matters by way of a motion, which he has every right to do. It must, however, have become clear to him that the inquiry he requested, is in no way necessary, because there is no substance to the case he made out for such an inquiry. The main attack, so it seems to me, was concentrated on the subsidy system, which actually falls under another hon. Minister. I think my hon. colleague, the Deputy Minister, furnished an adequate and convincing reply to the objections made by the hon. member for Orange Grove. The hon. member for Durban Central also blamed the subsidy system for the poor quality of the films which are being manufactured in South Africa. The hon. member for Pinelands and the hon. member for Jeppes also advocated a change in the subsidy system. Hon. members were informed this afternoon that such an inquiry is already in progress, that it represents a regular, permanent study of this problem since the subsidy was introduced. I think this ought to satisfy the hon. member, as well as the film industry in this country.

But the problem we have with the hon. Opposition is that they blow hot and cold. Just take, for example, the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands. Which one of us could have any objection to what the hon. member said here this afternoon? He pleaded for good films for children which you could freely send your child to see. How else can one have good, wholesome films for children, even for adults, but that the film should first be manufactured, that one should subsequently view it and then that one should remove from it anything which one regards as offensive? In other words, there must be a form of control or censure, call it what you will, but it cannot be exhibited without control. In other words, the hon. member was pleading for a form of censure. The hon. member for Orange Grove said in his speech—I wrote it down here—“censorship hampers the film industry”. That is what he said. Now I ask you, Sir, how is one able to reconcile these two extremes? I think my hon. friend from Germiston hit the nail on the head when he said that this side of the House stands, however unpopular it may be to say this, for the retention of the values we have learnt to know in this country. I know the hon. member said by way of an interjection that that is what he stands for as well. But I ask him not only to stand for that; he must also do something to protect and to maintain those values. Otherwise we will make no progress in this country. I therefore want to say that the particulars before us and the arguments put forward by the hon. members on the opposite side do not prove that there is a need for such an inquiry, and I most certainly do not support such a suggestion. If I also take into consideration that my hon. colleague, the Deputy Minister, dealt comprehensively with this matter of the subsidy and pointed out how complicated that system was, and if I further take into consideration that hon. members on the opposite side all stated that the subsidy system should be changed, I must add to that that not one of them said how it should be changed to the satisfaction of the State, the public, which wants a better quality film, the journalist, who is in the privileged position of being able to exercise criticism, and also to the satisfaction of the film manufacturers. The hon. Opposition wants those answers from the Government. I can tell you that this matter is receiving the necessary attention, although it is not the responsibility of my department. But if there is a solution, this side of the House will offer that solution. Then hon. members can again, as they are now doing, proceed to criticize it.

I want to return to my department and the attacks which were made on the National Film Board, whose estimates are the responsibility of my department. In the first place I want to say that I have serious objections to the fact that the hon. member for Orange Grove felt himself called upon to refer to the manager of the National Film Board, Mr. Jan Botha, so derogatorily in this House.

I did not do that.

Oh, no. The hon. member for Orange Grove said that Mr, Jan Botha—and he said this very derogatorily—was a teacher. I do not think he had the courage to say “a mere teacher” (’n onderwysertjie), but that is what he meant. Now I ask the hon. member what this has to do with the motion before this House? What has it to do with the head of that body? Does the hon. member not think that it is really unworthy of a front-bencher to belittle an official, who is unable to defend himself in this House, in that way?

You have the opportunity to defend him.

It is the privilege of the hon. member to raise the actions of any official in this House and criticize the results of his work. That is what we are here for, but I think it is very unworthy of the hon. member to have made such snide remarks about Mr. Botha. I leave this matter at that.

I said that I want to take a closer look at the Film Board in the light of the accusation the hon. member made this afternoon. My friends on this side have already referred to that. We all know that the Film Board was established to coordinate the requirements of State Departments in the manufacture of motion pictures in an attempt to eliminate duplication and waste. We are all aware of that. The hon. member for Orange Grove also referred to it, but I want to ask him why he only referred to the co-ordination achieved by the Film Board, and why he did not also refer to the fact that the Film Board also has the function of manufacturing films? Was this deliberate or did it suit him to omit to take this into account in the course of his argument? He made an attack, and the purport of the attack was that the Film Board is doing work which it should not be doing. It is manufacturing films and competing with the private sector. That was the purport of his attack. He conveniently omitted to mention that in terms of the Act which established the Film Board, the Board was instructed very specifically to manufacture certain films as well. That the hon. member did not mention, and I want to return to this point again in a moment. Apart from co-ordinating the State’s requirements the Film Board has the specific task, in terms of the objectives laid down in the Act, of manufacturing films for the State and for statutory bodies. In other words, it must not only co-ordinate the requirements, it must also manufacture. The hon. member referred to the then Deputy Minister, Mr. Viljoen, who introduced the legislation, and he said, “Minister Marais Viljoen said that the Film Board will not compete with the private sector”. He is quite correct, for Mr. Viljoen did say that. But now I want to tell the hon. member what the Minister said in addition to that. He said that the annual requirements of the State in regard to films was calculated to be an eventual 200, of which the Film Board itself could manufacture 80, and 120 could be allocated to the industry. In other words, there was no undertaking given by Mr. Marais Viljoen that the Film Board would not manufacture any films. It is specifically stated in the Act that it should manufacture those films, but that it should not manufacture all the films, and that it should also channelize work to the private industry. That is what Minister Marais Viljoen said, and it is still the position today.

Could the hon. the Minister tell me what percentage was channelized to the private industry last year?

I have the particulars here and I shall gladly furnish them to the hon. member. The target set at the time by Minister Marais Viljoen has not yet even been achieved today. The total requisition from all State Departments has never amounted to more than 115 films per year.

Now I should like to come to the aspect raised by the hon. member. He asked what percentage is being manufactured by the Film Board and what percentage by the private sector. I want to discuss this point in quite some detail with the hon. member. I maintain that the Film Board has continued faithfully, in accordance with the instructions given to it in terms of the Act by which it was established, to manufacture certain films itself but that it has never competed for contracts with other private organizations, and it has indeed channelized a considerable percentage of that work to the industry. The hon. member asked me what the amounts are, and I want to furnish certain particulars. In 1965-’66 the amount of work done by the trade amounted to R146 262, which represents 23 per cent of the total work undertaken. In 1966-’67 the trade received work to the value of R210 363 from the Film Board, which amounts to 26 per cent. In 1967’68 work to the amount of R269 855 was channelized to the trade, which represents a percentage of 27 per cent. In 1968-’69 this amount was R381 443, equivalent to 33 per cent. In 1969-’70 it was R435 816, 35 per cent of the total. In 1970-’71 it was R466 595, the equivalent of 33 per cent of the total. In other words, I can say in general that the Film Board has, in the year in which it has existed, channelized approximately 30 per cent to 33 per cent of the work to the private sector, to a total amount of R1,91 million. Hon members are complaining now that the Film Board is venturing into the domain of private enterprise. Hon. members forget however that the Film Board was established for a specific purpose and that it has a task to perform. That task must be performed in accordance with the Act by which it was established. In terms of that Act it is provided, inter alia, that it must perform its functions according to this pattern I have just presented to you. Let us make no mistake about this—the Film Board will itself continue, as in the past, to undertake a certain percentage of the work it receives from State bodies, because that is after all its main source of revenue. It must receive that revenue to be able to function properly. I want to emphasize— and my time will not allow me to go into details—that the Film Board also has far wider and far more functions than just this function we have now been arguing about. If competition from the Film Board, even the limited competition I have now sketched to hon. members, can be so deadly to the private sector, how does the hon. member for Orange Grove explain that when the Film Board was established there were only a few film manufacturers in the country and that today the names of 79 firms appear on the tender lists of the Film Board? Surely that means that they have grown, in spite of this competition. Or have they perhaps grown as a result of the work they received from the Film Board? It seems to me that the hon. member conveniently forgets those particulars, and that he merely generalizes. An hon. member said here that the hon. member had spoken in general terms, which was quite correct. I just want to add a codicil to that and say that not only does the hon. member suffer from a predilection to speak in general terms, he frequently utters hollow phrases.

I still want to elaborate briefly on a few other achievements of the Film Board. I have already emphasized that the Film Board not only has the function of coordinating the requirements of the State, in part manufacturing films itself and for the rest to channelize work to the private enterprise, but that it also has other functions. It struck me that hon. members on the opposite side said nothing about the quality of the films made by the Film Board. There was no criticism in that regard—the hon. member for Durban Central was the only one who referred to that in passing—and I therefore take it that the quality of the films made by the Film Board is to the satisfaction of the hon. Opposition. Since 1966 the activities of the State have in this way been transferred through the Film Board to no less than 45 million viewers. This is no mean achievement. This is an achievement which, in my opinion, justifies in every respect the establishment of the National Film Board and the expenditure in this regard. One of the hon. members—I think it was the hon. member for Durban Central—also mentioned the training of people in the film industry. He was referring more specifically, I think, to actors and actresses, but I want to say that the Film Board has also in this field achieved a great deal in that it has in conjunction with the Pretoria College for Advanced Technical Education, established a training course for film technicians, a course which it is still presenting, through which a great deal of work is being produced in favour of not only the Film Board but also the entire film industry in South Africa. This is something we should be grateful to these people for. But of course we hear no mention of that.

I should like to raise another point, also in regard to which nothing was said. As a matter of fact, I almost think that one of the hon. members on this side of the House just mentioned it. This is that the Film Board is performing a herculean task in collecting films of historic value, restoring them and making them available for exhibition and preservation. That is one of the salutory functions of the Film Board. I have here a long list of what has been done. However, my time does not allow me to go into this in detail.

I want to deal with another serious objection raised by the hon. member. He referred to this Film Board building and scornfully called it Hollywood-on-the-Aapies River. I want to task the hon. member whether he realizes that the Film Board has, since its inception, always conducted its activities in two rented buildings which were situated at a considerable distance from each other, buildings which were not equipped for this kind of work because one needs completely specialized buildings where laboratory work can also be done. In spite of these circumstances they achieved the results they did in fact achieve. That building to which the hon. member referred was already planned in 1966, as I said in a reply to a question put by him. The expenditure in regard to it, the planning in regard to it, as the hon. member knows, because he put the question and received the replies, was properly checked in advance by my department and again by the Treasury, and was properly appropriated by this Parliament. The hon. member referred to the cost of the building and said that it was going to cost so much more than had originally been estimated. I asked the hon. member what building, which was planned in 1966, would today still cost the same to build as it would have done when it had been planned. This is surely a natural phenomenon which all of us are acquainted with and which all of us accept, except that hon. member who now sees, in the case of the Film Board building, an opportunity to belittle this matter. The Film Board is receiving a fine, efficient and functional complex in the area in which it is at present active, a complex which will enable it to continue the good work it is doing in the interests of South Africa, in the implementation of the task entrusted to it, and will enable it to continue to implement these functions entrusted to it by legislation faithfully.

The other problems in regard to the film industry the hon. member can leave to this side of the House. This Government will find the solutions to those problems, and we shall try to assist this industry.